incidence of malfunctions and tampering and in-use ... for environmental research and technology. 2...

1

Incidence of Malfunctions and Tamperingand In-Use Emissions for

Heavy-Duty Diesel VehiclesCalifornia Air Resources Board

September 5, 2007

Presented By:

Tom Durbin

Kent Johnson, Wayne Miller, Theodore Younglove*, Matthew Smith*

University of California, RiversideBourns College of Engineering

Center for Environmental Research and Technology

2

Project Motivation

• On-going regulations expected to significantly reduce NOx and PM from new heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDVs) /on-road trucks

• For existing trucks California has an existing program but it monitors only smoke opacity– Heavy Duty Vehicle Inspection and Periodic Smoke Inspection

Program • CARB needs

– understand the incidence of malmaintenance and tampering in HDDVs)

– develop a program to control emissions from in-use HDDVs. • CARB has conducted several pilot studies in this area.

– In an earlier Measure 17 or M-17 program, 109 vehicles

3

Emissions Breakdown by Class of Truck

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

# Ve

hicl

es

Urban BusesSchool BusesHH Duty(T6) Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks(T5) Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 2(T4) Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 1(T3) Medium Duty Trucks(T2) Light Duty Trucks 2(T1) Light Duty Trucks 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Run

ning

Exh

aust

NO

x (to

ns/d

ay

Urban BusesSchool BusesHH Duty(T6) Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks(T5) Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 2(T4) Light-Heavy Duty Trucks 1(T3) Medium Duty Trucks(T2) Light Duty Trucks 2(T1) Light Duty Trucks 1

4

Emissions Breakdown by Model Year (Class 8)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cum

ulat

ive

NO

x Pe

rcen

t

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

5

Current Project

• Included several elements designed to better understand in-use emissions, malmaintenance, and tampering

• Review records of malmaintenance/tampering– Warrenty records, inspections, other surveys

• Testing of in-use HDDVs under on-road conditions in Stockton– 5 HDDVs tested with the CE-CERT Mobile Emissions

Laboratory (MEL)

6

Tampering and Malmaintenance Records

• Literature Review• Visual Inspections• Warranty Records• Independent repair shop records• Roadside survey • Electronic monitoring/downloads

7

Malfunction and Tampering Rates – 1994-1997Defect Radian EFEE

Injection Timing Advanced 5% 3%

Injection Timing Retarded 3% 3%

Minor Injector Problem 15% 20%

Moderate Injector Problem 10% 10%

Severe Injector Problem 4% 3%

Puff Limiter Mis-Set 0% 4%

Puff Limiter Disabled 0% 4%

Max Fuel High 3% 3%

Clogged Air Filter 8% 16%

Wrong/Worn Turbo 5% 8%

Intercooler Clogged 5% 5%

Other Air Problems 8% 8%

Mech. Failure 2% 2%

Excess Oil Consumption 5% 2%

Electronics Failed 5% 5%

Electronics Tampered 15% 10%

Catalytic Converter

Removed 0% 0%

EGR Stuck Open 40% 0%

EGR Disabled 0% 0%

8

Malfunction and Tampering Rates – EMFAC2007

9

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection Program• 5,210 records from 1998 to 2002• Inspectors pull over trucks expected to have problems

Database Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Number of Vehicles 890 1346 1361 1042 775

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Popu

latio

n Pe

rcen

t

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Model Year

RoadsidePopulationPercentClass8PopulationPercent

10

Roadside Inspection Results – 1998-2002 Roadside Inspection EMFAC Group Observation Percent

EGR 19 Pass 5.3%EGR Not Applicable 91.5%

Modified 0.4%Disconnected 1.4%

Missing 1.3%ACI 12 Pass 45.1%

Air Control Indicator Other Air Not Applicable 54.4%Modified 0.2%

Disconnected 0.0%Missing 0.3%

CMPTR 15 or 16 Pass 5.4%Computer Electronics Failed Not Applicable 93.9%

Electronics Tampered Modified 0.1%Disconnected 0.1%

Missing 0.5%PCV 12 Pass 97.0%

Other Air Not Applicable 0.0%Modified 0.7%


TAC 12 Pass 93.4%Thermostatic Air Cleaner Other Air Not Applicable 0.6%


Missing 4.8%AAIR 12 Pass 93.9%

Auxilary Air Other Air Not Applicable 1.0%Modified 0.5%


FUELINJ 3,4,5 Pass 93.1%Fuel Injection Not Applicable 6.4%


Missing 0.1%

11

Warranty Repair Data – 1993-1999 • Warrenty claims must be reported when > 1% or 25 engines/vehicles in

an engine family

Defect This study EFFE 1. Injection Timing Advanced <1% 3% 2. Injection Timing Retarded <1% 3% 3. Minor Injector Problem 1.7% 20% 4. Moderate Injector Problem 22.95% 10% 5. Severe Injector Problem <1% 3% 6. Puff Limiter Mis-Set NA 2% 7. Puff Limiter Disabled NA 4% 8. Max Fuel High <1% 3% 9. Clogged Air Filter <1% 16% 10 Wrong/Worn Turbo* 59.0% 8% 11 Intercooler Clogged <1% 5% 12 Other Air Problems <1% 8% 13 Mech. Failure 1.6% 2% 14 Excess Oil Consumption <1% 2% 15 Electronics Failed 64.5% 5% 16 Electronics Tampered <1% 10% 17 Catalytic Converter Removed NA 0% 18 EGR Stuck Open <1% 0% 19 EGR Disabled <1% 0% * 8% without 1997

12

Non-fleet Repair Facility Records • Results based on survey from a single repair facility

Defect Number This study

EFEE

1. Injection Timing Advanced 30 6% 3% 2. Injection Timing Retarded 20 4% 3% 3. Minor Injector Problem 80 16% 20% 4. Moderate Injector Problem 40 8% 10% 5. Severe Injector Problem 20 4% 3% 6. Puff Limiter Mis-Set 0% 4% 7. Puff limiter disabled 0% 8. Max Fuel High 10 2% 3% 9. Clogged Air Filter 20 4% 16% 10. Wrong/Worn Turbo 10 2% 8% 11. Intercooler Clogged 15 3% 5% 12. Other Air/fuel Problems 10 2% 8% 13. Mech. Failure/ 60 12% 2% 14. Excess oil consumption 70 14% 15. Electronics Failed 55 11% 5% 16. Electronics Tampered 10 2% 10% 17.Catalytic Converter Removed 5 1% 0% 18. EGR Stuck Open 0% 0% 19. EGR Disabled 0% 0%

13

Roadside Driver Survey• 58 HHDV drivers in 2002• Drivers asked if they had experienced any problems in past 12 months

Defect This study EFEE 1. Injection Timing Advanced 3% 2. Injection Timing Retarded 3% 3. Minor Injector Problem 7.8% 20% 4. Moderate Injector Problem 3.9% 10% 5. Severe Injector Problem 3.9% 3% 6. Puff Limiter Mis-Set 0% 4% 7. Induction problems 2.0% 8. Max Fuel High 3% 9. Clogged Air Filter 7.8% 16% 10. Wrong/Worn Turbo 3.9% 8% 11. Intercooler Clogged 3.9% 5% 12. Other Air/fuel Problems 7.8% 8% 13. Mech. Failure/ 2.0% 2% 14. Valve lash 3.9% 15. Electronics Failed 0% 5% 16. Electronics Tampered 10% 17.Catalytic Converter Removed 0% 18. EGR Stuck Open 0% 19. EGR Disabled 0% Throttle delay 2.0% Other 9.8%

14

Electronic Scan Tool Survey• Downloads of Engine ECM data• Can determine if engine reflashed to “non-standard” personality• 7 vehicles – 6 no changes – 1 reflashed to factory setting• Speed and RPM distributions

Percent Time by Speed

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0-4

10-14

20-24

30-34

40-44

50-54

60-64

70-74

Percent Time

15

Summary/Conclusions – Malmaintenance & Tampering

• Reviewed about 7,000 records• Warranty Repair (998) incident levels comparable to

EMFAC (except higher for fuel injectors, turbos, & electronics)

• Visual inspections (5,210) indicated visible tampering (<1%)• Roadside survey (78) malfunctions comparable to EMFAC• Repair facility (500) records – comparable to EMFAC

• Overall, decided that current EMFAC tampering/malmaintenance factors were adequate

16

In-use Emissions Testing

• Testing of 5 HDDVs near Stockton, CA– 1996-2004, various manufacturers

• Testing conducted using CE-CERT’s MEL• Varying operating conditions

– Highway cruise, lower speed cruise, surface streets, power lugs

17

Test Fleet

Year Engine Chassis Odometer(miles)

1996 Cummins M-11 Freightliner 337,024 2000 Caterpillar C-15 Freightliner 17,826 2002 Detroit Diesel Series 60 Freightliner 181,328 2003 Mack AC427 Mack 107,567 2004 Cummins ISM International 7,664

18

Test RouteFigure 1. Map of In-use Test Route

HDIML Laboratory

Segment 4

Segment 3

Segment 2

Segment 1

19

Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL)Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL)

20

Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL)Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL)SchematicSchematic

Diluted Exhaust: Temperature, Absolute Pressure, Throat ∆P, Flow.

Gas Sample Probe.

Secondary Dilution System* PM (size, Mass).

Drivers Aid.

CVS Turbine: 1000-4000 SCFM,Variable Dilution.

Gas Measurements: CO2 %,O2 %, CO ppm, NOx ppm, THC ppm, CH4 ppm. Other Sensor: Dew Point, Ambient Temperature, Control room temperature, Ambient Baro, Trailer Speed (rpm), CVS Inlet Temperature.

Engine Broadcast: Intake Temperature, Coolant Temperature, Boost Pressure, Baro Pressure, Vehicle Speed (mph), Engine Speed (rpm), Throttle Position, Load (% of rated).

Dilution Air: Temperature, Absolute Pressure, Throat ∆P,Baro (Ambient), Flow, Dew Point (Ambient).

Secondary Probe.

GPS: Pat, Long, Elevation, # Satellite Precision.

Exhaust: Temperature, ∆P (Exhaust-Ambient), Flow.

21

NOx Emissions

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

EMFAC B

ase

EMFAC 40

mph

EMFAC 60

mph

55Cru

ise99

40Cru

ise1

40NoC

ruise

40Cru

ise2

55NoC

ruise

55Cru

ise60

nocruise

60Cru

ise65

nocruise

65Cru

ise70

cruise

Hammer

Rd.PowerL

ug1PowerL

ug2N

Ox

Emis

sion

s (g

/mi)

1996 CUM/M112000 CAT/C152002 DDC/Series602003 Mack/AC4272004 CUM/ISM

SR-99 Freeway

Surface Streets

I-5 Freeway

Surface Streets

22

NOx Emissions – Fuel Specific

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

55Cru

ise99

40Cru

ise1

40NoC

ruise

40Cru

ise2

55NoC

ruise

55Cru

ise60

nocr

uise

60Cru

ise65

nocr

uise

65Cru

ise70

cruis

eHam

mer R

d.Power

Lug1

Power

Lug2

NO

x Em

issi

ons

(g/k

g fu

el)


SR-99 Freeway

Surface Streets

I-5 Freeway

Surface Streets

23

PM Emissions

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

EMFAC Base EMFAC 55mph

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd. 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd.

PM E

mis

sion

s (g

/mi)/

NO

x Em

issi

on (g

/(50*

mi)) 1996 CUM/M11

2000 CAT/C152002 DDC/Series602003 Mack/AC4272004 CUM/ISM

PM Emissions

NOx Emissions

24

PM Emissions – Fuel Specific

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

55Cruise99 Hammer Rd. 55Cruise99 Hammer Rd.

PM E

mis

sion

s (g

/kg

fuel

) or N

O x E

mis

sion

s (g

/(100

*kg

fuel

)) 1996 CUM/M112000 CAT/C152002 DDC/Series602003 Mack/AC4272003 Mack/AC427

NOx Emissions

PM Emissions

25

THC Emissions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

EMFAC B

ase

EMFAC 40

mph

EMFAC 60

mph

55Cru

ise99

40Cru

ise1

40NoC

ruise

40Cru

ise2

55NoC

ruise

55Cru

ise60

nocr

uise

60Cru

ise65

nocr

uise

65Cru

ise70

cruis

eHam

mer R

d.Pow

erLu

g1Pow

erLu

g2TH

C E

mis

sion

s (g

/mi)


SR-99 Freeway Surface Streets

I-5 Freeway

Surface Streets

26

CO Emissions

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

EMFAC B

ase

EMFAC 40

mph

EMFAC 60

mph

55Cru

ise99

40Cru

ise1

40NoC

ruise

40Cru

ise2

55NoC

ruise

55Cru

ise60

nocr

uise

60Cru

ise65

nocr

uise

65Cru

ise70

cruis

eHam

mer R

d.Pow

erLu

g1Pow

erLu

g2C

O E

mis

sion

s (g

/mi)


SR-99 Freeway

Surface Streets I-5 Freeway

Surface Streets

27

Real-Time Emissions from MEL

1996 Cummins M11 Run #1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Time (sec)

Velo

city

(mph

)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Emis

sion

s (g

/sec

)

Speed mphNOx g/secTHC g/sec x 100CO g/sec

28

Summary/Conclusions from Emissions Testing• Overall

– Depend on pollutant, vehicle, and driving condition– Real-time emissions: transient /depend on engine operation

• NOx– Some vehicles higher NOx for higher speeds (≥55 mph vs. 40 mph/surface

street) while others did not – The oldest vehicle, 1996 truck, had the highest emissions for nearly all

types of driving • PM

– Surface street driving: oldest vehicle had highest PM emissions – Highway driving: 2 newest vehicles had the highest PM emissions – Some vehicles had higher PM emissions on the surface streets vs. highway– For newer vehicles on highway there appeared to be a NOx/PM tradeoff

• THC– THC emissions generally higher for surface streets and 40 mph cruise

compared to highway driving• CO

– CO generally higher on surface streets vs. highway– CO emissions under steady state generally low (1 -3 g/mi)

incidence of malfunctions and tampering and in-use ... for environmental research and technology. 2...

Documents