SAE Technical Paper Series 2002
DOI: 10.4271/2002-01-1722
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diesel and CNG Heavy-duty Transit Bus Emissions over Multiple Driving Schedules: Regulated Pollutants and Project Overview

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
64
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
6
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…7), which is in accordance with Ekström et al (2005). Possible reasons for this variability may be vehicle maintenance and variations in the CNG composition (Shorter et al, 2005;Ayala et al, 2002). The EF for NO x ranged from 4 to 21 g km −1 depending on Euro class, which is in good agreement with reported values for HDVs and buses in the literature (Table 5).…”
Section: Comparison Of Ef Part and Ef Gas (No X Hc And Co)supporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7), which is in accordance with Ekström et al (2005). Possible reasons for this variability may be vehicle maintenance and variations in the CNG composition (Shorter et al, 2005;Ayala et al, 2002). The EF for NO x ranged from 4 to 21 g km −1 depending on Euro class, which is in good agreement with reported values for HDVs and buses in the literature (Table 5).…”
Section: Comparison Of Ef Part and Ef Gas (No X Hc And Co)supporting
confidence: 83%
“…The average EF CO for the diesel buses with DPF tested in this study, when assigning values below 6 (1 times the std of the noise) to 6 g (kg fuel) −1 , were 11 g (kg fuel) −1 (10 buses in total). For the buses without DPF the average EF CO was 14 g (kg fuel) −1 (18 buses in total); hence DPF is not only reducing particles but CO as well, as reported in Ayala et al (2002) and Lanni et al (2001). For the tested buses, DPF had no statistical significant effect on the amount of NO x emitted, which also is in agreement with results reported by Ayala et al (2002).…”
Section: Comparison Of Ef Part and Ef Gas (No X Hc And Co)supporting
confidence: 65%
“…Vehicle emission testing took place at the CARB Heavy-Duty Emissions Testing Laboratory (HDETL) in Los Angeles, CA (Ayala et al, 2002;Herner et al, 2009). The laboratory was equipped with a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer (SchenckPegasus) driven by a direct-current 675-hp motor that can absorb up to 660 hp.…”
Section: Vehicles Information and Sampling Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sampling train included heavy-duty dynamometer chassis, constant volume sampling (CVS) dilution tunnel, and aerosol samplers. Details about this facility and its operation are described elsewhere (Ayala et al, 2002). With the exception of the "baseline" vehicle (not equipped with any catalytic converter) the other 2 tested heavy duty diesel trucks, a Vanadium-based SCRT vehicle and a Zeolitebased SCRT truck, were equipped with advanced emission SCRT is an integrated system of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and continuously regenerating trap (CRT) designed to reduce both PM and NOx emissions.…”
Section: Motor-vehicle Emissions Sampling -The Carb Dynamometer Facilitymentioning
confidence: 99%