Search Results

Heavy-duty trucks are an important sector to evaluate when seeking fuel consumption savings and emissions reductions. With fuel costs on the rise and emissions regulations becoming stringent, vehicle manufacturers find themselves spending large amounts of capital improving their products in order to be compliant with regulations. The Powertrain System Analysis Toolkits (PSAT), developed by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), is a simulation tool that helps mitigate costs associated with research and automotive system design. While PSAT has been widely used to predict the fuel consumption and exhaust emissions of conventional and hybrid light-duty vehicles, it also may be employed to test heavy-duty vehicles. The intent of this study was to develop an accurate model that predicts emissions and fuel economy for heavy-duty vehicles for use within PSAT.

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.

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).

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.