Search Results

Beginning in 2007, heavy-duty engine manufacturers in the U.S. have been responsible for verifying the compliance on in-use vehicles with Not-to-Exceed (NTE) standards under the Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing Program (HDIUT). This in-use testing is conducted using Portable Emission Measurement Systems (PEMS) which are installed on the vehicles to measure emissions during real-world operation. A key component of the HDIUT program is the generation of measurement allowances which account for the relative accuracy of PEMS as compared to more conventional, laboratory based measurement techniques. A program to determine these measurement allowances for gaseous emissions was jointly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and various member companies of the Engine Manufacturer's Association (EMA).

Emissions from manual transmission motorcycles have been shown to be dependent upon transmission shift patterns. Presently, when undergoing an emission test for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification a manufacturer can designate their own shift points during the cycle or utilize an EPA prescribed shift pattern which uses basic up or down shifts at specific speeds regardless of the type of motorcycle, 40 CFR 86.528-78(h). In order to predict the real-life emissions from motorcycles, a comparative real-life shift pattern has been developed which can then be used to evaluate the suitability of the manufacturer’s shift schedule. To that end, a model that predicts shift points for motorcycles has been created. This model is based on the actual operation of different motorcycles by real life operators in a combined city and highway setting.

Current SAE practices for evaluating potential improvements in fuel economy on heavy-duty vehicles rely on gravimetric measurements of fuel tanks. However, the recent evolution of portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) offers an alternative means of evaluating real-world fuel economy that may be faster and more cost effective. This paper provides a direct comparison of these two methods based on a recent EPA study conducted at Southwest Research Institute. More than 228 on-road tests were performed on two pairs of class 8 tractor-trailers according to SAE test procedure J1321 in an assessment of various chassis components designed to reduce drag losses on the vehicle. During these tests, SEMTECH-D™ portable emissions measurement systems from Sensor's, Incorporated were operating in each of the vehicles to evaluate emissions and to provide a redundant measure of fuel economy.

In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) embarked on a mission to help the city of Beijing, China, clean its air. Working with the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau (BEPB), the effort was a pilot diesel retrofit demonstration program involving three basic retrofit technologies to reduce particulate matter (PM). The three basic technologies were the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), the flowthrough diesel particulate filter (FT-DPF), and the wallflow diesel particulate filter (WF-DPF). The specific retrofit systems selected for the project were verified through the California Air Resources Board (CARB) or the EPA verification protocol [1]. These technologies are generally verified for PM reductions of 20-40 percent for DOCs, 40-50 percent for the FT-DPF, and 85 percent or more for the high efficiency WF-DPF.

The use of a partial flow sampling system (PFSS) to measure nonroad steady-state diesel engine particulate matter (PM) emissions is a technique for certification approved by a number of regulatory agencies around the world including the US EPA. Recently, there have been proposals to change future nonroad tests to include testing over a nonroad transient cycle. PFSS units that can quantify PM over the transient cycle have also been discussed. The full flow constant volume sampling (CVS) technique has been the standard method for collecting PM under transient engine operation. It is expensive and requires large facilities as compared to a typical PFSS. Despite the need for a cheaper alternative to the CVS, there has been a concern regarding how well the PM measured using a PFSS compared to that measured by the CVS. In this study, three PFSS units, including AVL SPC, Horiba MDLT, and Sierra BG-2 were investigated in parallel with a full flow CVS.

The potential discrepancy between the fuel economy shown on new vehicle labels and that achieved by consumers has been receiving increased attention of late. EPA has not modified its labeling procedures since 1985. It is likely possible that driving patterns in the U.S. have changed since that time. One possible modification to the labeling procedures is to incorporate the fuel economy measured over the emission certification tests not currently used in deriving the fuel economy label (i.e., the US06 high speed and aggressive driving test, the SC03 air conditioning test and the cold temperature test). This paper focuses on the US06 cycle and the possible incorporation of aggressive driving into the fuel economy label. As part of its development of the successor to the MOBILE emissions model, the Motor Vehicle Emission Modeling System (MOVES), EPA has developed a physically-based model of emissions and fuel consumption which accounts for different driving patterns.

Due to its high efficiency and superior durability the diesel engine is again becoming a prime candidate for future light-duty vehicle applications within the United States. While in Europe the overall diesel share exceeds 40%, the current diesel share in the U.S. is 1%. Despite the current situation and the very stringent Tier 2 emission standards, efforts are being made to introduce the diesel engine back into the U.S. market. In order to succeed, these vehicles have to comply with emissions standards over a 120,000 miles distance while maintaining their excellent fuel economy. The availability of technologies such as high-pressure common-rail fuel systems, low sulfur diesel fuel, NOx adsorber catalysts (NAC), and diesel particle filters (DPFs) allow the development of powertrain systems that have the potential to comply with the light-duty Tier 2 emission requirements. In support of this, the U.S.

High mileage vehicles (in excess of 50,000 miles) contribute more than half of all vehicular emissions. With the new catalytic converter equipped cars, the proportional contribution of these vehicles may be even higher than for pre-catalyst vehicles. Thus a substantial portion of motor vehicle related air pollution may be caused by vehicles not subject to the manufacturer directed provisions of the Clean Air Act. This paper presents a modeling effort based on hypotheses and some preliminary data, and suggests some alternatives to combat this potential problem.

An experimental program was conducted to characterize the gaseous and particulate emissions from a 1975 Peugeot 504D light duty diesel-powered vehicle. The vehicle was tested over the 1975 Federal Test Procedure, Highway Fuel Economy Test, and Sulfate Emissions Test driving cycles using four different fuels covering a fair range of composition, density, and sulfur content. In addition to fuel economy and regulated gaseous emission measurements of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, emission measurements were also obtained for non-regulated pollutants including sulfur dioxide, sulfates, aldehydes, benzo[a]pyrene, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, nonreactive hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. The results are discussed in terms of emission trends due to either fuel type or driving cycle influence.

This, the thirteenth in a series of papers on trends in EPA fuel economy, covers both passenger cars and light trucks and concentrates on the current model year, 1985. It differs from previous papers in two ways: 1) Model years 1975, 1980 and 1985 are highlighted, with the model years in between these rarely discussed; 2) The progress of the industry, as a whole, in improving fuel economy since 1975 is emphasized, and individual manufacturer data are de-emphasized. Conclusions are presented on the trends in fuel economy of the car and light truck fleets; the Domestic, European and Japanese market sectors; and various vehicle classes.

This, the fourteenth in this series of papers, examines trends in fuel economy, technology usage and estimated 0 to 60 MPH acceleration time for model year 1986 passenger cars. Comparisons with previous year's data are made for the fleet as a whole and using three measures of vehicle/engine size: number of cylinders, EPA car class, and inertia weight class. Emphasis on vehicle performance and fuel metering has been expanded and analysis of individual manufacturers has been deemphasized; comparisons of the Domestic, European, and Japanese market sectors are given increased emphasis.

Saturn Corporation and its suppliers are partnering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Design for the Environment (DfE) Program and the University of Tennessee (UT) Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies (CCPCT) in a project to develop a model for life-cycle management (LCM). This paper presents key findings from the first phase of the project, a survey by Saturn of its suppliers to determine their interests and needs for a supply chain LCM project, and identifies framework strategies for successful LCM.

Three alternatives to internal combustion vehicles currently being researched, developed, and commercialized are electric, hybrid electric, and fuel-cell vehicles. A total life-cycle inventory for an alternative vehicle must include factors such as the impacts of car body materials, tires, and paints. However, these issues are shared with gasoline-powered vehicles; the most significant difference between these vehicles is the power source. This paper focuses on the most distinct and challenging aspect of alternative-fuel vehicles, the power sources. The life-cycle impacts of battery systems for electric and hybrid vehicles are assessed. Less data is publicly available on the fuel cell; however, we offer a preliminary discussion of the environmental issues unique to fuel cells. For each of these alternative vehicles, a primary environmental hurdle is the consumption of materials specific to the power sources.