Search Results

Stringent emission regulations have forced drastic technological improvements in diesel after treatment systems, particularly in reducing Particulate Matter (PM) emissions. Those improvements generally regard the use of Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC), Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) and lately also the use of Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) systems along with improved engine control strategies for reduction of NOx emissions from these engines. Studies that have led to these technological advancements were made in controlled laboratory environment and are not representative of real world emissions from these engines or vehicles. In addition, formation and evolution of PM from these engines are extremely sensitive to overall changes in the dilution process.

On-board emissions measurement for heavy-duty vehicles has taken on greater significance because new standards now address in-use emissions levels in the USA. Emissions compliance must be shown in a “Not-to-exceed” (NTE) zone that excludes engine operation at low power. An over-the-road 1996 Peterbilt tractor was instrumented with the West Virginia University Mobile Emissions Measurement System (MEMS). The researchers determined how often the truck entered the NTE, and the emissions from the vehicle, as it was driven over different routes and at different test weights (20,740 lb, 34,640 lb, 61,520 lb, and 79,700 lb) The MEMS interfaced with the truck ECU, while also measuring exhaust flowrate, and concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the exhaust. The four test routes that were employed included varying terrain types in order to simulate a wide range of on-road driving conditions. One route (called the Bruceton route) included a sustained hill climb.

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.