Search Results

Natural Gas engines are viewed as an alternative to diesel power in the quest to reduce heavy duty vehicle emissions in polluted urban areas. In particular, it is acknowledged that natural gas has the potential to reduce the inventory of particulate matter, and this has encouraged the use of natural gas engines in transit bus applications. Extensive data on natural gas and diesel bus emissions have been gathered using two Transportable Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratories, that employ chassis dynamometers to simulate bus inertia and road load. Most of the natural gas buses tested prior to 1997 were powered by Cummins L-10 engines, which were lean-burn and employed a mechanical mixer for fuel introduction. The Central Business District (CBD) cycle was used as the test schedule.

Exhaust gas composition and particulate matter emission levels were obtained from in-use heavy duty transit buses powered by 6V-92TA engines with different fuels. Vehicles discussed in this study were pulled out of revenue service for a day, in Phoenix, AZ, Pittsburgh, PA and New York, NY and tested on the Transportable Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory employing a transient chassis dynamometer. All the vehicles, with engine model years ranging from 1982 to 1992, were operated on the Federal Transit Administration Central Business District Cycle. Significant reductions in particulate matter emissions were observed in the 1990-1992 model year vehicles equipped with the trap oxidizer systems. Testing vehicles under conditions that represent “real world” situations confirmed the fact brought to light that emission levels are highly dependent upon the maintenance and operating conditions of the engines.

The West Virginia University (WVU) Transportable Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory was employed to conduct chassis dynamometer tests in the field to measure the exhaust emissions from heavy-duty buses and trucks. This laboratory began operation in the field in January, 1992. During the period January, 1992 through June, 1993, over 150 city buses, trucks, and tractors operated by 18 different authorities in 11 states were tested by the facility. The tested vehicles were powered by 14 different types of engines fueled with natural gas (CNG or LNG), methanol, ethanol, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), #2 diesel, and low sulfur diesel (#1 diesel or Jet A). Some of the tested vehicles were equipped with exhaust after-treatment systems. In this paper, a total of 12 CNG-fueled and #2 diesel-fueled transit buses equipped with Cummins L-10 engines, were chosen for investigation.

A correlation study of vehicle exhaust emissions measurements was conducted by the West Virginia University (WVU) Transportable Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Emissions Testing Facility. A diesel fueled transit bus was tested by both chassis dynamometer emissions testing laboratories. Exhaust emissions were sampled from the tested vehicle during the operation of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Central Business District (CBD) testing cycle. Data of gaseous and particulate matter emissions was obtained at each testing laboratory. The emissions results were compared to evaluate the effects of different equipment, test procedures, and drivers on the measurements of exhaust emissions of heavy-duty vehicles operated on a chassis dynamometer.

Regulated gaseous and particulate emissions were obtained from in-use vehicles, two trucks and two buses, operated on the Transportable Heavy Duty Engine Emissions Testing Laboratory. Presented here is the data on transient emissions from a refuse truck with a Cummins LTA10-260 engine, a GMC tractor with a CAT 3176 engine and two buses with Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA engines (one with a particulate trap and the other without) when tested on different fuels. The reported study on in-use heavy duty vehicles is part of an on-going program aimed at establishing a database on the exhaust emissions from vehicles tested on a chassis dynamometer under conditions that represent the ‘real-world’ situations. The paper also discusses, briefly, the entire testing laboratory. The Transportable Laboratory can be effectively used in testing programs, such as recall, deterioration and emission factors.

Recent interest in the effect of engine life on vehicle emissions, particularly those from alternately fueled engines, has led to a need to test heavy duty trucks in the field over their lifetime. West Virginia University has constructed two transportable laboratories capable of measuring emissions as a vehicle is driven through a transient test schedule. Although the central business district (CBD) cycle is well accepted for bus testing, no time-based schedule suited to the testing of class 8 trucks with unsynchronized transmissions is available. The Federal Test Procedure for certifying heavy duty engines can be translated with some difficulty into a flat road chassis cycle although original data clearly incorporated unpredictable braking and inclines. Two methods were attempted for this purpose, but only an energy conservation method proved practical.

The need to assess the effect of exhaust gas emissions from heavy duty vehicles (buses and trucks) on emission inventories is urgent. Exhaust gas emissions measured during the fuel economy measurement test procedures that are used in different countries sometimes do not represent the in-use vehicle emissions. Since both local and imported vehicles are running on the roads, it is thought that studying the testing cycles of the major vehicle manufacturer countries is worthy. Standard vehicle testing cycles on chassis dynamometer from the United States, Canada, European Community Market, and Japan1 are considered in this study. Each of the tested cycles is categorized as either actual or synthesized cycle and its representativness of the observed driving patterns is investigated. A total of fourteen parameters are chosen to characterize any given driving cycle and the cycles under investigation were compared using these parameters.

A mathematical model has been developed to transfer Chassis Dynamometer (CD) test cycles for heavy duty vehicles to the equivalent Engine Dynamometer (ED) test cycles. The model assumed a generalized drivetrain layout, and a variable drive line efficiency. An interactive computer code was written to represent the mathematical model for different drivetrain systems. Several CD test cycles were used to obtain equivalent ED test cycles for a sample based upon an urban bus equipped with an automatic transmission. Results showed the possibility of simulating CD test cycles with equivalent ED test cycles for heavy-duty urban buses under certain assumptions.

Synthetic diesel fuel can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including coal, natural gas and biomass. Synthetic diesel fuels can have very low sulfur and aromatic content, and excellent autoignition characteristics. Moreover, synthetic diesel fuels may also be economically competitive with California diesel fuel if produced in large volumes. Previous engine laboratory and field tests using a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer indicate that synthetic diesel fuel made using the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) catalytic conversion process is a promising alternative fuel because it can be used in unmodified diesel engines, and can reduce exhaust emissions substantially. The objective of this study was a preliminary assessment of the emissions from older model transit operated on Mossgas synthetic diesel fuel. The study compared emissions from transit buses operating on Federal no. 2 Diesel fuel, Mossgas synthetic diesel (MGSD), and a 50/50 blend of the two fuels.

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.