Search Results

This paper describes a method used to compare the emissions from transient operation of an engine with the emissions from steady state operating modes of the engine. Weightings were assigned to each mode based on the transient cycle under evaluation. The method of assigning the weightings for each mode took into account several factors, including the distance between each second of the transient cycle's speed-and-torque point requests (in a speed vs. torque coordinate system) and the given mode. Two transient cycles were chosen. The transient cycles were taken from actual in-use data collected on nonroad engines during in-field operation. The steady state modes selected were based on both International Standard Organization (ISO) test modes, as well as, augmentation based on contour plots of the emissions from nonroad diesel engines. Twenty-four (24) steady-state modes were used. The transient cycle's speed-and-torque points are used to weight each steady state mode in the method.

Six heavy-duty diesel engines were tested for exhaust emissions on the ISO 8-mode nonroad steady-state duty cycle and the U.S. FTP highway transient test cycle. Two of these engines were baseline nonroad engines, two were Tier 1 nonroad engines, and two were highway engines. One of the Tier 1 nonroad engines and both of the highway engines were also tested on three transient cycles developed for nonroad engines. In addition, published data were collected from an additional twenty diesel engines that were tested on the 8-mode as well as at least one transient test cycle. Data showed that HC and PM emissions from diesel engines are very sensitive to transient operation while NOx emissions are much less so. Although one of the nonroad transient duty cycles showed lower PM than the steady-state duty cycles, all four of the other cycles showed much higher PM emissions than the steady-state cycle.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated Phase I of a regulatory program to control exhaust emissions of nonroad diesel engines over 37 kW. Central to any emissions regulation is the test procedure, which must include an appropriate test cycle. Based on actual in-use speed and estimated torque data collected from an agricultural tractor, a backhoe-loader, and a crawler tractor, three duty cycles were developed. Using an iterative process, comparison of chi-square statistical data was used to identify representative microtrips, segments of engine operation gathered during performance of selected activities. Representative microtrips for specific activities for a particular nonroad application were “strung” together to make up a test cycle. Before accepting the test cycle, data for the cycle was compared to statistical data used to characterize the raw data in an effort to validate that the cycle was representative of the raw data.

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.

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.