-17-

VIII, References

1. Moving America to Methanol, Gray, C. L., Jr. and J.
Alson, Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1985.

2. "Carbon Monoxide and Non-FTP Ambient Temperature,"
Bruetsch, R. 1., EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/81-7, February 1981.

3. “Evaluation of a Resistively Heated Conduct ive
Ceramic Fiber Diese! Particulate Filter," Bruetsch, R. 1.,

EPA/AA/CTAB/87-04, June 1987.

4. Volkswagen Service Manual: --.Rabbit/Sclrocco/Jetta
1980-82, Library of Congress Catalog Card. No. 82-70737, Robert
Bentley, Inc., 1987.

5. Evaluation of an_ Electrically  Heatable Metal
Monolith Catalytic Converter, Memorandum, Blair, DO. M., EPA,
CTAB, September 1987.

6. 1975 Federal Test Procedure, Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 86, Appendix ta), Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule. . .

: 7. Quick Light Catalyst Test Plan, Memorandum,
Bruetsch, R. !., and J. D. Murrell, EPA, CTAB, March 1987.

8. "Low Mileage Catalyst Evaluation With a Methanol -
Fueled Rabbit - Second Interim Report," Wagner, R. and L.
Landman, EPA-AA-CTAB-84/03, June 1984. .

9. Evaluation of Catalyst for Methanol-Fueled Vehicles
Using a Volkswagen Rabbit Test Vehicle, ASME Joint Conference
on the Introduction and Development of Methanol as an
Automotive Fuel, Columbus, OH, June 1986.

10. "Catalysts for Methanol Vehicles," Piotrowski, G.
K., and J. D. Murrell, SAE Paper 872052, International Fuels
and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, Toronto, Ontario,
November, 1987.

11. Letter from Richard Cornelison, Camet, Hiram, OH to
Jonathon Adler, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI, June 16, 1987. :

12. Formaldehyde Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust at MVEL,
Gilkey, R. L., OAR, OMS, EOD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.

13. Exhaust. temperature data recordings made during
vehicle testing of an M100 VW Rabbit with and without a
resistive start catalyst, Bulifant, E. and R. Moss, U.S. EPA,
Test and Evaluation Branch, October 1987 through January 1988.


DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 880192 i} 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:18:08 DEC 1, 1987

MFR. ALT, ~ TEST TYPE --------/

MFR, REP. RUN, RETEST H.P. PARTIC~ REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ecto)
CQOE VEHICLE 1.0. . VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE acHe METH ULATES CONFIRMATION d------ TEST PROCEDURE --~---/
590 VWFBO1798V183756 0 N N CVS 75-LATER

CURB ORV AXLE AXLE I--> TGNITION TiMtne sock rotten & CO nnn nm nns TOLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE a GEAR IOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PeRroo ACTUAL ADJUSTED
44-24-87 EMPTY 0.0
/-------~ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS -----~ ‘

BARO WET | AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALOEHYDES RGE
29.05 59.0 75.7 F 36.1 49.13 0.8916 27c
(-7-----~" DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE oDGMETEA SYSTEM

TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP Pst (MI) MILES
11-25-87 12 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17367.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.558 MILES 5.726 KM 6296. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 3145.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 17.462
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS “AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE merens CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. ous GMS/KM Mai} wages CODE
HC-FID 16 51.4 153.81 16 1 3.90 150.14 PPM m4 2.167 1.347 a] 14,
NOX-CHEM 7 22 A 56.70 V7 o. 1s oO. 55.99 PPM 6.50 2.390 1,485 uPG KeL Ls 10oKm
coz 2. ya es 0.125 22 4 177 9. 037 0.690 % 1125.12 316.211 196.485 12.3 6.22 19.2
co ie sa 37779333 16 0.0 0.0 265.23 PPM 27.50 7.729 4.803
ME THANE 6 o.5 2.75 Ss 3.8 1.90 0.96 PPM 0.05 . 0.014 0.009
HC-NM a) 149.18 PPM 7.66 2.153 1.338 .
BAG 2 3.651 MILES 6.198 KM 8979. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4824.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 26.059
SITE #a203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX.
. RANGE MeO”, CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS. GMs. ous/at Gus/km FIELDI Freroz CODE
HC-FID 4 60.63 14 5.9 4.36 46.44 PPM 3.66 0.950 0.590 .
NOX-CHEM 1S 47. nem 23.55 15 aes 0.30 23.27 PPM 8.42 1.407 MPG KPL L/100KM gy
co2 22 $2.0 0.495 22 4.307 0.039 0.457 & 1943.14 296.839 13.3 °° «5.66 17.7
co 18 (34, 4.6 143. 83 18 0.07% 0.0 143.53 PPM 22.83 5.928
METHANE 15 15 : 1.95 . . 0.32 PPM 0.03 0.007
HC-NN 46.12 PPM 3.63 0.943 0.586 :
BAG 3 3.568 MILES 5.742 KM 8319. ROLL REVS. . SECS. VMIX= 2625.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 16.824
SITE #203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED . MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER’, CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELON Freez cope
HC-FID 4 87. 65.61 14 4.88 60.99 PPM 2.81 0.789 0,490 2341
NOX~-CHEM 7 23. 1% 57.96 7 o. NZ 0.25 57.72 PPM 7.87 2.207 1.991 “PG KPL t/100Km
coz 22,070.58 0.685 22 4.477 0.040 0.647 & 946.66 . 265.321 164.863 14.9 6.33 16.8
co 18 48.2-207.91 18 0.07/ 0.0 207.91 PPM 19.37 5.427 3.372
METHANE 1s 4.8% 2.40 18 4.0: 2.00 0.651 PPM 0.02 0.007 0.004
HC-NM : 60.48 PPM 2.79 0.782 0.486
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX MPG KPL L/100KM
- GRAMS/MILE 1.157 1.149 6.16 292. 1.83 FUEL ECONOMY 13.5 8.7 17.5
BEFORE ROUNDING 1.15708 - 1.14896 6.1626 292.19 1.8293 13.4835 5.7154 17.4963
GRAMS/KM 0.719 0.714 3.63 182. 1.937 .
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.71897 = 0.71393 3.6293 181.66 1.13670

COMMENTS: VW RABBIT BASELINE 2 -6 FALSE STARTS BAG:1 STALL @ 960 SEC BAG 2
METHANOL STALL @ 20 SEC BAG 3

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1986 REGULATIONS.

9655 0 DYNO SITE;0209 TEST 08-0192


-1t-

vi. Discussion of Test Results

Without a main catalyst, the heated RSC only achieved 0.22
g/mi HC and 84 mg/mi formaldehyde over the FTP. Since these
results are not overwhelming compared to other catalysts, the
test conditions were reexamined to determine why better results
were not obtained. It was observed that the low mass of the
heater element. and the cooling effect of the M100 vehicle
exhaust gas during warmup operation § represent two test
conditions which may lessen the effectiveness of this silicon
carbide RSC heater element.

The exhaust gas temperature data show extreme temperature
transients on the surface of the Coloro{1 RSC heater element
particularly during vehicle cold starts. These temperature vs.
time data consist of a series of stripchart recordings made
during each test sequence and exist as a separate body of
data.{13]. Im the 45 seconds prior to vehicle cold start, the
heated Coloroll RSC achieves temperatures in excess of 1000°F.
Exhaust gas temperatures at the inlet to the Colorol! RSC at
cold start are approximately 75°F (room temperature) and may
only reach 200-250°F after 150 seconds (idle segment in Bag
1). This large temperature differential between the Incoming
exhaust flow and the Coloroll RSC heater element may make the
silicon carbide filter less responsive to HCHO and HC
conversion by making it operate in a lower than optimum
temperature regime. At the highest acceleration in Bag 1 (at
the end of the RSC heating period), RSC-out exhaust gas
temperatures reached 930°F with the RSC heated and 820°F with
the RSC unheated. This marginal difference indicates that, at
the power settings used, the catalyst on the RSC may be doing
most of the work rather than heat added to the system. Also,
the difference between inlet and outlet temperatures averaged
roughly 325°F while 1000 watts were applied compared to nearly
290°F with the RSC unheated. Adding more heat or catalyzed
mass to the RSC. element may reduce the effect of the
temperature transients by not allowing the element. to cool as
rapidly during cold starts.

Tables 6 and 7 show the exhaust emissions and conversion
efficiencies of the Colorol! RSC compared to another RSC and
unheated methanol catalyst configurations, respectively. The
unheated three-way catalyst represents the best catalyst tested
in the Low-Aldehyde ethanol Catalyst Test Program at MVEL.
This "unheated" catilyst at 12Pt:Rh and a 40 g/ft* PGM
loading achieved the highest overall emissions conversion
efficiencies in the «tire test program. These tables show
that the best configur.ition for all pollutants is the Coloroll
RSC plus main catalyst configuration.

The CTAB MXX Emission Test Calculation Program was run for
all the FTPs performed in this RSC evaluation program.[14]
These calculated results; including estimated methanol
emissions, other measured emissions, and gasoline equivalent
fuel economy, are listed with the actual lab test data in the


A-3

Methanol Volkswagen Test Vehicle Specifications
and Changes To Accommodate Methanol Fuel

Vehicle item Specification/Change
PCY: PCV valve with calibrated

plunger-no orifice.
Ignition:

O1stributor Reduced: maxisum centrifu-
facuum auvence/retard
characteristics.

Spark Plugs Bosch W260T2

Transmission:
Tyre Production 1981 automatic
3-speed.
- Torque Converter Ratio 2.44
stall Speed 2000-2200 RPM
Gear Ratios: .
1 2.55
2 1.45
3 1.00
Axle 3.57
Fuel Tank:

Material Steel

Coating Phosphated Steel

Seams and Fittings Brazed

Cap European neck and locking cap.

Fuel Neat Methanol (M100)


Figure 1

Ceramic Resistive Start Catalyst
(Coloroll Ca talyzed Porous SiC Element)

nah “| |
A } aaa, a - ys

Ys
g

ponsr Flot —» Ssaacorsssssisc Zp EXWST FLOW —e
g



DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 880190 i} 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:38:10 NOV 9, 1967

MFR. ALT. . Innere oree TEST TYPE ----~----/
MFR. REP. RUN. RETEST H.P, PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP =6METH =ULATES CONFIRMATION Inne TEST PROCEDURE -~--~-/
690 vVwF801798V183756 o N Nn CVS 75-LATER
CUR@ ORV AXLE AXLE /--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ /------ % CO -~----/ TOLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE a“ a2 RPM GEAR “oie HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR pes too ACTUAL ADJUSTED
41-03-87 EMPTY 0.0
Y Jeeiebeieieneed AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ------/
BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
ane. POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
28.8: 47.5 73.0 0 40.3 50.59 0.897 27c
ft OVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS -
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP PsI (Mi) MILES
11-04-87 09 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17314.0 N/A
BAG 1 3.595 MILES 5.786 KM 8383. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2629.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.812
SITE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX.
RANGE meveR CONC. RANGE merer CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELOL FIELO2 CODE.
HC-FID 14 43. 32.51 14 ~*~ 3.62 29.10 PPM 1.34 0.374 0.232 100 3.965
NOX-CHEM 15 55 1s 27.89 1S aes 0.35 27.56 PPM 3.79 1.054 0.655 “PG KPL L/100KM
co2 22 1 Log 0.784 22 0.037 0.746 % 1093.72 304.199 189.020 13.3 6.64 W.7
co 18 at 2777128.19 18 0.07 0.0 128.19 PPM 11.96 3.325 2.066
METHANE 1) 5.5 2.75 1s 3.74 1.65 1.01 PPM 0.05 0.013 0.008
HC-NM 28.09 PPM 1.30 0.361 0.224
BAG 2 3.894 MILES 6.267 KM 9080. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX> 4791.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 27.369
SITE #A203 - EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX,
. RANGE METER 7 ONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMs/KM FIELON FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID V4 13.8: 10.21 14 4.7 3.47 6.86 PPM 0.54 0.138 0.086 1.729
NOX-CHEM 15 21.3 .10.67 15 . Zz 0.20 10.47 PPM 2.44 0.626 0.389 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 22 51.3 0.486 22~—~. A 0.036 0.451 % 1119.84 267.554 178.678 14.2 6.04 16.6
co 16 27. ea 26.72 16 0 A 0.0 26.72 PPM 4.22 1.084 0.673 .
METHANE WS 2.95 1s 3.7 1.65 _ 0.37 PPM 0.03 0.007 0.005
HC-NM 6.50 PPM 0.51 0.131 0.081
BAG 3 3.593 MILES 5.783 KM $378. ROLL REVS. . SECS. VMIX= 2763.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 19.505
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE were eg CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/M1 GMS/KM FIELol FIELO2 CODE
HC-FIO 14 31.4 23.31 14 2.95 20.50 PPM 0.93 - 0.259 0.16t 3.205
NOX-CHEM 15 48. 5B 24.25 1S 2: 83% 0.15 24.11 PPM 3.26 0.907 0.568 MPG PL L/100KM
coz 22 70.1 0.680 22 oO. 76 0.646 %& . 931.33 259.187 161,051 16.7 6.69 15.0
co 16 46. 37 45.23 16 . 00 9:8. 48.23 PPM 41s 1¥.185 0.718
METHANE 1s 2.35 1s 1. 0.60 PPM 0.03 0.008 0.005
HC-NM 19.91 PPM 0.90 0.252 0.156
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX : WPL L/100KM
GRAMS/MILE 0.220 , O12 1.57 283. . 0.79 FUEL ECONOMY 6.1 16.4
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.21984 0.21125 1.5659 283.23 0.7912 6.1108 16.3617
GRAMS/KM 0.137 0.131 0.97 176, 0.492
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.13660 0.13126 0.9730 175.99 0.49165

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT #2 FOGARTY UNIT W/HEAT 3 FALSE STARTS BEFORE EXCELL
FOGARTY UNIT INSTALLED AFTER LA-4 PREP

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

985s 0 OYNO SITE:0209 TEST 68-0190

vI-w


-18-
Vill. References (cont'd)

14. “Proposed Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Methanol-Fueled Vehicles," Draft Regulation, U.S. EPA 1986.

15. "Calculations of Emissions and Fuel Economy When
Using Alternate Fuels, EPA 460/3-83-009, Urban, Cc. M.,
Southwest Research Institute, March 1983.

16. Properties. of Ceramics and Metals, presented by K.
Matsudo, NGK Insulators, Ltd., Southfield, MI, March 1987.

. 17. Materials Science in Engineering, Keyser, C. A.,
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 73-8783G, C. E. Merrill
Publishing Co., Columbus, OH, 2nd Edition, 1974.

18. Elements of Material Science, Van Viack, Library of

Congress Catalog Card No. 59-7551, Addison-Wesley Publishing
-Co., Inc., 2nd Edition, April 1967.


BAG BY BAG TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX

TEST
NUMBER

875030
875030
. 675030

675031
875031
875031

875032
676032
875032

880189
080189
680189

880190
880190
880190

680191
680191
680191

880192
880192
880192

680193
e60193
880193

880194
880194
880194

680195
860195
680195

oro

*»
OF.
METH

100.
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100,
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100.
100.
100.

100.

MILES

100.
100.
100.

HC

2.902
0.724
0.812

3.010
0.818
0.976

2.700
0.868
1,108

2.128
-097
378

1 344
oe
vase

4.878
2.976
2.820

7.74
3.658
2.814

1.709
0.029
0.224

0.552
0.060
0.239

0.561
0.041
0.334

co

13,129
4.440
3.876

12.801
4.971
4.425

16.622
6.755
6.118

14,545
7.472
6.847

11 956
4220
4.450

28.812
23.868
20.203

27,502

.22.829

19.365

6.769
0.0
0.216

6.346
0.0
0.120

7.870
0.0
0.089

coz

4151.32
1184.35
968.77

1124.00
1180.57
983.71

1137.10
1181.10
973.50

1144.93
1168.49
969.11

1093.72
1119.84
931.33

1102.97
1154.41
950.13

1125.12
1143.14
946.66

1139.18
4186.37
993.29

1136.54
1177.00
972.61

1135.68
1151.45
957.55

-CURRENT TEST RESULTS --->

NOX

3.580
2.499
3.641

3.41
2.535
3.469

3.571
2.719
3.617

4.018
2.675
4.074

3.768
2.438
3.260

7.944
5.193
7.888

8.503
§.420
7.874

3.805
2.327
3.453

2.756
1.764
2.255

2.715
1.623

2.213.

PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/BA
co co2 OMHCE

1151
4184
989

1124
1180
984

1137
1180
973

1145,
1168
969

1094.
4120.
931.

1104.

1155

950.

1125

144

947

1139
1188
994

1138
W177
972

1136
1152
958

+73
64
58

.99
48
75

+63
aM
.03

43
78

149

22
78
65

16
63
61
.06
+03
65

66
05
+40

+32
114
63

03
09
16

NOX

3.581
2.499
3.642

G
CH30H

ress

HCHO

0.50856
0.30717
0.27283

0.60386
0.33!
0.30282

0.72576
0.44516
0.38275

1.06892
0.72968
0.62313

0.39510
0.29198
0.31487

1.35509
1.01752
0.94071

1.59823
1.20743
0.93266

0.21152
0.01320
0.01189

0.04199
0.00686
0.91125

0.12267
0.01476
0.02071

cis

c75
c7s5
cms

c7s5
cms
c7s


REQUESTOR 10: 22136 TEST # 660195
NAME: E. BULIFANT

DATE OF ENTRY ; 6/22/82

REPORT TIME; 14:10:56
DATE: OCT 13, 1987

VEHICLE SPECIFICATI ONS

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE 1D / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE ORIVE CODE SOURCE
VOLKSWAGEN vwFe01798V163756 0 SEDAN FRONT ORIVE STR. LEFT = MANUFACTURER
ORIVE AXL wTS Equiv. etw
VEHICLE MODEL ACTIVE FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST €.0, 0/D ACTUAL’ RUNNING CHG
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE Move YEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H Pp. METHOD ven CODE OVNO HP NUMBER
NON-CER RABBIT a et “p 2622p «=62500P «= 2500P =—s« NO ENTRY. rd
ODOMETER TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
. CORRECTION TARE & RIM SwL BLT PSI TO
ASSIGNED OF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE 1D ALT. MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES wrk CONSTR NM NM FT RR OOP
1SSSRI3
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO, NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST
DISPLACEMENT = BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL, NG
96.9E 3.016 3.40E 52 OTTO SPARK IN-LINE _ 4
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIMING % CO % CO %CO co IOLE IQ0LE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. © RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. APM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
37c

AXLE N/V alc CRANKCASE TRANSMISSION SHIFT INDIC, EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG moore CODE LIGHT SVSTEM FUEL TYPE
0.0 0.0 SINGLE LEFT REAR CLOSED a-3 “NO ENTRY CRANKCASE METHANOL
sss
MAIN-TANK AUX, - TANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
HIFT SPEED L' CODE SALES CLASS

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOt UME

10.06 NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED

CONTROL. SYSTEM TYPES

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS © SEE COMMENTS

9855 0


DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 680191 i} 1981 LIGHT DUTV VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:17:89 oec 1, 1987
MFR, ALT. fecnccccoe TEST TYPE --~=: i
MFR. REP. RUN, RETEST H.P. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH ULATES CONFIRMATION M-- ~ TEST PROCEOURE coed
590 vwF80179BV183756 0 N N CVS 75-LATER
CURB ORV AXLE AXLE /-~> IGNITION TIMING ---/0  /m~---- %& CO ------/ TOLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE ay a2 RPM = =6GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOO ACTUAL ADJUSTED
11-23-67 EMPTY 24 0
( peieiebeeneiet ~ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ------ /
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYOES nae
29.26 59.8 75.5 F 39.0 62.45 0.9042
d-------~ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS ~-~---~- ‘ .
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SVSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TwHP Psi (M1) MILES
11-24-67 08 0209 2500 $.6 45.00 17352.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.591 MILES 5.779 KM 6373. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2847.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.277
SITE #203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 77 CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/uI GMS/KM = FIELOW FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 16 36.1 108.02 16 WY 3.30 104.92 PPM 4.88 1.3658 0.844 100 13.466
NOX-CHEM 7 22,97 57.46 7 277 0.50 56.96 PPM 7.94 2.212 1.375 MPG KPL L/100KM
co2, ‘ 22 79.7 0.782 22 @ to 0.036 0.748 % 1102.97 307.135 190.845 12.7 5.40 186.5
co 18 67.3 306.95 18 0.07 .0 .306.95 PPM 28.81 8.023 4.985
METHANE 15 5.27 2.60 1s 3.7 1.85 0.87 PPM 0.04 0.011 0.007
HC-NM 104.06 PPM 4.84 1.947 0.83
BAG 2 3.868 MILES 6.256 KM 9064. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4873.0 CuU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 26.130
SITE #a203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC, RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMs/mt GMS/KM FIELON FIELD2 CODE
HC-FIO 4 55.9 41.67 14 6.07 4.43. 37.40 PPM 2- 98 0.766 0.476 6.491
NOX-CHEM 1s 43. 21.86 1s 0.2 0.10 21.76 PPM 9 1.336 0.830 MPG «PL L/100KM
coz 22, «(551.9 0,494 22 4.2 o. ge 0.457 & visa: at 296.955 184.519 13.3 6.66 17.7
co 1B 35. WT 8.56 18 0.0. 0.0 148.56 PPM 6.140 3.616
METHANE 5 4.2 2.10 1s 3.7 1.85 6 0.32 PPM 0.007 0.004
HC-NM 37.08 PPM 95 0.759 0.472 ‘
BAG 3 3.581 MILES 5.763 KM 6349. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIXs 2879.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 19.123
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC, RANGE meres WA CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELON FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 14 86.0 64.40 4 4.65 59.99 PPM 0.489 9.246
NOX-CHEM w7 22.34, 55.95 w7 :. cy 0.0 55.95 PPM MPG KPL L/100KM
co2 22 69.47 0.673 22 4.2 3: 938 0.637 & 14.9 6.33 18.8
co 18 49.2 (2.84 18 0.0% 212.84 PPM
METHANE is 4.6 2.30 1s 3 oan 65 0.55 PPM
HC-NM 59.44 PPM
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX MPG mPL ‘ogee
* GRAMS/MILE 0.694 0.886 6.39 290. . 1.75 FUEL ECONOMY 13.6 5.8
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.89402 0.88632 6.3925 290.41 1.7537 13.5936 - 6.7863 wv 2est
GRAMS/KM 0.556 0.551 3.97 160. 1,090
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.55552 0.55073 3.9721 180.45 1.08973

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT SASELINE TEST #1
BGI FALSE START 6G 2 STALL 645 SEC 8G 3 STALL 400 SEC

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

9855 0

OVNO SITE:0209

TEST 68-0191

ST-W¥


-15-

8. The Colorol!l catalyst loading and the actual heater
element (substrate) mass are both quite small. Although the
smaller substrate mass requires less energy to heat and may
cost less to produce, it also provides less active surface area
for the catalyst materials, is more prone to large temperature
transients and therefore produces less than optimum gains in
methanol exhaust conversion efficiencies. :

9. The M100 VW Rabbit baseline emissions have increased
considerably since the last vehicle test program. FIP
emisstons of 0.96/6.54/1.79/0.252 g/mi previously characterized
for HC/CO/NOx/HCHO, were rebaselined at 1.76/7.90/2.30/0.413
g/mi in the RSC test program. -

The results of this test program do not show greatly
improved emissions from those obtained in previous test
Programs, including the metal monolith resistive start catalyst
evaluation or the tests performed on low-aldehyde unheated
catalysts. However, a few areas of - improvement have been
identified which may help to optimize the porous silicon
carbide resistive start catalyst and improve its emissions
conversion characteristics.

1. Although the material supplier may not recommend
exceeding the rated current loading of the heater elements,
additional tests could be performed at 50 amps. At roughly 30
volts, this would be a total of 1500 kW (0.10 kw-hr for a 4
minute heating period) or a fuel energy equivalent of 0.006
gal. This additional heat might reduce the severity of element
temperature transients and characterize whether additional heat
is or is not more beneficial than higher catalyst loadings.

2. The addition of a second heated filter may be of
more benefit than just adding additional heat, and may maintain
heater element durability longer by not operating outside the
rated power range of the material. Also, the additional
element would double the effective catalyst surface area with
only a small increase in exhaust backpressure.

3. Extending the heating period of the Coloroll! RSC
through most of Bag 1 may improve emissions conversion
efficiencies until the vehicle and engine are fully warm with
marginal power penalties.

4. Improved surface area for catalyst materials or the
application of low temperature catalysts might make the
Colorol! RSC more effective as a start catalyst.

5. Increasing the mass of the heater element may
increase heat transfer to methanol exhaust, reduce element
temperature transients, increase heater element durability, and
improve effective catalyst surface area.

6. The Colorol! RSC should be rebuilt with al! internal
metal surfaces exposed to methanol exhaust made of stainless
steel to prohibit corrosion, particularly to current carrying
components. .


~-7-

After the vehicle and RSC "catalyst" emissions were
defined, tests were conducted with the Coloro!l RSC powered at
both predetermined power settings. Continuous RSC outlet
temperature readings were recorded on all test. sequences.
Unlike tests with other RSCs, the power sequencing was not
determined. by the achievement of a certain exhaust gas
temperature, e@.g., 650°F, but it was desired to observe the
effect of the heated RSC in the system on exhaust gas
temperature as the vehicle warmed up.[7]

Subsequent to observing the effects of the heated Coloro!!
RSC on exhaust emissions in Bag 1 and over the composite FTP
test, it was decided to evaluate additional vehicle test
configurations. Although significant reductions were achieved
in HC, CO, NOx and HCHO emissions (54 to 79 percent) it became
apparent that incremental increases ‘In catalyst content may be
more beneficial than incremental additions of heat to the
relatively small mass of the Coloroll RSC. The emissions
reductions observed were not as large as had been achieved from
some unheated catalysts or a heated metal monolith.[{8,9,10] It
was recognized, however, that other RSCs evaluated are much
larger in mass and probably have more total catalytically
active material on them.{11] Therefore, it was decided to test
the Colorol! RSC in series with an unaged main underbody
catalyst with known catalyst loading and emission
characteristics on the test vehicle. The "low heat" power
sequence in Table 1 was not tested in the "RSC plus main
catalyst" test sequences since the RSC-only tests had shown
better emissions results with no heat than with low heat.

The main catalyst used was characterized in SAE Paper No.
872052, "Catalysts for Methanol Vehicles," and was evaluated on
the same M100 VW Rabbit test vehicle.[10] This catalyst is
applied .to a honeycomb-type monolith 4 inches in diameter, 6
inches long, and is loaded with 80 g/ft* catalyst density at
a 5:1 platinum to rhodium ratio, i.e., roughly 3.5 grams of
platinum group metals. Baseline "main catalyst only" tests
were run (without the RSC) to compare with the published
results, but little change in catalyst conversion efficiencies
were observed from the previous test program. The M100 VW
Rabbit exhaust emissions baseline had increased since this test
program, however, with 83 and 64 percent increases in HC and
HCHO FTP emissions, respectively.

V. Bag 1 and Composite FTP Emissions

The M100 VW Rabbit emission test results for Bag 1 and
Composite FTP tests for each vehicle configuration are listed
in Tables 2 and 4, respectively. The percent reduction of Bag
1 and composite FTP emissions from the vehicle (engine-out)
baseline emissions as a measure of catalyst and RSC efficiency
are listed in Tables 3 and 5, respectively.

The results show that electrically heated ceramic
resistive start catalysts have the potential to reduce HC, CO


OYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 875033
MER.
MFR. REP, RUN, RETEST
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE
590 vwF601796V163756 o nN
CUR@ ORV AXLE AXLE
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE a a2
10-26-87 EMPTY
J--77--->_ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ---~--/
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT” HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
20.85 59.5 74.9 F- 39.8 63.22 0.907) 27c
d-ec~o--- DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------
OVNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP PSI (M1) MILES
40-27-87 13 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17283.0 N/A
fea
BAG 1 3.573 MILES 5.750 KM 6331. ROLL REVS.
SITE #203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE with CONC RANGE METER conc.
HO-F IO 14 wry suas v4 ao 3.92
NOA- Crit 1s tlw at 26 5 0.4 0.20
cuz 22 e.g 0.810 22 4a. 0.036
co 18 40.6 171.33 18 0.0 0.0
METHANE 45 5.2 2.60 ih) 3.5 1.75
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.691 MILES 6.263 KM 9073. ROLL REVS.
SITE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER .CONC,
_HC-FIO ins 23.2 W719 V4 4.6 3.40
NOX-CHEM 1S 26.7 13.37 15 0.0 0.0
co2 22 $3.3 0.506 22 4.0 0.035"
co 18 V2.0 47.4 18 0.0 0.0
METHANE i) 4.0 2.00 Ss 3.4 1.70
HC-NM
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co co2
GHAMS/MILE 0.435 0.425 3.12 309.
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.43484 0.42512 3.1167 308.
GRAMS/KM 0.270 0.264 1.94 192.
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.27019 0.26415 © 1.9366 it.

COMMENTS: [ANOL RABBIT #4 FO

NOT A VALID TEST
“ww euec

JUwodD- EXP HAS ower
cAzos zu %

/--~ IGNITION TIMING --~/
Rew

LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS i}

ALT,
HOP.

acHPp = METH

GEAR

SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
47.14 PEM
31.09 PPM
0.776 %
171.33 PPM
0.96 PPM
46.18 PPM
— Secs.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
13.93 PPM
13.37 PPM
0.472 %
47.14 PPM
0.37 PPM
13.66 PPM

NOX
61 0.9958

76 o. 61877

TY UNIT W/HEAT STALL @ 1265

f

miss De Saya sll 2 hs)

9855. 0

Jorn--- % CO ------4
IDLE HIGH SPEED

PARTIC- REASON FOR
ueares CONFIRMATION

VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS:

0.0
VMIxX= 2790.0 CUu.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.104
MASS EMISSIONS AUX.” ~ AUX, AUX,
Gaus. Gus/MI GMS/KM = FEELDS FIELD2 CODE
2.15 0.601 0.373 r
4.26 1.193 0.741 uPG Lie L/100KM
4121.04 313,967 195.090 12.8 6.42 18.4
15.76 4.4 2.744
0.04 0.012 0.008
2.10 0.689 0.366
VMIX* 4829.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 26.138
MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUK. AUX,
GMs. Gus/ur GMS/KM = FIELON PIELD2 CODE
1.10 o 0.1765
3.17 0.815 0.806 uPG MPL /VO0KM
v18t.6t 303.700 166.701 13.4 5.69 17.6
7.61 1,929 1.198
0.03 0.007 0.006
1.07 0.276 0.170
we MPG wPL t/100KM
FUEL ECONOMY 13.0 8.6 18.0
13,0586 5.5519 18.0017
DYNO SITE:D209 «TEST 87-5033

PROCESSEO: 06:29:35

1OLE soaK
RPM GEAR perro ACTUAL AQJUSTED

a

TEST TYPE ---:
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
iT. PROCEDURE oe 7)

Oct 26, 1987

COASTOOWN TIME

71-0


OVNO SITE:D209 TEST # 875030 1 1981 LIGHT DUTV VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 13:37:24 OCT 26, 19

MFR. ALT. /- ---- TEST TYPE --------/
MFR, REP. RUN. RETEST H.P. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
cope vetnons96v189756 VERSTON ewae INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP = METH ULATES CONFIRMATION Os 76 ‘TEST PROCEDURE ~-----/
690 vw vi . N . VS 76-LATER
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE J--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ /---7-- % CO ------/— TOLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE Al a2 RPM = =6GEAR IOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR ree ACTUAL, ADJUSTED
10-20-87 EmMPTV 0.0
, eleirienenatatel AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS iateheietel A
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT: HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.05 58.0 75.5 F 33.4 45.10 0.8768 27C
/----7--~ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS -------- 4
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-21-87 13 D209 ©2500 5.6 45.00 17233.8 N/A
BAG 1 3.611 MILES 5.812 KM 8420. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2801.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.601
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUK, — AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER /. CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELOI FIELO2 CODE
HC-FIO 14 69.3 66.90 14 3.69 63.44 PPM 2.90 0.804 0.499 soo 5.140
NOX- Crit 15 44 oy za 15 veg 0.40 26.92 PPM 3.58 0.991 0.616 PG KPL OL 100KM
coz a wig vei 2 4.174, 0.036 0.793 % 4151.32 318.810 - 198.099 12.6 6.35 18.7
co m7 wa 97, van 18 00 0.0 142.17 PPM 13.13 3.636 2.259
METHANE 15 bot 2.55 15 3.4 1.70 0.96 PPM 0.04 0.012 0.008
HC-NM 62.48 PPM 2.86 0.791 0.492
BAG 2 3.888 MILES 6.258 KM 9066. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4798.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 26.052
SITE #a203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND: SAMPLE CORRECTED: MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER“ CONC. RANGE METER 7 CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELOI FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 14 17.0 12.58 14 3.47 9.25 PPM 0.72 0.186 0.116 1.81
NOX-CHEM 15 21.9% 10.97 1s 0.07% 0.0 10.97 PPM 2.50 0.643 0.399 MPG KPL Ls 100KM
co2 22. 53. i 0.510 22 4.004 0.035 0.476 % 1164.35 304.589 189.263 13.4 5.70 17.5
co 18 28.07 18 00 0.0 28.07 PPM 4.44 1,442 0.710 :
METHANE 15 u o 2.00 1S, 3.4) 1.70, 0.37 PPM 0.03 0.007 0.005
HC-NM 6.68 PPM 0.70 0.179 O.1nt .
BAG 3 3.613 MILES 5.814 KM 8423. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2804.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = — 18.607
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. = AUX.
c-FID RANGE METER 7 sone RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gs. GMS/ul GMS/KMOFIEELOD re CODE
HC 14 27.3 +265 4 3.6 2.66 17.73 PPM 0.81 0.225 0.140 2.75:
NOX- CHEM 15 $4.8 27.40 15 ong, 0.05 27.35 PPM 3.64 1,008 0.626 MPG “KPLoL/100KM
coz 22 73.37, O.714 22 4 a 0.035 0.681 % 968.77 273.703 170.071 714.9 6.34 15.8
1 10.8 41.92 18 0 0.0 41,92 PPM 3.88 1.073 0.667
METHANE 15 aa 2.20 15 347% 1.70 0.59 PPM 0.03 0.008 0.005
HC-NM . 17.14 PPM 0.78 0.217 0.135
WEIGHTED VALUES ~ HC NM-HC co coz NOX : MPG KPL t/100KM
GRAMS/MILE 0.325 0.316 1.64 299. 0.82 FUEL ECONOMY 13.6 5.8 17.3
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.32466 0.31626 1.6392 299.05 0.8151 13.6087 8.7779 17.3073
GRAMS/KM 0.202 0.197 1.02 186. 0.506
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.20173 0.19652 1.0185 “185.82 0.80650

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT FOGARTY UNIT #1 TEST NO HEAT

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

9855 0 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 87-5030


-4-

The Coloroll RSC element was designed to take no more than
a maximum of 40A at 25V (a maximum power input of 1.00 kW).
Periodic element resistance checks were made. The heated
electrical resistance across Coloro!! RSC elements is typically
0.5-0.6 ohms. Element deterioration and/or failure is usually
characterized by a large change in electrical resistance. A
low reading (e.g., 0.1 ohm) usually indicates element failure
due to cracking, chipping, or other element deterioration which
contributes to current short circuiting or channeling. A high
resistance (e.g., 5 ohms) indicates bad electrical contacts in
the form of flame-spray deterioration, element pitting, or
power supply wire terminal failure. No element failures were
experienced during this test program, though, the RSC container
was cleaned between most tests to retard the occurrence of
corrosion in the container.

The Coloro!! power controller consists of a. thyristor
controlier, a three terminal temperature controller with a
K-type thermocouple for sensing outlet gas temperature, and a 5
KVA transformer for voltage output of. either 25V or SOV, ait
contained in a 26" x 18" power supply box. The power
controller is a single-phase unit capable of being operated at
220/240 volts (a.c.), and frequencies of 50 or 60 Hz. The
primary voltage is fed to the transformer via a- 25-amp
thyristor. The thyristor is fitted with a current limiter and
this controls current applied to the heater. The current limit
is controlled by a dial indicator on the front of the power
supply box. The temperature’ controller controls the
temperature of the outlet flow from the Coloroll RSC assembly
to the set temperature on the dial indicator. Opposite the
thyristor inside the power supply box are two 2.5 KVA
transformers. Power can be obtained in one of two modes, 1) 50
volts @ 100 A = 5 KVA (connected in series); or 2) 25 volts @
200 A = 5 KVA (connected in parallel). Through all testing,
power was obtained with the transformer in mode 2.

The power supplied to the Coloroll RSC was monitored by
two Fluke 8600A multimeters, one monitoring volts and the other
monitoring amps. Since the amount of power supplied to the
start catalyst system is critical, these meters were monitored
throughout each test sequence and were checked frequently with
hand-held Fluke meters.

The unit is fitted with an externa! isolation plug as a
safety shutoff device. At the completion of a cold start
(defined as first 195 seconds of vehicle warmup), the power
unit is shut off, and the RSC temperature is allowed to
fluctuate subject to the exhaust temperatures experienced
throughout the remainder of the test cycle.


-3-

the first few minutes of vehicle operation in order to assist
in the combustion of methanol! in the exhaust stream and convert
fuel that has not been completely combusted in the combustion
chambers.. Formaldehyde emissions would, in theory, be reduced
since there would be more heat in the exhaust at the catalyst
to complete the reaction from methanol! to carbon dioxide and
water vapor while the engine was still warming up.

The Coloroll RSC consists of a container roughly 14 inches
long and 6 Inches in diameter placed in the exhaust system
about 2 feet downstream of the exhaust manifold. Exhaust flows
in one end of the container, but is restricted from exiting the
opposite end by any means other than through the Coloroill
filter element, the inside diameter of which is open at one
end. The filter is placed in a spring loaded (20-25 kg)
assembly between two stainless steel electrical leads which are
in turn sandwiched between two solid ceramic insulators. The
spring is required to maintain good electrical contact due to
the different thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramic and
metal components. Stainless steel electrical leads were used
to protect against oxidation from exposure to _ methanol
exhaust. Unfortunately, the other metal components: electrical
wiring, internal terminals, and the container itself, were not
made of stainless stee! and had to be sandblasted after every
few tests to avoid electrical shortcircuiting and corrosion of
current carrying metal surfaces.

The Coloroll heater element chosen for testing was
nickel-chrome metal flame sprayed on the ends for improved
electrical contact and was coated with 9:1 platinum: rhodium
catalyst. Thin mats of stainless steel wool were used as
intermediates between the ceramic and metal surfaces to further
improve electrical contacts. The catalyst density was unknown,
but believed to be minimal since the element is a hollow
cylinder with a volume of only 6.1 in*? (99 cm’) and very
few sites on the fiber for catalyst materials to adhere. Most
of the heater element volume is inaccessible to catalyst
washcoat due to its tightly packed fiber structure. The fiber
material is rated at roughly 90 percent porosity, but
approximately one-third of this void volume is inside the
hollow fibers. Assuming a catalyst density of 80 g/ft*, the
total amount of precious metals contained on the Colorol! RSC
heater element would be on the order of about 0.3 grams. The
system causes approximately 10 inches H.,0 backpressure in the
exhaust stream on the engine. Other properties of these porous
elements are listed below:

Power density 10-1600 W/cm°
Normal power range 10-300 W/cm’
Power dissipation 0.01-0.75 W/cm?
Heater response time milliseconds
Heat up time’ 30-45 seconds (600-1000 watts)
Heat transfer: . :
Sur face/Volume 400-750 cm’ /cm’?

Operating temperatures Up to 1000°C
Material density 0.4-0.6 g/cm°


-16-

7. In the absense of a modal analyzer, continuous
recording of CO, CO,, and 0. with a Sun Analyzer would give
more of an indication of lightoff and other useful parameters
in the evaluation of resistive start catalysts.

An "“optimized" Colorol! resistive start catalyst, one
containing some or all of the above recommendations, may have.
the potentia! to be a more efficient and cost-effective HC and
HCHO catalyst than other heated or unheated methanol and
gasoline-fueled vehicle catalysts if the thermal stability of
the heater element can be improved within the constraints of
the material.


-6-

Table 1

Porous Ceramic RSC Power Requirements

Voltage
Current
Time*
Power

Energy consumed

Low Heat High Heat
20 volts 25 volts
30 amps 40 amps
4 minutes 4 minutes
600 watts 1000 watts

144,000 Joules

240,000 Joules

(0,040 kw-hr) (0.067 kw-hr)
M100 energy equivalent -002 gallons -004 gallons
RSC-out exhaust gas 200°F 290°F
temperature at start
of test
* Includes 45-second heat-up time, i.e., RSC is powered

through first 195 seconds of Bag 1.


Methanol Volkswagen Test Vehicle Specifications
and Changes To Accommodate Methanol Fuel

Yentele tem.
Engine:

Displacement

Bore

Stroke
Compression Ratio
Valvetrain

Basic Engine

Fuel System:
Type
Fuet Pump

Accumulator Max Pressure
Fuel Filter

Fuel Distributor

Air Sensor

Fuel Injectors

Cold Start Injectors
Fuel Injection Wiring

Idle Setting

Speci fication/Change

1.6 liter

7.95 cm

8.00 cm |

12.5:1

Overhead camshaft

GTI basic eng’ - European
high. performance engine to
withstand higher loads - U.S.
cylinder head.

Bosch CIS fuel injection with
Lambda feedback control, calf-
brated for Methanol operation.

Life rated 1 year for Methanol;
improved insulation on wirtag
exposed to fuel.

3.0 Bar

One-way check valve deleted
because of fuel incompati-
bility.

5.0-5.3 bar system pressure,
calibration optimized for
Methanol, material changes for
fuel compatibility.

Modified airfiow charac-
teristics.

Material changes for fuel
compatibility, plastic screen
replaced by metal screen.

2 injectors, valves pulse for 8
seconds after start when below
zero degrees centrigrade.

Modified for cold start pulse
function and to accommodate
relays and thermo switch.

Specific to Methanol
calibration.


EPA/AA/CTAB/88-01

Technical Report

Evaluation of a Porous Silicon Carbide Resistive
Start Catalyst on a Methanol-Fueled Vehicle

by

Robert |. Bruetsch

January 1988

NOTICE

Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions. They are intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the
exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position or regulatory action.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105


-9-

Table 4

FTP_Emissions--Varlous Configurations

M100 VW Rabbit

Configuration (qin) (quai) (mt) (gmt) (ma at)
Basel ine 1.03 1.79 291 6.28 313
RSC/no heat 0.35 0.83 298 1.90 109
RSC/low heat 0.38 0.90 297 ‘2.37 208
RSC/high heat 0.22 0.79 257 1.73 84
CAT/no RSC 0.12 0.80 301 0.441 15
CAT/RSC/no heat 0.10 0.59 303 0.41
CAT/RSC/high heat 0.06 0.56 296 0.37 4

Table 5

Percent Reduction of FTP Emissions from Baseline

M100 VW Rabbit

HC NOx co2 co HCHO

Configuration (%) (CK) (%) ) (%)
RSC/no heat 66 54 -2 70 65
RSC/low heat 63 50 -2 62 34
RSC/high heat 79 56 12 72 73
CAT/no RSC 88 55 -3 93 95
CAT/RSC/no heat 90 67 -4 93 98

CAT/RSC/high heat 94 69 -2 94 99


=8-

Table 2

Bag 1 Emissions--Various Configurations

HC
Configuration  (q/mi)

Baseline

RSC/no heat
RSC/low heat
RSC/high heat
CAT/no: RSC
CAT/RSC/no heat
CAT/RSC/high heat

1.76
0.80
0.60
0.37
0.48
0.32
0.15

M100 VW Rabbit

co2 co
fafmi) (a/mi)

NOx
{g/mi)
2.30 312
0.98 318
1.13 321
1.05 304
1.06 318
0.72 322
0.77 317
Table 3

7.88

3.96

4.08
3.33
1.89
2.10
1.77

HCHO
(mg/mi)

413
171
299
110
59
19
12

Percent Reduction of Bag 1 Emissions from Baseline

M100 VW Rabbit

HC NOx co2 co HCHO
Configuration (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

RSC/no heat 55 57 -2 50 59
RSC/low heat 66 51 -3 48 28
RSC/high heat 79 54 3 58 73
CAT/no RSC 73 54 -2 76 86
CAT/RSC/no heat 82 69 -3 73 95
CAT/RSC/high heat 91 67 -2 78 97


DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 875032 1 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 13:51:39 OCT 26, 1987

MFR, aut, decernrnree TEST TYPE --------/
MFR, : REP. RUN. RETEST H.R. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH ULATES CONFIRMATION 4---7-- TEST PROCEDURE -----~/
590 vwWF60179BV 183756 o N ° N CVS 75-LATER
CURB ORV AXLE AXLE /--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ 0 /--->-- % CO ~-----/ IDLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE a az Rem = GEAR TOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR pegroo ACTUAL ‘ADIUSTED
10-22-87 EMPTY 0.0
lated AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ---~--/
‘anno OEW AMB TEMP %-REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.18 47.0 73.0 0 39.6 49.01 0.8912 27
rial OVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS ------~-
OYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SVSTEM
TEST OATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-23-87 08 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17264.0 N/A
@AG 1 3.589 MILES 5.777 KM 6369. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2801.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR =, 15.686
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER - Conc . RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS/MI GMS/KM-FELOt FIeLo2 cope
HC-F1D 14 83 43 14 4. 3.62 59.04 PPM 2.70 0.752, 0.467 100 7.
NOX- CHEM i oa an % 1% 0 0.35 26.42 PPM 3.57 0.995 0.618 MPG keL AL 100KM
fost oe me Beles 4 270.040 0.784 % 4137.10 316.792 196.846 + 12.6 5.36 18.7
vo de ae Za Te 16 0.5 1.89 179.99 PPM 16.62 4.63) 2.878
Mt THANE Ly ou? 2.85 1S 4.0 2.00 0.98 PPM 0.05 . 0.012 0.008
NC-NM 58.06 PPM 2.66 0.740 0.460
BAG 2 3.896 MILES 6.269 KM 9083. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4828.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR # 25.963
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX.
c RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER - CONC. CONCENTRATIONS . GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM—- FIELOI FIELD2 cope
HC-FID 1a, 19,9 14.74 14 3.62 11.26 PPM 0.89 0.228 0.142 .
NOX-CHEM 15 234% W722 1S 3: ws 0.05 11.67 PPM 2.72 0.698 0.434 MPG KPL L/100KM
co2 22 53.7 0.510 22 4.877 0.040 0.472 % 1181.10 303.185 168.390 13.4 5.71 17.5
co 16° i 2 43.52 18 0.377 1.13 42.43 PPM 6.76 1.734 1.077
METHANE 1s ‘a “2120 15 4.0 2.00... 0.28 PPM 0.02 0.006 0.003
HC-NM 10,98 PPM 0.67 0.222 0.138
BAG 3 3.569 MILES 5.776 KM 8368. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2614.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR =
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED . MASS EMISSIONS AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS /MI cus/xu FIELON FIELOZ cope
HC-FID 14 36.3 26.97 14 4.3: 3.18 23.96 PPM 1.10 0.307 191 :
NOX-CHEM 15 56.6% 28.29 15 Oa. 0.20 28.10 PPM 3.82 1.063 0.661 MPG kPLL/ S00KM
coz 22 72.4 0.704 22 4.47 0.039 0.668 % 973.50 271.246 168.545 15.0 6.37 18.7
co 18 16.877 66.30 18 o.1 GY 0.38 65.94 PPM 6.12 1,705 1.059
METHANE 15 4.6 2.30 15 3.8 1.90 0.50 PPM 0.02 0.006 0.004
HC-NM + 23.46 PPM 1.08 0.300 0.167
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX MPG KPL t/100KM
GRAMS/MILE 0.358 0.350 2.32 297. 0.86 ‘ FUEL ECONOMY 13.6 5.8 17.3
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.35758 0.35033 2.3232 297.26 0.8591 13.6430 5.7864 17,2018
GRAMS/KM 0.222 0.218 1.44 185. 0.834
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.22219 0.21768 1.4436 184.70 0.53384

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT #3 FOGARTY UNIT NO HEAT

Trt FUEL ECUNOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1986 REGULATIONS.

9ass 0 DYNO SITE:0209 TEST 67-5032

TI-¥


1987

ACTUAL ADJUSTED

uyNU SITE:0209 TEST # 875031 ! 1980 LIGHT OUTV VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 15:50:39 Oct 26,
MFR. ALT. fnrnroonne TEST TYPE --------/

MFR. : REP. RUN. RETEST HP. PARTIC- one tanlf EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION. EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP = METH ULATES aoa et-4-¢ rest. PROCEOURE
590 vwFB01798V183756 ° N nN ey

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ /--~---- % CO a: a BA di €OASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1
10-21-87 EMPTY

=== AMBIENT TEST CONDJTIONS:.-

RO DEW (AMB TEMP % REY S.HU
G1 POINT ae vm
9.23. 41.3 73.5 0 31.3, 39.27 0.8562

ti -~-- DVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS
DYNO -ACTUAL

#2 RPM = GEAR 1OLE HIGH SPEED aa tt}

NO
GA/LB rare gl a cenioes noe

DVNO TIRE ‘ODOMETER SYSTEM

TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-22-87 09 0209 = 2500 5.6 45.00 17248.9 N/A
BAG 1 3.544 MILES 5.703 KM 6262. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2621.0 CU.FT. OLUTION FACTOR = 16.238
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, = AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELD. = FIELO2 =CODE
HC-F10 14 91.9% 68.87 14 5.17 3.77 65.34 PPM 3.01 0.849 0.528 100° —-«6.059 -
NOX-CHEM 15 $3.0 26.50 15 0.9 0.45 26.07 PPM 3.41 0.963 0.598 MPG wPL Ls 100KM
coz ae 81.8% 0.605 22 4.3% 0.038 0.769 % 4124.00 317.197 197.097 12.6 5.38 18.6
co 1 $3.3 137.63 18 0.0 — 0.0 137.63 PPM 12,80 3.612 2.245
ME THANE in b.2~- 2.60 15 3.7" 1,65 0.87 PPM 0.04 0.011 0.007
HC NM 64.47 PPM 2.97 0.838 0.521 .
BAG 2 3.921 MILES 6.309 KM 9141. ROLL REVS. SECS, VMIX= 4831.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 26.165
SITE #a203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. = AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELD? = FIELD2 = CODE
HC-FID 14 18.6 13.77 14 4.80, 3.55 18.36 PPM 0.82 0.209 0.130 4.972 id
NOX-CHEM 15 22.6 14.32 1s 0.0 0.0 11,32 PPM 2.53 0.647 0.402 MPG PLL /100KM
coz 22 53. 4 0.507 22 4.2 = 0,037 0.472 % 1180.57 301.125 187.000 13.6 5.76 17.4 5
co 18 17% 31.21 18 0.0 0.0 31.21 PPM 4.97 1.268 :
METHANE 15 azo 204s 3.7 1165, 0.32 PPM 0.02 0.006 0.004
HC-NM 10.04 PPM 0.7! 0.202 0.126
BAG 3 3.597 MILES 5.789 KM 6387. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2823.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.748
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMs/MI GMs/KM -FIELD1 «= FIELD2 = CODE
HC-FID 14 32.2 23.90 14 3.94, 2.88 21.18 PPM 0.98 0.271 0.169 3.039
NOX-CHEM 1S 53.0 26.50 15 0.0 0.0 26.50 PPM 3.47 0.964 0,999 MPG -KPLL/100KM
coz 22 72, TY 0.708 22 4.2 0.037 0.673 % 983.71 273.471 169.927 14.9 6.34 15.8
co 18 12.2 47.54 18 0.0 ~~ 0.0 47.54 PPM 4.43 1.230 0.764
METHANE 15 4.6 2.30 1S 3.8 =~ 1.90 0.50 PPM 0.02 0.006 0.004
HC-NM 20.68 PPM 0.95 0.265 0.165
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX MPG KPL Ls 100Km
GRAMS/MILE 0.356 0,349 1.74 297. 0.80 FUEL ECONOMY 13.7 8.8 7.1
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.35650 . 0.34907 1.7362 296.86 0.7978 . 13,6846 5.8350 17,1379
GRAMS / KM 0.222 0.217 1.08 184, 0.496 .
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.22151 0.21690 1.0788 184.46 0.49573
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT #2 QUICK LIGHT OFF - FOGARTY UNIT
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0 TEST _ 87-5031

DYNO SITE:0209


-5-
lil. Test Vehicle and Fuel

The test vehicle used in the evaluation of the ceramic
resistive start catalyst is a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Sedan
(Vehicle Identification No. VWFB0179BV183756). This vehicle is
equipped with a continuous (K-Jetronic) fuel injection system
on a 97-cubic inch, in-line 4-cylinder engine.[4] . Vehicle
inertia weight is 2,500 Ibs. and the transmission is a
three-speed automatic.

The vehicle is fueled with neat methanol (M100) from
Howell! Hydrocarbons, Inc., San Antonio, TX. Vehicle exhaust
flow ranges from roughly 8-12 scfm at idle to about 30 scfm at
60 MPH. Stabilized exhaust gas temperatures range from about
225°F at idle to about 700°F at 60 MPH at the inlet of the test
device. The rated horsepower of the engine is 52 HP and the
actual dynamometer horsepower setting used is 7. 7 HP...

Iv. Vehicle Test Evaluation Configurations

As mentioned, the purpose of this test program was to put
a heated mass of catalyzed material in the exhaust of a
methanol-fueled vehicle to reduce vehicle cold start emissions,
particularly’ formaldehyde, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Untike a previously tested metal monolith, the Colorol! RSC
requires relatively little energy to heatup (about 0.01 kW-hr)
to operating temperatures, but dissipates this energy quite
rapidly after power to the unit is shut off.[5] Therefore,
rather than heat the RSC for several minutes before vehicle
cold start, shut off the power, and run a cold start test
sequence, an alternate procedure was devised. The Colorol! RSC
was heated for 45 seconds prior to cold start, which Is
generally the time required for the unit to reach a stabilized
operational temperature with nominal power supplied. Since it
is believed that the relatively cold exhaust temperatures
during vehicle warmup would cool the Colorol! RSC filters
rather quickly, the unit was kept powered throughout the first
195 seconds of vehicle operation. On the FTP, it was decided
to keep the unit powered until the vehicle reached 4th gear on
the highest acceleration in Bag 1, i.e., for the first 195
seconds of the test.[{6] The Colorol! RSC was evaluated at two
different power settings to characterize the emissions
conversion efficiencies of Bag 1 and composite FTP emissions.
Details of the power supplied and the fuel energy equivalent
are listed in Table 1. This table shows that the heated
resistance of the Colorol! RSC was roughly 0.6 ohms and that
the fuel energy equivalent consumed is minimal, 0.38 ounces (11
ml) of methanol.

Prior to heating the RSC, however, baseline vehicle tests
were run without the RSC, and with the RSC installed but not
heated. The data from these tests allowed us to characterize
the vehicle's engine-out emission levels and determine the
effect of just the catalyst on the Coloroll RSC.


IX. APPENDIX


DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 880194 i} soe! LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11317145 DEC 9, 1987

MFR. ALT. : [n-------= TEST TYPE ----

ft
MFR, REP, RUN, RETEST H.P. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (8CTO)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP =6METH ULATES CONFIRMATION J------ TEST PROCEDURE ----~-/
$90 vwFA01796V183756 0 N N CVS 76-LATER
CURB ORV AXLE AXLE = -/--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ /------ % CO ~-----/ ILE SOAK —_COASTOOWN TIME
pace DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 1’ #2 RPM «GEAR IDLE WIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
= EMPTY . 22 0

Jrcecen-- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS =-----/
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHVOES AGE

20.05 60.1 75.5 F 40.1 54.37 0.9116 27¢
Jn------- DVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS -------- J
DYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET . TWHP PSI = (MI) MILES
12-08-87 14 0209 = 2500 6.6 45.00 17405.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.584 MILES 5.768 KM- 6356. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2796.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.126
SITE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, =. AUX, = AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS — GMS. GMS/MI— GMS/KM = FIELO1 = FIELO2 = CODE
HC-FIO 14 21.0. 15.56 14 5. 3.69 12.09 PPM 0.55 0.154 0.096 too +430
NOX-CHEM 15 40.1%, 20.06 15 0.2% 0.10 19.97 PPM 2.76 0.769 0.478 MPG HPL L/100KM
coz 2203.5, 0.822 22 4.3 0.039 0.786 % 1198.54 317.688 12.8 5.45 18.3
co 18 7. 69.19 18 O14, 0.38 68.84 PPM 6.35 v7
METHANE 15 6.0 3.00 15 318” 1.80 1,22 PPM 0.06 0.016
HC-NM . 10.87 PPM 0.50 0.138 0.086
BAG 2 3.907 MILES 6.268 KM 9110. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4785.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR ® 26,047
SLTE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER |. CONC, CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS /MI GMsS/KM = FIELDY = FIELO2 =CODE
HC-FID 14 5.17 14 6.2% 4.58 Q.77 PPM 0.06 0.uIs 0.010 .046
NOX-CHEM 15 3 noe 7.86 1s 0.27. 0.10 7.47 PPM 1.76 0.452 0.281 MPG KPLL/100KM
coz 22 «83.9 0.814 22 4.5 0.048 0.475 % 1177.00 = 301.236 2179 13.7 6.81 17.2
co 16 010%, 0.0 , 16 0. wf 0.0 0.0 PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0
METHANE 15 4.8 2.40 15 3.8 1.90 * 0.57 PPM 0.05 o.an 0.007
HC-NM 0.99 PPM 0.02 0.004 002
BAG 3 3.595 MILES 5.785 KM 8381. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2851.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 19,193
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER , CONC. RANGE METER ~ CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/mt = GMS/KM— Ss FIELON «= FIELO2 §=CODE
HC-FIO 14 42. 8% 9.47 14 6.2% 74.56 5.13 PPM 0.24 0.066 uy
NOX~CHEM 18 32. og 16.12 8 0.10 16.02 PPM . 2.26 0.627 MPG “KPL Ls 100KM
coz 22 117 0.697 22 4.5 0.041.- 0.658 % 972.6 270.877 18.2 6.46 18.5
co 16 1.47 4.37 16 0. 0.10 + 14.28 PPM 0.12 0.033
METHANE 15 5.0 2.50 15 3.8/ 1.90 0.70 PPM 0.03 0.009
HC-NM 4.43 PPM 0.21 0.057
WEIGHTED VALUES HC | NMHC co coz NOX KPL Ls 100KM
GRAMS/MILE 0.058 0.046 0.37 296. 0.56 FUEL ECONOMY 13.9 17.0
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.05782. 0.04617 0.3733 296.24 0.5649 . 13.8736 +9608
GRAMS/KM 0.036 0.029 0.23 184, - 0.351
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.03593 0.02869 0.2320 184.07 = 0.35102

COMMENTS: Vw METHANOL RABBIT 1 STALL 20 SEC BAG 3
a BASELINE CAT & QUICK LIGHT OFF CAT HEAT APPLIED

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

9655 0 OVNO SITE:0209 TEST s6-U194

8I-¥


“PYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 880195 i} 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 14:21:30 DEC 15, 1987

MFR. AUT. dneen----- TEST TVPE --------/
MFR. REP. RUN, RETEST H.P.  PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH ULATES CONFIRMATION = /------ TEST PROCEOURE ------/
690 VwFBO1798V183756 0 N : nN CVS 75-LATER
CURB ORV AXLE AXLE /--- IGNITION TIMING ---/ /------ % CO ------/ OLE SOAK _COASTDOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 91 42 RPM GEAR =—s IDLE. «sHIGH SPEED PM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ApousteD
12-08-87 © MPTY .

fecn----- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ~------/
BARO wET AMB TEMP % REL = S.HUM NOX
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES ROE
28.74 59.7 75.8 F 38.3 52.93 0.9060 27¢
J--~----- DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------

OYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SVSTEM

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
42-09-87 13 0209 = 2500 6.6 45.00 17420.6 N/A
BAG 1 3.562 MILES 5.764 KM 8351. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2856.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR © 16.460
SITE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER | CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELDY) «= FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 14 21.0 15.56 14 5. 3.77 12,02 PPM 0.56 0.157 0.097 100 1.220
NOX-CHEM 15 gy 04% - 19 51 15 it) ‘Za 0.15 19.37 PPM 2.72 0.758 0.471 MPG KPLL/100KM
coz "22 wi ny 0 sua 22 aay 9. 938 0.768 % 1135.88 317.133 197.057 12.8 9 5.45 18.3
co - 16 waa 63.58 16 0. 63.58 PPM 7.87 2.197 1.365
METHANE 15, v.47 3.20 1s 3. i 4 “85 1.46 PPM 0.07 0.019 0.012
HC-NM 10.55 PPM 0.49 + 0.137 0.085
BAG 2 3.891 MILES 6.263 KM 9073. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX2 4714.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 26.307
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. = AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER , CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/ut GMS/KM-FIELOt =FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 14 7 4.80 14 6.00% 4.43 0.54 PPM 0.04 0.011 0.007 -094
NOX-CHEM 15 “a 1 7.06 1s 0.1 0.05 7.02 PPM 1.62 0.417 0.259 uPG KPLL/100KM
coz 22 53. nA 0.509 22 437 0.039 0.471 % 1151.45 295.900 183.864 13.9 6.91 - 16.9
co 16° 0.0% 0.0 16 Q. 0.0 0.0 PPM 0.0 0.0
METHANE 15 4.6" 2.30 15 3.6<~ 1.80 0.57 PPM 0.04 G.oun 0.007
HC-NM * -0.03 PPM -0.00 0.001 -0.000
BAG 3 3.593 MILES 5.763 KM 8378. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2754.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 16.648
SITE #203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX
RANGE METER CONC, RANGE METER / CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/M1 GMS/KM = FIELDI) «= FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 14 16.0 14.84 14 7.44 PPM 0.33 0.093 0.058 218
(NOX-CHEM 15 33.4 Ma 16.57 1S 16.38 PPM 2.21 0.616 0.383 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 22 72.9 0.710 22 0.671 % 957.55 266.465 18.4 6.56 15.2
co 16 1.0 20.98 16 0.98 PPM 0.09 0.025
METHANE 15 49 ~~ 2.45 15 0.75 PPM 0.03 0.009
HC-NM . 6.69. PPM 0.30 o
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co co2 NOX MPG KPL L/100KM
GRAMS/MILE 0.063 0.051 0.46 292. 0.84 FUEL. ECONOMY tact 6.0 16.
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.06325 0.05091 0.4596 292.22 0.5417 4. 0556 5.9571 16.7665
GRAMS /KM 0.039 0.032 0.29 182. 0.337
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.03930 0.03163 0.2855 161.88 0.33659

COMMENTS; VW METHANOL RABBIT #2 CAT BASELINE 1 MIN WARM UP 2_NO START 1 FALSE’ START
BAG 1 & QUICK LIGHT OFF CAT W/HEAT

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

9655 0 OYNO SITE:0209 TEST 68-0196

6T-¥


BAG BY BAG TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX

TesT B * <---CURRENT TEST RESULTS ---> <n PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/MI ) --->
NUMBER A HC coz

aa-=-- G ----- wonnee

875030 + 0.804 318.84 0.991 0.095 3.636 318.95 0.992 1.106 2.184 0.14084 C75
875030 2 0.186 304.62 0.643 0.022" 1.142 304.69 0.643 0.278 0.507 0.07901 C75
875030 3 0.225 273.67 1.008 0.026 1.073 273.90 1.008 0.326 0.611 0.07543 C75
675031 1 0.849 317.15 0.962 0.100 3.612 317.43 0.963 1.178 , 2.309 0.17039 C75
875031 2 0.209 301.09 0.647 0.025 1.268 (301.07 0.647 0.310 0.568 0.08568 C75
675031 3 0.271 273.48 0,964 0.032 1.230 273.77 0.964 0.391 0.738 0.08419 C75
875032 1 0.752 316.63 0.995 0.089 4.632 316.98 0.995 1.068 2.045 0.20222 C75
875032 2 0.228 303.16 0.698 0.027 1.734 302.90 0.698 0.348 0.620 0.11426 C75
875032 3 0.307 274.25 «1.064 0,036 1.705 271.12 1.064 0.447 0.634 0.10665 C75
880189 1 0.596 4.075 320.80 1.126 0.070 4.075 . 320.94 1.126 0.911 1.621 0.29950 C75
880189 2 0.284 1.932 302.09 0.692 0.033 1,932 302.17 0.692 0.455 0.772 0.16865 C75
980189 3 0.385 V.912 270.55 4.137 0.045 1,992 270.66 1.138 0.579 1.046 0.17396 C75
680190 1 0.374 3.326 304.23) 1.054 0.044 3.326 304.37 1.054 0.535 1.017 0.10990 C75
680190 2 0.138 1.084 2867.58 0.626 0.016 1.084 287.862 0.626 0.214 0.376 0.07498 C75
880190 3 0.259 1.185 259.21 0.907 0.031 1.155 259.30 0.907 0.377 0.705 0.08763 C75
g80191 1 1.358 8.023 307.15 2.212 0.160 8.023 307.48 2.213 1.933 . 3.692 0.37736 C75
ga01g1 2 0.765 6.139 296.92 1.336 0.090 6.139 297.20 1.336 1.124 | 2.081 0.28743 C75
880191 °3 0.787 5.642 265.33 2.203 0.093 5.642 265.46 2.203 1.141 2.141 0.26270 C75
880192 1 2.167 7.730 316.22 2.390 0.255 7.730 316.21) 2.390 3.013 5.689 0.44919 C75
680192 2 0.950 $.928 296.84 1.407 0.112 §.928 297.07 1.407 1.375 2.882 0.31354 C75
880192 3 0.789 6.427 265.32 2.207 0.093 5.427 265.60 2.207 1.142 2.144 0.26137 C75
880193 1 0.477 1.890 318.10 1.063 0.056 1,890 318.25 1.063 0.646 1,298 0.05907 C75
880193 2 0.007 0.0 305.92 0.600 0.001 0.0 306.36 0.600 0.012 0.022 0.00289 C75
880193 3 0.063 0.060 277.84 0.966 0.007 0.060 278.15 0.966 0.084 0.172 0.00333 C75
980194 1 0.154 V.771 317.67 0.769 0.018 V.770 317.61 0.769 9.205 0.420 0.03172 C75
880194 2 0.015 0.0 301.25 0.451 0.002 0.0 301.29 0.452 0.021 0.043 0.00176 C75
880194 3 100. 3.595 0.066 +0.033 270.54 0.627 0.008 0.033 270.55 0.627 0.088 0.182 0.00313 C75

8680195 1 100. 3.582 0.157 2.197 317.11 0.758. 0.018 2.197 317.15 0.758 0.219 0.426 0.03425 C75
880195 2 100. 3.891 0.011 0.0 295.93 0.417 0.001 0.0 296.09 0.417 0.016 0.030 0.00379 C75
680195 3 100. 3.593 0.093 0.025 266.51 0.616 0.011 0.025 266.67 0.616 0.124 0.254 0.00576 C75


1... Background —

One of the major problems with methanol utilization as an
automotive fuel is the incomplete combustion of methanol in the
form of formaldehyde emissions during vehicle cold start and
warmup.{1]* A variety of strategies have been devised to
address this problem and are. currently under investigation,
most notably the use of a start catalyst.

A start catalyst, particularly one that can be heated
quickly, is seen as an improvement since most engines and
emission control systems are optimized to reduce emissions at
their normal operating temperatures, but do not work as well!
during cold start and warmup. Experimentation with the
technique of heating a catalyst prior to tHe start of an engine
so that the catalytic reactions can become self-sustaining
almost immediately, is also desirable for gasoline-fueled
vehicles which often have high cold-start emissions..of carbon
monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.{2] Further reductions in
oxidants may require lowering these cold-start emissions from
gasol ine-fueled vehicles. :

Recently, resistive heaters have been evaluated as diesel
particulate filters and regeneration devices at MVEL.[3] These
devices have taken the form of porous silicon carbide and other
conductive ceramics or materials that have been treated or
metallized to make them more conductive. One such material
which has demonstrated the ability to be quickly and uniformly
heatable is the Colorol!l (formerly Fogarty) porous silicon
carbide filter element. During the course of testing these
elements in a diese! particle control application, it was
suggested that one of these Coloroll elements be incorporated
into a resistive start catalyst (RSC) for evaluation on a
methanol-fueled vehicle. It was decided to catalyze an element
and take advantage of the quick heatup capability of this
material in order to optimize the Coloroll! element/heater as a
resistive start catalyst.

tl. Resistive Start Catalyst and Power Supply

The Colorol!l porous ceramic resistive start catalyst, as
it was evaluated in this test program, is shown in Figure 1.
The desired operation of this device is to take advantage of
the small mass of catalyzed ceramic in order to minimize the
power requirement to heat the element to the operating
temperature (over 1000 F for best results prior to the engine
being started). Actus! filter temperature measurements were
made by the materia! supplier only. Thermocoup!ing was not
attempted with this material to avoid the creation of hot spots
and non-uniform current density. The material supplier
indicated that 1000°F to 1200°F filter temperatures were
observed at the current densities applied in this test
program. Once at the operating temperature, the RSC would
continue to be powered for

* Numbers in brackets denote references listed at the end of
the paper. .


~-12-

Table 6

Comparison of Emissions of Colorol! RSC and

Other Methanol Catalysts On M100 VW Rabbit

Coloroll
RSC + CAT

Unheated TWC
12Pt :Rh(40)

Camet Metal
Monolith

Coloroll RSC
(heated)

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

0.15
0.06

0.11
0.12

0.07

0.37
0.22

Table 7

0.77

0.56...

“0.62

0.88
0.70

1.05 .

0.79

HC NOx co
(g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)

1.77
0.37

0.69

2.19
0.61

3.33
1.73

HCHO
(mg/mi)

12
4

12

12
14

110
84

Comparison of Percent Emissions Reductions _
of the Coloroll RSC and Other Methanol Catalysts

Coloroll
RSC + CAT

Unheated TWC
12Pt :Rh(40)

Camet Metal
Monolith

Colorol! RSC
(heated)

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

Bag 1
FTP

HC
&%)

91
94

89

94
94

79
79

NOx
&%)

67
69

65

S58
s9

54
56

co
&)

78
94

89

80
90

58
72

HCHO
(%)

97
99

95

93
96

73
73


-14-

Vil. Conclusions and Recommendations

Information obtained from this test evaluation program
which may shed light on the commercial feasibility of using
resistive start catalysts for the reduction of cold start
emissions of HCHO and HC from methanol and gasoline-fueled
vehicles. A few of the more significant findings of this study
are listed below. :

1. The achievement of 0.06 g/mi HC emissions over the
Federal Test Procedure with the heated resistive start catalyst
and a main catalyst is significant in terms of possible oxidant
control. With just the heated RSC, 0.22 g/mi HC was obtained.

2. Maximum formaldehyde emissions conversion
efficiencies were obtained with FTP emissions as low as 4 mg/mi
with the heated resistive start catalyst and a main catalyst.
HCHO conversion efficiency with the heated RSC only are 73
percen

3. The Coloroll RSC requires minimal external energy to
operate at the power settings utilized in this test program.
Fuel energy equivalent power consumption at the highest power
setting was 0.004 gal (0.5 oz.) of methanol.

4. Bag 1 emissions conversion efficiencies mirrored
composite FTP emissions conversion efficiencies, particularly
for HC and HCHO. This trend indicates that more benefit may
have been derived from the additional heat on the catalyst at
the beginning of Bag 1 than from the presence of the RSC
throughout the FTP.

5. No electrical contact problems were experienced
throughout the test program with the use of 316 Stainless Steel
electrical leads, thin stainless steel woo! matting

intermediates between the ceramic heater element and the
electrical leads, and nickel-chrome flamespray applied to the
ends of the ceramic element.

6. Thermal instability may be a problem with silicon
carbide heater elements in the resistive start catalyst
application. Temperature differentials between the RSC heater
element and the exhaust gases during a vehicle cold start cause
the RSC system effectiveness to be decreased and may cause
shortcircuiting or element failure with repeated use.

7. Formaldehyde emissions were lower with the Coloroll
RSC unheated than with only 600 watts applied during the first
few minutes of Bag 1. The low heat setting may have actually
produced more favorable conditions for HCHO production rather
than increased formaldehyde conversion.


Iv.

vi.

vil.

vill.

1X.

Table of Contents

Background -.. 1... ee ee ee ee
Resistive Start Catalyst and Power Supply ...... 1
Test Vehicle and Fuel .... 1... 1. ee ee ee ee §
Vehicle Test Evaluation Configurations ........ §
Bag One and Composite FTP Emissions ...... : re 4
Discussion of Test Results... 1... 22 eee ee 1
Conclusions and Recommendations .......... . 14
References . 2... 1 1 ee ee ee ee et ee ee ee WP

Appendix . 2 6 6 1 we ee ee ee ee AM


OVNO SITE;D209 TEST # 660193 i} 1981 LIGHT OUTVY VEHICLE ANALYSIS 1. PROCESSED: 11517140, DEC @, 1987

MFR. ALT. [eenrnon-= TEST TYPE --------/

ura. REP, RUN, RETEST HP. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP «METH ULATES CONFIRMATION = /~----~ TEST PROCEDURE ------/
690 vwF601798V183756 o N . x CVS 75-LATER

CURB ORV AXLE AXLE IGNITION TIMING ---/ f------ % CO ---~--/ TOLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE = WEIGHT =WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE a RPM GEAR =—-IOLE._ “HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
12-03-87 - eupty 0 0.0
deorc-7-- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ~-----/
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
20.00 59.0 77.8 F 31,3 45.78 0.8792 27¢

J-7------ OVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------
DYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE DoMerER SVSTEM

TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHPp =PST (M1) MILES
12-04-87 09 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17386.4 N/A
BAG 1 3.581 MILES 5.763 KM- 8349. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2864.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.346
SITE #203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, © AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER SL CONC. RANGE METER , CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMS/Mi GMs/KM FIELOD FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 16 13.8 41.32 16 V7 5.09 36.53 PPM wa 0.477 0.296 100 2.094
NOX-CHEM wv we 3%, 28.37 W7 0.2% 0.50 27.90 PPM 3.81 1,063 0.660 MPG KPLL/100KM
coz ‘ 22 82.2 0.808 22 aa 0.043 0.768 %& Vt39.00 318.113 197.667 12.8 $.43 18.4
co 18 8.1 71.68 18 9.07 0.0 71.68 PPM 6.77 1.890 1.075
METHANE ty 6a / 3.40 15 5.8 2.90 0.68 PPM 0.03 0.009 0.006
HC-NM 35.86 PPM 1.68 0.468 0.291
BAG 2 3.878 MILES 6.240 KM 9041. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4758.0 Cu.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 25.591
SITE #0203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS - AUX, AUX, AUX,
RANGE meres 37 CONC. RANGE METER ~ CONC. CONCENTRATIONS .GMs. GMs/MI GMS/KM FIELOI FIELO2 CODE
HC-FIO 4 97% 5.84 14 7.77 5.69 0.37 PPM 0.03 0.007 0.005 072
NOX-CHEM 15 20. 8 10.42 1S 0.37 0.15 10.27 PPM 2.33 0.600 0.373 MPG KPL t/100KM
co2 220 (54.8 0.523 22- 4.8 0.043 0.481 % 1986.37 305.952 190.110 13.5 $.72 © 17.5
co 16 0.0) 0.0 16 - 0.0%, 0.0 0.0 PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0
METHANE 15 6.1 3.05 + 15 5.8/ 2.90 + 0.26 PPM 0.02 0.005 0.003 .
HC-NM O.t1 PPM 0.01 0.002 0.001 ‘
BAG 3 3.575 MILES 5.754 KM 6336. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 3039.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 19.874
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUK, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMs/KM FIELON FIELOZ CODE
HC-FID 4 13.7 10.14 14 8.07, 5.91 4.52 PPM 0.22 0.063 0.039 116
NOX-CHEM 15 a. YF 23.95 15 7 23.86 PPM 3.45 + 0.966 0.600. MPG KeL t/100Km
coz 22 0.673 22 0.631 % 993.29 277.824 172.632 14.8 6.29 16.9
. co 16. ayy “2, 6 16 « 2.15 PPM 0.22 0.060 0.037
METHANE iL} 5s 0.56 PPM 0.03 0.008 0.005
HC-NM . 3.96 PPM 0.20 0.055 0.034
WEIGHTEO VALUES HC . NM-HC co co2 NOX MPG wPL “ yoowm
GRAMS/MILE 0.120 0.013 o.at aan, 0.80 FUEL ECONOMY 13.6 5.8
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.11952 . 0.49281 0.4067 300.77 0.7956 13.6320 5.7968 " 2506
GRAMS/KM 0.074 0.070 0.25 187. 0.494 .
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.07426 0.07010 0.2527 186.89 0.49439

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT #1 CATALYST BASELINE
ONE FALSE START 2 STALLS @ START OF TEST BAG 3 HAD A LONG CRANK

THE FUEL ECONOMY’ VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE- 1968 REGULATIONS.

9655 0 : OVNO SITE:0209 TEST 68-0193

LT-W


COMPOSITE TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX

Test B % <---CURRENT TEST RESULTS ---> <--- PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/MILE) ---> METH- Gas
NUMBER A OF. MILES HC co coz: NOx HC co coz: NOX CE CH30H = HCHO ANOL FACTOR EQUIV NOTE
eaenne G METH -----  -een-  reeeee  neeeee nee sores reeene i “PG ----

$ nenee
875030.3 100. 11.112 0.325 1.638 299.07 0.815 0.038 1.639 0.813 0.463 0.883 0.09083 13.66 2.0105

3.100. 11.062 0.357 1.736 296.84 0.798 1.736 0.798 0.509 0.970 0.10286 13.65 2.0105

3100. 11.074 2.323 297.25 0.859 2.924 2.0105

3 100. 11.019 2.369 297.31 0.903 2.369 2.0108

3.100. 11.082 1.866 283.26 0.791 1.566 2.0108

3 100. 11.060 6.392 290.40 1.754 6.392 9 2.0108

3 100. 10.977 6.163 292.20 1.829 6.163 2.0105

3.100, 11.034 0.407 300.76 0.796 0.407 2.0108

3 100. 11.086 0.058 0.373 296.24 0.565 0.373 0.565 0.004 2.0105

3 100. 11.066 0.063 0.460 292.24 0.542 0.460 0.542 0.01061 14.02 2.0108



ree,
, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(3 }
SZ ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
ma

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION

April 7, 1988

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review

FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch

TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division

The attached report entitled "Evaluation of a Porous
Silicon Carbide Resistive Start Catalyst on a Methanol-Fueled
Vehicle," (EPA/AA/CTAB/88-01) describes chassis dynamometer
testing of the Fogarty porous ceramic quick lightoff catalyst
with and without a main catalyst of the M100 VW Rabbit.

Since this report is concerned only with the presentation
of data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy
or regulations, your concurrence is requested to waive
administrative review according to the policy outlined in your
directive of April 22, 1982.

» fo
Approved: Lie Meg Date: KID

Charles L. Gray; Jr., Dir., ECTD

Attachment


OYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 680189 i} 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | . PROCESSEO: 13:18:18 Nov 2, 1987

MFR. ALT. rrcceee-- TEST TVPE --------/
MFR. REP. RUN. RETEST H.P. PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)

CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH ULATES CONFIRMATION  /------ TEST PROCEDURE ------/
690 VWFBO179BV183756 t) N N CVS 75-LATER

IOLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME

CURB ORV AXLE AXLE /-~~ IGNITION TIMING ---/ 0 f--->-~ % CO --~----s/
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM = GEAR IOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR penroo ACTUAL ADJUSTED
40-27-87" EMPTY 0.0
veo /- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ------ /
BaRO /DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG POINT TEMPVUNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHVOES AGE
29.02 46.5 74.0 D 37.5 48.35 0.8887 27C
Jvoco---- DVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR'SITE IW SET TWHP PSI .(MI) MILES
10-28-87 15 0209 = 2500 5.6 45.00 17290.4 N/A
BAG 1 3.569 MILES) 5.743 KM 6321. ROLL REVS. - SECS. VMIX= 2796.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 15.844
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUK.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER, CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gus. GMs/Mi GMS/uM = FEELD1 = FIELD2 = CODE
HC-FID 14 60.6 49.73 14 4 3.32 46.61 PPM 2.43 0.596 0.371 100 40.817
NOX= CHEM, 1S tage 90 468 15 o 4 0.35 29.86 PPM 4.02 1.126 0.700 MPG KeLL/100KM
coz ae wrt 22 4.2 0.037 0.790 % 1144.93 320.813 199.344 12.5 5.32 18.8
co 18 shad, 18 0.0 0.0 157.78 PPM 14.55 4.076 2.532
ME THIANE 19 armed 1s 3.4 1.70 1.01 PPM 0.05 0.013 0.008
HC-NM 45.60 PPM 2.08 0.584 0.363
BAG 2 3.868 MILES 6.225 KM 9018. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4604.0 CU.FT, DILUTION FACTOR = 26.242
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED . MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS _ GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM-  FIELD1 = FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 14 22. Bu 16.90 14 a. 3.03 13,98 PPM 1.10 0,284 0.176 4.301
NOX-CHEM 15 23.2 14.62 15 0.1 0.05 11.57 PPM 2.68 0.692 0.430 PG KPL.  L/100KM
coz 22. 53.10// 0.504 22 4.1s 0.036 0.469 % 1168.49 302.109 187.722 13.6 8.72 17.5
co 18 12.2 47.54 18 Oo. 0.38 47.18 PPM 7.47 1.932 4.200
METHANE 15, 4.07% 2.00 15 3.6 1.60 , 0.27 PPM 0.02 0.005 0.003
HC-NM . . 13.72 PPM 1,08 - 0.278 0.173
GAG 3 3.582 MILES 5.764 KM 6351. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2613.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.878
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. = AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELOl = FIELO2 CODE
HC-FIO 14 43.87 / 32.58 14 3.7° 9 2.73 29.99 PPM 1.38 0.385 0.239: 6.270
NOX-CHEM 15 60.5 30.24 15 0.3% 0.15 30.09 PPM 4.07 1.138 0.707 =| MPG KPLL/100KM
coz 22 71.9% , . 0.699 22 4.i 0.036 0.665 % . 969.11 270.573 168.127 16.0 6.37 15.7
co 18 18.7 / ‘74.18 18 0.1% 0.38 73.83 PPM 6.85 1.992 1,188
METHANE 1s 4.3C- 2.15 15 3.8 1.75 0.49 PPM 0.02 “0.006 0,004
HC-NM . 29.50 PPM 1.36 0.378 0.235
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co coz NOX MPG KPL Lsv00Km
-GRAMS/MILE 0.376 0.369 2.37 297. 0.90 FUEL ECONOMY 13.6 5.8 17.3
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.37586 0.36862 2.3687 297.32 0.9034 13.6369 6.7837 17.2897
GRAMS/KM 0.234 0.229 1.47 185. 0.561
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.23354 0.22905 1.4718 164.75 = 0.56137

COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT: #1 FOGARTY W/HEAT WAU AAT f rE
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL a | oy ha ji a
a 2
a) a rd ie ed 5

30 A

ww, 9855 0 7 DYNO SITE:0209 TEST 68-0189
Te? : :

€T-¥


Test Number Configuration
875030 RSC/no heat
875031 RSC/no heat
875032 RSC/no heat
875033 RSC/low ‘heat
880189 RSC/low heat
880190 RSC/high heat
880191 Baseline
880192 Baseline
880193 CAT/no RSC ~
880194 CAT/RSC/high heat
881095 CAT/RSC/high heat

Missing CAT/RSC/no heat


~10- |

and HCHO FTP emissions substantially particularly when used in
tandem with a standard main catalyst.[6,12] The data (Table 5)
shows 94 percent reductions for HC and CO and 99 percent
reduction of HCHO emissions with the heated RSC in connection
with the main catalyst. Without the main catalyst, heated RSC
conversion efficiencies over the FTP are 79 percent for HC, 72
percent for CO and 73 percent for HCHO.

The Bag 1 emissions reductions (Table 2) are quite similar
to the FTP reductions with the exception of CO conversion
efficiencies. The similar Bag 1 conversion efficiencies were
expected since all the additional heat was supplied at the
beginning of Bag 1. The increased CO emissions in Bag 1 may
have been a result of test to test variability. Without modal
analysis it is not directly quantifiable, but it appears that
most of the emissions reduction improvements occurred where
they were desired to occur, during vehicle warmup in the first
third or so of Bag 1. :

As previously mentioned, the "RSC/low heat" test
configuration was not tested when the main catalyst was added
due to the poor conversion efficiencies obtained with this
power setting. Apparently, the low heat setting may have
actually produced more favorable conditions for formaldehyde
formation rather than increasing HCHO conversion (Table 4).
Formaldehyde conversion efficiencies were twice. as large with
the RSC unheated than with the low heat setting though HC, CO,
and NOx conversion efficiencies were quite similar for the no
heat and low heat configurations.

The RSC/high heat configuration showed an improvement to
73 percent HCHO conversion efficiency with absolute levels of
84 mg/mi. This is an 8 percent improvement over the RSC/no
heat FTP HCHO conversion efficiency, and a 14 _ percent
improvement in Bag 1. HC and CO reductions were also improved,
but NOx efficiency remained roughly equivalent to the RSC/no
heat configuration.

Since the main catalyst used was one optimized for low
aldehyde emissions, the HCHO conversion efficiencies for atl
tests involving the main catalyst (with or without the RSC)
were quite high. Adding the RSC decreased HCHO emissions
further, from 15 to 5 mg/mi, with conversion efficiencies as
high as 98 percent. With heat added to the RSC, formaldehyde
emissions are decreased to 4 mg/mi (99 percent conversion
efficiency). These are equivalent to gasoline engine
formaldehyde leveis.

Perhaps the most significant result of the test program is
the achievement of 0.06 g/mi HC emissions over the FTP with the
heated resistive start catalyst and a main catalyst. This is
half the HC emissions (0.12 g.mi) achieved with just the main
catalyst. This test configuration also produced the lowest
formaldehyde emissions over the FTP as mentioned above.


-13-

Appendix.[15] A list of: test numbers versus vehicle test
configuration is also included to match up these results to the
values listed in Tables 2 and 4. These calculated data
indicate the achievement of 0.007 g/mi HC are possible with the
CAT/RSC/high heat configuration with 4 mg/mi HCHO and 0.16 g/mi
CH,0H (tests 880194, 880195).

A potential disadvantage of using these silicon carbide
heater elements in the RSC application may be the poor thermal
shock resistance of the material which, is generally defined in
terms of the material's _modulus of elasticity, flexural
strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion.[16]

Thermal shock results from rapid exhaust temperature
changes which produce temperature gradients within the
material. if all the portions of the material changed
temperature simultaneously, there would be no problem.
Unfortunately, thinner sections and corners tend to assume the
temperature of the surroundings faster than thicker sections or
flat areas. These relatively uniform porous SiC elements are
not as bad as some metals which at the surface may become very
hot while deep interior portions are stili cold. However,
rapid increases to and decreases from operating temperatures
cause non-uniform dimensional changes. These strains produce
stresses which can produce distortion or fracture.[17]

The tendency for thermal fatigue to occur depends upon the
magnitude and frequency of the thermal changes, the shape and
restraint of the structure, and the physical properties of the
composite material from which the filter structure. is made.
For both thermal shock and thermal fatigue resistance, it Is
desirable that the thermal conductivity of the material be high
enough to minimize strain-causing temperature differentials.
Silicon carbide has higher thermal conductivity than cordierite
or other ceramics, but it is not as high as most metals. A low
modulus of elasticity will result in lower stresses for a given
strain produced by a given temperature differential. sic,
unfortunately, has a higher modulus of elasticity than other
ceramics and most metals. A low-value coefficient of thermal
expansion is preferred, as this results in low values of strain
and stress for a given temperature gradient. SiC has a higher
linear thermal. expansion coefficient than other ceramics, but
it is. lower than most metals. Ductility, tensile strength, and
fatigue strength should all be good, the better to resist
permanent damage. Thermal shock is frequently more of a
problem in ceramics than in metals because of the poorer
thermal conductivity and almost complete lack of ductility.(18]

Thermal shock tests were not performed on this RSC heater
element. Such tests may be performed by heating an element to
various’ predetermined temperatures, quenching it in a water
bath of known temperature, and observing physical properties
such as whether mechanical failure or fracture occurs. Since
this was not a material development program, only temperature
versus time traces of inlet and outlet RSC the temperatures
were recorded during the cold-start FTP RSC evaluation tests.