Page 1

Technical Information

University Test Study University test showing actual results in fuel savings and reductions in emissions for a fully-loaded 1999 heavy duty Freightliner Truck with a 14 L diesel engine.

Distributed By: Syntek Global Inc. 12382 South Gateway Park Place Suite B800 Draper, UT 84020 801-386-5007


Executive Summary The overall goal of this study was to test the possible fuel consumption and emissions benefits for using Xtreme Fuel Treatment Combustion Catalyst in the diesel fuel of a heavy duty diesel truck. Portable emissions measurement system equipment was used in performing the analysis. A base scenario was established (without Xtreme Fuel Treatment included) followed by three more tests during which Xtreme Fuel Treatment was applied to the fuel of the test truck. The test vehicle was a Freightliner truck with a 14 L diesel engine. The load (approximately 36,860 pounds) inserted into a 53 foot trailer. In addition to fuel consumption, emissions of pollutants of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM) were collected. Particulate matter was only collected during the first and the last (4th) runs. The truck followed a pre-determined route. Xtreme Fuel Treatment was added under supervision of the university staff. Emissions and fuel consumption data was collected on a second-by-second basis using two types of PEMS equipment that collects the other pollutants as well as fuel consumption). Data from the three runs were compared to that of the base case and the comparisons can be divided into the following two categories: •

Not-to-Exceed (NTE) events – the average emissions and fuel consumption rates were developed by looking at only the NTE events. These events produce an important basis for emissions comparisons because they represent instances where the engine is working the hardest and emissions typically are the greatest. Comparable data points – data was compared only if they were similar spatially (similar location), vehicle speed, acceleration rate, deceleration rate, and throttle position.

The following results were obtained from the analysis: • •

It was found that for all tests Xtreme Fuel Treatment resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption. Reductions of between 6 and 14 percent were observed for the various tests and the scenarios within the tests. In the case of NOx emissions only Test 2 resulted in increases (1% for the comparable data points). All the other results showed decreases in NOx emissions of between 7 and 20%. A possible explanation for the different result during Test 2 could be that the relative humidity and the temperature on this day was considerably lower than that of the other test days, which potentially resulted in biased NOx numbers even though the built-in correction factors were used. In the case of PM a 23% reduction was observed for the comparable data points based on a gram per second (g/s) emissions rate. If a gram per mile (g/mi) rate is used the reduction in PM is 17%. The reason for the difference is because idling skews the comparison between g/s and g/mi since no miles are accumulated during idling. Due to a malfunctioning of the unit during NTE events it was not possible to perform PM comparisons for NTE events.

University Test Study

1


Methodology Purpose The overall goal of this study was to test the possible fuel consumption and emissions benefits for using Xtreme Fuel Treatment combustion catalyst in the diesel of a heavy duty diesel truck. Portable emissions measurement system equipment was used in performing the analysis. A base scenario was established (without Xtreme Fuel Treatment included) followed by three more tests during which the product was applied.

Test Vehicle The test vehicle was a Class 8 heavy duty diesel vehicle which was a 370 horse power 1999 Freightliner truck with a 14 L diesel engine. Mileages of the truck at the beginning and the end of the tests were 894,512 and 900,452. Total of 5,940 miles were accumulated between the first and the last test. The load was simulated by using 21 water-filled median barriers inserted into a 53 foot trailer. Each barrier weighed approximately 1,755 pounds bringing the total weight of the load to approximately 36,860 pounds. This load is typical for long-haul applications and resulted in a total gross vehicle weight that was slightly below the maximum allowed. Figure 1 shows the test vehicle, flow meter installation, and load inside the trailer.

Figure 1. (a) Test vehicle with trailer (b) test vehicle installed with flowmeter (c) water-filled barriers inside trailer (a)

(b)

(c)

Test Route The test route was in the form of a loop that stretched from the university and back to the campus.

University Test Study

2


Figure 2. Test route Test Dates The base case (using regular diesel without Xtreme Fuel Treatment) was established on Tuesday, November 2006. The second, third and fourth runs (using Xtreme Fuel Treatment treated diesel) were conducted on subsequent Mondays of December 2006, respectively. Table 1 shows the test dates, temperatures, and relative humidity for those dates. It should be noted that the effect of temperature and humidity on the emissions was automatically adjusted by the PEMS software using the CFR40 1065.670 method. Table 1. Test dates, temperatures, and relative humidity. Test

Date

Temperature (째C)

Relative Humidity (%)

Test 1 (base)

11/06

20-26

50-80

Test 2

12/06

10-14

20-30

Test 3

12/06

17-22

60-85

Test 4

12/06

22-30

40-80

University Test Study

3


Test Equipment Gaseous emissions The unit used to measure gaseous emissions was the state-of-the-art manufactured by Sensors Inc. The unit includes a set of gas analyzers, an engine diagnostic scanner, a Global Position System (GPS), an exhaust flow meter, and embedded software. The gas analyzers measures the concentrations of NOx (nitric oxide, NO, and nitrogen dioxide, NO2), total hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (O2) in the vehicle exhaust. The engine scanner was connected to the vehicle engine control module (ECM) via a vehicle interface (VI) and provided vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), torque, and fuel flow, and used the Garmin International, Inc. GPS receiver model GPS 16 HVS to track the route, elevation, and ground speed of the vehicle on a second-by-second basis. The SEMTECH-DS uses the SEMTECH EFM electronic exhaust flow meter to measure the vehicle exhaust flow. Its post-processor application software uses this exhaust mass flow information to calculate exhaust mass emissions for all measured exhaust gases. The SEMTECH-DS uses embedded software, which controls the connection to external computers via a wireless or Ethernet connection to provide the real-time control of the instrument. A Panasonic Toughbook laptop was used to connect to the SEMTECHDS via Ethernet and to control the unit. Particulate matter The unit used to collect particulate matter was the OEM-2100 “Montana” system manufactured by Clean Air Technologies International, Inc. (CATI). The OEM-2100 system is comprised of a gas analyzer, a PM measurement system, an engine diagnostic scanner, a GPS, and an on-board computer. For this study only the PM measurement system was used. The PM measurement capability includes a laser light scattering detector and a sample conditioning system. The PM concentrations were converted to mass PM emissions using concentration rates produced by the CATI unit and the exhaust flow rates produced by the SEMETCH-DS unit. It should be noted that engine exhaust particles generally have 3 different size ranges; 3-30 nm, 30-500 nm, and > 500 nm (or, 0.5 μm). Most particles produced in a diesel engine have particle sizes of 0.5 μm or less (Kittelson et al., 2006). This size is comparable to the PM2.5 (2.5 μm or less) particle size as regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It should be known that, during the first test, the CATI unit showed some abnormal behaviors. PM concentrations dropped suddenly to near zero values during the runs while maintaining high engine performance (with high engine speeds and torques). These unreliable data were removed before conducting further analyses. Most of the occasions occurred during the NTE events, so that authors decided not to conduct any PM analysis during the NTE events due to lack of reliable data. Figure 3 shows photos of the two PEMS units used.

University Test Study

4


Figure 3. (a) SEMTECH-DS unit with connections (b) CATI unit (a)

University Test Study

(b)

5


Results NTE Events The first comparison involved an analysis of gaseous emissions and fuel consumption only during Not-to-Exceed (NTE) events. EPA introduced the in-use NTE testing program to close the gap between laboratory and real world heavy-duty diesel engines’ emission performance. As stated in the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 86, EPA’s NTE standards establish an area or zone under the torque curve of an engine where emissions must not exceed a specified value for any of the regulated pollutants. In this context, an NTE event is defined as an incident in which the engine is performing in its NTE zone for more than 30 seconds. At least 90 percent of the valid NTE sampling events must remain at or below the standards set by EPA. It should be noted that all NTE events are not equal. Even though a section of the trip was designated as an NTE event it does not mean that it is equal to another NTE event in terms of factors such as vehicle speed, engine speed, or torque. It could, therefore, not be expected that emission rates of the various NTE events should be the same. However, NTE events produce an important basis for emissions comparisons because they represent instances where the engine is working the hardest and emissions typically are the greatest. The emissions rates (g/s) averaged for the NTE events along with the fuel consumption rates (gal/s) averaged over the NTE events are shown Table 2 as ratios comparing to the base case (Test 1). It is shown in Table 2 that fuel consumption improved by 12, 14, and 12 percent for Tests 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In the case of NOx it shows decreases of 7, 20, and 15 percent for Tests 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For PM, as stated earlier, no analyses were conducted due to lack of reliable data. Table 2. Relative fuel consumption and emissions rates for NTE events Relative Emissions Rates

Test

Relative Fuel Consumption

CO2

CO

NOx

HC

Test 1 (base)

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

Test 2

88%

89%

80%

93%

96%

Test 3

86%

86%

79%

80%

86%

Test 4

88%

89%

80%

85%

94%

Average Tests 2-4 (%)

*13 %

**12 %

**20 %

**14 %

**8 %

PM 100 %

***

* Improvement ** Reduction *** Not estimated due to equipment problem The average emission rates as g/s and fuel economy as gal/s are also shown in Figure 4.

University Test Study

6


Figure 4. Gaseous emissions (g/s) and fuel economy (gal/s) CO2

CO 0.05

60 50

0.04

40

0.03

30

0.02

emission rate (g/s)

10 0

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

emission rate (g/s)

20

0.01 0.00

Test1

Test2

NOx 0.025

0.5

0.020

0.4

0.015

0.3

Test3

Test4

0.010

0.1

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

emission rate (g/s)

0.2

emission rate (g/s)

Test4

HC

0.6

0.0

Test3

0.005 0.000

Test1

Test2

fuel economy 0.005 0.004 0.003

gal/s

0.002 0.001 0.000

Test1

University Test Study

Test2

Test3

Test4

7


Comparable Data Points The second comparison involved emissions and fuel consumption with comparable data points. These points were established by considering data points that are spatially similar (within 200 meter), vehicle speeds (within 1 mph), acceleration rates (within 0.15 mph/s), engine speeds (within 50 rpm), and throttle position (within 5%). Using these criteria Tests 2 to 4 could be compared to the base case and comparable data points could be established. Tests 2, 3, and 4 produced 572, 472, and 390, seconds of comparable data, respectively. It should be noted that for this comparison data is compared to the base case and different sections of the trip were, therefore, used for the various tests. Comparisons between tests are, therefore, not advisable in this case. All selected individual second-by-second emission rates (g/s) for this comparison were summed, and divided by sum of the corresponding driven miles (mi) for the selected data points. Table 3 shows the percentage of change of these calculated overall emissions rates (g/mi) from the base case (Test 1). Also, overall fuel consumption rates (gal/mi), which are calculated by dividing the summation of individual fuel consumption rates (gal/s) for the selected data by total driven miles are shown in Table 3 as percent ratios. It is shown in this table that fuel consumption improved by 6, 9, and 10 percent for Tests 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In the case of NOx it shows an increase of 1 percent for Test 2 after which it showed decreases of 13 and 12 percent for Tests 3, and 4, respectively. In the case of PM a 23% reduction is observed for Test 4. This result is based on gram per second (g/s) emissions rate. If a gram per mile (g/mi) rate is used the reduction in PM is 17%. The reason for the difference is because idling skews the comparison between g/s and g/mi because no miles are accumulated during idling. Table 3. Relative fuel Consumption and emissions rates for comparable date points Relative Emissions Rates

Test

Relative Fuel Consumption

CO2

CO

NOx

HC

PM

Test 1 (base)

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

Test 2

94 %

94 %

84 %

101 %

105 %

Test 3

91 %

90 %

74 %

87 %

91 %

Test 4

90 %

91 %

74 %

88 %

95 %

77 %

Average Tests 2-4 (%)

*8 %

**8 %

**23%

**8%

**3 %

**23 %

* Improvement ** Reduction The results are also shown graphically in Figure 5.

University Test Study

8


Figure 5. Relative gaseous and PM emissions (% of base) and fuel economy (% of base) CO2

CO 120

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

NOx

relative emission rate (%)

relative emission rate (%)

120

120

Test2

Test3

Test4

HC 120

80

80

60

60

40

40

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

PM

relative emission rate (%)

relative emission rate (%)

20

20 0

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

University Test Study

Test2

Test3

Test4

relative fuel consumption (%)

relative emission rate (%)

120

Test1

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

fuel economy

120

0

Test1

100

100

0

0

0

Test1

Test2

Test3

Test4

9


Conclusions The overall goal of this study was to test the possible fuel consumption and emissions benefits for using Xtreme Fuel Treatment Combustion Catalyst in the diesel of a heavy duty diesel truck. Portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) equipment was used in performing the analysis. A base scenario was established followed by three more tests during which Xtreme Fuel Treatment was applied to the fuel tank and the test truck accumulated miles. Data from the three runs were compared to that of the base case and the comparisons can be divided into the following two categories: •

Not-to-Exceed (NTE) events – the average emissions and fuel consumption rates were developed by looking at only the NTE events. These events produce an important basis for emissions comparisons because they represent instances where the engine is working the hardest and emissions typically are the greatest. Comparable data points – data was compared only if they were similar spatially (similar location), vehicle speed, acceleration rate, deceleration rate, and throttle position.

The following results were obtained from the analysis: • •

It was found that for all tests Xtreme Fuel Treatment resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption. Reductions of between 6 and 14 percent were observed for the various tests and the scenarios within the tests. In the case of NOx emissions only Test 2 resulted in increases (1% for the comparable data points). All the other results showed decreases in NOx emissions of between 7 and 20%. A possible explanation for the different result during Test 2 could be that the relative humidity and the temperature on this day was considerably lower than that of the other test days, which potentially resulted in biased NOx numbers even though the built-in correction factors were used. In the case of PM a 23% reduction was observed for the comparable data points based on a gram per second (g/s) emissions rate. If a gram per mile (g/mi) rate is used the reduction in PM is 17%. The reason for the difference is because idling skews the comparison between g/s and g/mi since no miles are accumulated during idling. Due to a malfunctioning of the Montana unit during NTE events it was not possible to perform PM comparisons for NTE events.

University Test Study

10


The research team made every effort to ensure that the data collection occurred as consistently and accurately as possible. A study of this nature does, however, have certain limitations: • • • •

The relative humidity and temperatures were not consistent between the test days. Even though corrections factors were applied, results (especially, NOx) might still be slightly biased. Driving conditions differ from test to test due to factors such as weather conditions, congestion, and human nature. The equipment used to collect PM data is based on laser light scattering which is only a surrogate for true concentrations. Because of the equipment’s malfunctioning, some of collected PM data could not be considered for analysis (especially, during NTE events). This study used only 1 vehicle, which does not comply SAE J1321, the test procedure for fuel economy. Although fuel economy test can be performed with the SEMTECH-DS (Ensfield et al, 2006), two or more vehicles are needed to provide certified fuel economy report.

University Test Study

11


University test study  
Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you