Search Results

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.

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.

Biodiesel may be derived from either plant or animal sources, and is usually employed as a compression ignition fuel in a blend with petroleum diesel (PD). Emissions differences between vehicles operated on biodiesel blends and on diesel have been published previously, but data do not cover the latest engine technologies. Prior studies have shown that biodiesel offers advantages in reducing particulate matter, with either no advantage or a slight disadvantage for oxides of nitrogen emissions. This paper describes a recent study on the emissions impact of two biodiesel blends B20A, made from 20% animal fat (tallow) biodiesel and 80% PD, and B20B, obtained from 20% soybean biodiesel and 80% PD. These blends used the same PD fuel for blending and were contrasted with the same PD fuel as a reference. The research was conducted on a 2007 medium heavy-duty diesel truck (MHDDT), with an engine equipped with Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF).

Alternative compression ignition engine fuels are of interest both to reduce emissions and to reduce U.S. petroleum fuel demand. A Malaysian Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquid fuel was compared with California #2 diesel by characterizing emissions from over the road Class 8 tractors with Caterpillar 3176 engines, using a chassis dynamometer and full scale dilution tunnel. The 5-Mile route was employed as the test schedule, with a test weight of 42,000 lb. Levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) were reduced by an average of 12% and particulate matter (PM) by 25% for the Fischer-Tropsch fuel over the California diesel fuel. Another distillate fuel produced catalytically from Fischer-Tropsch products originally derived from natural gas by Mossgas was also compared with 49-state #2 diesel by characterizing emissions from Detroit Diesel 6V-92 powered transit buses, three of them equipped with catalytic converters and rebuilt engines, and three without.