# S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E ®

6220 CULEBRA ROAD • POST OFFICE DRAWER 28510 • SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78228-0510, USA • WWW.SWRI.ORG



# 1 December 12, 2009

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes

Program E-87-2

Catalyst Durability with Ethanol Blends

DATE OF MEETING: 11/05/09

LOCATION: Southwest Research Institute (SwRI  

# )

MEETING RECORDER: Brent Shoffner, SwRI bshoffner@swri.org

I. INTRODUCTION

Martin Heimrich of Southwest Research Institute (Sw RI) called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.

The list of personnel attending the meeting at SwRI is included in Attachment A. Several people,

also listed in Attachment A, participated in the me eting via a telephone conference call. The

agenda is included as Attachment B. The electronic files of the presentations given during the

meeting, as listed in Table 1, have been uploaded t o the dedicated password protected ftp site

established for this program or are included in the attachments.

Table 1 - List of Presentations

Reference

Number File Name Presenter Location for

Reference

1 020 Oak Ridge Project E-87-2 Emissions

20091105.ppt Martin

Heimrich ftp site

2 Oak Ridge Project E-87-2 Fleet Lab 0901105.ppt Br ent Shoffner ftp site

3 040 Veh_Selection_2009_11_03_bw.ppt Brian West ft p site

4 050 E87 Orban - November 5 2009 Final.pptx John O rban ftp site

5 e87 ranking.ppt Brian West Attachment E

II. REPORTS

A. Light Duty Vehicle Emissions Laboratory Report – Ma rtin Heimrich

Martin Heimrich gave the presentation entitled “ Vehicle Emissions and WOT Testing Overview ”

noted as reference #1 in the Introduction, Section I. This presentation consisted of background

information regarding the emissions tests conducted for the E-87-2 program.

# 2

B. Automotive Fleet Laboratory Report – Brent Shoffner

The presentation entitled “ Automotive Fleet Laboratory Vehicles, Fuel, & Milea ge

Accumulation ” is noted as reference #2 in Table 1. The presenta tion consisted of a review of the

vehicle naming convention, the current status of mi leage accumulation, progress of vehicle

procurement, and test fuel status.

The group discussions centered on the availability of the RE0 mileage accumulation fuel for the

life of the program. At some time in the near futu re, most fuel terminals in the U.S. will only

offer E10, not E0. The current terminal used to pro cure E0 for the program will have E0

available until the end of 2009 and probably until mid-January. Another terminal in Louisiana

will have E0 available through the 1Q 2010. After that time SwRI will search for terminals

(potentially in the mountain western states) to pur chase RE0, which would be used for blending

RE15 and RE20. Fuel available in higher altitude ar eas could potentially have octane ratings

lower than 87.

As the distance (and freight cost) becomes greater the RE0 could be used only for the RE0

mileage accumulation and locally available RE10 wou ld be used for the RE15 and RE20 blends.

Unfortunately this option would add another degree of freedom into the program. Using E0

“BOB” fuel, which is formulated to mix with ethanol for E10, is a complicated issue and should

be avoided if at all possible in the program

The following are action items that resulted from t he discussion:

Action Item 1: Get a per-mile estimate of the fuel transportation cost for procuring E0 fuel from

terminals at greater distances from SwRI than the c urrent local terminal.

Brent Shoffner

An approximate range is $2.00 - $2.50 per mile for a tanker truck with 7,500 gallons of fuel.

Action Item 2: Determine the term of the project fu el storage. As an example: How much time

do we have to identify a new E0 fuel supplier, shou ld the existing supplier no longer offer E0

fuel?

Brent Shoffner

In the worst case the fuel in storage would be appr oximately 8,000 gallons less than the total

capacity. After a tanker truck had been ordered, E 10 was not available at the terminal. In this

worst case scenario there would be about 80 days of fuel remaining assuming 9 vehicles

averaging 850 miles per day and 25 mpg.

The fuel sulfur level of the mileage accumulation f uel was discussed. The question was asked,

“Should there be an alarm if the sulfur level is fo und to be above a given level?”

Coleman Jones suggested a guideline for sulfur base d on the project history.

Action Item3: Analyze the sulfur concentration meas ured from fuel samples taken from the

tanker trucks, which delivered E0 fuel for the prog ram.

Brent Shoffner

Please refer to Table 2.

# 3 Table 2 – Sulfur Concentration of E0 Fuel Delivered by Tanker Trucks

Sample

Number Sulfur Concentration

(PPM)

1 39.7

2 51.1

3 48.4

4 47.8

5 52.3

6 62.2

7 52.3

8 50.1

9 43.6

10 49.1

11 41.9

12 56.9

13 56.1

Average 50.1

Maximum 56.9

Standard

Deviation 6.23

C. Vehicle Selection – Brian West

The presentation entitled “ Non-Tier 2 Vehicles for V4 / E-87-2 ” is noted as reference #3 in Table

1. Brian presented a program time table (shown in Attachment C) and proposed a “way

forward” for the selection of non-tier 2 vehicles, which is included in Attachment D. The vehicle

table lists the planned vehicles and candidate vehi cles sorted by manufacturer. The

recommended non-tier 2 vehicles are matched with th e comparable tier 2 counterpart already

identified for the program. The vehicle manufactur ers in the table represent approximately 87%

of the vehicle population.

It was noted that the original vehicle proposal was to test the most severe vehicles from the E-87-

1 program. The purpose of the E-87-1 program was to develop test methodology and evaluate

vehicle makes/models for potential vehicle sensitiv ity to catalyst degradation with intermediate

ethanol blends. It was stated that the objective of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is

to evaluate a representative vehicle population. E PA will not consider “low volume” vehicles

(e.g., <~100K vehicles/engines per year). The E-87- 1 vehicle ranking was reviewed and that

table is given in Attachment E.

CRC agreed to fund the purchase of the three 2006 N issan Quest and three 2002 Nissan Frontier

vehicles. It was stated that the two Chevrolet non -tier 2 vehicle groups (2000 Chevrolet

Silverado and 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier) are probably not sensitive to intermediate ethanol

blends, with regards to catalyst deterioration.

# 4

It was recommended that the similar make/model tier 2 and non-tier 2 vehicles be tested in the

same laboratory. It might also be advantageous to retest a few vehicle groups at the end of the

program for replicate results.

The meeting participants came to the following cons ensus:

Consensus 1

Accept the non-tier 2 vehicles (in Attachment D)

The following non-tier 2 vehicles (from the “Green list vehicles”) will be tested at SwRI in the

order noted below:

2002 Nissan Frontier

2000 Ford Focus

2002 Dodge Durango

2000 Honda Accord

2003 Toyota Camry (contingent on funding and sched ule; this vehicle will likely be tested at

TRC to maintain schedule)

D. Emissions Results – John Orban

The presentation entitled “Accord and Silverado Preliminary Test Results and Statistical

Modeling Approach” is noted as reference #4 in Table 1. The presentat ion included a

description of the statistical modeling approach an d a summary of the final emissions results

from the Chevrolet Silverado and Honda Accord vehic les. The following emissions FTP-75

composite results are shown in graphs, which are in cluded in Attachment F.

Carbon Monoxide

Oxides of Nitrogen

Non-methane Hydrocarbons

Fuel Economy

The PowerPoint® presentation includes additional em issions results.

III. DISCUSSIONS

Brian West stated that another laboratory had issue s with the Jeep Liberty vehicles’ fuel adaption

following fuel change, preps, and FTP tests. FTP-7 5 E0 tests that followed E20 WOTs and E0

fuel prep differed from the FTP E0 test results tha t followed 4k mileage accumulation on RE0.

The decision was made to incorporate a lengthy proc edure, which included disconnecting the

battery and re-learning trim values (but only after completing duplicate emissions tests in the

“abnormal” state). In summary, re-adapting to gaso line appeared to be a real concern for the

Jeep Liberty.

# 5

Marty Heimrich stated that the fuel changes at SwRI have been thorough and there has been little

or no evidence of ethanol in the E0 emissions data. SwRI also added a flush on suspect vehicles

to improve flush effectiveness.

To improve the strength of the statistics and quali ty of the data set, the following action item was

proposed:

Action Item:

Conduct a third emissions test when the variation o f the first two tests exceeds a repeatability

threshold.

Martin Heimrich

It was stated that a fuel terminal in Big Springs, TX (west of Dallas) might not be converting to

E10 and it could possibly be a source of E0 for the project.

The meeting adjourned at 2:00 PM.

# Attachment A

List of Meeting Attendees

# Attendance List

Name Company In

Attendance By

Telephone

Brian West ORNL X

Chris Tennant CRC X

Coleman Jones GM X

Mike Viola GM X

Ken Wright Conoco Phillips X

Marie Valentine Toyota X

Brent Bailey CRC X

King Eng Shell Global Solutions X

Keith Knoll NREL X

Charlie Schleyer Exxon X

James Uihlein Chevron X

John Orban Battelle X

Ken Kimura BP X

Andy Mabutol Mitsubishi X

Dominic DiCicco Ford X

Connie Hart EPA X

Tony Fernandez EPA X

David Lax API X

Martin Heimrich SwRI X

Brent Shoffner SwRI X

Don Hart SwRI X

Michael Lochte SwRI X

Ryan Hecox SwRI X

Terry Westrum SwRI X

# Attachment B

Meeting Agenda

# V4/E-87-2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory/ CRC Projec t Meeting

Agenda

November 5, 2009

Engine, Emissions, & Vehicle Research Division

Southwest Research Institute

6220 Culebra Road

San Antonio, TX 78238-5165

Project Engineer/Host:

Martin J. Heimrich

Emissions Research and

Development

Department

Phone: (210) 522-3022

FAX: (210) 522-3950

Email:

mheimrich@swri.org Directors:

Jeff J. White 

# Michael D. Lochte

Emissions Research and 

# Fuels and Lubricants

Development Department 

# Research

Phone: (210) 522-2649 

# Phone: (210) 522-5430

FAX: (210) 522-3950 

# FAX: (210) 684-7523

Email: jjwhite@swri.org 

# Email:

michael.lochte@swri.org Division Vice President:

Bruce Bykowski

Phone: (210) 522-2937

Fax: (210) 522-3950

Email: bbykowski@swri.org

Visiting Client Staff: Brian West, ORNL James Uihlein, Chevron Brent Bailey, CRC

Chris Tennant, CRC Keith Knoll, NREL

Coleman Jones, GM Marie Valentine, Toyota

David Lax, API (by phone) King Eng, Shell Glo bal Solutions

John E. Orban, Battelle Ken Wright, Conoco Ph illips

Charlie Schleyer, Exxon (by phone) Jeff Jetter, Honda



# Purpose of Visit: V4/E-87-2 Project Review Meeting



# Bldg. 87, Main Conference Room – November 5, 2009, from 8 am to 5 pm



# TENTATIVE AGENDA

Thursday, November 5, 2009

8:30 -9:00 Arrivals & Introductions ..............

................................................... ................................................... ....... All

9:00 Opening Remarks ............................ ....................................... Brian West, Marty Heimrich, Brent Shoffner

Emissions Test Plan Review .....................

................................................... ......................... Marty Heimrich

Fleet Test Data Overview .......................

................................................... ............................. Brent Shoffner

V4/E-87-2 Program Vehicle Selection .............

................................................... ......................... Brian West

FTP Emissions Test Data Overview ...............

................................................... ................... Marty Heimrich

Data and Statistical Interpretation..............

................................................... ................................ John Orban

Alcohols and Aldehydes Measurements ............

................................................... .................. Patrick Merritt

11:30 Lunch at SwRI Cafeteria ...................

................................................... ................................................... . All

1:00 Discussions ................................

................................................... ................................................... ......... All

2:00 Adjourn ....................................

................................................... ................................................... ........... All

cc/ B Bykowski, D Barranco, L Cruz, J White, T Davi son, C Sharp, K Whitney, S Sampson, E Krueger, K Ec htle,

S Tondre, D Reeh, L Grant, B Shoffner , K Brunner, M Lochte, Patrick Merritt.

# Attachment C

Projected Time TableOak Ridge Project E-87-2 Time TableCRC-DOE confidential–Do not Cite7ScheduleFacility # vehNe w/Used Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma r Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepOct4 2007 Accord Used 35k 85k 120k- - - -10b*42006SilveradoUsed27k77k120k4 2008 Altima Used 20k 70k 120k42008TaurusUsed17k67k120k42007CaravanUsed45k95k120k32006CobaltUsed50k95k120k32006QuestUsed50k95k1 20k3 2007 Caliber Used50k 95k 120 k3 2009 Civic New4k 60k 120k32009ExplorerNew4k60k120k3 2009 Corolla New4k 60k 120k32009LibertyNew4k60k120k3 2005 Tundra Used50k 95k 1 20k32006ImpalaUsed35k95k120 k3 2005 F150 Used50k 95k 120 k22009Outlo okNew4k60k90k120k22009CamryNew4k60k90k120k22009FocusNew4k60k90k120k2 2009 Odyssey New4k 60k 90k 120k20102009ETC(5000 ftEl.)TRCYea r and ModelSWRI•Non-Tier 2 vehicles to start in Spring 2010 at SwRIand TRC•Priority on finishing Tier 2 vehicles per EPA/DOE•Non-Tier 2 vehicles could finish late 2010, early 2011

# Attachment D

Vehicle SelectionCRC-DOE confidential–Do not Cite3Proposed path forward: 19 Tier 2, 8 “pre-2004”Non-Tier 2 picks from same mfrs is most defensiblemixRegistration database, E-87-1 “Top Ten,” and V1 screening considered in selectionsYear Make Model Eng ine site Year M ake Model Engine Cert2006 Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L V8 SwRI2000 Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L V8 T 1 or LEV2006 Chevrolet Impala 3.9L V6 TRC2009 Saturn Outlook 3.6L V6 ETC2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2L I4 SwRI2003 Chevrolet Cavalier 2.2L I4 LEV? (Ion)2008 Ford Taurus 3.5L V6 SwRI2003 Ford Taurus 3.0L V6 LEV o r T2B8?2009 Ford Explorer 4.0L V6 TRC2009 Ford Focus 2.0L I4 ETC2000 Ford Focus 2.0L I4 LEV2005 Ford F150 5.4L V8 TRC2007 Dodge Caravan 3.3L V6 SwRI2007 Dodge Caliber 2.4L I4 SwRI2009 Jeep Liberty 3.7L V6 TRC2002 Dodge Durango 4.7L V8 T 1, LEV, or ULEV2005 Toyota Tundra 4.0L V6 TRC2009 Toyota Corolla 1.8L I4 TRC2009 Toyota Camry 2.4L I4 ETC2003 T oyota Camry 2.4L I4 ULEV2007 Honda Accord 2.4L I4 SwRI2000 Honda Accord 2.3L I4 LEV, ULEV, SLEV2009 Honda Civic 1.8L I4 TRC2009 Honda Odyssey 3.5L V6 ETC2008 Nissan Altima 2.5L I4 SwRI2002 Nissan Frontier 2.4L I4LEV2006 Nissan Quest 3.5L V6 SwRIHon daNissannon-Tier 2T ier 2G MFordChryslerToyotaBlack Te xt: Under TestRed Text: Planned / in acquisitionGreen T ext: This Proposal2.0L I4

# Attachment E

E-87-1 

# Results – Vehicle RankingCRC # VehicleLFT @WOTAve rageLa mbda E20Power toWeightRatioAver age E20Catalyst InletTem peratur eDeltaLam bda E0 -E20Delta Catalyst InletTem peratur e E0-E2 0 Final6 2 002 Nissan Fron tier No 1 1 1 5 2 3 2 27 20 01 Hy und ai Accen t No 13 5 1 6 11 3 62 5 2 001 Ma zda 626 No 23 7 2 7 1 4 01 8 20 00 For d Focu s No 3 15 1 0 984 52 3 20 06 Nis san Que st No 5 23 9 174 53 19 99 Fo rd C rown Vic tor ia No 9 16 1 4 424 52 4 20 01 Vo lkswag en Jetta Yes 6 2 6 16 15 4 51 20 01 Ch evr olet Tr acke r No 10 8 5 1394 52 0 2 002 Dod ge Dura ngo 4WD No 2 14 1 9 5125 22 220 00 Hond a Acco rd LXNo 14 12 1 8 8 5 5 71 9 20 03 Fo rd Tau ru s Yes 12 10 8 17 10 5 71 4 20 06 Chevr olet Coba lt No 4 18 3 10 22 5 75 200 3 Niss an Altim a No 20 20 4 11 4 5 91 2200 7 Ch rysler Jee pRu bicon No 7 19 7 3235 91 11 995 Hon da C ivicNo 21 9 2 0 12 6 6 82 200 1 Ch evro let M etr o ? 16 3 2 5 14 13 7 191 999 Mits ubish i Mira geYes 11 6 2 2 18 20 7 74 2 001 Chry sler PT Cr uiser ? 24 11 1 7 15 17 8 41 020 01 Mitsu bishi M on teroSp ort 4WD Yes 19 4 1 3 24248 48 20 04 BM W 33 0i Yes 8 25 1 1 22 18 8 41 7 20 07 For d Focu s ? 17 17 1 2 23168 51 5200 6 Ch evro let Silver ad o,Ext end ed Cab Yes 15 24 1 6 20219 62 1 20 00 To yota Sie nna Yes 22 13 2 4 19 19 9 71 62 002 Che vrole t Sub urb an,4W D Yes 18 21 2 3 21149 71 320 03 Vo lkswag en JettaNA 25 22 2 1 25 25 11 8Revised E-87-1 (Screening Study) Vehicle RankingCRC Picks:Non-Tier 2CRC Pick:Tier 2Cha rt b ase d o n Ta ble 20, “C RC E- 87- 1 Fin al Ra nk Or de r Re sult s “ fro m the E-8 7- 1 Fina l Re por t, with theReg istr at io n C rite ria dr op pe d

# Attachment F

Summary of Honda Accord and Chevrolet Silverado

Emissions Test Results3Silverado Accord0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20**C O** **( g** **/ m** **i )** **Composite CO**E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORCS00 ORCS10ORCS15 ORCS20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.40**C O** **( g** **/ m** **i )** **Composite CO**E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORHA0 ORHA10BORHA15 ORHA20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicleEthanol effect (negative) with Accords (no LFT at WOT)4Silverado Accord0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.060**N O** **x (** **g /** **m i** **) Composite NOx** E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORCS00 ORCS10ORCS15 ORCS20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.035**N O** **x (** **g /** **m i** **) Composite NOx** E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORHA0 ORHA10BORHA15 ORHA20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle5Silverado Accord0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.07**N M** **H C** **( g** **/ m** **i )** **Composite NMHC**E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORHA0 ORHA10BORHA15 ORHA20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.08**N M** **H C** **( g** **/ m** **i )** **Composite NMHC**E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORCS00 ORCS10ORCS15 ORCS20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicleEthanol effect (negative) with Accords (no LFT at WOT)7Silverado Accord24.525.025.526.026.527.027.528.0**F u** **e l** **E c** **o n** **o m** **y (** **m i** **/ g** **a l** **) Composite Fuel Economy** E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORHA0 ORHA10BORHA15 ORHA20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle14.515.015.516.016.517.017.5**F u** **e l** **E c** **o n** **o m** **y (** **m i** **/ g** **a l** **) Composite Fuel Economy** E0E10E15E200 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FULRE0 RE10RE15 RE20ORCS00 ORCS10ORCS15 ORCS20Test FuelTest MilesRoad FuelVehicle~7% Reduction in Fuel Economy with E20