Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 2 of 2
Technical Paper

The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 2: Comparisons of Fuel Consumption and Emissions for a Fuel/Water Emulsion and Conventional Diesel Fuels

2004-03-08
2004-01-0087
The Texas Department of Transportation began using an emulsified diesel fuel in 2002. They initiated a simultaneous study of the effectiveness of this fuel in comparison to 2D on-road diesel fuel and 2D off-road diesel. The study included comparisons of fuel economy and emissions for the emulsion, Lubrizol PuriNOx®, relative to conventional diesel fuels. Two engines and eight trucks, four single-axle dump trucks, and four tandem-axle dump trucks were tested. The equipment tested included both older mechanically-controlled diesels and newer electronically-controlled diesels. The two engines were tested over two different cycles that were developed specifically for this project. The dump trucks were tested using the “route” technique over one or the other of two chassis dynamometer cycles that were developed for this project In addition to fuel efficiency, emissions of NOx, PM, CO, and HCs were measured. Additionally, second-by-second results were obtained for NOx and HCs.
Technical Paper

The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 3: Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for an Emulsified Diesel Fuel for Highway Construction Equipment Fleets

2004-03-08
2004-01-0086
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) began using an emulsified diesel fuel as an emissions control measure in July 2002. They initiated a study of the effectiveness of this fuel in comparison to conventional diesel fuel for TxDOT's Houston District operations and included the fleet operated by the Associated General Contractors (AGC) in the Houston area. Cost-effectiveness analyses, including the incremental cost per ton of NOx removed, were performed. NOx removal was the focus of this study because Houston is an ozone nonattainment area, and NOx is believed to be the limiting factor in ozone formation in the Houston area. The cost factors accounted for in the cost-effectiveness analyses included the incremental cost of the fuel (including an available rebate from the State of Texas), the cost of refueling more often, implementation costs, productivity costs, maintenance costs, and various costs associated with the tendency of the emulsion to separate.
X