Differences between emissions measured in urban driving and certification testing of heavy-duty diesel engines

Abstract

Emissions from eight heavy-duty diesel trucks (HDDTs) equipped with three different exhaust aftertreatment systems (ATS) for controlling nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions were quantified on a chassis dynamometer using driving schedules representative of stop-and-go and free-flow driving in metropolitan areas. The three control technologies were: 1) cooled exhaust gas recirculation (CEGR) plus a diesel particulate filter (DPF); 2) CEGR and DPF plus advanced engine controls; and 3) CEGR and DPF plus selective catalytic reduction with ammonia (SCR). Results for all control technologies and driving conditions showed PM emission factors were less than the standard, while selected non-regulated emissions (ammonia, carbonyls, and C4–C12 hydrocarbons) and a greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide) were at measurement detection limits. However, NOx emission factors depended on the control technology, engine calibration, and driving mode. For example, emissions from engines with cooled-exhaust gas recirculation (CEGR) were 239% higher for stop-and-go driving as compared with free-flow. For CEGR plus selective catalytic reduction (SCR), the ratio was 450%. A deeper analysis was carried out with the assumption that emissions measured for a drive cycle on either the chassis or in-use driving would be similar. Applying the same NTE rules to the chassis data showed emissions during stop-and-go driving often exceeded the certification standard and >90% of the driving did not fall within the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) control area suggesting the NTE requirements do not provide sufficient emissions control under in-use conditions. On-road measurement of emissions using the same mobile lab while the vehicle followed a free-flow driving schedule verified the chassis results. These results have implications for scientists who build inventories using certification values instead of real world emission values and for metropolitan populations, who are exposed to elevated emissions. The differences in values between real world emissions and certification cycles should be narrowed. For example, one might use a different mix of cold and hot start testing to greater emphasize low temperature/load operation, a separate cycle to specifically characterize low-load operation, or broaden the in-use compliance testing requirements and associated conformity factors to incorporate a wider envelope of vehicle operation, especially at low load conditions. .