Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 2 of 2
Technical Paper

Comparative Emissions from Diesel and Biodiesel Fueled Buses from 2002 to 2008 Model Years

2010-10-05
2010-01-1967
Fuel economy and regulated emissions were measured from eight forty-foot transit buses operated on petroleum diesel and a “B20” blend of 80% diesel fuel and 20% biodiesel by volume. Use of biodiesel is attractive to displace petroleum fuel and reduce an operation's carbon footprint. Usually it is assumed that biodiesel will also reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions relative to those of petroleum diesel. Model years of the vehicles evaluated were newer 2007-08 Gillig low-floor buses, 2005 Gillig Phantom buses, and a 2002 Gillig Phantom bus. Engine technology represented three different emissions standards, and included buses with OEM diesel particulate filters. Each bus was evaluated using two transient speed-time schedules, the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) driving schedule which represents moderate speed urban/suburban operation and the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) which represents a mix of suburban and higher speed on-highway operation.
Technical Paper

Chassis Dynamometer Emissions Characterization of a Urea-SCR Transit Bus

2012-06-01
2011-01-2469
West Virginia University characterized the emissions and fuel economy performance of a 30-foot 2010 transit bus equipped with urea selective catalytic reduction (u-SCR) exhaust aftertreatment. The bus was exercised over speed-time driving schedules representative of both urban and on-highway activity using a chassis dynamometer while the exhaust was routed to a full-scale dilution tunnel with research grade emissions analyzers. The Paris speed-time driving schedule was used to represent slow urban transit bus activity while the Cruise driving schedule was used to represent on-highway activity. Vehicle weights representative of both one-half and empty passenger loading were evaluated. Fuel economy observed during testing with the urban driving schedule was significantly lower (55%) than testing performed with the on-highway driving schedule.
X