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.

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), using urea injection, is being examined as a method for substantial reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for diesel engines, but the urea injection rates must be controlled to match the NOx production which may need to be predicted during open loop control. Unfortunately NOx is usually measured in the laboratory using a full-scale dilution tunnel and chemiluminescent analyzer, which cause delay and diffusion (in time) of the true manifold NOx concentration. Similarly, delay and diffusion of measurements of all emissions cause the task of creating instantaneous emissions models for vehicle simulations more difficult. Data were obtained to relate injections of carbon dioxide (CO2) into a tunnel with analyzer measurements. The analyzer response was found to match a gamma distribution of the input pulse, so that the analyzer output could be modeled from the tunnel CO2 input.

Gaseous and particulate emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are affected by fuel types, vehicle/engine parameters, driving characteristics, and environmental conditions. Transient chassis tests were conducted on twenty-six heavy-duty vehicles fueled with methanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), #1 diesel, and #2 diesel, using West Virginia University (WVU) Transportable Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing Laboratory. The vehicles were operated on the central business district (CBD) testing cycle, and regulated emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbon (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) were measured. Comparisons of regulated emissions results revealed that the vehicles powered on methanol and CNG produced much lower particulate emissions than the conventionally fueled vehicles.

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.

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.

Chassis based emissions characterization of heavy-duty vehicles has advanced over the last decade, but the understanding of the effect of test schedule on measured emissions is still poor. However, this is an important issue because the test schedule should closely mimic actual vehicle operation or vocation. A wide variety of test schedules was reviewed and these cycles were classified as cycles or routes and as geometric or realistic. With support from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Transportation Technologies (DOE/OTT), a GMC box truck with a Caterpillar 3116 engine and a Peterbilt over the road tractor-trailer with a Caterpillar 3406 engine were exercised through a large number of cycles and routes. Test weight for the GMC was 9,980 kg and for the Peterbilt was 19,050 kg. Emissions characterization was performed using a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer, with a full-scale dilution tunnel, analyzers for gaseous emissions, and filters for PM emissions.

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.