Search Results

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.

Hybrid-electric transit buses offer benefits over conventional transit buses of comparable capacity. These benefits include reduced fuel consumption, reduced emissions and the utilization of smaller engines. Factors allowing for these benefits are the use of regenerative braking and reductions in engine transient operation through sophisticated power management systems. However, characterization of emissions from these buses represents new territory: the whole vehicle must be tested to estimate real world tailpipe emissions levels and fuel economy. The West Virginia University Transportable Heavy Duty Emissions Testing Laboratories were used to characterize emissions from diesel hybrid-electric powered as well as diesel and natural gas powered transit buses in Boston, MA and New York City.

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.