46
EVALUATION OF ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS FINAL REPORT CONTRACT No. 01-340 PREPARED FOR: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD RESEARCH DIVISION CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 PREPARED BY: J. WAYNE MILLER, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92521 APRIL2007

EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

EVALUATION OF ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST

FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS

FINAL REPORT

CONTRACT No 01-340

PREPARED FOR

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

RESEARCH DIVISION CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1001 I STREET

SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814

PREPARED BY

J WAYNE MILLER PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92521

APRIL2007

For more information about the ARBs Research Divisions research and activities please visit our Website

httpwwwarbcagovresearchresearchhtm

Disclaimer

The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of California Air Resources Board The mention of commercial products their source or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following organizations and individuals for their valuable contributions to this project We acknowledge Don Chernich Hector Maldonado Tao Huai and Alberto Ayala of 1the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for their technical assistance in developing this program and data analysis We acknowledge Don Pacocha of CE-CERT and the staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty VM Development Section for their assistance in carrying out the experimental program including Mark Burnitzki Roelof Riemersma Tullie Flower and Robert Ianni We acknowledge the funding from the California Air Resources Board under contract No 01-340

Table of Contents

Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii Table of Tables iii Table of Figures iii Abstract i Executive Summary ii 10 Introduction 1 20 Experimental Procedures 2

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory 2 On-Road Test Routes 3 Test vehicles 3

30 Results 5 NOx Emissions 5 PM Emissions 8 THC Emissions 11 CO Emissions 14

40 Summary and Conclusions 17 50 References 19 Appendix A- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab 20 Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results 23

Table of Tables

Table 1 Test Route Description 3 Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet 4

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobil~ Emission Lab 2 Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route 4 Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions 6 Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions 7 Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions 9 Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions 10 Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions 12 Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions 13 Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions 15 Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions 16

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 2: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

For more information about the ARBs Research Divisions research and activities please visit our Website

httpwwwarbcagovresearchresearchhtm

Disclaimer

The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of California Air Resources Board The mention of commercial products their source or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following organizations and individuals for their valuable contributions to this project We acknowledge Don Chernich Hector Maldonado Tao Huai and Alberto Ayala of 1the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for their technical assistance in developing this program and data analysis We acknowledge Don Pacocha of CE-CERT and the staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty VM Development Section for their assistance in carrying out the experimental program including Mark Burnitzki Roelof Riemersma Tullie Flower and Robert Ianni We acknowledge the funding from the California Air Resources Board under contract No 01-340

Table of Contents

Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii Table of Tables iii Table of Figures iii Abstract i Executive Summary ii 10 Introduction 1 20 Experimental Procedures 2

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory 2 On-Road Test Routes 3 Test vehicles 3

30 Results 5 NOx Emissions 5 PM Emissions 8 THC Emissions 11 CO Emissions 14

40 Summary and Conclusions 17 50 References 19 Appendix A- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab 20 Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results 23

Table of Tables

Table 1 Test Route Description 3 Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet 4

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobil~ Emission Lab 2 Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route 4 Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions 6 Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions 7 Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions 9 Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions 10 Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions 12 Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions 13 Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions 15 Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions 16

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 3: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Disclaimer

The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of California Air Resources Board The mention of commercial products their source or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following organizations and individuals for their valuable contributions to this project We acknowledge Don Chernich Hector Maldonado Tao Huai and Alberto Ayala of 1the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for their technical assistance in developing this program and data analysis We acknowledge Don Pacocha of CE-CERT and the staff of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty VM Development Section for their assistance in carrying out the experimental program including Mark Burnitzki Roelof Riemersma Tullie Flower and Robert Ianni We acknowledge the funding from the California Air Resources Board under contract No 01-340

Table of Contents

Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii Table of Tables iii Table of Figures iii Abstract i Executive Summary ii 10 Introduction 1 20 Experimental Procedures 2

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory 2 On-Road Test Routes 3 Test vehicles 3

30 Results 5 NOx Emissions 5 PM Emissions 8 THC Emissions 11 CO Emissions 14

40 Summary and Conclusions 17 50 References 19 Appendix A- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab 20 Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results 23

Table of Tables

Table 1 Test Route Description 3 Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet 4

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobil~ Emission Lab 2 Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route 4 Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions 6 Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions 7 Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions 9 Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions 10 Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions 12 Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions 13 Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions 15 Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions 16

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 4: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Table of Contents

Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii Table of Tables iii Table of Figures iii Abstract i Executive Summary ii 10 Introduction 1 20 Experimental Procedures 2

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory 2 On-Road Test Routes 3 Test vehicles 3

30 Results 5 NOx Emissions 5 PM Emissions 8 THC Emissions 11 CO Emissions 14

40 Summary and Conclusions 17 50 References 19 Appendix A- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab 20 Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results 23

Table of Tables

Table 1 Test Route Description 3 Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet 4

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobil~ Emission Lab 2 Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route 4 Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions 6 Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions 7 Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions 9 Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions 10 Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions 12 Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions 13 Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions 15 Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions 16

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 5: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Table of Tables

Table 1 Test Route Description 3 Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet 4

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobil~ Emission Lab 2 Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route 4 Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions 6 Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions 7 Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions 9 Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions 10 Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions 12 Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions 13 Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions 15 Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions 16

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 6: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Abstract

New and upcoming regulations for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are expected to provide significant reductions in the emissions from newly purchased HDD vehicles California also has a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) in place for in-use HDD vehicles but this only monitors smoke opacity CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks In the earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steady-state cycle The objective of the current program was to collect inshyuse on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which is mobile measurement platform with a full dilution tunnel The results of this study provide information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under typical driving conditions and can be used to better understand emissions inventories and in the development of regulations for in-use vehicles

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 7: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Executive Summary

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country Starting in 2007 new State and Federal regulations will require a more stringent NOx (020 grams per brake horsepower-hour [gbhp-hr] phasing in 2007) and PM (001 gbhp-hr) standard and will necessitate the use of diesel particulate filters to reduce PM emissions Additional control measures targeted at the current in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates California currently has in place a Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (HDVIP and PSIP) but these are not considered to be comprehensive enough because they focus solely on smoke opacity The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines to provide greater reductions

CARB has conducted several pilot studies to understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) and to develop a program to control emissions from in-use trucks CARB surveyed warranty records and found that incidences were comparable to those currently being used in CARBs emissions inventory models although records for repairs outside of warranty could not be obtained Under a second program the Measure 17 or M-17 program 109 vehicles were tested at the CARB Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance Laboratory (HDIML) facility in Stockton CA over a power lug curve and a steadyshystate cycle The objective of this program was to develop a simple roadside inspection test that would identify or repair trucks with excess emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance

The focus of this study was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles in the Stockton CA area The vehicles included trucks with the following engines a 1996 Cummins M-11 2000 Caterpillar C-15 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 2003 Mack AC 427 and a 2004 Cummins ISM The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 (SR-99) and Interstate 5 (1-5) steady state driving on a surface street stop and go driving on a surface street (Hammer road) and power lugs where the vehicle was held at a maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply a load to the system The power lugs were designed as a bridging test that could be conducted on the road and at the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer and are not intended to represent realshyworld driving conditions Emissions measurements were made with the University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) which has a full dilution tunnel system housed in a trailer that is used as a mobile measurement platfonn The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDDVs under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

The on-road testing results in grams per mile (gmi) for NOx PM THC and CO are provided in Figures ES- I and ES-3-5 respectively Fuel-based emissions for NOx are also shown in Figure ES-2 EMFAC Emission factors for several speeds from CARBs EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model are also included in the gmi plots for several speeds with the base EMF AC emissions representing approximately 20 mph Overall the results show that emissions depend on the

II

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 8: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

specific emissions component the type of vehicle and driving condition Real-time gaseous data showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation as expected

For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The on-road emissions measurements were generally comparable to those from EMF AC with the highway measurements higher than the EMF AC values for the 1996 Cummins while the steady state (40-65 mph) emission rates for the 2004 Cummins the 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( 55 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) The highest NOx emissions in gmile for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments although on a fuel specific basis the power lug emissions were comparable to those of the other driving conditions

Figure ES-1 On-Road NOx Emissions

900 1996 CUMM11

800 +--------------1 2000 CATC15

D 2002 DDCSeries60 700 D 2003 MackAC427 -middote 2004 CUMISM

-II) 6000 - Surface Streets C 5000 SR-99 1-5 Freewayiii FreewayII)middote 400 Surface w Streets gtlt 3000 -z

200 -

100

00

111

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 9: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure ES-2 On-Road Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

goo SR-99

800 reeway- 1-5 Freeway 1 1996 CUMM11 ___ ------------+----------+----middot 2000 CATC15

Surface Streets ~ 700

2002 DDCSeries60 a ----middot ---------m----- 0------1 _______ D 2003 MackAC427 a 600

llamp a 2004 CUMISM -- 500111 C 0 Surface middotm 400 Streets middote w 300 -

~ z 200

The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends For surface street driving (Hammer Rd) the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxfPM tradeoff under these operating conditions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC) For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC

JV

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 10: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure ES-3 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----- 1996 CUMM11

f09 +-------i 2000CATC15 ~ 2002 DDCSeries60

~-8 2003 MackAC427 -2 sect07 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

EMFAC 55 mph 55Cruise99

NO Emissions 1

Surface Streets I iii middot~os w ~05

~ middoteo4 ssectdegmiddot3 middot2102 middote ~01 Q

00 EMFAC Base Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

The on-road THC emission rates were comparable to those of EMF AC Compared with EMF AC some vehicles showed higher emissions than EMF AC under certain conditions (2000 Caterpillar and 2004 Cummins) while other showed lower emissions (1996 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2003 Mack) The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with the emission for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DDC) THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments although the fuel-based power lug emissions were comparable to those of other driving conditions

V

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 11: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure ES-4 On-Road THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 r

2000 CATC15 20 ------- --- -------- - ---- 2002 DDCSeries60

D 2003 MackAC427 Surface E-Cgt- 2004 CUMISM Streets

in 15 C 0 SR-99 in in

E w 0

10 -Freeway Surface Streets --

1-5 Freeway c I-

rr

05

h OI I I i k ~ n rii00 -+1-LLa__ua______LA-r___________-u-uLJO___Y-------_____---___--_-----U-UILUO-U~

CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

VI

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 12: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure ES-5 On-Road CO Emissions

250 ~---------~

-E-0)-Ill C 0

iii Illmiddote w 0 ()

200

150

100

50

01996 CUMM11

+---------------------1 2000 CATC15 D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway- -------+

Surface Streets

VII

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 13: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

10 Introduction

Heavy-duty diesel (HDD) on-road vehicles are a major source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions in California and throughout the country State and Federal regulatory actions have been proposed to reduce emissions from future heavy-duty vehicles However additional control measures targeted at the in-use HDD population are needed due to low fleet turnover rates

In response to this problem increasing interest has been placed on developing in-use compliance programs Unlike light-duty trucks and passenger cars the current HDD inspection and maintenance program in California is limited to the Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection Programs (HDVIP and PSIP) These programs are not as comprehensive as the current light duty program (Smog Check) in California which requires vehicles to be tested on an inspection grade chassis dynamometer every 2 years The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is working on an expanded in-use compliance program and additional market-based incentives for cleaner engines with a goal to achieve reductions of 10 tons per day in NOx emissions and 1 ton per day of reactive organic gases (ROG) in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010

To better understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in heavy-duty diesel vehicles a pilot study was initially conducted to evaluate malfunction rates in heavy-duty diesel trucks This research was aimed at validating the incidence factors for 19 categories in the EMFAC model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) using surveys and currently existing data A significant amount of information covering the warranty period of the vehicles was analyzed with the results being consistent with the incidence rates used in the current EMF AC model The incidence rates of failing components beyond the warranty period were expected to be higher but the information needed to make estimates for this period could not be obtained from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

A second research program was the Measure 17 or M-17 program This project originated as part of a court settlement dealing with Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP) M-17 called for CARB to investigate the feasibility of a simple roadside inspection program that would identify and repair trucks with excess NOx emissions due to tampering and malmaintenance CARB developed a Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Development Laboratory (HDIML) in Stockton CA In the period between 4192001 to 3603 I 09 vehicles were tested at the CARB HDIML facility in Stockton CA Vehicles were tested using two cycles including a lug curve at the governed maximum RPM and a steady-state 60 miles per hour (mph) cycle at 3 load points Vehicles with high NOx emissions were then repaired and retested

The objective of the current program is to continue efforts to enhance the M-17 program and to evaluate in-use emission rates of HDDVs under on-road conditions As part of this program University of California at Riversides (UCRs) Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) has taken several trips to the Stockton area Measurements of in-use emissions were made for 5 trucks over roadways near the Stockton CA area The results of these measurements are provided in the following report

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 14: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

20 Experimental Procedures

CE-CERT Mobile Emissions Laboratory

UCR has built a unique heavy-duty diesel laboratory that utilizes a full flow dilution tunnel and laboratory grade instruments but is fully mobile The transportable nature of the Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL) makes it ideal for traveling to Stockton where is can be used in conjunction with the ongoing efforts there The primary dilution system is configured as a fullshyflow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600 kW

The MEL contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability Data can be collected modally or in 200-L Tedlar bags over a complete test cycle Sample collection is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX)

PM mass measurements are made by drawing a sample from the primary tunnel into a uniquely designed secondary tunnel The secondary dilution tunnel incorporates many of the requirements specified in 40CFRsect861310-2007 including the control of filter face temperature to plusmn5 degC at a fixed mass flow ratio and a pre-classification of the PM sample A multiple jet particle trap impactor is used to provide a 50 cutoff for course particles greater than 25 microm in diameter The secondary tunnel has several attached ports to allow simultaneous collection of PM2_5 onto three separate filter media and up to four phases before reloading sample media

A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in Figure 1

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat P Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondar)middot Dilution S)middotstembull

Variable Dilution PM (s12e Mass) Drivers Aid

- -bull-=----=-==--bull~~-

--

~~ ~ Gas Measurements CO 2 Dilution Ar Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcastmiddot Intake Temperature 02 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat P P (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CHi ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed (rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Pomt Load( of rated) Ambient Temperalure Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Figure 1 Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

2

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 15: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

On-Road Test Routes On-road measurements were made with the UCR MEL for a set of HDDVs A road course was developed that included driving under both highway conditions and surface street conditions near Stockton CA The first segment of the cycle involved steady state driving on State Route 99 (SR-99) at a speed of approximately 55 miles per hour (mph) with the cruise control on This segment covered approximately 11 miles For the second segment of the cycle the trucks were driven over side streets between the SR-99 and Interstate 5 (l-5) Steady state tests at 40 mph with and without cruise control were performed during this segment During this portion of the cycle power lug tests were also conducted where the vehicle was held at the maximum rpm and the brake slowly applied to apply load to the system These power lug curves were not designed to be representative of actual in-use driving but rather to simulate test conditions similar to those that could be conducted on the Stockton Laboratory chassis dynamometer The vehicles were then driven on the 1-5 where they were tested at various steady state speeds ranging from 55 to 70 mph generally with the vehicle in cruise control Finally the vehicle was driven back using surface streets to the Stockton Laboratory This segment of road was more heavily populated with businesses and included stop and go driving The on-road tests were conducted at least twice for each HDDV All tests for a single vehicle were conducted either the same day or on two back-to-back days The test route is described in Table 1 and Figure 2 below

Table 1 Test Route Description

Segment Description Cycles Performed 1 Steady State Driving on State Route 99 55 mph cruise 2 Surface streets between the SR-99 and 1-5 Power Lug 40 mph

(wand wo cruise) 3 Steady state driving on the 1-5 at different Cruise 55 60 65 and 70 mph

speeds 4 Surface streets returning to the Stockton Follow normal traffic pattern

Laboratory through business district

Test vehicles A total of 5 HDDVs were tested over the on-road course in Stockton CA The vehicles included the UCR in-house class 8 heavy-duty truck and four other trucks recruited through rental facilities and other outside sources A description of the trucks is provided in Table 2 Overall the engines represent 2000 and newer engines with one older 1996 engine Two of the five vehicles had relatively low mileages The 1996 Cummins and 2000 Caterpillar were tested in AprilMay of 2004 while the other three vehicles were tested in June of 2005

3

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 16: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Table 2 VehicleEquipment Descriptions for Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer (miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7664

Figure 2 Map of In-use Test Route

Segment 3 Segment 1

Morada

Sar Joaquir1 RJver

- (11 2 007 Tele AtlaS

Segment 4

Lincoln Village

4

HDIML Laboratory

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 17: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

30 Results

The on-road testing results for NOx PM THC and CO respectively are provided in Figures 3 5 7 and 9 on a gmi basis NOx PM THC and CO emissions respectively per mass of fuel are also provided in Figures 4 6 8 and 10 The values represent averages over all tests conducted on each vehicle for a particular travel segment or mode of operation The individual power lugs and 40 mph cruise segments are listed separately since they were conducted at specific parts of the test route For the driving on the 1-5 a range of different speeds was used throughout the testing from 55-70 mph hence data for a particular speed may be available for some vehicles but not others Error bars represent one standard deviation of all measurements conducted under a particular test condition

Emission factors from EMFAC are also provided in the figures with gmi results These emission factors are based on the running exhaust emissions factors being used in the current EMF AC2007 and the associated deterioration factors (Zhou 2006) The base EMFAC emission factors for each of the test vehicles were determined using the zero-mile rates for the corresponding model year of the vehicle and multiplying the vehicles mileage by the deterioration rate The base emission factors are representative of emissions expected for a speed around 20 mph This is in the range of speeds found for the testing on Hammer road although these test runs ranged from approximately 16 to 34 mph The EMF AC emission factors using the speed correction factors for 40 mph and 60 mph are also included since these provide a comparison for the higher speed steady state driving segments that were performed It is important to note that the EMF AC emission factors are meant to be representative of fleet average emissions for a particular model year mileage and speed These may not necessarily be representative of the individual vehicles tested for this program

The real-time results for the different vehicles are presented in Appendix B

NOx Emissions The results show that emissions vary depending on the specific emissions component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types of driving The 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins had the lowest NOx emissions over the different driving conditions with the emissions for the 2004 Cummins generally being below those of the 2003 Mack

The NOx emission rates in gmi are relatively comparable to the base em1ss1on factors for EMFAC The emission factors for the highway cruise for the 1996 Cummins were generally higher than those for EMFAC while the emission factors for the steady state (40-65 mph) driving conditions for the 2004 Cummins 2002 DDC and 2000 Caterpillar were generally lower than those for EMF AC The emission measurements for the 2003 Mack showed good comparability with the EMFAC emission factors

The 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DOC showed some tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events ( ~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving This trend was seen in both the gmi and fuel-based emission rates The other three vehicles had comparable emissions for the surface street and highway driving

5

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 18: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

- - ------

--- - ---- -

--

---- --- - ---

------ -- - - - --

-- -- --- -- --- - -- --

Figure 3 On-Road NOx Emissions

900

800 1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 700

--E 600 C)-fj

-C 500 0 fj

E --~ 400

w gtlt0 300 z

-

200

-100

00

~~0

_0~ v ~~ ~~~

~-

~q ~ tJ~ ro~ v ~~ ~~

2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

-- -

Surface Streets

SR-99 1-5 Freeway Freeway

- --- -- --

~ ~

r---

11 Surface Streets

- - il

- ---middot -~----

~

- ~---- --

~ ~ Ii rer rr I I I ~ 0 0 0 0 0~q ~OJ bull~e -~Ideg 0~ 0 middot~ bull~ltj middot~ bulle bull~ s-Ideg 4-bmiddot ~ a -~1) f 5s- bulle s-ltj 5S- s- 5-S- s- 5-S- clt rf ~s ~OJ

cltv clt G - lts clt ~c oCJ t)c ov ~v ~ ~~ ~elt e~~ )~ ~ ~~ ~ tJ5 ~~o gt~v ~O ~fi qO qO~~ ~ ~

6

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 19: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

- -

--

----

-- -- ---

Figure 4 Fuel Specific NOx Emissions

900

800

- 700-a 0) 600 ~

-C) 500u

C

middot-u 0

400

middoteu

w 300

d z 200

100

00

SR-99 - middot-

Freeway

bull middot---middotmiddot ---- ----- - -middot---- -middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot 1-5 Freeway

T

I I D 1996 CUMM11 f----

I 2000 CATC15Surface Streets

I D 2002 DDCSeries60- - I - 2003 MackAC427

I 2004 CUMISM - middot- --middot--- middotmiddotmiddot- -- --- middot-

I I

Surface -middot ---- -middot-middot ------ -

Streetsn i~ +--+-- --middot - - - - -middot- -

E I Pbull

t- middot-middotmiddot - --- -middot-middot- - I jli B~ ~~

Ii

I ---- middot-- ~-e --middot ~ --middot -

El ~I iI I I I I

7

i

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 20: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The power lug segments provided the highest NOx em1ss1ons on a gmi basis since they represent an aggressive driving condition that is not typical of in-use driving On a fuel specific basis however the emissions during the power lug were only slightly higher than the typical surface street driving on Hammer road

The real-time data show that NOx emissions are transient with responses during accelerations The real-time data show that the 1996 Cummins had higher baseline emissions during the steady state runs contributing to the overall higher emission rate The differences in the steady state emissions for the 1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC at the 40 mph and the higher speeds is also visible in the different baselines in the real-time data The 55 mph cruise on the SR-99 also shows that the vehicles accelerated and decelerated during this segment to maintain the 55 mph cruise speed This was due in part to small elevation changes that occur in the roadway

PM Emissions The PM emissions results showed some interesting trends PM filters were collecte~ for only 2 driving segments the SR-99 and the Hammer Rd surface streets The corresponding NOx emissions are also shown in the Figures For both operating conditions the PM emission rates were lower than the PM emission factors from EMF AC for all vehicles Interestingly for the highway driving on the SR-99 PM emissions were highest for the two newest vehicles ie the 2003 Mack and the 2004 Cummins Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOxPM tradeoff under these operating conditions This PM trends are somewhat reversed on the surface street driving however where the highest average PM emissions were found for the 1996 Cummins The 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC all showed considerably higher PM on the surface street driving compared to the highway driving The PM emissions for the two newest vehicles on the other hand had similar PM emissions for the highway and surface street driving The trends for the fuel-based emission factors were comparable to those found for the results in gmi

8

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 21: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure 5 On-Road PM Emissions

10 ----------------------------------~

-f g~ o8 =a-c 07 0middot

middotefl) o6 w gtlt 0 05 imiddote c 04-fl) C o 03middot

middotefl) w 02 i a

01

00

o9 +--------- 1996CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60 1-------+------------

02003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd mph

9

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 22: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

08 Q) -C)

lil 07iC 0 0

-~-~ 06 1) C 0

05 E w

)(

o 04z -0--~ 03 C)

lil-~ 02 1) C 0 1)

1) 01 E w a c 0 0

Figure 6 Fuel-Based PM Emissions

-+-_____

55Cruise99

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

Hammer Rd

10

1996 CUMM11

2000 CATC15

2002 DDCSeries60

2003 MackAC427

2003 MackAC427

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 23: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

THC Emissions

The 2003 Mack had the lowest THC emissions with bull the emissions for the 2002 DDC also generally lower than the remaining vehicles The emission rates for the 2003 Mack were generally lower than those for EMF AC for the different driving conditions The emission rates for the 2002 DDC were lower than those for EMF AC for the Hammer road and highway driving but were comparable to those of EMF AC for the 40 mph steady states The 2002 DDC showed higher emissions on the lower speed steady state cruises at 40 mph than the highway steady state driving This trend was seen for the emissions on a gmi basis and for the fuel-based emission rates

Other vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street and 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments For the steady state driving the 2000 Caterpillar showed the highest emissions at 40 mph followed by the 65 to 70 driving and then by the 55 mph The fuel specific THC emissions were also higher for the 2000 Caterpillar at 40 mph compared to the higher speeds The emission rates for the 2000 Caterpillar were comparable to those from EMF AC for the higher speed driving but were higher than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady states

The 1996 Cummins had higher THC emissions for the surface street driving on Hammer road than any of the steady state cruise cycles between 40 and 65 mph on a gmi basis A similar trend was not found for the fuel-based emission rates The real-time data show that the actual emission peaks as a function of time for the 1996 Cummins on Hammer road are similar in magnitude to those of the steady state driving The emissions are higher on a gmi basis due to the lower number of miles driven The emission rates for the 1996 Cummins were comparable to those of EMF AC for Hammer road and the 40 mph steady state but were lower than the EMF AC values at the higher speeds

The emission rates for the 2004 Cummins were higher than the EMF AC rates for the 40 mph and higher steady states but were lower than the EMF AC factors for Hammer road

THC emissions on a gmi basis were found to be highest for the power lug segments for most conditions although this is not representative of typical in-use driving The fuel-based THC emissions during the power lug were comparable to those found under the other operating conditions

11

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 24: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

I I I I I I

Figure 7 On-Road THC Emissions

25 r--------

1996 CUMM11 2000 CATC15

20 2002 DDCSeries60 i---------___------111----

Surface 2003 MackAC427 Streets

-E 2004 CUMISMC)

+----+ -ti) 15 -C

middot-0 SR-99 ti)

Eti) Freeway Surface Streets __10 -~-- ----- - - middot- -- - -- --- - I r-- I I -w

1-5 Freewayu c I-

05 J41lh I f - r bull -11 -

m11~ lir Ill 1m mIN NII nil II 111 lh00bull 1 middotmiddot---- I I I I l I I I I l I I I I II I II Ii 11 1I I I r 1 1 111bullbull-middot-middot-middot-middot-middot-r-e ~ ~ gOJ e n e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sect~~v ~~ ~~ v- ( Co ~ ~~ qO qO

12

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 25: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

- --middot- _____ _____20

-18

middot16 -Q)

-a 14 C) ~-C) 12-U) C -10 middot-0 U)-~ 08E

-

w -() 06

c I-

-04

02 -

00 I

Surface Streets 2000 CATC15 I

D 2002 DDCSeries60 D 2003 MackAC427

Surface

I 2004 CUMISM Streets

SR-99 -- -middot- -middot

1-5 bull

Freeway -- middot- -

- reeway --middot -

-- --- -

- I - -- _ ---- middot--- -

~ - -middot --- -- -middot ---- - -- - middot--

--middot- - middot- -- - -- middot- - - - -- -middot -

- ---- --- --middot -- -middot --- ---- --

ti ~

~I a - - --

u r - --

bull

-

a B -- C-- jbull -middot

B

I

Figure 8 Fuel-based THC Emissions

1996 CUMM11 -

--middot

-

-

I I

nOJ 0 n 06 ~0 s-() ~0 s-() 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s-() 5-S cJ- 5-S cJmiddot CJ c CJ c CJ c fl ~ ~ CJ G ~o G ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ roltS ro~ ~t$~ qo qo

13

7

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 26: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

CO Emissions CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi Of the real world driving conditions CO emissions were highest for the surface street driving on Hammer road with lower CO emissions for the higher speeds There was a reasonable comparison between the on-road measurements and the EMF AC emission rates and the trends in the on-road data were consistent with the trends in the EMF AC emission factors with speed The newer (2000 model year and newer) vehicles all tended to have slightly higher emissions than the corresponding EMF AC emissions factors The older 1996 truck had slightly lower emissions than EMF AC expect for the tests on Hammer road which were comparable CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments although the fuel base emission rates for the power lug segment were comparable to those for the typical on-road driving Real-time CO emissions show peaks on the accelerations during the surface street driving

14

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 27: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure 9 On-Road CO Emissions

-middote C)-tn C 0

iii tnmiddote w 0 CJ

250 -~--

1996 CUMM11

200 _______________ 2000 CATC15

150

100 -

50

2002 DDCSeries60 2003 MackAC427 2004 CUMISM

SR-99 Surface Streets 1-5 FreewayFreeway______ +--+

Surface Streets _

o o 11111 llhi 1bull1a rlTI 1111 llrll lrll lTTllbull 1 1 I II II mn ITJI middot I 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111

~0 g g 9gt 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0~~~~~~ _v ~ro 4($ ~clt ~~ ~clt $)~Ji sectJclt ~~~ rovlt -()6 ~ ~l~ ~

(() ~ ltv~ ~ (o Co ~t qO qO

15

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 28: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

--

- -

Q) s

+-0)

-~

C) -C 0

middot- E w 0 (J

Figure 10 Fuel-based CO Emissions

16o T-- -------- 1996 CUMM11

140 2000 CATC15 Surface

I 2002 DDCSeries60 Streets 2003 MackAC427120 bullSurface Streets 2004 CUMISM

4

100 -~ SR-99

80 reeay

60 -

40 -

20 1Pl1a

00 I - w w I 1bull1bull

1-5 Freeway

- ---

iii

---- --1--

-~a -~- m~ ~ ~ --

-- ---

-bull1bull IIbull1bull I 1bull1bull 11 I I -- -- -- middot - -- --

~0 e- ~e ~ ~e e e e e e e ~ ~ e middott $ middott $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~s J- ~s CJ CJ c CJ c CJ fl ~ ~ c ~CJ ~o ~CJ -ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gt~ ~ ~~ ~ gt~ (o~ (o~ ~~ qO qO

16

i

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 29: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

40 Summary and Conclusions

This program was conducted as part of CARBs Measure 17 or M-17 program to understand inshyuse diesel emissions and develop new compliance programs to reduce emissions from the in-use diesel fleet The focus of this program was to collect in-use on-road emissions measurements on a subfleet of 5 vehicles with engines ranging in model year from 1996 to 2004 in the Stockton CA area The vehicles were tested over a road course that included driving under both highway conditions on State Route 99 and Interstate 5 and surface street conditions Emissions measurements were made with UCRs Mobile Emissions Laboratory The results of this study provide additional information about emissions from in-use HDD Trucks under actual driving conditions

A summary of the results is as follows

bull Overall the results show that em1ss1ons vary depending on the specific em1ss1ons component the type of vehicle as well as driving condition Real-time data were also collected that showed that emissions were transient and depend heavily on the specific mode of engine operation

bull The highest NOx emissions for all vehicles were found for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency toward higher NOx emissions for the higher speed events (~5 mph) compared to the 40 mph cruise and the other surface street driving (1996 Cummins and the 2002 DDC) while others did not show as large a difference between different types of driving (2000 Caterpillar 2003 Mack and 2004 Cummins) For NOx emissions the oldest vehicle 1996 Cummins had the highest emissions for nearly all types ofdriving

bull For surface street driving the highest average PM emissions were found for the oldest vehicle while for highway driving on the SR-99 the two newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions Some of the test vehicles showed a trend of higher PM emissions on the surface streets as opposed to the highway driving (the 1996 Cummins 2000 Caterpillar and the 2002 DDC)

bull THC emissions were found to be highest for the power lug segments Some vehicles showed a tendency for higher emissions for the surface street segments compared to the steady state segments (the 1996 Cummins) while others showed a tendency for higher emissions for the 40 mph cruise segments compared to the highway cruise segments (the 2000 Caterpillar and 2002 DOC) Corresponding NOx emissions were lower for the newer vehicles for SR-99 indicating that there appears to be a NOPM tradeoff under these operating conditions

17

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 30: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

bull CO emissions are highest for the power lug segments followed by surface street driving CO emissions under steady state driving conditions were relatively low ranging from slightly less than 1 gmi to approximately 3 gmi

18

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 31: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

50 References

Zhou L (2007) EMF AC Modeling Change Technical Memo Revision of Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors and Speed Correction Factors Technical memo from the California Air Resources Board October wwwarbcagov

19

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 32: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Appendix A--- Background Information on UCRs Mobile Emission Lab

Extensive detail is provided in Reference 1 so this section is provided for those that may not have access to that reference Basically the mobile emissions lab (MEL) consists of a number of operating systems that are typically found in a stationary lab However the MEL lab is on wheels instead of concrete A schematic of MEL and its major subsystems is shown in the figure below Some description follows

GPS PatDiluted Exhaust Temperature Long ElevationAbsolute Pressure Throat tP Satellite PrecisionFlow

CVS Turbine 1000-4000 SCFM Variable Dilution

Secondary Probe Gas Sample Probe Secondary Dilution System _ _ PM (size Mass) Dnvers Aid

Gas Measurements CO2 Dilution Air Temperature Exhaust Temperature Engine Broadcast Intake Temperature 0 2 CO ppm NO ppm Absolute Pressure Throat tP tP (Exhaust-Ambient) Coolant Temperature Boost Pressure THC ppm CH4 ppm Baro (Ambient) Flow Flow Baro Pressure Vehicle Speed (mph)

Dew Point (Ambient) Engine Speed rpm) Throttle Position Other Sensor Dew Point Load ( of rated) Ambient Temperature Control room temperature Ambient Baro Trailer Speed (rpm)

CVS Inlet Temperature

Major Systems within the Mobile Emission Lab

The primary dilution system is configured as a full-flow constant volume sampling (CVS) system with a smooth approach orifice (SAO) venturi and dynamic flow controller The SAO venturi has the advantage of no moving parts and repeatable accuracy at high throughput with low-pressure drop As opposed to traditional dilution tunnels with a positive displacement pump or a critical flow orifice the SAO system with dynamic flow control eliminates the need for a heat exchanger Tunnel flow rate is adjustable from 1000 to 4000 scfm with accuracy of 05 of full scale It is capable of total exhaust capture for engines up to 600kW Colorado Engineering Experiment Station Inc initially calibrated the flow rate through both SAOs for the primary tunnel

The mobile laboratory contains a suite of gas-phase analyzers on shock-mounted benches The gas-phase analytical instruments measure NOx methane (CH4) total hydrocarbons (THC) CO and CO2 at a frequency of 10 Hz and were selected based on optimum response time and on road stability The 200-L Tedlar bags are used to collect tunnel and dilution air samples over a complete test cycle A total of eight bags are suspended in the MEL allowing four test cycles to

20

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 33: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

be performed between analyses Filling of the bags is automated with Lab View 70 software (National Instruments Austin TX) A summary of the analytical instrumentation used their ranges and principles of operation is provided in the table below Each modal analyzer is timeshycorrected for tunnel sample line and analyzer delay time

Gas Component Range Monitoring Method NOx 10301003001000 (ppm) Chemiluminescence co 5020010003000 (ppm) NDIR CO2 052816 () NDIR THC 10301003001000 amp 5000 (ppmC) Heated FID CH4 301003001000 (ppmC) FID

Summary of gas-phase instrumentation in MEL

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements

Internal calibration and verification procedures are performed regularly in accordance with the CFR A partial summary of routine calibrations performed by the MEL staff as part of the data quality assurancequality control program is listed in the table below The MEL uses precision gas blending to obtain required calibration gas concentrations Calibration gas cylinders certified to 1 are obtained from Scott-Marrin Inc (Riverside CA) By using precision blending the number of calibration gas cylinders in the lab was reduced to 5 and cylinders need to be replaced less frequently The gas divider contains a series of mass flow controllers that are calibrated regularly with a Bios Flow Calibrator (Butler New Jersey) and produces the required calibration gas concentrations within the required + 15 percent accuracy

In addition to weekly propane recovery checks which yield gt98 recovery CO2 recovery checks are also performed A calibrated mass of CO2 is injected into the primary dilution tunnel and is measured downstream by the CO2 analyzer These tests also yield gt98 recovery The results of each recovery check are all stored in an internal QAQC graph that allows for the immediate identification of problems andor sampling bias

An example shown below is for propane mass injected into the exhaust transfer line while sampling from raw and dilute ports (three repeats) to evaluate exhaust flow measurement on steady state basis (duration= 60 sec Date completed January 2005)

Tests Raw C3H8 g Oil C3H8 g CVSDF Raw C3H8 est Diff 1 2522 608 411 2499 -09 2 2485 598 410 2454 -12 3 2462 601 413 2484 09

ave 2490 602 412 2479 -04 stdev 30 5 001 23 cov 12 08middot 03 09

Recent example of propane quality control check

21

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 34: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

VERIFICATION CALIBRATIONEQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

PERFORMED PERFORMED

Daily Differential Pressure Electronic Cal

Daily Absolute Pressure Electronic Cal

Propane Injection WeeklyCVS

Monthly CO2 Injection

Per Set-up CVS Leak Check Back pressure tolerance

Second by second plusmn5 inH20

Annual Primary Standard MFCs Drycal Bios Meter Cal system MFCs

Monthly Audit bottle check

PrePost Test Zero Span Analyzers Daily Zero span drifts

Monthly Linearity Check Propane Injection 6 point

Semi-Annual primary vs secondarySecondary System

checkIntegrity and MFCs

MFCs Drycal Bios Meter amp Semi-Annual

TSI Mass Meter

Integrated Modal Mass vsVariable

Bag Mass Data Validation

Per test Visual review

Weekly Tunnel Banks PM Sample Media Static and Dynamic

Monthly Blanks

Performed if verificationPsychrometerTemperature Daily

fails

Aneroid barometer Barometric Performed if verificationDaily

Pressure ATIS fails

Psychrometer Performed if verificationDewpoint Sensors Daily

Chilled mirror fails

Sample of Verification and Calibration Quality Control Activities

22

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 35: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Appendix B - Real-time Emissions Results

The real-time data are presented for each test on each vehicle in order of ascending vehicle age In the real-time data the first ~700 seconds of steady state driving is on the SR-99 The next 200 seconds of driving in the 40 mph range represent the second segment of driving The segment from 900 to 1300 seconds at speeds of 55 mph and higher is on the I-5 The final 1000 seconds is the driving on surface streets on Hammer Road

23

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 36: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

140

-------------middot---

1 [ L

t------~---~--__~J__J___JL~~------10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time (sec)

Figure B-1 Real-time Emissions for 1996 Cummins

1996 Cummins M 11 Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ---------------1 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 CO gsecJtr

2 50 C

-sect 40 ~ middotc 30 0 ~

I 111 ~ 20 Il I

I_

111

ll110 - 020

rJ~Jlt 0000 ~=~=~=_=~~==

120 -u a100

- C)

080 -cn C

060 2 cn

- 040 E w

70

60

-so c a E 40- -gt-middoto 30 -0

~ 20 -

10 -

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

1996 Cummins M 11 Run2

-Speed mph--- -middotmiddot -NOx gsec

THC gsecx100_~

CO gsec x 10 -

I Ii 11 II JI i Ii - 02

16

14

12 -() Q) en1 -C)-en08 C 0

06 en en

04 E w

24

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 37: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Figure B-2 Real-time Emissions for 2000 Caterpillar

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 3

80 ---------------------------1 --Speed mph NOx gsec

70 THC gsecx100

L 1-middotmiddotmiddot----co gsecx1060 ~middot q

~ -c I I Ic 50 E if i fmiddot1 middot ttf rbull ~ I~~ ~ - bull 111 rl -~ 40 Lr-11 - ii ~ii~t i fl l r~ 1 1 u - If i lit f ij r ~ bull r I~ middotmiddotillbull~ j~ ~ i~I JII ffJjl bull ) - l -r -f I t f ~ 12 Cl)

30 - - - - - I bullbull ~bullJ - ron t 1 - ~ if 1H 1

gt 20 ~~~~~-_j~ LJmiddotmiddotsJ~ ~t~ ~ti 1lU l1 10 tt1 U1 bull rr V1 I

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

14

12

1

08

- 06

04

02

0

-02 2500

-u Cl)

- C)- C 9 -~ E w

2000 Caterpillar C15 Run 4

80 ~--------- ------ 1-speedmph NOx gsec

70 - - --- A ------j THC gsecx100

60 -+---------------+-1-H- ---t--- CO gsecx10

c c 50 E 40 ()

2 30 Cl)

gt 20 r1 -~middot (J I l ~ middotmiddot 08 ~

I - - tn

I I i o6 middote

2

18

16

14 ~

12 01_tn

1 tn

- I middot -middotbullmiddot --10 -

0 ~----------

0 500 1000 1500

Time (sec)

25

bullJ W

- J middotJ-~---0

2000 2500

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 38: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

------------------ ----- ----------

Figure B-3 Real-time Emissions for 2002 DDC

60

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0

gt20

2002 DDC 60 Series Run 1

---------lt-Speedmph ___ 1_0 NOx gsec

THC gsecx100

C_QJJsec--~

o9-- 08

- 07 ~ u

06 c-05 ~

04 middot 0

- o3 middotEu

10 02 w

- 01

-middot~~- 00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (sec)

2002 DDC Series 60 Run 2

-Speed mph70 NOx gsec

THC gsec x 10060 -

-50 c c E 40-gt-

middotc- 30 0 Q)

gt 20

10

0

-

-

middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot CO gsec

-

-

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)

26

07

-middot 06

-05 ~ u-04 S u

03 degC

u u

02 E w

01

0

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 39: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

THC gsec x 100

Figure B-4 Real-time Emissions for 2003 Mack

2003 Mack Run 1

160

2003 Mack Run 2

-Speed mph

70

60 l-r

A

-Speed mph

NOx gsec

0 500 T 1000 ) 1500

1me (sec

140

120 -u Cl)

-~100 C)

u080 C 0

060 middot -~

040 E w

020

000

2000

70 -~---------------middotmiddot----------bull-------

60

2 50 a E 40 --~ u 30 0

~ 20

10

middot-middotmiddotmiddot

- 16NOx gsec

middotmiddot CO gsec x 10 14

THC gsec x 100 12 -u Cl)

~- 1 ~ C-- 08 ~

06 u umiddot-- 04 E w

02

1----------------r-----middot~-- LL_ L L_______I~----+- o0

0- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

27

0

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28

Page 40: EVALUATION ON-ROAD RESULTS FROM A TEST FLEET OF … · FLEET OF HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

500 1000 1500 2500

Figure B-5 Real-time Emissions for 2004 Cummins ISM

2004 Cummins ISM Run 1

-Speed mph 70 ~------~ NOx gsec

THC gsec x 1060 -- CO gsec

- 50 -c c E 40- -- 015 rn ~ C

0~ 30 0 010 en

en G) 20gt E

w00510

- 0000

0 2000

030

025 -() Cl)

020 en-C)-

70

-60

c 50 C

E- 40 ~

~ 0

a gt

30

20

10

0

Time (sec)

--middot-~ ---------

2004 Cummins ISM Run 2

-Speed mph -~---------------------

-+------------middotmiddotmiddot--

-

middot

J

_u_U__ jf 000

NOx gsec 025 THC gsec x 10 _

- 020 -() CO gs~~- _

I

Cl)

tn-C)015 -tn s

010 0 tn tn

005 w E

I I

0 500 1000 middot1500 2000 2500 Time (sec)

28