In applying the weighting fractions w, x and 1-w-x
to the three bags certain questions of a sample~space nature
arise. According to definition, these weighting factors
relate to the fraction of total miles driven in the cold
start, hot start and stabilized conditions, respectively.
Note, however, that the fraction of miles driven in a given
mode is not, in general, the same as the fraction of the
number of vehicles operating in that mode at a given point
in time nor to the fraction of time during which a vehicle
operates in that mode. Indeed, when corrections are made
simultaneously for mode weight fraction and for average
speed in mode, the prospect of interaction of the two should
not be overlooked.

To investigate this possibility let us return to the
basis by which the standard weightings
w = 20.58%
l-w-x = 52.13%
27.28%

x
arise. Consider the following.

Bag l. First 505 seconds (0.1403 hr.)
Mileage = 3.59 miles
Average speed = 25.6 mph

Bag 2. Next 870 seconds (0.2417 hr.)
Mileage = 3.91 miles
Average speed = 16 mph

Bag 3. Repeat first 505 seconds
Mileage = 3.59 miles
Average speed = 25.6 mph.

If it is assumed that 43% of the vehicle trips begin in
the cold start mode and 57% in the hot start mode, then a
"typical" or "expected" vehicle trip would be represented as

FTP GMS/MI = [o.43 Bag 1 Gms. + Bag 2. GMS.
+ 0.57 Bag 3 cns.] / 7.5 mi.

Ww


ee ee

co and HC

5 10 15 20

25

PLOT OF GROUP 2 CORRECTION FACTORS

30

35
MPH

40

FIGURE 4

45

50

NOx

60

Page 18


Section

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title

INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

WORKING PAPERS
Working Paper No. 1 -
A Factor-Analytic Approach to Emission
Correction Factors
Working Paper No. 2 -
Speed-Temperature-Hot/Cold Correction
Factors: A Critique and Prospectus
Working Paper No. 3 -

Hot/Cold/Stabilized Vehicle Operation:
A Critique and Candidate Approach


v-AI WV

TABLE Iv- 2

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1977 Ford LTD

Over the First 505 seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table B-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc co Poo Fuel PE E
Time (gms/mi) (%) (gms/mi) (3%) (gal/mi) ae
10 min 0.39 10.20 3.91 12.53 15.98 -66.89
20 min 0.72 43.88 2.51 7.72 15.10 -28.51
30 min 0.93 65.31 3.67 11.71 15.52 -44.92
lhr 1.03 75.51 3.38 10.71 15.29 | -35.94
2 hr 1.08 80.61 3.56 11.33 14.84 18.36
4 hr 0.78 50.00 3.96 12.70 14.15 8.59
8 hr 1.23 95.92 12.48 41.95 12.40 76.95
16 hr 1.27 100.00 29.39 100.00 11.81 100.00
i 36 hr 2.06 180.60 37.63 128.30 12.46 74.61
= Stabilized 0.29 0.26 14.37



What is referred to as less than optimum choice of inde-
pendent variable is exemplified by the observation that
emissions expressed in grams per unit time may plot as a
simpler function of average speed than when expressed in
grams per unit distance. In short, the effect of speed tends
to be "unified" by the distance-to-time transformation. The
fact that certain variables are perceived as having important
effects on emissions is to a certain extent an accident of
human perception--that is, we are accustomed to think in terms
of speed, temperature and the like when other, derived or
even "contrived" variables may lead to simpler relations or
scaling laws.

One of the ways to originate variables which seem artificial
but which are in reality quite meaningful is to note the
covariance or interdependence of two or more variables. Such
covariance can be imposed by real physical constraints, such
as those influencing temperature, absolute humidity and
relative humidity. A cogent example, also, is afforded by
the fact that high speeds are not likely to be associated
with short trip lengths or with cold transient operation.

The mutual interdependence of cold start/hot start ratio,
average speeds and trip length is another case in point.

If added complexity of representation serves no other purpose
than to extend the domain of functional representation

to such unlikely or impossible combinations, then it is

clearly not justified. In the event that two or more variables
are so interrelated that this interrelation can be expressed
mathematically, then it may be possible to combine several
variables into a single, "combined" variable having the

same effect on emissions as the original variables within their
allowable ranges of variation under the constraints.

Another recommendation, therefore, naturally arises:

° Mathematical representation of correction factors
should be approached with due regard to the magni-
tude and engineering importance of variables
perceived to be important. The prospect of
combined or derived variables should not be over~
looked nor should the fact that variables originally
identified may be highly covariant,

20


FALCON BEY AS?
IN DESEO
DENVER BALTIMORE ALBUQUERQUE BUFFALO

ONE AMERICAN DRIVE
BUFFALO.NEW YORK 14225
TELEPHONE: (716) 632-4932

Working Paper No. 3

Project 8411

Environmental Protection Agency
May 25, 1978

H. T. McAdams

HOT/COLD/STABILIZED VEHICLE OPERATION:
A CRITIQUE AND CANDIDATE APPROACH

l. INTRODUCTION

The concepts of cold-start, stabilized and hot-start
operation of automotive vehicles represents an attempt to
address the effects of “state of warm-up" on emissions and
fuel economy and were developed in recognition of the importance
ef correcting for these effects. Though one is tempted to refer
to "vehicle temperature," it is recognized that to do so would be
simplistic, because (1) temperature takes on different meanings
according to where in the vehicle it is measured, and (2)
the mechanism by which such temperatures translate into
emissions is complicated and not well understood.

Presently used correction factors based on fraction of
miles driven in the cold~start, stabilized and hot-start
modes represent a compromise with reality. The conditions
under which a vehicle operates vary continuously rather than
discretely, and it is safe to say that it is seldom, if
ever, that a vehicle can be said to be ideally in the cold-
start, stabilized or hot~start state as defined in the FIP.
For example, few indeed must be the times when a vehicle is
restarted exactly 10 minutes after completing a trip which
is the exact equivalent of the FTP driving cycle. Conse-
quently, some protocol must be adopted by which operation
can be classified into one of the three states on the basis
that a given set of circumstances is sufficiently "like" one
of the states to justify its inclusion in that state. As

A SUBSIDIARY. of VW nittakexr


“ON Jadeg BuTyI0y

T

g abeg

ayy uooteg

GROUP

os
oe XyEMsuN—

pe
one

is

e
wn

We
17
18

Ave,

20.00
0.997 é
0.986 0,86)
0.985

9,733 0.654 0048S 9.653
0,650 0.592 06557 10,539
94653 9.608 0.572 9.556
0.419 0.556 QeS17 06493
06469 00418 0,384
0.457 06407 0,574
06453 0-406 0.375
O.717 C1703 O,7.2
0.743 0.737 0,755
04629 0+608 0.608
0459: 0-863 04556
04077 04657 0.656
0-420 04378 0.355
0.510 00470 0.45]
06691 06675 04681
0.455 0427 06410
0.454 06415 0,395
0-493 06475 0.478

0.979

9.975 9477
04952 9.995
9,653 0.913
1.483 14169 0,990 00,873
1.474 1,148 06989 99,853
1440 1,169 9499] 0, A91
1.916 1.291 06980 9.7723
16950 1,281 04982 0.804
16459 1,127 00992 04 900
L746 1,237 04983 06795
1,980 1.293 0.981 0,782
1,580 1.153 0.986" 0.42)

NierLe Oxide

Average Speed

+900 40.900 45,900 50.009

o
©
ao

BOG bee PU
am w@nts

OW >
SD Gee oe Ur eo

0,434

et 000 10-000 15-000 20.909 25.059 305000. 35,000 40,000 45.900 59,000 55.000
i 3]

1440 WeSlk 1.55) 1.658
ie203 1-239 29265 1.506
1.150 1.152 40213 1-258
12105 1,129 1.152 1,189
1.070 1.991 Lell5 1.181

i. 14960 0.341 1010
ieee 14031 C974 11094
9.990 06545 94960 1.904
1.063 0.992 0.960 1.0902
0,978 0.970 C.9al lioo2

0,527 9.924 9,956 1.006 114d 16206 14250
1.903 0.949 0,969 2.004 2.150 16297 1.6259
1,784 1.096 9, S6e 2-008 i 1,359 16477 4-531
16143) 06966 9,964 16007 de 1-275 ied5a 14406
30324 06997 6,939 Leola. © 152 1.419 $524 1,582
LelBl 0.631 0.966 Loc? Beil? 1.30 LeG0T 16662
1.016 0.860 0,987 1.012 1,176 1,456 16606 1,678
0,589 9,506 0,934 1,004 1,063 1,097 Lel75 1,221
0.999 0.6903 0.924 1008 3.112 16369 1,421
1,082 0.907 0,909 le0l0 -1,1463 12501 1.564
96456 9.943 O.9R6 16001 1.992 11036 14057
0,898 06864 0.934 14066 1-955 1-226 1-274

9.616 0.819 0.897 1.009 1,124 1,222 - 1+386 16446

L756
16406
1.3460
1.257>
1.208
1.323

CePCOBDDBOEGBGODOOE OD

PEE

3 Ow

ROO ee Garey t

2
7
6

60,000

2ei2e
15



TABLE 1-3

GROUP 2 CORRECTION FACTOR ANALYSIS

NITROGEN OXIDES

SPEED (mph) CORRECTION FACTOR PRODUCT SUCCESSIVE

5 F Ss F RATIOS __
5 1.242 6.210

‘10 1.031 10.310 1.660
15 -974 14.610 1.417
20 1.004 20.080 1.374
25 1.074 26.850 1.337
30 1.146 34.380 1.415
35 1.203 42.105 1.225
40 1.239 49.560 1.177
45 1.265 59.925 1.209
50 1.306 65.300 1,090
55 1.404 77.220 2.182
60 1.615 96.900 1.255

AS


APPENDIX


~4-

The seond stage of analysis is to factor in ambient temperature
effects. Data sources 1 and 2 can be applied and two approaches
can be used. The approach used with data source 2 would be a
straightforward graphical application of the data. Data source 1
has the largest amount of information regarding ambient temperature
effects. However, all data were collected at one soak time, an
overnight soak taken to be 16 hours. By defining the 16 hour point
and making the assumption that temperature and soak time effects

are independent, a parallel set of curves can be drawn for a range
of ambient temperatures.

Finally, the definition of transient operation must be related to
the definition used in the development of emission correction
factors. In the most recent AP-42 work, cold and hot transient
emissions were defined as emissions over the first 505 seconds
where the first 505 seconds contain some stabilized operation. In

order to appropriately apply the AP-42 factors, the warm-up time/engine-

off time curves need to be shifted. The cold correction factors
assume a sixteen hour soak period and 505 seconds (8.4 minutes) of
transient operation while the hot transient correction factors
assume a 10 minute engine-off period and 505 seconds of transient
operation. Thus, the curves should be shifted so that the 16 hour
and 10 minute soak periods respectively are equivalent to 8.4
minutes of operation. The shift is a percentage shift. That is,
if the time for the 16 hour soak period is shifted up by 25%, the
time for the 2 hour soak period is also increased by 25%. This
approach allows the same percentage mix of cold/stabilized or
hot/stabilized operational time in the estimate of the cold or hot
transient correction factors.

Definitions:

The data sources referenced above were analyzed on a preliminary

basis. At 75° F, the time to reach stabilized emission operations
can be defined as

t= 2.51 5°96, r= 186

where t is the time to reach stabilized emissions (in minutes) and
s is the engine-off time (in hours).

To get the AP-42 definition for cold operation, the equation must
be adjusted so that a 16 hour engine-off period results in 505

seconds of cold operation. This is accomplished by including 24%
stabilized operation in the definition. Thus,


TABLE A-2 (Continued)

Transformed Data (Standard Scores)

-0327 -0225  - .0778 -0977 2359 +3067 33177 «3100 +2761 2754 +3227 4497
-6437 +7318 66378 = 13420 = 12519 - .1358 = 0885 = £1018 = 14240-1829) - 1247 +1169
~ 0445 -3164 .4822 - .3420 - .3607.  - .2832) = .2347,9 = 62154 -, 2602) - 63397) - 14384-4019
1.2001 1.3296 1.3222 -1.2213. -1.0862  - .9785 =- .9496 §=- -.9822) 1.0319 -1.0875 -1.0604 - .8718
1.0061 -9750 -8555 = .7817. = 6147. - .5571 -..5597 - «25988 - «6526 = - «67016 - «26799 = «5487
0841 - 1846 «1400 -0977 -0746 - 1592 -2040 2106 .1977 - 1668 -1701 2442
-2031 +3265 +3572 - .3420) -- 2756 = «1358 = - «61047, - «610180 = 1163 = 21347) - 11350 ~~. 0984
-1.2762 = -1.3048 = -1.3533 1.4167 1.3805 1.3600 1.3577 1.3609 1.3749 1.3971 1.4234 1.4286
- .6233 - .7779  -1.0422 1.4167 1.4530 1.5286 1.5851 1.6023 1.6103 1.5901 1.6365 1.7517
- .1860 - .2815 - .4200 5374 5824 -6016 -6102 5940 ~5639 5649 +5952 +6651
- .9610 -1.0718 -1.1044 -9771 +9452 «8755 -8377 -8497 «8909 9146 -8240 5378
- .5430 - .5449 - .6066 5374 7275 7280 7240 -7360 7339 7458 -7695 8119
-1.2601  -1.3048 = -1.1977 9771 ©7275 ~5595 -4802 4662 ~5247 5769 -5189 +2246
+5762 -4987 +3889 = 3420 - .2519 = - .2200 - .2347 - .2580 - .2863 - .2915 - 12440) - .1376
- .9063 - .9603 - .9800 -9771 +9089 «8755 -8539 878) 9171 -9508 +9439 -6119
-1.0736 -1.0313 - .7000 0977. - .1068 - .3675 - .4784 - .4852 - .4302 - .3759 - .4837 - .6522
2.7855 2.5759 2.5354 -2.5404 -2.4284 -2.3479 -2.2983  -2.2886 9 -2.2876 9 -2.2816 9 -2.2274 = -2..0758
+3725 -3164 -7622) -=-1.2212 »--1.7392--1.9687 --2.0220 -1.9762 -1.8821 -1.7871 -1.8351 -2.0562

Correlation Matrix

1.0000 +9920 -9702  - .9132) = .8465 «- «7918 «=- «7681 - «7730 «- .7926 «== ~.8094 = - «7828 - «6728

+9920 1.0000 .9863  - .9274 = .8634 - .8045 - .7797 - .7845 - .8057 - .8250 ~- .8005 - .6892

«9702 +9863 1.0000 - .9727 ~ .9313 - .8860 - .8658 - .8692 - .8862 - .9018 - .8835 - .7919
- .9132 = .9274 = .9727 1.0000 -9851 +9632 -9525 -9548 +9648 9727 +9625 9044
- .8485 - .8634 - .9313 +9851 1.0000 +9939 +9881 +9886 +9926 9952 -9908 -9557
- 7918 - .8045 - .8860 +9632 +9939 1.0000 +9989 +9987 9987 -9973 +9969 «9795
- .7681  - .7797  - .8658 +9525 -9881 «9989 1.0000 9998 +9984 ~9955 +9967 9862
- .7730  - .7845 - .8692 «9548 - 9886 «9987 +9998 1.0000 -9991 9966 «9974 -9857
- .7926 - .8057 - .8862 +9648 «9926 - 9987 +9984 +9991 1.0000 +9997 +9986 - 9806
- 8094 - .8250 - .9018 -9727 ~9952 +9973 +9955 -9966 -9991 1.0000 -9987 «9752
- .7828 - .8005 - .8835 «9625 +9908 -9969 9967 «9974 +9986 +9987 1.0000 +9845
- .6728 - .6892  -..7919 9044 +9557 +9795 +9862 +9857 +9806 9752 +9845 1.0000

A-2-c


Moreover, for a given fraction of miles driven in cold start
conditions, the average cold-start speed acts as a constraint
on trip length. Though rate of warm-up may vary with driving
speed, it is likely that vehicles tend to stabilize after some
fixed length of time rather than after some fixed distance
driven, Further study to define warm-up time as a function of
speed, ambient temperature and other factors would help
resolve this question. Any survey to define local use patterns
for the purpose of defining the impact of vehicle emissions
on air guality should aim at consistency among the various
elements involved.

5. SUMMARY AND PROSPECTUS

Correction factors for ambient temperature, average
speed, percent hot start/percent cold start operation and
other factors are incorporated in a quantity Ripstwx:
Assumptions on which this factor is based have been critically
examined, certain difficulties and possible anomalies
indicated, and some suggestions made for simplification and/or
revision. It is realized that the approach taken in the
formulation of the R-factor is to a certain extent expedient
in that definitive data pertinent to variables affecting the
correction factor were not always available, This fact
necessitated the use of cogent estimation based on engineering
judgment and reasonable assumptions. Without calling into
question the efficacy of such an approach, which certainly
was reasonable under the circumstances, it is nonetheless
appropriate to consider alternatives, given the resources to
supplement data sources. This prerogative is exercised in
response to the charge given in the Scope of Work to offer
a recommendation "as to the optimal approach for future
correction factor development." A comprehensive pronouncement
on this point is premature at this time, but certain pertinent
observations deriving from the examination of the R-factor
will be advanced. These observations deal generally with the
assumptions and the data on which the R-factor is based, as
well as the mathematical form into which the factor is cast.

At the outset it is observed that correction factors
represent an attempt to express the functional dependence
of emissions on a host of variables known to influence them.
Mathematically, therefore, one hopes for an expression or
response relation of the form

16


Transformed Data (Standard Scores)

~1.2273
~ .0075
4345
+3886
6123
~5559
1.1139
-1.2650
-1.3742
-1.0279
-1.0607
- .5767

-6116

-9591
- .9518

-0777
1.1991
- .4416

Correlation Matrix

1.0000
«9947
+9853

- .9349
- .9108
- .8593
- .8280
8345
-8637
(+8854
-8616
- .7085

-1.0785
0985
-5277
-4786

1.6067
1.5372
1.17285

-1.2624

-1.3564

- .9764

-1.0336

- .7638
7729
«9119

-1.0949
«M609

1.0345

~ .6003

-9947
1.0000
+9947
+9422
+9146
~8565
8245
-8311
-8628
-8874
-8619
- .6968

-1.0230
- 1000
4518
4788

1.5071

1.4665

1.1012

~1.3071

-1.4154

~ .9283

- ,OA18

- .9233
+9929
+6577

-1.2260
+2623

1.0200

- .4683

9853

«9947
1.0000
- .9590
9469
- .8977
- .8691
- .8744
- .9021
- £9232
- .9010
- .7499

1.0536

= 1054
- .0843
-..2739
-1,2222
-1.2222
-1.9808
1.2433
1.4329

-8640

6743
1.0536
-1.0326
- .6532
1.2433
~ .4636
- «8429

- 1054

~9349
+9422
- .9590
1.0000
+9683
+9380
9191
+9224
-9408
+9538
-9408
8335

TABLE A-1 (Continued)

1.0904
-1080
0262

- .2604
-1.1200
-1,1814
-1.2233

1.4179

1.5816
«7629

. 5583

1.1318

-1.3246
- 8492

1.3155
~ .8334
-1.0995
- .3013

- .9108
- £9746
- .9469
- 9683
1.0000
-9912
-9807
+9820
«9906
+9945
+9881
+9150

1.1204
2067
2597

- .1508
- .9851
-1.0778
-1,1307

1.4382

1.6236
-6834
+3656

1.1337

-1.4088
- .5746
1.2661
-1.0248
-1.1175
- .6275

-. .8573
- 8565
- .8977
- 9380
+9912
1.0000
+9979
9979
-9982
«9946
9949
9572

1.1497
2466
3881

- .0907
- 9176
-1.9264
-1.1025

1.4435

1.6611
~6165
+2575

1.7062

-1.4289
- .5476
1.2150
-1.0917
-1.1734
- 7652

- 8280
- 8245
- .8691
9197
-9807
+9979
1.0000
9997
9963
+9893
9988
+9723

A-1-c

1.1544
+2434
+3984

- .1055
- .9487
-1,.0650
-1.1037

1.4548

1.7068
-6019
+2337

1.0671

-1.4236
- .5513
1.2028
-1.0553
~1.0941
- .7161

- .8345
- .8311
- 8744
9224
-9820
«9979
«9999
1.0000
.9978
.9917
«9948
+9716

1.1275
1807
+3122

- .1700
~1.0378
-1.1343
-1.1430

1.4606

1.7586
-6278
-2771

1.0573

-1.3885
~ .5820
1.2151
- «9589
-1.0641
- .5382

- .8637
- .8628
- 9021
+9408
«9906
«9982
+9963
+9978
1.0000
«9980
+9982
-9583

1

-1.

0852
.1101
+2280
+2516
1088
1874
-1795
4626
8086
~6527
«3224
-0459
3368
5819
2267
-9043
0223
3696

«8854
8874
+9232
9538
-9945
+9946
- 9893
.9917
+9980
+0000
+998)
+9436

-1
-
-1

0730
21249
~3013
«2646
«0509
«1464
-1758
-4698
«2740
6467
+2425

1.0436

-]
-1

1.3008
«4777
+1753
0362
0868
~4524

-8616
+8619
-9010
«9408
+9887
«9949
+9928
+9948
+9982
+9981
-0000
+9609

1.1092
3139
7804

- .1066
- .6877
- .8713
- .0701
1.4303
1.9044
4974
- .1219

+9562
-1.2765
- .1678

-8951
-1.4218
-1,0318
-1.1312

- .7085
- .6968
- .7499
+8335
«9150
«9572
9723
9716
-9583
-9466
+9609
1.0000


One notes that the above recommendations are idealized
and break with historical precedent, in which it is often
necessary to gain information by a "piggy-back" process. In
other words, data made available from an experiment designed
for a purpose other than correction factor development must
be adapted to that purpose and, in the process, becomes

subject to uncertainties over which the investigator has little
control.

So much for the assumptions regarding emission factor
correction and the nature of the data~acquisition process. Let
us now move to the question of mathematical representation
of the correction-factor response relation.

There is evidence that, in some instances, the dependence
of emissions on certain variables--e.g., average speed--is
less complicated than is implied by available expressions
in current use. Excess complication in functional representation
can arise from: (1) incorporation of refinements having only
minor engineering significance; (2) less than optimum choice
of independent variable; (3) covariance of variables influencing
emissions; and (4) inopportune choice of units.

Appreciation of the engineering importance of variables
influencing emissions can be obtained by evaluating the
differential effects of variables. For example, it would be
informative to know the incremental change in grams per mile
for a l-mile-per-hour increment of average speed or a 1°F
change in ambient temperature. It is realized, of course,
that if interaction is present these incremental changes are
not constant, but the lack of constancy can be evaluated
by means of mixed partial derivatives. Further, if the response
of emissions to a given variable is substantially linear, then
incorporation of additional terms may add little to the
precision of estimation of emissions even though the added
terms can be shown to be statistically significant. In such
cases it is possible that the simplification of representation
more than offsets the small gain in precision, expecially
in view of the uncertainties that may exist in the estimation
of levels of the independent variable. For example, if average
speed must be estimated by a rough sampling process, it is
doubtful that a fourth or fifth order polynomial or exponential
is justified in representing the relation between speed and
emissions.

19


A vehicle is operating in a cold transient condition if:

1) The ambient temperature is 75°F

2) The engine-off period is 30 minutes or greater

3) The vehicle has bggn operating for t minutes or less
where t = 3.11 s° and s is the engine-off time in hours.

To get the AP-42 definition of hot operation, the equation must be
adjusted so that a 10 minute engine-off period results in 505
seconds of hot operation. This is accomplished by including 538%
stabilized operation in the definition. Thus,

A vehicle is operating in a hot transient condition if:

1) The ambient temperature is 75°F

2) The engine-off period is 30 minutes or less

3) The vehicle bas been operating for t minutes or less where
t = 16.01 s° and s is the engine-off time in hours.

Based on very limited data, it appears that a fixed difference in
time to reach stabilized emissions exists between t at 75°F and t
at 20°F, regardless of engine-off time. The fixed difference was
obtained from two catalyst vehicles in data source 2; the fixed
difference is 1.27 minutes. Thus, at 20°F, the time to reach
stabilized emissions is defined as

t= 2.51 5°76 + 1.27

where t and s are given earlier. Using the same normalization
schemes discussed above, the following definitions hold

A vehicle is operating in a cold transient condition if:

1) The ambient temperature is 20°F

2) The engine-off period is 10 minutes or longer

3) The vehicle has bgen operating for t minutes or less
where t = 2.61 s°> + 1.32.

At temperatures different from 20°F or 75°F, linear interpolation/
extrapolation can be used between O°F and 100°F by computing a t/°F
rate and then normalizing. The t/°F rate is .023 minutes/°F.

Thus, at 30°F, the time constant is 1.04 rather than 1.27, the

normalizing multiplier is 1.07, and the Final equation would be t =
2.69 so + 1.11.

A vehicle is operating in a hot transient condition if:
1) The ambient temperature is 20°F
2) The engine-off period is 10 minutes or less

3) The vehicle,has been operating for t minutes or less where
t = 8.15 s° + 4.12

A I-6


TABLE A-4

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR CO CORRECTION FACTORS

Covariance Matrix

-11180E + 00

Eigenvalues
-11235E + 00

Eigenvectors

-99752E + 00
-.70371E - 01
-92923E - 03
-11940E - 04
-.53415E - 06
-44445E - 08

~.78435E
-11655E

-62202E

-11940E
~ .98962E
-T2541E
-.56053E
- 10535E
-.70796E

- 02
02

03

- 01
+ 00
+ 00
01
03
06

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS PROGRAM

-98686E
~.84526E
-1O011E

-13417E

-T9V14E
- 12518E
-98851E
~.84351E
-20110E
-.15285E

tere

04
04
04

06

02
00
00
C

02
04

 15818E
+33546E
4471 8E
+20514E

-46185E

-26439E
-50308E
-04350E
-99453E
-61471E

-.75079E

A-4

~ 07

+ 00
- 01
- 03

-64443E
-60594E
-84291E
-39083E
-74804E

. 10209E

-82568E
- 16204E
«31904E
-61425E
- 99800E
-1438SE -

07
07
08
09
VV

12

05
03
02
0

00
01

-52888E
-40040E
-56788E
-26477E
-50808E
-34561E

-30625E

- 12681E
-23831E
~22265E
- 13586E
- 14408E
-99990E

09
09

V
13
15

15

07
06
05
03
01
00


t2

° FP
4 ty |
8 ‘
& 1
o +— a = J
a
= J
vo 1
a I
0 ea rs aan 3 eee
Time
FIGURE 3

emissions, emission rates as functions of time are not
necessarily exponential though driven by an exponential

thermal process. On the other hand, an exponential decay of the
choke effect has been postulated as part of a computer simu-
lation of emissions and fuel economy.

In the event that emissions are directly expressible as
an exponential function of time, the accretion-depletion model
could be implemented by determining the time constants of the
heating and cooling cycles. An attempt to evaluate the required
time constants was undertaken, using data from an EPA-funded
program on vehicle soak and run times and their effects on
emissions @ (see Appendix III). For reasons cited above, the
attempt had only limited success, but it is suggestive for
further, less simplistic analysis. The implications of the
approach are also exploited in the discussion of the following
section, in which transient emission rates are regarded as
linear combinations of two limiting emission rates associated,
respectively, with cold transient and hot transient operation.

@) ow. x. guneja, W. J. Kelly and R. W. Valentine, "Computer
Simulations of Emissions and Fuel Economy,” SAE Paper
No. 780287, Society of Automotive Engineers (1978)

@

R. L. Srubar, "Emission and Fuel Economy Sensitivity to
Changes in Light Duty Vehicle Test Procedures," Final

Report of Task No. 10, EPA Contract 68-03-2196, Southwest
Research Institute (May 1977)

Falcon Research & Development Co, Page 9


FALCON Bisitcosist
(ALBUQUERQUE BUFFALO

ONE AMERICAN DRIVE
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14225
TELEPHONE: (716) 632-4932

Working Paper No. 1

Project No. 8411

Environmental Protection Agency
April 5, 1978

H. T. McAdams

A FACTOR-ANALYTIC APPROACH TO
EMISSION CORRECTION FACTORS

1. INTRODUCTION

Vehicle exhaust emissions are functions of a large
number of variables. Some of these variables are vehicle
related, others pertain to the operating environment, and
still others are the consequence of use priorities dictated
by the needs of a mobile society. Consequently, one can
envision an infinite variety of emission scenarios, each
having its own peculiar impact on air quality.

Because emissions are either continuous or discrete
functions of a large number of variables it is impractical
if not impossible to measure emissions for every scenario
of interest. The only alternative is to attempt to derive
a modeling or scaling procedure by means of which a limited
number of measurements can be employed to predict emissions
over the entire domain of the multivariate emission function.

Perhaps the most "vehicle-related" variable is the vehicle
itself. Different vehicles exhibit different emission charac-
teristics, and these differences, of course, stem from many
design variables which differentiate one vehicle from another.
If all these variables are pooled, however, one can think of
a "vehicle variable" which changes value discretely as one
goes from one make or model year to another... In short,
vehicles can be considered as comprising a state space.

Viewed as a process, pollutant generation assumes succes-
Sively. different states as attention is directed succes-
Sively to different automobiles ar different classes of

asuasioiany of WW nittaker


Efforts of the EPA to provide correction factors applicable
to a wide range of scenarios provide an approximation to the
ideal response-surface approach. Because of cost constraints
and other considerations, data~acquisition methods were some-
times less than optimum and it was necessary to draw heavily
on engineering knowledge and judgment in order to fill in
data lacunae. For example, it is well known that if two
variables x, and xy are subject to interaction in‘the
sense of experiment design, then it is necessary to explore
the (x, x2)-plane with a set of treatments which are distri-
buted areally in that plane. Under realistic circumstances,
however, it may be possible to sample x1) only at some fixed
value of x2, and to sample xg only at some fixed value of
X,- Such a sampling design can not provide the information
needed to assess the interaction between xX) and x2, and
it thus becomes necessary to supplement such data with engi-
neering judgment.

The working papers which constitute the bulk of this
report provide a critique of past methodology and offer
suggestions for future correction factor development. They
address certain general considerations in the philosophy
of correction-factor formulation as well as certain specific
issues involved in implementing that philosophy.

Working Paper No. 1 well exemplifies these two aspects
of the present study. Though the paper is concerned primarily
with the representation of preliminary speed correction factors,
it also raises such basic and general issues as the degree of
commonality of correction-factor functions for various groups
of vehicles and the most parsimonious representation of
functional relations. In this connection it was shown that
principal component analysis provides a means for structuring
the information content of correction factors in a concise
way, as well as a means for identifying areas of commonality
among various makes and models or other homogeneous groups
of vehicles. Specifically, it was shown that the functional
relation between correction factor and average speed tends to
have a common shape for various groups of vehicles and that
among-group variation can be accommodated by one or two
group-specific parameters rather than the four or five param-
eters assumed in the exponential and polynomial regression
relations.


Covariance Matrix

+0447
+0123
0004
-0003
-0058
+0124
-0175
-0198
-0202
+0207
+0257
-0408

+0123
-0047
-0017
-.0000
-0002
-0008
-0013
-0074
+0012
-0010
+0017
-0042

Eigenvalues

-2499 -0298
Eigenvectors
~.2964 -.8616
~.0341  -.3819

-0358 = -.1188
~.0059 - 0063
~.0966 -0531
~.1915 - 0686
~.2636 -0796
~.3033 - 1037
~.3195 -1372
~.0371 - 1654
-.4007 - 154)
~.5709 0561

'

-0004
0077
0007
-0001
0077
-0020
-0026
+0031
+0033
+0036
0041
+0053

-0005

-0563
- 1699
- 1082
-0071
-0779
+0515
0682
+2478
-4121
-4179
-1155
7236

-0003
-0000
0001
-0000
-0002
-0003
-0004
0005
-0005
+0005
+0006
-0009

-0000

-0058
-0002
-.0071
-0002
+0024
-0047
-0065
-0075
-0079
-0084
+0099
+0139

-0000

TABLE A-3 (Continued)

+0724
-0008
- 0020
+0003
0047
+0093
0128
+0147
0156
-0165
+0195
0275

-0000

-0175
0013
~ 0026
0004
-0065
0128
-0176
0202
20214
0226
0268
0377

-0000

+0198
+0014
+0031
+0005
0075
.0147
-0202
-0233
-0247
0261
0309
0434

-0000

-0202
0012
+0033
-0005
-0079
-0156
0214
0247
0262
-0277
-0326
-0457

-0000

+0207
-0010
0036
0005
0084
0165
0226
-0261
-0277
0293
0345
-0482

«0000

+0257
0017
+0041
-0006
«0099
+0195
0268
-0309
+0326
+0345
+0408
+0574

-0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant contribution)

A-3-b

0408
-0042
+0053
0909
0139
0275
+0377
+0434
+0457
-0482
0574
0818

- 0000


TABLE I-2

GROUP 2 CORRECTION FACTOR ANALYSIS

HYDROCARBONS

SPEED (mph) CORRECTION FACTOR PRODUCT SUCCESSIVE
s F s PF RATIOS
5 3.297 16.485
10 1.749 17.490 1.061
15 1.224 18.360 1.050
20 = 986 19.720 1.074
25 -B44 21.100 1.070
30 +740 22.200 1.052
35 +659 23.065 1.034
40 - 600 24.000 1.041
45 -565 25.425 1.059
50 ~547 27.350 1.076
55 -530 29.150 1.066
60 ~482 28.920 0.992

A4


The equation can be adjusted so as to constrain the time
to a value of 8.4 minutes at a soak time of 16 hours. The re-
vised equation is

t = 3.11 50-36 (2)

and is evaluated for various soak times in Table 2.

TABLE 2
Constrained Relation Between Stabilization and Soak Times
t = 3.11 50-3 » Temperature = 75° F
s t
soak time stabilization time
(hrs) ___(min.)
0 0
1 3.11
2 3.99
4 5.12
16 8.44
32 11.26
64 13.90

An interpretation of Table 2 is that it gives the times
required to bring the vehicle to a state of operation comparable
to that which occurs at the end of the Bag 1 sequence in a stan-
dard FTP test (following the prescribed 16-hour soak). Inasmuch
as the vehicle stabilized, according to Equation (1), in less
than the allotted 8.4 minutes, however, it might be said to
have spent 8.4 - 6.8 = 1.6 minutes in stable operation. This
time increment, expressed as a percent of the actual warm-up
time of 6.8 minutes, is

ze x 100% = 24%

Falcon R&D Page 4


PATS

| ag. ee G9,

EMISSION CORRECTION FACTORS:

A STUDY TO DEVELOP AN IMPROVED MATHEMATICAL

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and We

e Management

Mobile Source Air Pollution Control

Under:

Purchase Order No. CD-8-0145-A

H. T. McAdams Approved by:

June 1978

ON 3

DENVER BALTIMORE ALBUQUERQUE BUFFA

)

APPROACH

A. Stein

Lo


of the time constant,

R2 represents a condition in the circuit allowing some leakage
from the capacitor during charging, and is analogous to the
cooling effect of the ambient conditions which act in opposition
to the accumulation of heat when the vehicle is started. For
hot ambient, R2 %&is much larger than R, and the time constant
is approximately R,C. For cold ambient, Rg is of smaller
magnitude than for hot ambient and can provide an appreciable
leakage for the capacitor. In short, a longer time would be
required for the capacitor to charge, just as a longer time
would be required for the vehicle to heat up. When switch Sj)
is opened, the battery and Ry, are eliminated from the circuit
and -the capacitor is discharged through the resistance R2

(the engine is cooled by heat transfer to ambient with a time
constant R2C).

When charging the capacitor the voltage time response is

R|R
_ -t/RC . 12
Vout (©) = ( io , where R is R, + R

However, when discharging the capacitor, the voltage response is

= - -t/R2C
tf) = -Vo 'S where

Vo is the voltage attained during charging for a time of
t= a. Thus

evn

(- 4) (e t/R2C for t>a

<
"

Vout (*)

A II-2


II. SUMMARY

This report is developed as a series of three working
papers developed in chronological sequence. Each of these
papers touches on one or more issues pertinent to the formu-
lation of emission correction factors.

The formulation and application of emission correction
factors represents an attempt to deal with the multiplicity
of variables which influence vehicle emissions. Mathematically
the problem can be represented as a function

yp E(xps Xyr cere x,) Q)

where y represents emission of a particular pollutant in
grams per mile and xj, X2, ---, Xk are variables such as
speed, ambient temperature and vehicle variables known to
affect emissions. Equation (1) is often referred to as a
response relation and can be represented as a hypersurface
(response surface) in (k + 1)-dimensional space. The sub-
space consisting of the variables x), X92, ---+, Xk is often
referred to as the "treatment space" or the "x~space."*

To explore the emission response space in sufficient
detail to allow formulation of the response relation (1) is
the crux of the correction~factor problem. The standard
emission test as formulated in the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) constitutes only a single point in the treatment space
and consequently provides no information pertinent to emis-
sions under any conditions other than those specified in
the FTP. Moreover, because of the large number of variables
which can affect emissions and the prospect of interaction
among these variables, it is quite costly to explore the
X-space with a sufficient number of treatments and emission
tests to represent all possible driving and use scenarios.

The term "treatment" is a vestige of the fact that the
science of experiment design originated in agricultural
research, in which various fertilizer treatments were
applied to plots of land to determine the effect of these
treatments on crop yield.


If a is “long enough" to approximately charge the capacitor,
then the magnitude of Voyt(t) is approximately

E7t/R2C

By means of Laplace transform methods, Voy~(S) may be
described in terms of Vin (S) in the frequency domain (S-space)
by the relation:

(Ss)

sou = 1
Vil) 1 + SCR) + R/R3
zs li ¢ >> £ hargi
T+ SCRy or R32 Ry or charging
and
wout = i = 1 £ aischargin'
Vint) 1+ scr, 1+ scr, “oO ging

The charging-discharging sequence can represent one cycle
each part of which can have a different charging and discharging
time constant. Several continuous cycles, each of different
duration may be as demonstrated in Figure II-2 below, where
the input is represented by a step function of unity (engine
on) or zero lfengine off).

4 one cycle >
VE a
4
Vet) hesink Engine Ya
in W), off on
Y
Zol__otf
b c
Time

FIGURE EI-2

A II-3


Similar analysis can be performed for other vehicle
groups and for other pollutants, but such analysis is not
within the scope of this paper, which is intended to be
exemplary only. The inputs required for additional analysis
are, however provided in the Appendix.

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It has been demonstrated, in connection with emission
speed correction factors, that principal component analysis
provides a useful tool for consolidating correction factor
data. By virtue of the fact that the speed correction factor
curves for various groups of vehicles tends to have a common
‘shape," this common (mean) curve can be expressed as the
basic input to speed correction. Refinement to this curve
can be achieved by means of a linear model having no more
than two correction terms, the coefficients of which are
vehicle-group specific. Thus, if gj(x) is the mean speed-
correction function for the ith vehicle group and f(x) is
the mean speed-correction function for all groups, then

g(x) = £(x) + bay vy (x) + boy v2 (x) (10)

where v,(x) and v2(x) are determined from principal
component analysis. Thus to characterize the data of
Table II.14 it is necessary to know only:

f(x), the mean curve (12 values)
vy, (x), the first eigenvector (12. values)
v2(x), the second eigenvector (12 values)

byy, i = 1, 2, ..., 18 (18 values)
baie i=l, 2, ..., 18 (18 values)

Thus a total of 72 (and possibly as few as 42) key parameters
retains the correction factor information for each pollutant,
as opposed to 18 x 12 = 216 in the complete tabulation.

If viewed in the form of Table II.13, employing logarithmically
transformed exponential functions, the correction-factor
milieu required 18 x 5 = 90 coefficients for CO and HC

and 18 x 4= 72 coefficients for NOx, in addition to the
assumption of specific forms of equations for the correction
factor vs speed relations.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 23


various soak times as indicated. The starred values are of
especial significance. The results shown for a 10-minute soak
are essentially Bag 3 results, that is, emissions representing
hot transient conditions. The results shown for a 16-hour
soak are essentially Bag 1 results, that is, emissions repre-
senting cold transient conditions.

A procedure is now proposed whereby results for soak times
other than 10 minutes and 16 hours can be interpreted as linear
combinations of hot transient and cold transient contributions.
For example, consider the emissions for the l-hour soak as
consisting of a fraction P of cold-start emissions and a
fraction 1~-P of hot-start emissions. Then

P(1.19 gms/mi) + (1-P) (0.39 gms/mi) = 0.69 gms/mi

Solving this equation gives P = 0.375. Thus the l-hour test
acts "as if" it were a composite of 37.5% cold transient and
62.5% hot transient operation. The weightings should not be
construed as fractions of either the total time to execute the
test (8.4 minutes) or the total distance covered (3.59 miles).
Rather, their only purpose is to generate, from available

Bag 1 and Bag 3 emissions, a quantity which is equivalent to
the results observed for any given soak time. Note that this
approach would have the advantage that the required computation
could be performed in terms of emission results readily available
as components of the standard FTP test, provided that the
fraction P is known as a function of soak time and run time.

Tables 3 through 7 provide further analysis for the five
vehicles studied by Srubar (op. cit.). Results are given for
HC and CO emissions and for fuel economy. No attempt was
made to analyze the results for NO,, since that pollutant
does not seem to be very sensitive to the cold-start phenomenon.

Two anomalies may be noted in these tables. One is that
negative values of P sometimes occur. The other is that
emissions after a 36-hour soak may be creater than emissions
after a 16-hour soak. This fact implies values of P greater
than 1.0 and negative values of 1-P,

Falcon R&D Page 11


PUTT AE

(saqnuTw) azTTTqe3s 03 eUTL ‘3

190

10

Soak time (hours)

,

s

FIGURE 1

Time to Stabilize as a Function of Soak time

Page 6

Falcon R&D


a3xy uooteg

T °ON azedeq Buyya20M

§ obeg

(Table II.13 con't)

BRM P= 4

‘ 0.23973F +91 =0.29598E499
cee 0-24655%+9] 0 30502E490
NOX= O-1226AFeOL = 06 44498E~01
Groyps S
KC= 0.24087 +91  =0+30819E+00
cos Ce277B0E+01 04 31913E400
NOX= VelOlLT4E+01 = 0.11896F-01
SROUP= 6
ke 0, 225227 +01 = 0.28499E400

. Oe27HINE+O] -0-32711E+00

02987607400  -0«19567E-01

Groups 7
HC= 0.22522F+01 = --0,28778E+00
coe O.e707AEs01  -0.331312+00
NOX= O.115922+01  -0,440542-01
GROUPS
Ko 0.20276F401 -0.27R056400
cos O.1BE9ZESOL © $0, 27662E+00
NOKS O-IRRGEE+O1 = =C.16129E+00
GROUP= 9 :
kes CrAISOSE+OL =0.25362E400
cos QLR21BE4O1 — HO627205F +09
NOX® OeISS72E4O)° 0/21 393E+00
GROUP=10 .
Hts U.22392F +0) -0.29385E400
cos O20) 42E 401 0.2951 504+00
NOXS Or204527+91 0412401 F400

DeLGLISE-0}  -0.487U9E-93 04 7290NEOS 041977007
9.16059E~91 0-699082-95  -0.399765-07
012624RE~02 * O.43429E-056 960
O.1G817E=01 © =9.59S86E-03 0643160807
O,1S3LBE-O! «2442239403 0.5445 =0.314697E=07
O.91437E=03 0,215 74F=-04 041 8230E-06 = 00
O.1S3RSE-01 -9.45674F-03 0B TR49EWDS =D BBIBOE~O7
O.1S294E-6]  -D-GSISTE-O3 © OVETISLZ=05 © -0.37440E~07
=0640600E=9%  0432R00E-~05 040

o 1G954E-02

OISGR2ZE-91 #064731 8F-03 0,7079SE=05 0 -40846E-07
5 0.81 TS&CEW05 "0+47780E=07

O.29663E~02 = -0.65899F-04 0,52236E-06 0.0
-0-4650308-03 0.678535-05 ~0.35488E-07
. 8? o3. 0S. -0,5169SE=-07

93 oS 0.0

GeE2B8732-05 °
Q6BHZS4ER05 aD eSLISGE-07

DelOGNGsa05 010
~0.40256E~97
~O,.S9S75E=07
O49


3. TEMPERATURE-DETUNING-AGE DETERIORATION CONSIDERATIONS
According to Becker (op. cit.) ambient temperature was
found to affect only Bag 1 emissions for only HC and Co.
Results obtained for 1975 vehicles showed an exponential
relation between these emissions and ambient temperature.

Pre-1975 vehicles were assigned the relations:

Bag 1 CO = @5-6548 - .015965 t

Bag 1 HC = QQ? 9310 - .014779 t

where the response is in units of gms/mi.

When t = 759, one has:

= 86.266 gms/mi.

Bag 1 co = €>4:457425

6.188 gms/mi.

ut

Bag 1 HC = a1 822575

It might seem reasonable to divide the general Bag 1
expressions by their corresponding standard emissions at
75° to obtain a "Bag 1 temperature correction factor." In
the case of carbon monoxide, this would have led to

1 e 5.6548 eC -.015965 t

Co Bag 1 CF = 95-36%

_ 286.015 ~.015965 t
~ 86.266

3.318 Qa -.015965 t

It

Note that when t = 75°,

Q ~.015965 t Et 197875 =
= «302

and the correction factor is (3.318) (.302) = 1.00.


better (see Appendix 4). At any rate it is suggested that
two emission levels, representing respectively the most
favorable and least favorable operating conditions could

form the basis for a weighted combination reflecting different
scenarios of soak and run times. The proposed approach is
believed to offer a viable alternative to the determination

of time to stabilize and is considered worthy of further
evaluation.

5. SUMMARY AND PROSPECTUS

One of the most important scenario variables affecting
emissions is the "thermal operating history" of the vehicle.
The term in quotation marks, admittedly a coined one, is
meant to signify the state of warm-up of the vehicle as a
function of time. It suggests that the vehicle can, at
certain times in its operating history, be in a fully
warmed up condition but at other times can fall short of
this condition to varying degrees.

The present approach to the thermal history problem is
to postulate three "states" of operation: cold transient,
stabilized, hot transient. Because these three states do
not represent the whole spectrum of degrees of "warmed-up-
ness," it becomes necessary to implement a methodology by
which an arbitrary driving scenario can be decomposed into
the three discrete states. An important aspect of this
methodology is to develop a criterion for determining the
length of time required in order to declare a vehicle
"stabilized."

Equations previously developed by EPA for this purpose
are of such a nature that they predict stabilization times
which increase without limit as soak times increase. It
seems more reasonable to believe, however, that there exists
an upper limit for stabilization time and that this limit
would be approached asymtotically with increasing length of
soak time. The lower bound for stabilization time is, of
course, zero and occurs at zero soak time. Thus stabilization
times have "floor" and "ceiling values," though it is understood
that the range between these two values can vary with ambient
conditions and with vehicle characteristics and the nature of
the emission-control system.

Falcon R&D Page 18


tabulated the ratio of successive products. The fact that
these ratios are relatively constant suggests that an exponential

relation applies:
+
sF= on bs

or
P= wsQ atbs

where a and b are constants. Further,
log, (s F) =atbs

and the product s F_ should plot as a linear function of
speed on semilog coordinates. The validity of this hypothesis
is shown in Figure I-l. It is further evident that CO
would exhibit similar behavior because the correction factors
for CO and HC are closely related.

Let us now examine the multiplicative relation for NO,,
as shown in Table I-3. Though a simple exponential relation
is not evident, the product s F is a monotonic increasing
function of speed, and when plotted on semilog coordinates
appears capable of being represented by perhaps a quadratic
function of s (see Figure I-2).

In conclusion, it appears that it may be advantageous to
represent the effect of speed on emissions in terms of grams
per unit time rather than in terms of grams per unit distance.

RG


Eigenvalues

11.2318

-6865

Eigenvectors

-.2738
-.2738
~ 2826
2892
«2979
«2954
2926
+2933
-2960
2973
+2957
2747

4599
4772
+3798

+1802

-0020
-1574
+2294

«2172
- 1469
-08517
- 1484
-4567

-0456

+3528
-1535
+0947
-8977
-0685
-0220
-0597
0791
+0532
-0197
-0310
-1341

0225

5005
-0164
+3291
+2482
+3409
+2652
1612
-0971
-0873
-0709
-0751
«5823

-0710

3833
1524
«3008
0855
1294
3200
3767
2364
0471
+3772
«4964
1554

TABLE A-1

+0023 -0002
-0979 -,3596
«0182 3743
2482 +3324
+0428 = -.0516
4432 ~4267
«2544 +0195
-0566 -.1038
-3444 0 -.2477
+4713 -.1036
«3753 «2402
-0308 -4392
-4240  -.3187

A-1-d

(Continued)

-0000

-0000 -0000 -0000 -0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant
contribution)


WORKING PAPER NO. 2:

SPEED-TEMPERATURE-HOT/COLD CORRECTION FACTORS:
A CRITIQUE AND PROSPECTUS


A word of caution is in order concerning literal inter-
pretation of the results in the tables, however. The first
505 seconds of the FTP and the next 870 seconds represent
different driving sequences, different average speeds, and
hence different levels of severity as far as both emissions
and fuel economy are concerned. It is for this reason that
the fuel-economy calculations show a rather severe anomaly
of negative P values for short soak times. Clearly an
improved basis for the calculation of weighting factors would
be obtained if either (1) driving cycles for the end-points
were the same, or (2) adjustments were made for speed
differences or differences in severity for the two driving
sequences. In that sense the results presented here are only
suggestive of further refinements of approach.

A Iy-2


Thus,

Vv
Gr 85
s, ~*~ YVo for Bag 2
Gs 82 g, 16
and
Vv
Gr §3
Vv s.° yo for Bag 3.
S$. S3 YG, 26

The assumption in all cases is that "emissions as measured
over the cold (hot) (sic) bag driving cycles and over the
stabilized driving cycle at a given average speed are egual
to emissions as measured over the FTP driving cycle at that
speed." @

Though understandable because of data limitations, the
assumptions on which the speed correction factors are based
seem tenuous, and certain aspects of the procedure raise
questions. For example, it is asserted that in the Monte
Carlo implementation of the Modal Emission Model “all cycles
were transient; no steady state cycles were generated." ©
Yet to obtain an average speed of~~say--60 mph, much of the
time would have to be spent, it would seem, in a high-speed
cruise mode. A second consideration applies to the bag-
specific average speeds. It might be considered to be
“very unlikely" that a vehicle operating in the cold-start
mode would do so at a high average speed; in short, there
is an upper bound of speed beyond which the correction factor
for cold start is essentially irrelevant. Finally, there
is an anomaly in the notion of "FTP driving cycle" or "Bag
i driving cycle" at anything other than the design average
speeds.

8) Becker, op. cit


FALCON iittioise?
& BUFFALO

ONE AMERICAN DRIVE
BUFFALO,NEW YORK 14225
TELEPHONE: (716) 632-4932

working Paper No. 2

Project No. 8411

Environmental Protection Agency
May 12, 1978

H. T. McAdams

SPEED-TEMPERATURE-HOT/COLD CORRECTION FACTORS:

A CRITIQUE AND PROSPECTUS

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most important components of the corrections
applied to emission factors is the correction factor denoted
Ripstwx 4nd sometimes referred to as the speed-temperature-
hot/cold correction factor. To understand the omnibus
effect of this factor one must examine the influence of
each of the variables which enter into its makeup. The
R-factor is, of course, specific for vehicle group i and
pollutant p, but the items of interest here are the average
speed s, the ambient temperature t, and the hot/cold
partitioning specified by the quantities w and x.

2. AVERAGE SPEED CONSIDERATIONS

Speed correction has been previously discussed in
Working Paper No. 1. phe speed correction factors treated
in that document, however, are only the "preliminary" inputs
to the R-factors. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine
the assumption whereby these preliminary speed-correction
factors were incorporated into the more inclusive R-factors.

@) H. T. McAdams, "A Factor-Analytic Approach to Emission Correction
Factors," Working Paper No. 1, Project 8411, Falcon Research and
Development Company, Buffalo, N. Y. (April 5, 1978).

A SUBSIDIARY of WWhittaker


WORKING PAPER NO. 3:

HOCYCCLD/SCABILIZED VEEICLE OPERATION:
A CRITIQUE AND CANDIDATE
APPROACH


4. A CONTINUUM APPROACH TO TRANSIENT OPERATION

The 1975 Federal Test Procedure employs three types of
driving: a cold transient phase (representing vehicle start-up
after a long engine-off period); a hot transient phase (repre-
senting vehicle start-up after a short engine-off period); and a
stabilized phase (representing warmed-up vehicle operation).
Emissions measured during these three phases are combined as
a weighted sum, the weighting factors being 0.20, 0.27, and
0.53, respectively. It is presumed that the FTP is run at a
standard temperature of 75° F, but a range from 68° to 86° is
allowed.

The basis for quoting FTP emission results suggest that
the measure is a sort of "hybrid" quantity partaking of the
properties of both cold~start and hot-start operation. By an
extension of this argument it is not a great step to propose
that a vehicle restarted after some period of soak time can
similarly be characterized as a "hybrid" in the sense that
it represents neither a cold~start nor a hot-start situation,
but some weighted combination of the two. Viewed in this way,
adjustment of emissions for various combinations of soak and
run times can be achieved by the device of variable weighting
factors rather than by the device of predicting warm-up times.

An example of how this approach might be used is shown in
Table 3 below. The data are taken from R. L. Srubar (op. cit.)
for a 1976 Chevrolet Impala. Emission tests were run after

TABLE 3
Soak HC (gms/mi) Puc
Time First 505 sec. of FTP Percent Cold Start
10 min 0.39* 0.0
20 min 0.48 11.2
30 min 0.53 17.5
Lo hr 0.69 37.5
2 hr 0.64 31.2
4 hr 0.85 57.5
8 hr 1.03 80.0
16 hr 1.19* 100.0
36 hr 1.27 110.0

* Reference values (see text)

Falcon R&D Page 10


Transformed Data (Standard Scores)

2.1922
-9397

~ .2603
- 0872

- .3175
- .5603
- ©1984
1.1397
-4683
1.3302
0492

- .1460
~2.1700
~ 2075
+1778

~ 8985
-1.1270
-1.0890

Correlation Matrix

1.0000
+8615
+0700
~4144
5603
+6130
+6283
~6174
5933
« 5767
« 5CET
«5796

1.7548
1.3300
- 0846
7586
-4363

- .2377
1286
+9637
.3777
-8318

~ 5974
-1.1753
-1,9665
~ £5453
- .4867
-0407
-1.1167
-1.7760

8615
7.0000
5668
~ .1027
0627
1284
- 1488
- 1369
. 1087
- 0883
-1216
+2135

- .0995
1.1066
-5949
1.3259
1.3624
«4487
«5949
0102
-07102

~ .5015
-0832
~2.0731
- .3553
- .7208
-1.2690
1.5452
- 3553
-1.7076

-0700
5668
1.0090
- .8740
- .7862
743)
7280
7342
7506
7638
«7487
6834

1.
-7045
-7045
-3385
~3385
7045
-7045
5636
2466
1976
+2466
8316
«7045
«5626
1976
~6555
-0704
- 0806

-1
-1

1976

4144
-1027
-8740
-0000

+9825
«9691
+9632
+9642
«9682
9720
+9684
29649

1.4231
- .3456
- .6709
~1.0775
~1.3215
- .7116
- .6506

+7522
+2846

1.2402

-3660

1.6874

- 9759
«4269

1.1588
~1.8094
- .4473

-6709

«5603
-0627
- .78€2
+9825
1.9000
«9976
-9953
-9946
-9943
- 3349
- 9965
9875

TABLE A-3 (Continued)

1.5171
- .2758
- .6592
-1.0116
-1.2810
- 7318
- .6489

8538
+ 2838

1.2891

~4289

1.6311
-1.0634

+3667

1.7129
-1.7888

-5349 -
-5118

-6130
1284

- 74310 ~
9691

-9976
7.0000
+9995
9987
9970
9962
+999)
«9927

A-3-c

1.5277
- .2603
- .6601
- .9996
-1.2637
- .7280
- .6601

-97166
+2829

1.3014

24715

1.6334

-1.0600
«3357

1.0902
-1.7767

-5771

4263

-6283
1488
7280
+9632
«9953
«9995
1.0900
9996
-9978
9957
+9992
69949

+4875
«2927
-6657
.0126
2613
«7246
-6788
-9508
+2571
2846
5058
-6904
9930
+3160

1.1013

7653
5937
+3945

6174
1369
7342
9642
«9946
9987
+9996
0000
«9993
3084
~9o0e
2819

4233
3448
-6663
0434
+2722
-7096
7034
+9658
+2201
+2564
+5337
+7633
+9012
+2981

1.1142

1.7606
5859
- 4032

5933
1087
7506
«9682
+9943
«9970
+9976
«9998
0000
- 9998

- 9988
9388

3889
3751
-6555
-0586
2805
-7023
+7023
+9392
«2090
237)
5361
7978
8717
+2966

1.1319

1.7732
5627
4426

.5767
0883
.7538
.9720
9949
+9962
9967
19984
-9998
0290
3984
23245

4793
3021
-6168
0295
2720
7029
- 6634
«8706
2273
2665
-5193

1.7069

+0246
3016

1.1180

}.7916
5545
-4698

- 6061
1216
7457
-9684

«9965
9991
29992
29994
- 9988
9984
-G000
29925

1.6747
- .1220
- .5624
- .9294
-1.2300
- 7162
- .5884

.7938
.2905
1.3322
4785

1.4685

1.3249
.3010

1.0665
-1.7963
- .5789

4448

-6796
«2135
- 6834
9440

9875
9927
+8929
«9919
. 9868
«3845
29826
1.0200


times "as severe" as the composite 505 seconds of operation.
One can now adjust the fuel consumption figures for the 16-hour
soak by dividing each of the tabulated fuel consumption values
by the corresponding values in parentheses. These results are
the same as are obtained by dividing the 16-hour soak results
by the 10-minute soak results on a bag~by-bag basis.

As shown in Figure III-l, the ratios fall off rapidly with
increasing time into cycle and tend to approach as asymtote of
unity. It appears that about 6 minutes of running time from
a cold start is sufficient to reduce fuel consumption to
within about 10% of the quasi-stabilized values represented
by the hot start condition.

Whereas the duration of the warm-up cycle is of the
order of minutes, the duration of the cool-down cycle is of
the order of several hours. This effect can be seen in
Table III-2, in which average fuel consumption rates are
tabulated for the 1977 Ford LTD as determined for results
bagged over the first 505 seconds of the FTP driving cycle.

TABLE ITI-2

FUEL CONSUMPT'TON FOR A 1977 FORD LTD
AS A FUNCTION OF SOAK TIME

Soak Fuel Consumption Ratio
length £/100 km ——
10 min 14.72 1.00
20 min 15.58 1.04
30 min 15.16 1.03

lohr 15.39 1.05

2 hr 15.85 1.08

4 hr 16.62 1.13

8 hr 18.97 1.29
16 hr 19.92 1.35
36 hr 18.89 1.28

A ITI-3


L-AL

TABLE IV-5

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Honda Civic CVCC

Over the First 505 seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table E-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

soak HC Pre co Foo Fuel Pee
Time (gms/mi) (%) ' (gms/mi) (%) (gal/mi) uo
10 min 0.85 16.86 4.83 3.15 31.53 -138.20
20 min 0.97 23.84 4.39 ~10.72 31.08 -115.60
30 min 1.00 25.58 | 4.17 ~17.66 | 31.58 -140.70
|.

| Lohr 0.80 13.95 4.38 “12.04 | 30.75 -99.00
2hr 1.00 25.58 T 4.89 5.05 28.72 3.01
4 hr 1.24 39.53 | 6.32 50.16 27.84 47.24
8 hr 2.03 85.46 7.82 97.48 | 25.03 188.40
16 hr 2.28 100.00 7.90 100.00 26.79 100.00
36 hr 2.65 121.50 | 9.48 149.80 24.13 233.60

| Hot Stabilized | 0.56 4.73 | 28.78

L



I. INTRODUCTION

This report is submitted as deliverable item in fulfill-
ment of work performed under Purchase Order No. CD-8-0145-A
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air
and Waste Management (OAWM), Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control (MSAPC). The objective of the program was to examine
the mathematical formulation of existing emission correction factors
and to suggest a new mathematical approach which is simple
to use, simple to update when new data are available, and
which considers the dependencies among various factors.

The scope of work was aimed at isolating a set of pro-
spective statistical techniques and discussing the advantages/
disadvantages of each technique. Evaluation criteria were
to include but not be limited to, the following:

e Ease in application (manually and computer).

° Ease in updating when additional data are available.

° Required input data sample.

e Ability to relate to engineering concepts.

e Ability to assess and express correction factor
uncertainty.

e Required test procedure changes to obtain needed
data.

This report summarizes findings and offers recommendations
for future correction factor development. Because of the
broad scope of the effort, these recommendations are neces~
Sarily exemplary rather than definitive. Their purpose is
to serve as an outline or prospectus for further development
Of correction factor methodology.


-7-

the vehicle can be fairly well correlated with emissions in a
gross sense (that is, emissions stabilized or emissions not
Stabilized). These areas include: inlet to vehicle radiator,
oil pan, catalyst skin, exhaust gas, and difference between
vehicle hood and vehicle trunk. The EPA is in the process of
implementing this type of study. Results and documentation of
the methodology should be available by July, 1978.

A 1-8


A first recommendation, therefore, is that:

° Systematic analysis of the degree of commonality
of the effects of emission-related variables
should precede attempts to develop a correction-
factor response function.

It is believed that such an approach might better structure
the correction process, which should be viewed not necessarily
as a factor but as a general mathematical transformation until
its form has been delineated by systematic analysis.

Once the form of CF(x,, x2, +--+ Xp) has been postulated,
either by mathematical or engineering analysis, data require-
ments for its definition can be specified. The function can
be structured as a "linear model"

CF(xy, X20 eee Xp) = byfy (xy, XQ, +++) Xp) + ee

+ byt, (Xp, XQe eee Xp)

in which f), fg, ... f, are linearly independent "basis
functions" of arbitrary (and often nonlinear) form. It
follows, therefore, that the effects of Ky X20 cree Xp

on the correction factor may be both nonlinear and interactive--
that is, the effect of x; on emissions may depend on the
level at which xy is set (i A j). Accordingly, an experiment
designed to evaluate the correction-factor surface should take
such nonlinearities and interactions into account. On the
other hand the experiment should not be "overstructured."

For example, if the effect of speed on emissions were thought
to be quadratic, it would be wasteful to structure an experi-
ment at-~-say--ten speed levels.

A second recommendation thus arises:

° Correction factors are best determined through a
designed experiment in which the allocation of
"treatments" (that is, combinations of levels of
the variables x, Xj, ---, Xp) is made according
to the anticipated degree of nonlinearity within
variables and degree of interaction among variables.

18


TABLE 1

DERIVATION OF BAG 1 SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS

Speed (mph) 5 10 86150 20s sf |] 3085 tsi 5s CS
- _ : -s mae
Hydrocarbons :
Prelimini Correcti i
Grumanary Correction 31297 1.749 1.224 .986 .844 [821] -740 659.600 «565.547.530.482
Factor
Final Correction 4.016 2.130 1.492 1.201 1.028 1.000 .901 .803 .731 .688 .666 .646 .587
Factor
Carbon Monoxide
prelimi ti
reliminary Correction 5 319 1.751 2.225 .986 841 [817] .734 650.592.557.539 518.454
Factor =
i
$ i]
Final Correction 4.062 2.143 1.499 1.207 1.029 1.000 .898 .796 .725 .682 .660 .634 .556 }
Factor [
i
Nitrogen Oxides :
i
prelimi . :
reliminary Correction 542 1.031  .974 1.004 1.074 [i.os9| 1.146 1.203 1.239 1.265 1.306 1.404 1.615 |
Factor eee |
. . |
Final Correction 1.140.947 894.922, -.986. «1.000 1.052 1.105 1.138 1.162 1.199 1.289 1.483 |

Factor



-2-

The cold start correction factor presented in AP-42 will under-—
estimate the emissions during the first minute after a 16 hour soak
and overestimate the emissions during the seventh minute after a 16
hour soak. Therefore, the correct application of the factor
requires a knowledge of the number of vehicles which are operating
within a 505 second period after a 16 hour soak. It is assumed
that the distribution of vehicles is equally distributed throughout
the 505 second period. For example, if 16 percent of the vehicles
are operating in the first 505 seconds since start-up, it is assumed
that 2 percent are operating in the first minute, 2 percent in the
second minute, ... and 2 percent in the eighth minute.

From an emission standpoint, cold operation can occur when a vehicle
soaks (engine off condition) for less than 16 hours. Limited data
are available to determine the length of time it takes before
emissions stabilize as a function of engine-off time and time since
engine start-up. If emissions averaged over start-up periods which
are less than 505 seconds following a less than 16 hour engine off
period can be shown to be equivalent to emissions averaged over 505
seconds following a 16 hour engine off period, then all such
equivalent operation should be defined as cold start operation and
the AP-42 correction factor should be applicable. Again, the
assumption of equal vehicle distribution throughout the time period
is required.

The differentiation between cold start operation and hot start
operation is strictly dependant upon the length of the engine off
period. A hot start condition attempts to simulate a case where
the length of engine off time is sufficiently short so that vehicle
engine temperatures/ emission control systems do not cool down
significantly; for example,a hot-start situation would not activate
the vehicle choke. Emissions are increased during a hot start
condition due to the dumping of excess fuel which is stored in the
carburetor, evaporative canisters, etc. Thus, emissions following
a hot start quickly return to their normal stabilized levels.
Again, as in the case of the cold start, the AP-42 correction
factor averages these emissions over 505 seconds and assumes that
vehicles are equally distributed throughout the time period.

Thus, the break between hot start and cold start operation is
dependant upon engine-off time. It is that engine-off time that
differentiates between a vehicle where the engine/emission control
system is still in a warmed-up condition and a vehicle where the
engine/emission control system has cooled down. In the case of a
catalyst vehicle, it is the engine-off time that can occur without
causing the catalyst to cool down sufficiently so that during a hot
Start the catalyst is still operational. EPA does not have data to
define this point. Clearly, the time period could be expected to
be a function of ambient temperature. At this time, the recommended
definition is given below.

A I-3


Also, by virtue of orthogonality, the last term in the
equation can be deleted if it makes only a small contribution
to g;{x) without the need to recompute the coefficient bie

An illustration is informative. Consider the correction
factors for CO as displayed in Table II.14. The mean computed
across all 18 groups gives rise to the following "correction-
factor vector" or "correction-factor function" (see Table 5),

TABLE 5

MEAN CO CORRECTION FACTOR FOR
18 VEHICLE GROUPS AT 5 mph INCREMENTS

Speed (mph) Mean CO Correction Factor
5 3.325
10 1.727
15 1.217
20 0.985
25 0.836
30 0.718
35 0.627
40 0.567
45 0.536
50 0.525
55 0.501
60 0.413

Each of the vehicle groups deviates to some extent from
these correction factors, and it is the intent of the principal
component analysis to allow for this correction in the most
parsimonious way.

Consider Group 2, for example. Its deviations from the
mean correction-factor relation are tabulated in Table 6.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 19


The eigenvectors resulting from the covariance analysis
consist of 12 components corresponding to 5 mph, 10 mph, ...,
60 mph. These components are plotted versus speed in Figure 2.
for the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues of
greatest magnitude. Note that the eigenvectors for CO and
HC are essentially monotonic for increasing speed, whereas the
eigenvector for NO, peaks at about 15 mph. The eigenvectors
corresponding to the second largest eigenvalues are plotted
in Figure 3. Note that certain similarities are apparent in
the first eigenvectors for CO and HC and the second eigenvector
for NOx. It is known that factors affecting CO and HC emissions
often tend to affect NOx emissions inversely, and it is hypo-
thesized that this tendency is reflected in the emission
eigenvectors.

It is informative to compare the eigenvectors in Figure 2
with the plots in Figure 4, which represents the actual relations
between correction factors and speed for Group 2. Except for
sign (sign is arbitrary!) corresponding curves in Figure 2 and
Figure 4 have quite similar shapes.

The implications of the analysis can now be expressed as
follows. Let f(x) denote the correction factor for a given
pollutant at speed x when averaged over all 18 groups. For
the present it is assumed that the domain of the function f(x)
is

pfsix] = {s mph, 10 mph, ..., 60 ph }

but the matter of extension to a continuous domain will be
considered later (see Section 3, Summary and Conclusions.)

Let v,(x) denote the first eigenvector and let v(x) denote
the second eigenvector for that pollutant. Considering vj, (x)
and v(x) as functions defined on the same domain as f(x),
one can then write

gy (x) = E(x) + byy vzlx) + by v2 (x)

where bj; and bj; ‘are regression coefficients for the ith
group and gz (x) is an approximation to the observed correction
factor vs speed relation for the ith group. The coefficients
bj; and bg; can be determined very simply by virtue of the
fact that the vectors v,(x) and v(x) are orthogonal.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 15


~6~

At temperatures different from 20°F or 75°F, linear interpolation/
extrapolation can be used between O°F and 100°F by computing a t/°F
rate and then normalizing. The t/°F rate is .023 minutes/°F.

Thus, at 30°F, the time constant is 1.04 rather than 1.27, the
normalizing multiplier is 3.56, and the final equation would be t =
8.94 s° + 3.70.

Sources of Data:

Various ‘methods are available to obtain data on the percentage of
vehicles which are operating in cold transient, hot transient, or
stabilized emission scenarios. These are discussed below.

1. Origin - Destination Studies - On a regional basis, these data
banks can be analyzed to determine the number of trips which
begin after various engine-off times. By adding information
on average trip length and average trip‘speed, the percentage
of miles of each type of operation can be readily determined.

On a local basis, O-D studies can be used to determine the
distribution of vehicles at a given location with respect to
operating time and engine-off time prior to start-up. Average
link speed may have to be added to the data base to perform
the analysis. This methodology was recently used by GCA under
contract to EPA. The report is titled Characterization of
Cold Mode Operation and is available from Mr. Jim Wilson,
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

2. Survey data - Clearly, only two pieces of information are
needed in order to determine whether a vehicle is in a transient
or a stabilized emission condition. A quick roadside survey
can be designed to ask motorists how long ago they started
their engine (time and/or miles) and how long the engine was
off prior to start-up. In many cases, a rough estimate is
entirely adequate. Depending upon the design of the survey,
localized or regional percentage values can be determined.

3. Direct Measurement Data - Direct measurement techniques exist
which can determine whether a vehicle is in a stabilized
emission configuration. These techniques can be difficult to
implement due to the need to perform extensive calibration.

Some measurement methods require the vehicles to stop for
several minutes while other techniques require only a 30

second stop or no stop. Broadly, the measurement techniques

can be divided into two types; those which use a thermocouple
measurement technique and those which use an infrared measurement
technique. Temperature measurements from a number of areas of

A I-7


Covariance

5813

-1856

-0555
- .0038
~.0339
~ 0494
-.0580
*=.0657
-.0751
-.0858
- 0894
-.0706

Matrix

1856
-0599
-0180
0012
-0109
+0158
0185
-0210
0241
-0276
-0287
+0223

Eigenvalues

+7126 -0250
Eigenvectors.
-9015 -.2902
-2881 = -.0923
-0867 +0149
-.0059 -.0067
-.0541 -.1061
-.0793  -.2179
~.0937.  -.2942
~.1059 = -.3246
-.1206 9 -.3239
-.1394  ~.3263
-.1436 = -.3887
-.1159 -.5417

0555

-0180

-0055
- 0004
-.0034
- 0050
-.0059
-.0067
-.0076
- .0087
-.0097
-.0072

-0009

-.2991
-.7316
~.3209
-0183
1256
-0798
+0132
0126
1046
2200
+1410
-.4127

-.0038
-.0012
-.0004
-0000
-0002
«0004
«0004
+9005
-0006
-0006
-0007
-0006

+0002

-0498
-.2374
-0096
-0038
-.1809
-.3750
-.4617
-.3906
-.1901
1212
-3908
. A453

- 0339
-.0109
- 0034
+0002
-0024
-0037
-0044
-0050
-0055
-0062
MOKE
-0058

-0000

TABLE A-1 (Continued)

-.0494 -.0580
-.0158 -.0185
-.0050 -.0059
-0004 -0004
+0037 0044
+0057 «0069
0069 0084
-0078 20095
- 0086 -0104
0096 0116
-0102 +0124
+0095 .0117
-0000 -0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant contributions)

A-1-b

-.0657
-.0210
- .0067
0005
+0050
-0078
+0095
-0106
0117
+0130
-0140
-0131

-0000

-.0751
-.0241
-.0076
0006
+0055
-0086
-0104
20117
0130
.0145
~0155
.0143

-0000

- 0858
-.0276
- .0087
+0006
0062
-0096
-0116
-0130
0145
-0162
-0173
0157

«0000

- .0894
-.0287
-.0091
-0007
-0066
-0102
-0124
-0140
0155
-0173
-0785
0171

+0000

- 0706
- .0223
- 0072
- 0006
-0058
-0095
-0117
-0131
0743
-0157
-0171
-0171

-0000


soak) /(10-min. soak)

Fuel Consumption Ratio

(16-hr.

soak)

Fuel Consumption Ratio
(16-hr. soak) /(10-min.

b— Saeaaiae Eaiaeaiaaned
2 4 6 8

Time into Cycle (1 Unit = 63 sec.)
FIGURE III-1 FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR A 1977 FORD LTD

AS A FUNCTION OF RUN TIME
L480 Qesnpeep eee pepe ce pee
i
Soak Time (Hours)

FIGURE III-2 FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR A 1977 FORD LTD

AS A FUNCTION OF SOAK TIME
A III-5


4. HOT START/COLD START CONSIDERATIONS

The three bags in the FTP test are combined to give the
overall emission factor. The weightings, under standard
circumstances, are as follows:

w = cold start fraction = 20.58% (Bag 1)
l-w-x = stabilized fraction = 52.13% (Bag 2)
x = hot start fraction = 27.28% (Bag 3)

The average speeds for these bags under standard conditions
are respectively 26 mph, 16 mph and 26 mph.

In the overall expressions (Tables II.1, II.2, I1.3 of
Becker, op. cit.) the factors w, l-w-x, and x are used as
simple weighting factors. When these factors assume their
standard values and when both temperatures and speeds are at
their standard values, then the R-factor should compute to
unity. That this is true can be noted by returning to the
previous section and considering weighted combinations of
the bag-specific correction factors for HC for pre-1968
vehicles and for 1968-1974 vehicles. For pre-1968 vehicles,
one has

1.21 (.2058) + 1.002 (.5213) + 0.837 (.2728) = 1.00
(Bag 1) (Bag 2) (Bag 3)
and, for 1968-74 vehicles,
1.35 (.2058) + 0.932 (.5213) + 0.867 (.2728) = 1.00

It is when the values of w and x depart from their
standard values of w = 0.2058 and X= 0.2728 that the
correction factors become useful. However, that is also when
any difficulties or errors in the correction-factor expressions
will be manifested. A particularly troublesome point, it
would seem, arises when both the fraction of occupancy time
as well as the prevailing speeds in the three bags depart from
their nominal values. Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, such
departures are "“coincidentia oppositorum" if the usual
concepts of "Bag i" emissions are to hold in a strict sense.
What is really implied, when one postulates a Bag 1 speed of--
say~-10 mph, is a driving cycle quite different from the normal
Bag 1 cycle, but still one in which the vehicle is operating
in the cold-start condition. Apparently the assumption relied
upon to resolve this apparent contradiction is that any scaling
of emissions for speed effects, whether in Bags 1, 2 or 3, can
be performed "as if" the vehicle were operating over some
portion of the FTP consistent with that average speed.


e-TiD ©

FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR A 1977 FORD LTD AS A FUNCTION OF RUN TIME

TABLE III-1

soz | sine | istance | Tel conromption | (2/000 1) | soso B/a
Soak* (A) Soak** (B)
1 0-63 0.35 24.99 (1.63) *** 59.22 2.37
2 64-126 0.72 11.90 (0.78) 16.37 1.38
3 127-189 0.24 32.31 (2.11) 37.63 1.16
4 190-252 1.37 15.39 (1.00) 19.22 1.25
5 253-315 1.40 9.20 (0.60) 11.14 1.21
6 316-378 0.55 20.00 (1.30) 19.87 0.99
7 379-441 0.42 19.02 (1.24) 20.59 1.08
8 442-505 0.73 14.60 (0.95) 16.18 1.11
Combined 5.78 15.38
* Average of two tests
aR Average of three tests
eeK Numbers in parentheses are fuel consumptions divided by overall fuel

consumption of 15.34 2/100 km



LW

correction factor

x

s F, speed (mph)

FIGURE I-1

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

s, speed (mph)

TRANSFORMED PLOT OF CORRECTION FACTOR AS A FUNCTION OF
FOR GROUP 2 HYDROCARBONS

SPEED


in such a way as to minimize the sum of squared errors

lad
in

L

~

i=

Equation (3) thus falls in the framework of a linear model

Xbten=y (4)

and one can solve for b by means of the least-squares normal
equations

X'X b= X' y (5)

from which

b= (x'x)7! xt y (6)

It should be noted, however, that the column vectors of the
Matrix X are orthogonal, so that (6) becomes simply

b= X'y (7)
Solution of (7) for the specific case of (3) gives

b= by = -0.0154784
= bo -0.0593595 (8)

With the computed values of b, and bj one can then
compute an estimated correction factor vector for Group 2
and can compare this vector with the observed correction

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 21


a3y uooteg

9t ebed

TABLE 8

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Honda Civic cVvcc

Over the First 505 Seconds of the FTP

{Data from Table E-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc co Peo Fuel Economy (F.E.) PRE.
Time (gms/mi) (%) (gms/mi) (8) (mi/gal) ;
10 min 0.85 0.00 4,83 0.00 31.53 0.00
20 min 0.97 8.39 4.39 -14.33 31.08 9.49
30 min 1.00 10.49 4.17 ~21.50 31.58 “1.05
lhr 0.80 -3.50 4.38 -14.66 30.75 16.45
2 hr 1.00 10.49 4.89 1.95 28.72 59.28
4 hr 1.24 27.27 6.32 48.53 27.84 77.85
8 hr 2.03 82.52 7.82 97.39 25.03 137.13
16 hr 2.28 100.00 7.90 100.00 26.79 100.00
36 hr 2.65 125.90 9.48 151.46 24.13 156.10



automobiles. Within a given state (i.e., a particular auto-
mobile or automobile group) the emission process is responsive
to other, continuous, process variables, such as operating
speed, ambient temperature, and the like.

It is important to distinguish between data analysis
applicable to a given state of the process and that applicable
to some aggregation of states. In short, it is important
to know to what extent the effect of the process variables
are common to all states and to what extent these effects
must be particularized to a given state. Factor analytic
methods--in particular, principal component analysis--provide
an approach to this problem and is indicated to have important
bearing on the parsimonious formulation of emission correction
factors. The method is demonstrated in relation to speed
correction factors but is evidently applicable to other
variables in different contexts.

2. SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS

Speed correction factors for 18 groups of vehicles are
given in the attached Tables II.12, TI.13, I1.14 from
"Supplement 8 Light Duty Vehicle Correction Factors," Memo
Janet Becker to J. Hidinger/J. Horowitz (3/7/77). The vehicle
groups play the role of states in the process, whereas speed
plays the role of a continuous variable affecting emissions
within a given state. Consider, for example, the formulation
of CO correction factors as

= 2 3 4 5
&n CF Ay + AY s+ Ay s* + AS s+ Ay s'o+ Ae s Q)

or

CF = exp (Ay +A, S+A, 8S? +A, 5? + A, s* +a. s%)

1 2 3 5 (2)

The correction factors are normalized to yield CF = 1.0 at

Ss = 19.6 mi/hr. Note that separate coefficients (and separate
correction factors as a function of speed) are given for each
of the 18 vehicle groups. One might well ask if some
"commonality" might not exist among the groups so that a
single functional form might unify all groups except for a
state "scaling factor" peculiar to each vehicle group.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 2


100

20JOey uoTIoarIOD

x

one os

(udu) peads ‘as

A8

-

*

Si

speed (mph)

s

TRANSFORMED PLOT OF CORRECTION FACTOR AS A FUNCTION OF SPEED

FOR GROUP 2 OXIDES OF NITROGEN

FIGURE I-2


Note that by expressing the ratio in terms of the actual times,
as predicted by Equation (1), one is able to apply the same
argument to soak times other than the standard 16~hour period.
For example, when s = 4 hours, one has

5.12 - 4.14 0.98
q14 * 1008 = Boag

x 108% = 24%

Thus the shift is a proportiOnal one and is shown graphically
in Figure l.

A similar approach applied to tests conducted at 20° F
suggested (see Appendix I) that a constant difference of 1.27
minutes between 20° F ambient and 75° F ambient applies regard-

less of engine-off time. Thus the time to reach stabilized
emissions becomes

t= 2.51 0°36 + 1.27 (3)

or, wpon renormalization,

t = 2.61 36 + 1.32 (4)

and it is proposed that linear interpolation/extrapolation be
used between 0° F and 100° F.

Several comments regarding the suggested approach can now
be made. First, the notion of a power law to represent the
relation between stabilization times and soak times does not
seem compatible with physical reality. According to Equations
(1) - (4), the time required for stabilization continues to
increase as a monotonic function of soak time, rather than
approaching some limiting value. Second, units seem difficult
to reconcile. Of course it can always be argued that the
equations are only for descriptive purposes and are not to be
applied outside a specified range of soak times. On the other
hand,their use is not in keeping with criteria of the Purchase

Order, one of which is “ability to relate to engineering
concepts."

Falcon R&D Page 5


It is recognized that any proposed program aimed at
refinement of correction factors must be balanced against
associated costs. Though such considerations are beyond
the scope of the current effort, a cost-benefit examination
of correction-factor refinement is considered to be an
essential prelude to future correction factor development.


APPENDIX IIT

TIME-CONSTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR A CAPACITIVE MODEL

OF EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY

For the capacitive model to be applicable to emission and
fuel economy of automobiles, it is necessary to be able to
evaluate the time constants corresponding to the heating and
cooling cycles of a vehicle. These cycles correspond to vehicle
on (run time) and vehicle off (soak time), respectively.

Data relevant to time-constant evaluation are afforded
by R. L. Srubar in a report on soak-time and run-time effects.*
Five vehicles were tested for emissions and fuel economy after
various soak times. The only way in which the effects of run
time were monitored, however, was by bagging emissions for
various periods of "time into the driving cycle." Though the
bagged results do, indeed, reflect warm-up effects, these
effects are confounded with changes in the driving cycle from
one bag to another. Accordingly, an estimation of time constants
must be by an indirect process, but this fact does not preclude
the possibility of designing an experiment specifically for the
purpose of time constant estimation.

Consider the data tabulated in Table III-1 for a 1977
Ford LTD. Each of the bags corresponds to a 63-second period
of operation, but the distances covered, average speeds and
driving sequence severity are different for the various bags.
If it is assumed that the 10-minute soak represents essentially
stabilized conditions (actually it probably exhibits a short
transient), then one can compute for each bag a "correction
factor" reflecting only the effects of bag differences in
driving sequence.

The average fuel consumption for the 505-second run is
15.35 2/100 km. By dividing the fuel consumption in the first
bag by this number one obtains 24.99/15.34 = 1.63. Thus one
can assume that the first 63 seconds of operation is 1.63

* R. L, Srubar, Emission and Fuel Economy Sensitivity to

Changes in Light Duty Vehicle Test Procedures, Final Report
of Task No. 10, Contract 68-03-2196, Southwest Research
Institute (May 1977).

A LII-1


Even though engine-off time can be used, albeit arbitrarily,
to differentiate between hot transient and cold transient opera-
tion, it is clear that the ensuing transient period "remembers"
the past operating history of the vehicle. It seems reasonable
to believe that a vehicle restarted after only a 2-hour soak
would exhibit a different transient response than one not re-
started until after a 12~hour soak. Thus a complete model of

transient phenomena should take into account both heating and
cooling cycles.

In the “Emission Factor User Information Sheet" of Appen-
dix I, it is proposed that the time to reach stabilized emissions
can be defined by an equation of the type

t = 2.51 776 (1)

where t is the time, in minutes, required to reach stabilized
emissions, and s is the soak time in hours. Evaluation of this
formula for various soak times is shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Relation Between Stabilization and Soak Times
t = 2.51 90-36, Temperature = 75° F

s t
soak time stabilization time
(hrs) (min.)

0 i)

1 2.51

2 3.22

4 4.14
16 6.81

32 9.09
64 11.22

Now it is clear that, according to the table, the time required
for stabilization after a 16-hour soak is only 6.81 minutes

whereas the transient portion of the FTP is based on 505 seconds
(8.4 minutes) of operation.

Falcon Research & Development Co. Page 3


APPENDIX II

A CAPACITIVE MODEL OF SOAK AND RUN TIME EFFECTS

ON VEHICLE EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY

Experimental data collected on vehicles during varying
periods of run and soak (vehicle on and off) indicate that
temperature, as well as emissions and fuel economy, may
respond in time as voltage on a capacitor responds in time
to periods of charge and discharge. The accumulation of
electric charge in the capacitor is analogous to the accumu-
lation of heat in the vehicle when it is in the "run" condition.
The discharge of the capacitor is analogous to the cooling
phase when the vehicle is in the "soak" condition.

Consider an electric circuit represented by Figure II-1
below:

Ri Sy

| |

FIGURE II-1

In this figure, R2 >> Rj and most of the current passes
through Ry when switch §, is closed. This is equivalent
to the "on" cycle when the car is started. .The rate at which
the capacitor is charged (or the car heats up) is a function

A II-1


ayy uooTeg

PT ebeg

TABLE 6

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time
for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Plymouth Fury
Over the First 505 Seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table C-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Pre co Poo Fuel Economy (F-E.) PRE. |
Time (gms/mi) (8) (gms/mi) (8) (mi/gal)

10 min 0.52 0.0 1.71 0.0 16.87 0.0

20 min 0.70 13.7 1.88 0.8 15.82 26.05

30 min 0.72 15.3 2.70 4.4 15.43 35.73
lhr 0.87 26.7 3.18 6.5 15.42 35.98

2 hr 1.40 67.2 12.91 49.7 14.67 54.59
4hr 1.42 68.7 16.95 67.6 13.88 74.19 |
8 hr 1.64 85.5 20.84 | 92.4 13.18 91.56

16 hr 1.83 100.0 24.24 | 100.0 12.84 100.00

36 hr 1.89 104.6 28.37 118.30 | 12.18 | 116.40



and

FTP mi. = 0.43 Bag 1 mi. + Bag 2 mi. + 0.57 Bag 3 mi.

tt

(0.43) (3.59) + 3.91 + (0.57) (3.59)

1.5437 + 3.91 + 2.0463

= 7.5 mi.
Then
2543? = .2058 = fraction of miles in cold start mode
3.91 . . . oa
7.5 7 -5213 = fraction of miles in stabilized mode
and
229463 = .2728 = fraction of miles in hot start mode

Now it is presumed that the FTP weightings were devised
with a view toward "representative" operation of vehicles
in cold-start, stabilized and hot-start modes. The gms/mi.
emissions are derived on the basis that the driving cycle
consists of a transient part 3.59 miles long and a stabilized
part 3.91 miles long and that the total trip length is 7.5 miles.
When average speeds in the three stages of operation are taken
into account, the assumptions of the F¥TP translate into certain
fractions of "vehicle-hours" spent in cold-start, stabilized
and hot~-start modes, given a trip length of 7.5 miles.

(0.43) (3.59 mi.)

i in" "
35.6 mif/hr 0.0603 hrs. (3.6 min.) in "Bag 1

a

3.91 mi.
16 mi/hr

w

0.2444 hrs. (14.7 min) in "Bag 2"

(0.57) (3.59 mi.)
25.6 mi/hr

0.0799 hrs. (4.8 min) in “Bag 3"

12


Moreover, the correction factors incorporating temperature,
age and detuning effects are normalized in terms of the overall
FTP emissions rather than in terms of the Bag 1 emissions.

Let us examine the implications of this approach for
HC. As given in Table II.1 of Becker (op. cit.), the
relevant part of the general expression for the R-facto. is:

E2-9310 ~ .014779 t + .673 + .569A ;
567 4 CATA for pre-1968 vehicles

and

2.9310 - .014779 t
eC - 2.41 + 863A

2.8 + .64A for 1978-74 vehicles.

When t = 75° and A = 0, these expressions reduce to:

6.188 + .673 _ 6.861

5.67 = Ss e7 = 1.21 for pre-1968 vehicles

6.188 - 2.41 _ 3.778
2.8 2.8

= 1.35 for 1968-74 vehicles

These results imply that hydrocarbon emissions in Bag 1 are

21% higher than emissions over the FTP for pre-1968 vehicles

and 35% higher for 1968-74 vehicles. A much stronger conclusion
than this, however, can be made: these factors are independent
of age so long as temperature is held at 75°. For:

6.861 + .569A

5.67 + .47A = 1724

u

and

3.778 + .863A _
2.8 + .64A = 1.35.


TABLE I

CORRELATION MATRIX FOR COEFFICIENTS
IN CORRECTION FACTOR vs SPEED EQUATION
FOR CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)

Ag Ay Ay A; Ag As
Ag 1.0000 -0.6871 0.0933 0.0330 -0.0705 0.0851
Ay -0.6871 1.0000 ~-0.7825 0.6860 -0.6489 0.6309
Ag 0.0933 -0.7825 1.0000 -0.9868 0.9741 -0.9655
A; 0.0330 0.6860 -0.9868 1.0000 -0.9977 0.9943
Ay -0.0705 -0.6489 0.9741 ~-0.9977. 1.0000 ~-0.9992
As 0.0851 0.6309 -0.9655 0.9943 -0.9992 1.0000
EIGENVALUES: 4.5115
1.4534
0.0350
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
TRACE = 6.0001 = SUM OF EIGENVALUES

Falcon R&D

Working Paper No. 1

Page ll


RE

TABLE

A-6

GRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR NOX CORRECTION

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS PROGRAM

Covariance Matrix

-26107E + 00

Eigenvalues
-26746E + 00

Eigenvectors

-.98798E + 00
-15439E + 00
-.80505E ~ 02
-16251E - 03
-.11454E - 05

-.40772E - 01
-65390E - 02
- 16858E - 03

-.15453E + 00

~.98456E + 00
-82215E + 00

~.18897E - 02
-14214E - 04

+21252E
«34608E
-18475E

-13350E

-47653E
-82412E
+99434E
-66836E
-81028E

02
03
04

08

- 02
- 01
+ 00
01
03

1

~.42892E
-70242E
~ .37619E
-76712E

-82688E

-18743E
-36301E
-66750E
-99710E
~.36263E

FACTORS

04
05

08

15

03
02
01
00
01

+30230E
-49658E
- 26644E
-54385E
+38584E

+ 25399E

-40029E
-79084E
-T6147E
-36236E
-99934E

18

05
04
02
0)
00


It is at this point that difficulties in terminology
seem to arise as well as difficulties in assumptions. To
speak of measuring emissions over the FTP driving cycle
at an arbitrary speed seems contradictory, because the FTP
in a strict sense implies an average speed, namely 19.6 mph.
Similarly, to speak of measuring Bag i emissions at an
arbitrary speed also seems incorrect, since with each bag
there is an associated specific average speed. Further
challenging of these concepts will be held in abeyance
for the present, however, in order to set forth what was
actually done in the generation of the bag-specific speed
correction factors.

First consider Bag 1. This is the cold-start bag and
has an associated average speed of 26 mph. For Bag 1, the
final speed correction factor for a specific pollutant is
given as

V2, 8)
Vv =
Sr $1, 26

where the subscript g refers to vehicle group, and the
subscript 2 identifies Group 2, low-altitude pre-controlled
vehicles. This definition is based on the assumption that
"emission dependency on speed during cold operation is ...

similar for all model year vehicles and ... is equal to the
dependency of pre-controlled vehicles during warmed-up

operation." & In short, it is assumed that it is necessary

only to normalize the Group 2 correction factor at an arbitrary
speed s} by dividing by the Group 2 correction factor at the

bag speed of 26 mph (see Table 1). This adjustment has the effect
of re-referencing the correction factor curves to the Bag 1 average
speed of 26 mph rather than to the FTP average speed of 19.6 mph.

Adjustment of Bag 2 and Bag 3 preliminary correction
factors were performed in a somewhat different manner. Here
the re-referencing for bag average speed is done on a group-
wise basis.

(3)

Becker, op. cit.


will be suggested later, however, there may be an advantage

in abandoning such a compartmentalized approach in favor of

a methodology which views heating and cooling of a vehicle

as a continuous process and modifies emission rates accordingly.
In the continuum, warm-up is considered as a matter of degree
rather than as a “go" or “no-go" affair.

2. PRESENT PROCEDURES: A REVIEW

The present method for dealing with hot and cold starts
is to view them as processes which are switched on or off ac-
cording to cold soak time (that is, how long the vehicle has
been standing unused) and length of time the vehicle has been
running since start-up. It is recognized, of course, that the
nature and severity of the driving cycle can modify the ef-
fects of soak times and run times on emissions, as can also
ambient conditions.

According to an EPA "Emission Factor User Information Sheet"
(see Appendix I), the break between hot-start and cold-start
operation can be defined in terms of a threshold for engine-off
time. For example, in the case of a catalyst-equipped vehicle,
the threshold is based on the maximum engine-off time "that can
occur without causing the catalyst to cool down sufficiently"
so that upon engine restart the catalyst is still operational.
Any such threshold time will, as noted above, be affected by
ambient temperature. The definition given in the cited docu-
ment is:

“Following an engine-off period, vehicle
operation is said to be hot transient (hot
start) if the engine-off time is less than

30 minutes and the temperature is 75° F or
greater. If the temperature is 20° F or less,
the allowable engine-off time drops to 10
minutes. Interpolation can be used between
the two temperature levels."

In the previous EPA emission factor document, AP-42, Supplement 5,
cold operation was defined as 505 seconds of operation following
a 4 hour engine-off period for noncatalyst vehicles and a 1 hour
engine-off period for catalyst vehicles.

Falcon Research & Development Co. Page 2


azy uooTteg

T ‘ON tedeq Bupyz0M

9 obeg

(Teple 1.13 con't)

06212235402
OC. 20e5Ir ea)
C.14925F 40)
0.350765-0)

0+215368+01
O.221878401
06 14G82E 49)

enver-ae

4cS O.207355+01
Coz O+A57S2E+01
NOX= 0.24597E+00
GSOUPETE

Ho

NOX= 0, 128172403
G20uP=15

uc= C.A1136F+01
co= 0. 215492401
sOXe 0. ISI4SE-91
GROWPH)6

Ca 0.21196e201
cos 0 1250S4F20}
NOXs 06794812400
GROUP=17

C= 0.2h8386+02
coz 0.2A393F +01
NOX2 «0, 7A306F +90

HC e291 07E 600
0.310626 +00
0.121360 +00

C8784 IE HO)

=0,283455+09
~0, 24) 1564090
aCe 22U4E 600

-0.28935E200
-0.32899E200
02841 95E-0)

0.304966 +00
0, 332828 +00
=0, 80687E «01

0, 28568E+00
70.32912E+09
-0,12567E+00

=0,29063E+00
0, 36295E +00
0,98)53F~01

(20, 34463E800
+0, 360762400
0+32AS5E~03

DO LS9NIEHWO1
9.2N495T=0)
0.79992E-92
"0627727202

e15$95E-01
922094590)
Os 7OSNZEA0?

OL 73045=-0)
Oe LASTS
3 0034024E-02

0 L6R62E-01
0,1 7G295-0)
0, 535765 =02

0+1$213€-0)
O,2101i£-C)
0.765927 H02

O,LAGA7Z HO}
0.23277 EHO)
4.2 7391E-02

N.YOSn2b=91
0.210705=01
Ge 1NGO3S-02

= 452615E-03

-0¢7085I3F-03
=O LbG25E-03
DeNT4O6E~04

06469762203
0266589
O.1L7L06E

“055471 E-03
~9462826E-03
0+S52988E-046

~0-50962F-03
065261 2F~93
“O11 8898-03

=05500795=03
70, 68906F-03
=9,169432-03

=0.61654F-03
-0.81504E=03
06326146-04

791625725 -03
“9. 576645=03
=Or3L9R5Fh=-04

068271 E-05
Del lG21E-96
261961 65-05
-0e33220E~06

0+69393E-05
0.10223E-04
0+12576E-C5

0-8G64202~05
0410092E-04
064139706

9+675952E-05
a7 7222-05
06901 06E"06

0.75507E=05
el NB3SE=04
04125492-05

0.99206E-05

O,33623E-04

~06E0385E-06

O.97844E-05
Oe L0G27EHOG
0429039F=06

044701 28-07
“Oe7T1LSG9E-97
040
040

039471 E07
-0+S9827E “97
O60

-0.5)3) 1-07
70 -61273E-07
040

-043496E-07
-0.437025-07
060

-0,4371 9-07
-0,64712E-07
0.0

=0,60402E-07
06855918 -07
909

#0 .583375-97
0.63641 E-07
nd



Further insight would be gained by differentiating the correc-
tion factor with respect to temperature to obtain

a_(co Bag LCF) _ (3.318) (-.015965) CQ7- 019565 €

-.015965 (CO Bag 1 CF)

i

Thus a 1° change from a specified temperature would change

the correction factor by about 14% of its value at the initial
temperature. A similar analysis for HC would indicate the
range of the correction factor and its rate of change at

any given temperature.

Though the above type of approach sheds light on the
specific effect of ambient temperature on Bag 1 emissions,
this was not the approach used in developing the current

correction factors. Instead, terms were added to account
for the "detuning" of vehicles in use and for mileage-
accumulation "deterioration." In these contributions

distinction is made between pre-1968 vehicles and 1968-74
vehicles, whereas no distinction is made in the exponential
parts of the Bag 1 expressions (see Table 2).

Table 2
DETUNING AND DETERIORATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO

CORRECTION FACTOR EXPRESSIONS (A = age in years - 1)

Detuning Deterioration
HYDROCARBONS
Pre-1968 0.673 0.569A
1968-74 -2.410 0.863A

CARBON MONOXIDE
Pre-1968 -14.74 9.62A

1968-74 ~-33.89 9.77A


Working Paper No. 2 extends the analysis of preliminary
speed correction factors to their incorporation in the more
general "R-factors," which take into account, in addition to
average speed, a number of other factors affecting emissions.
These include mileage accumulation, the prevailing ambient
temperature, and the fraction of vehicle operation performed
in the cold transient, hot transient, and stabilized modes.
In addition, the paper makes generalizations pertaining to
the identification and definition of variables affecting
emissions and the important role played by nondimensionali-
zation in the formulation of correction factors.

One of the difficulties encountered in the use and
interpretation of the R-factors arises from the notion that
the fraction of miles driven in the cold transient, stabilized
and hot transient conditions can be driven at arbitrary
speeds, whereas the FTP definition of these conditions imply
associated speeds of 26, 16 and 26 mph, respectively. When
average speed and mode of operation are incorporated ina
common correction factor, therefore, this combination
impacts on trip lengths and the proportion of trips origi-
nated in the cold-start mode. To reconcile all the con-
straints it is necessary to invoke certain assumptions about
either the lengths or time durations of trips and the
portions thereof spent in a Bag 1, Bag 2 or Bag 3 condition
of operation. Otherwise, the implied warm-up times may
exceed the time allowable under the FTP test. Reformulation
of the R-factors, therefore, is indicated to be a fruitful
area for refinement of correction factors.

In the general area of methodology, Working Paper No. 2
Provides a good example of how correction factors may be
simplified by an adroit definition of variables affecting
emissions. In particular, it is shown that it may be
advantageous to represent the effect of speed on emissions
in terms of grams per unit time rather than in terms of
grams per unit distance. This observation arises from a
dimensional analysis type of argument and is shown empiri-
cally to lead to considerable simplification of the speed
Correction factor function. It is further shown that diffi-
culties arising from numerical constraints imposed by choice
of units can often be avoided by nondimensionalization of
the independent as well as the dependent variables ina
functional expression.


UY

SPEED (mph)

Delta

A/Initial

Delta

A/Initial

Delta

A/initial

5-6

3.297

2.816

~.481

-.146

3.319

2.829

~.490

~.148

1,242

1.184

-.058

-.047

10-11

1.749

1.601

~.148

-.085

1.751

1.602

-.149

~.085

1.031

1.010

-.021

-.020

Table I-1

DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS OF CORRECTION FACTORS

15-16

1.224

1.163

-.061

~.049

1.225

1.164

-.061

-.050

2974

975

001

-001

20-21

986

-953

-.033

-.033

986

952

-.034

-.034

1.004

1.017

013

013

Group 2
25-26 30-31 35-36
HYDROCARBONS

-844 .740 8.659
~821  .722 (£645
-.023 -.018 -.014
-.027 -.024 -.021
CARBON MONOXIDE
-841  =.734 = 650
-817 9.715.637
-.024 -.017 -.013
~.029 -.023 -.020
NITROGEN OXIDES
1.074 1.146 1.203
1.089 1.159 1.211
+015  .013  .008

2014 O11 007

40-41

-600

-591

~-.009

~.015

592

583

-.009

-.015

1.239

1,244

005

004

45-46

565

+560

-.005

-.009

557

552

~.005

-.009

1.265

1.271

006

005

50-51

-547

+544

-.003

-.005

~539

-536

-.003

~.006

1.306

1.320

+014

-O1ll

55-56

+530

525

-.005

~.009

.518

-510

-.008

-.015

1.404

1.436

-032

023

60-61

482

-464

-.018

-.037

2454

-433

~-.021

~.046

1.615

1.677

062

038


TABLE 6

GROUP 2 DEVIATIONS FROM MEAN CO
CORRECTION FACTORS AT 5 mph INCREMENTS

SPEED DEVIATION
(mph) FROM MEAN CORRECTION FACTOR
5 -0.0057
10 0.0214
15 0.0074
20 0.0006
25 0.0053
30 0.0156
35 0.0227
40 0.0251
45 0.0206
50 0.0140
55 0.0170
60 0.0411

The object is to express these deviations as a linear combination
of the significant eigenvectors v)(x) and vo(x) for CO as
derived from the principal~component analysis. In short,

we want to solve the following equation for b, and bj

, 7 f- 7 _—— [- t
0.9015 -0.2909 e, -0.0057
0.2881 -0.0923 e) 0.0241
0.0867 0.0149 Fes 0.0074

-0.0059 0.0067 e, 0.0006
0.0541 0.1062 es 0.0053
~0,0793 -0.2179 e 0.0156
Pi} -o10937 | * ¥2 | -0.2042| * | es | = | 0.0227 (3)
-0.1059 -0.3246 eg 0.0252
-0.1206 -0.3239 eg 0.0206
-0.1374 -0.3263 e10 0.0140
0.1436 -0. 3887 e]] 0.0170
| -0.2159 | | 0.5417] eyo] | 0.0413]

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 20


APPENDIX I

SOME CONSIDERATIONS PERTINENT TO SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS

The speed correction factors for CO and HC, as developed

in Mobile Source Emission Factors, Final Document (January 1978)

and "Supplement 8 Light Duty Vehicle Correction Factors"*
take the functional form

A, +A, s+ A, s? +A, si? +A, 5s" + A, 8®

P= 0 1 2 3 4 5
(1-1)
Differentiating (I-1) with respect to s one obtains
b= SE. (a + 20, s + 3A, 5? + 4A, 5° + 5A, 8S") F
das 1 2 3 4 5
(1-2)

Thus the fractional change in correction factor per mph is

= 2 3 4
AY + 2A, s+ 3A s? + 4a, set 5A, s

aps.

(1-3)

Similarly, for NO, the correction factor relation takes the
form

4

= 2 3
F Ay + Ay s+ Ay s* + A s° + Ay s
(1-4)
——
* Memo Janet Becker to Jack Hidinger/Joel Horowitz

(March 7, 1977)

Al


Evidently, then, trip length must be much shorter than in the
FTP, a fact made evident by the consideration that average
speed over every segment is no greater than about half the
average speed of the FTP (19.6 mph). A consistent solution,
based on adjusted trip length, would be found by solving

x

+4 = 0.3

where x is the distance covered during the stabilized
portion of the trip. The solution is x = 0.6 miles, for a
total trip length of 1.4 + 0.6 = 2 miles. Then

(0.57) (1.4) + 0.6 + (0.43) (1.4) = 2 miles

and
(0.57) (1.4) 0.4
2
0.6 _
2 = 0.3
(0.43) (1.4) = 0.3

2

and it is seen that the desired split of cold start, stabilized
and hot start driving is preserved but.only if an average
trip length of 2 miles is postulated.

To summarize, cold/stabilized/hot fractions, average
speeds, trip lengths and fractions of trips initiated in
cold start or hot start-~all are interrelated. Correction
factors designed to accomodate both average speed and mode
of operation must, therefore, be developed and used with care.

Specific points to consider are the fact that the fraction
of miles driven in cold start is different from the fraction
of time spent in the cold start mode and is also different from
the fraction of trips which originated from a cold start.

15


TABLE

Tir

CORRELATION MATRIX FOR COEFFICIENTS

IN CORRECTION FACTOR vS SPEED EQUATION
FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NO,)

A A A

0 1 2 3 4
Ag 1.0000 -0.9868 0.9677 -0.9584 0.9525
Ay -0.9868 1.0000 -0.9957 0.9918 -0.9886
Ag 0.9677 -0.9957 1.0000 ~-0.9993 0.9979
A3 -0.9584 0.9918 -0.9993 1.0000 -0.9996
Aq 0.9525 -0.9886 0.9979 -0.9996 1.0000

EIGENVALUES: 4.9356

0.0637
0.0008
0.0000
0.0000

TRACE = 5.0001

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1

= SUM OF EIGENVALUES

Page 13


TABLE A-2

HC CORRECTION FACTORS AT 5 mph INCREMENTS

Speed_(rph)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Raw Data (Column Means)
3.0969 1.6768 1.2035 -9868 ~8509 ~7464 6644 ~6072 .5759 5622 5414 -4701

Raw Data (Column Sigmas)
-3110 ~0987 0321 -0023 0276 0475 .0615 0704 0765 -0829 -0918 1022

Transformed Data (Deviation Scores)

-0102 -0022 = -.0025 -0002 .0071 -0146 07196 -0218 0217 0228 -0296 0459

«2002 -0722 +0205 -.0008 -.0069 -.0064 -.0054 -.0072 -.0109 -.0152 -.0144 -0119
~.0138 -0312 -0155 -.0008 -.0099 -0134 --.0144 --.01752. -,0199-.0282-,0384 = -.0471
3732 -1312 +0425 ~.0028 -.0299 -0464 «=-.0584 -.0692-.0789-.9902-. 9964 = - 0891
3222 -0962 +0275 -.0018 -.0169 -.0264 -.0344 -.0422 -.0499 ~.0582 -.0624 -.0561
-0262 -0162 -0045 0002 -0027 -0076 -0126 -0148 «0151 0138 -0156 0248
-0632 -0322 0115 -.0008 -.0059 -0064 -.0064 -.0072 -.0089 -.0122 -.0124 -.0101
-3968 -.1288 = -.0435 «0032 -0381 +0646 +0836 -0958 - 1057 «1158 -1306 1459
-1938 -.0768 -.0335 -0032 -0401 0726 -0976 -1128 +1237 -1318 - 1496 «1789
-.0578 =-.0278 = -.0135 0012 0161 0286 -0376 0418 0431 0468 0546 0679
-2988 =-.1058 + -.0355 «0022 0261 +0416 +0516 +0598 0681 +0758 +0756 +0549
-1688 =-.0538 = -.0195 -0012 -0201 0346 -0466 -0518 +0561 «0618 0706 +0829
+3918 -.1288 -.0385 ,.0022 -0201 0266 0296 +0328 -0401 -0478 +0476 +0229
1792 «0492 20725 - 0008 0069 =-.0104 =-.0144 =-.0182 = -.0279 = -.0242 -.0224— -.0141
+2818 = -.0948 = -.0315 -0022 0251 0416 -0526 0618 -0701 0788 0866 -0829
~-3338 = -.1018 = -.0225 - 0002 0029 -.0174 «=-.0294 =-.0342 =-.0329--.0312 -.0444 = - 0871

8662 «2542 0815 +0058 0669 «1174-21414 -.1612)--.1749) 0 -.1892-.2044-.2121

.0972 -0372 0245 -0028 +0479 +0934 -.1244 -.1392)-.1439--.1482,) -.1684-. 2701

A-2-a


Similar conclusions can be drawn for Bag 2 and Bag 3
for pre-1968 and for 1968-74 vehicles. For, in Table II.1
one has for HC:

5.69 + .471A
5.67 + .47A

m

1.002 for pre-1968 vehicles

For Bag 2
2.61 + .597A _
2.8 4 .64A * 0.932 for 1968-74 vehicles
4.75 + .393A _ .
5.67 + 479A 0.837 for pre-1968 vehicles
For Bag 3
2.43 + .555A _
2.8 + 164A * 0.867 for 1968-74 vehicles

Thus for pre-1975 vehicles the age-effect term is a "fictional"
or "dummy" correction. Note, however, that this is not the
case for 1975 vehicles.

In summing up the considerations of this section several
points can be made. In Table 2, the effects of detuning are
tabulated. In three of the four entries the detuning terms
are negative. This fact suggests that as-received, in-use
vehicles give lower emissions than tuned-up vehicles. Though
it is not inconceivable that such could be the case, it
seems more likely that the results may be an artifact of
the sampling involved in obtaining the data on which the
corrections are based. This possibility further suggests
that a program aimed at assessing deteriorations in use
should exercise as much control as possible and practical
over the sampling procedure. Finally,~there may be advantage
in normalizing emission correction factors on a bag-by-bag
basis rather than on the FTP basis and to report emission
factors bagwise rather than (or in addition to) FTP-wise.
More on this point will follow in the next section, which
deals with the hot start/cold start aspect of the R-factor.


-0.87

-0.9-

-1.0-

'
5

FIGURE 2

PLOT OF FIRST EIGENVECTORS

a
Oo.
o 6—9_ 9

1 f t t ( { | |
ro 15 2 2s 30 35 40 45 do 55 60
MPH

Page 16


asa uoorteg

TABLE 4

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Chevrolet Impala

Over the First 505 Seconds of the FIP

(Data from Table A-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc co Peco Fuel Economy (F.E.} PPLE.
Time (gms/mi) (8) (gms/mi) 3) {mi/gal)
10 min 0.53 i) 7.13 ° 13.47 0
| 20 min 0.61 6.45 6.08 -4.3 13.20 ; 12.05
30 min 0.88 28.20 6.87 | -1.i 13.08 17.41
1 hr 1.09 45.20 7.95 | 3.3 12.61 38.39
2 hr 1.38 68.5 10.10 12.0 12.14 | 59,38
4 hr 1.34 65.3 14.18 28.5 11.88 70.98
B hr 1.27 59.7 16.52 38.0 11.28 97.77
16 hr 1.77 100.0 31.86 100.0 11.23 100.00
36 hr 1.56 83.0 28.70 87.2 11.06 | 107.6

ZT ebeg



Eigenvalues

9.

8535

2.1174

Pigenvectors

-1917
-0359
2399
3099
-3130

~.3185
~.3183

+3182
+3179
+3179
~3184
+3163

5490
+6828
-4507
-.1472
-.0344
+0109
+0252
-0170
-.0023
-.0164
0064
+0704

+0215

+2833
-0335
+3083
+3962
+2010
-0626
-0909
+2737
4386
«4449
«1582
«3518

-0064

-0780
0793
+3065
«8396
- 1497
-0923
-0187
-0439
-0923
-0516
«1750
+3672

TABLE A-3 (Continued)

-0017

«1775
-0297
+2173
- 1400
+3286
- 2205
+2733
- 1861
-0301
-1790
-4631
-5978

-0001

+0326
+4294
+6857
+0279
5231
-0811
-0906
+0385
+0820
1721
0261
«1537

A-3-d

-0000

-0000 -0000 -0000 -0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant
contribution)

-0000


Perhaps the most serious drawback of an approach based
on definition of a specific time required for stabilization
is the difficulty in selecting a criterion for defining when
vehicle operation is "warm or stabilized." Temperature
levels, such as catalyst temperature, oil temperature, water
temperature or air-intake temperature can be considered as
bases, but these do not necessarily track each other over
time and are not readily translated into effects on emissions.
If emission levels are taken as indicators, it may well be
that each pollutant has its own "stabilization time" so that
it would not be possible to specify a unique time required
to reach a stabilized state.

3. AN ACCRETION-DEPLETION VIEW OF THERMAL TRANSIENT EFFECTS

Insight pertinent to the development of a predictive
equation for engine warm-up is afforded by an examination of
the physical processes involved. An internal combustion
engine is both a heat source and a heat reservoir. Much of
the heat generated is converted to mechanical energy to
drive the vehicle, but a certain amount goes to raise the
temperature of elements of the engine itself, and excess
heat is dissipated by the cooling system. When the engine
is turned off, the heat stored in the engine and associated
elements such as the catalytic converter is lost to the
surrounding atmosphere. It is conjectured that heat is
transfered mostly through a slow process of radiation. Thus
it might be expected that heat is lost by the engine much
more slowly than it is gained, and that the effect of the
ambient temperature would be to increase or decrease the
temperature differential between engine and atmosphere and
hence influence the rate of heat loss accordingly. Also for
any given ambient temperature, it is reasonable to expect
that as the engine cools and approaches ambient, the rate of
heat dissipation decreases so that the cooling cycle might
be expected to be essentially an exponential process. By
similar reasoning it might be conjectured that heat accretion
is also exponential, but with a much shorter time constant
caused by the much larger temperature differential driving
the process.

In short, it appears that the accretion and depletion
of heat might be analogous to the charging and discharging
of an electrical condenser in a simple resistance-capacitance
circuit, as developed in Appendix II. Because some of the
Processes involved (such as the action of the choke and the
activation of the analytic converter) are discontinuous or
only quasi-continuous, the simple exponential process postu-
lated may be subject to step-function perturbations which

Falcon R&D Page 7


and the fraction of trips originating "hot" is given by

=30 _ 0.30 _ .
7404030 ~ 0040 7 0.4286 (i.e., 43%)

TO reconcile all the constraints one must make certain assump-
tions about either trip lengths or trip times and the portions
thereof spent in each bag.

For example, suppose that the trip length is assumed to
be 7.5 miles, as in the FTP, and that the disposition of this
length is 3.59 miles in either cold or hot transient and 3.91
miles in stabilized operation. Then

3.59 miles

10 mi/hr = 0.359 hr. = 21.5 min.

which is too long for the vehicle to operate without being in
stabilized mode, whether the start is cold or hot. Suppose,
instead, that one assumes the warm-up time of 8.4 minutes
(0.14 hr.) as in the FTP. The corresponding distance at

10 mi/hr. is (0.14 hr.) x (10 mi/hr.) = 1.4 mi. If a trip
length of 7.5 miles is assumed, then 7.5 - 1.4 = 6.1 miles
would have to be in stabilized operation. Note that

(.57) (1.4) + 6.1 + (.43) (1.4) = 7.5

satisfies the trip length requirement but violates the original
assumption of 40%/30%/30% mileage split in Bag 1/Bag 2/Bag 3.
For,

(0.57) (1.4 mi.)

78 ai. .1064 # 0.40

It

eS -8133 #4 0.30

tt

3
Pelee

(0.43) (1.4 mi.)
7.5 mi.

1

-0803 4 0.30

14


may need to be modeled by non-linear circuit elements. In
any event, however, such a view has the conceptual advantage
that the "heat budget" of the vehicle, or its effects on
emissions, can be visualized as a continuous function of time.

A schematic view of how the accretion and depletion of
heat might be manifested is shown in Figure 2. At what point

Heat RESketion
2 Accretion Heat Heat
Fy FI spleti EF ‘
8 OFF Depletion | fe) Depletion
3 | \ /
E \ i}
o
iz I ‘ON |
\ \ \
—_——- weed —
ie) a b fod
Time
FIGURE 2

in the vehicle this temperature is measured is not particularly
germane to the argument, but it is assumed to be related in
some way to emission performance. When the vehicle is first
started, designated by the notation "ON" at Time = 0, the
temperature rises, presumably exponentially, as the vehicle
accumulates heat from the combustion process. Because of the
cooling system, however, a maximum operating temperature is
approached as time continues. As the difference is narrowed
between the limiting temperature and the temperature at time t,
the rate of temperature rise tends to become smaller. When the
vehicle is stopped, designated by the notation "OFF" at

Time = a, the temperature falls, again presumably exponentially,
as temperature is lost to the surround. Again, as the difference
is narrowed between ambient temperature and vehicle temperature,
the rate of cooling tends to decrease with time.

Figure 2 does not suggest any mechanism by which vehicle
temperature is translated into emissions. Let us suppose,
however, that there exists a critical, minimum temperature level
requisite to "stable operation"--for example, the operating
temperature of the catalytic converter. As shown in Figure 3,
this critical level would be reached sooner after a relatively
short "OFF" time than after a quasi-infinite time (compare ty
and t 9), as was assumed to be the case at- Time = 0. Because
of the mechanism by which temperature is translated into

Falcon R&D Page 8


9-AI ¥

TABLE Iv- 4

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Chevrolet Vega

Over the First 505 seconds of the FIP

(Data from Table D-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

soak HC Puc co Feo Fuel Pap

Time (gms/mi) (8) (gms/mi) (%) (gal/mi) _
10 min 0.39 26.60 1.01 ~0.90 22.71 -8.67
20 min 0.48 34.86 2.09 7.22 22.84 -11.99
30 min 0.53 39.45 1.89 5.71 23.20 -21.17
1 hr 9.69 54,13 2.24 8.34 22.19 4.59

2 hr 0.64 49.54 3.68 19.17 20.97 35.71
4 hr 0.85 68.81 5.36 31.80 19.70 68.11

8 hr 1.03 85.32 14.63 101.50 19.41 75.51
16 hr 1.19 100.00 14.43 100.00 18.45 100.00
36 hr 1.27 107.3 19.90 141.13 18.45 100.00

Hot Stabilized 0.10 1.13 22.37



Though it is recognized that in (10) each of the functions
gilx), £(x), vy (x) and v(x) are considered as being defined
on a discrete domain of vehicle speeds, extension to a
continuous interval of speeds is straightforwar@. Indeed,
if f(x), vi (x) and v2(x) are expressed as functional forms,
each of these functions can be represented by much fewer than
the 12 values which emerge as components of the eigenvectors.
For example, each of these characteristic functions could be
expressed as an approximating polynomial of relatively small
degree. Note that the coefficients in these polynomials
need be defined only once, not for each vehicle group, since
the group-specific part of the representation is contained
entirely in the coefficients bj; and b9;.

In summary, principal component analysis provides a means
for structuring the information content of correction factors
in a concise way, as well as identifying the areas of commonality
among various vehicle makes and models or other homogeneous
groups. The approach is applicable to other multivariate
aspects of correction factors.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 24


+l

WORKING PAPER NO. 1:

A FACTOR-ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO EMISSION
CORRECTION FACTORS


Covariance Matrix

-23837E - 01

Etgenvalues®
-24074E - 01

Eigenvectors

-99503E + 00
-.99474E - 01
-51201E - 02
-.19261E - 03
-34012E - 05
-.22057E - 07

TABLE A-5

REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR HC CORRECTION FACTORS

+23725E
-34111E

- 10587E

-99251E
- 98583E
- 13508E
-64121E
-12360E
-83998E

02
03

03

- 01
+ 00
+ 00
- 02
03
- 06

-12123E
~.26353E
-26167E

-55098E

+8397 2E
-13497E
-98722E
~ .84239E
-20101E
~.15353E

+ 00
+ 00

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS PROGRAM

-45466E - 05
-11299E - 05
-12003E - 06
-56372E - 08
-58084E - 13
-26351E - 03
-50465E - 02
-84279E - 01
-99421E + 00
-66396E - 07
-82734E - 03

-80177E
-21030E
- «22962E
- 10901E
-21187E

-11181E

«95207E
- 18636E
-36026E
-66324E
-99736E +
«292785 -

7

05
03
02
01
00
0

51954E

- 14038E
« 15567E
-74382E
- 14501E
-99441E

-24840E

- 12889E
-25240E
-51042E

.«11165E

-29268E
-99957E

09
09
10

2
e

13
16

21

06
05
04
02
01
00


4. WORKING PAPERS


Eigenvalues

11.1529

-8122

Eigenvectors

-.2607
~.2645
-.2827
«2970
-2989
+2960
+2940
+2945
2962
+2974
~2956
+2834

- 5349
~ 5197
~.3571

-1215
~ 0435
~.1608
-.2053
-.1974
-.1603
-.1250
-.1719
-.3498

1

+0189

«6983
+1984
«4992
-8421
-0768
- 1306
«2159
+2163
-0964
0745
+1810
+0453

-0085

+2229
-0848
-1653
1419
-3910
374)
+2514
- 1358
-0517
+0539
= 2499
-6733

0043

+0409
1730
+2503
+8186
+2240
1280
0158
+0942
- 1808
-0866
-0968
+3323

-0030

-0537
1608
-0351
«3742
+3041
+2465
14
1446
«3862
+5113
+2972
+3802

-0001

-.2138
+3254
0334
+0678
-0276
+3547

-.1177

~.4720

- 2388
- 1332
5941

-.2276

A-2-d

TABLE A-2 (Continued)

-0000

«0000 -0000 -0000 +0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant
contribution)


S-AI ¥

TABLE IV- 3

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Plymouth Fury

Over the First 505 seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table C-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

P

Soak HC Puc co co Fuel Pa E

Time (gms/mi) (%) (gms/mi) (%) (gal/mi) oo
10 min 0.52 21.56 1.71 5.53 16.87 -110.00
20 min 0.70 32.33 1.88 6.25 15.82 ~56.02
30 min 0.72 33.53 2.70 9.68 15.43 ~35.60
l hr 0.87 42.51 3.18 11.70 15.42 -35.08
2 hr 1.40 74.25 12.91 | 52.49 14.67 4.19
4 hr 1.42 75.45 16.95 69.43 13.88 45.55
8 hr 1.64 88.62 20.84 85.57 13.18 82.20
16 hr 1.83 100.00 24.24 100.00 12.84 100.00
36 hr 1.89 103.60 | 28.37 117.30 12.18 134.50

Hot Stabilized 0.16 0.39 14.75



TABLE IT

CORRELATION MATRIX FOR COEFFICIENTS
IN CORRECTION FACTOR vs SPEED EQUATION
FOR HYDROCARBONS (HC)

Ao AL AQ A3 Aa As
Ay 1.0000 -0.8320 0.4854 ~-0.3922 0.3568 -0.3375
Al ~0.8320 1.0000 -0.8821 -0.8148 ~-0.7823 -0.7622
A2 0.4854 -0.8821 1.0000 -0.9883 0.9752 -0.9650
Aj -0.3922 0.8148 -0.9883 1.0000 -0.9975 0.9935
A, 0.3568 -0.7823 0.9752 -0.9975 1.0000 ~-0.9991
As -0.3375 0.7622 -0.9650 0.9935 -0.9991 1.0000
EIGENVALUES: 4.9589
1.0004
0.0405
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
TRACE = 5.9999 = SUM OF EIGENVALUES
Falcon R&D

Working Paper No. 1 Page 12


T ‘ON tedeg buryz0Mq

L abeg

a3y uootTeg

a
a
2

pe ee ee ee
OAT EUR OO MUR US UNH

g

5000
3.107
3,297
3.083
3.470
3.419
3,123
2.168
26700
2,903
3-039
2.793
2.928
2.705
3.276

19.000
1.579
1.749
1.708
1.808
1.773
1.995
1.799
1.543
14609
1.669
1.571
3.623,
15345
1.726
1.582
14575
1,322
1.708

Selected Speed Correction Factors — Warm Operation

15.000 20.000 25-000

1.251
1.224
1.219
3.246
1,231
14208
1,215
12140
1.470
1.180
1.168
14384

1,165.

1.216
1.172
2e1BL
1.245
1.223

0.987
0.986

0.986-

0.984
0.9485,
0.9087
0,956
0.990
9.990
0.988
0.939
0.988
9.939
0,986
9493S
0.957
0.98)

0.984

Table II,14

Nydrocarbon

Average Speed

0,558
O.2GL
0,94)
0.a2)
0.834
0.853
9.8465
0.882
0.691
0,867
0,877
0.87)

“G,871

0.546
0,576
0.643
0.784
0,AS3

30-099

0.76)
06-7404
0.733
0.700
0.7207
0.754
0-740
Q.3it
O+eR19
0.775
0.768

-0678!

0.773

356000

0.684
92659
0,650
0.606
0.630
0.677
0.558
ne 7T4R
04742
06702
OeT16
Oe7e?
066446
94659
O.7i7
06635
0.823
9.540

40.000 45.900

0.629
0+800
9.592
0.538
9.565
0.622
0-600
0.703
0.729
04649
9.407
9.659
0.640
94589
0.669
04573
0.445
01465

06597
0.565
0.556
0.497
9.526
0.59)
06567
e651
0+599
e619
0.6664
00632
06616
C6554
01646
01543
0.401

01452

50.000. 55.000
571

0.535
0.547
0.534
04472
0,504
0.576
0,951
0.676
0.694
0.609
0,638
0.624
0-610
0.538
0,64)
0,55)
0.373
0.414

0.530
0,503
044465
0.479
0,587
0,629
0.672
0.691
0.596
0,617
Or612
0.589
9.515
0,625
0,497
0.237
0.273

60.000

01516
06482
946629
0430)
0.414
9695
16469
06815
66649
0.538
0 5



Working Paper No. 3 delves further into the problem of
transient versus stabilized operation. In particular, it
suggests that the thermal state of operation of a vehicle
comprises a continuom and that it may be more advantageous
to view the operating history of a vehicle in this light
rathér than in the light of discrete cold transient, hot
transient and stabilized states. This type of treatment
would circumvent the need to define and estimate "warm-up
times" under various ambient and use conditions. An accretion-
depletion model of thermal transient effects is outlined and
it is proposed that any state of operation of a vehicle can
be represented as a linearly weighted combination of initial
and final emission values as represented by cold transient
and stabilized operation, respectively.

In summary, several directions for possible refinement
of correction factors have been identified. In most instances,

these directions have been made explicit by an example based
On actual data.


The output may be represented by Figure II-3 which follows:

RC RC
Vv typ rrp ro oa fomes
out 4 ( 1 ne c ( 4
’ ! t
1 1 1 Roc
1 ' '
1 t
4 1 1 1
0 a b c
Time
FIGURE II-3
Vv (s) ~2 {[%oup (S)
The transform of _OUt _ is represented by L out
Vin (s) Vin (8)

and

: -t/RC
times
\ e 2 for t>c

This treatment of a capacitive model in frequency space
is easily generalized to include inputs which may be character-
ized by functions other then step functions.

A It~4


Finally, a word is in order regarding choice of units.
The issue can be illustrated by currently used expressions to
define emissions as a function of average speed. For example,
NO, emission correction factors are related to average speed
through a fourth-degree polynomial:

Since speed s is in miles per hour, s* has units of (mph)?,
s* has units of (mph)? and s* has units of (mph)*. In reality
however, each term in the sum must be dimensionless. Therefore,
aj must units which are the reciprocal of mph, a2 must have
units of (mph)~?, and so on up to ag, which must have units of
(mph)~". The result is that when s = 60 mph, s* = 12,960,000 mi.*/
hr*, To compensate for such a numerically large quantity in

the fourth-degree term, the magnitude of aq must be very
small. Under such conditions computational precision becomes
eritical and it is difficult to appreciate the actual importance
of the higher powers of speed. It would be preferable to
express speed in nondimensional form before developing the
regression relation. Such nondimensionalization can be achieved
by expressing speed as a dimensionless multiple of some

nominal or “standard" speed, such as the 19.6 mph average

speed of the FTP. In the case of exponential expressions

such a transformation facilitates a Taylor-series expansion
which may be capable of capturing "most" of.the effect of the
variable in a linear or quadratic expression.

Consideration of units and dimensional homogeneity
therefore suggests that:

° Difficulties arising from numerical constraints
imposed by choice of units can often be avoided
by nondimensionalization of independent or
predictor variables as well as the dependent
variable.

In conclusion, examination of the R-factor and its basis
of derivation suggests the desirability of an experimental
program specifically aimed at developing a data base for
the formulation of improved correction factors.

21


f° FIGURE 3”

SECOND LARGEST EIGENVALU

as

£0 45

30 35

_ aa Hp pee tt

25

20

15

faeces SETAE

10

5

Page 17

MPH


Table II.12

Group Definitions

Group K Group.

Group 1 Denver pre-controlled

Group 2 ALL low altitude cities
pre-controlled

Group 3 1966-1967 California

Group 4 1968 low altitude cities

Group 5 1969 low altitude cities

Group 6 1970 low altitude cities

Group 7 2971 low altitude cities

Group 8 1968 Denver

Group 9 1969 Denver

Group 10 1970 Denver

Group 11 1971. Donver

Group 12 1972 Denver

Croup 13 1972 Los Angeles

Group 14 1972 low altitude cities

Group 15 1973-1974 Denver

Group 16 1973-1974 Los Angeles

Group 17

1973-1974 low altitude cities

Group 18 1975 low altithde cities

Falcon R&D

Working Paper No. 1 Page 3


factors. Thus,

0.9015 -0.2902 f 0.00331 [-0.0057]
0.2881 -0.0923 0.0010 0.0214
0.0867 0.0249 -0.0022 0.0074
-0.0059 -0.0067 9.0005 0.0006
-0.0541 -0.1061 0.0071 0.0053
-0.0793 -0.2179 0.0142 0.0156
0.0255 | 1 o937 | 72-594 | 9.29421 = | o.oiesl**| 0.0227
-0.1059 ~0.3246 0.0209 0.0251
-0.1206 -0.3239 0.0211 0.0206
-0.1374 -0.3263 0.0215 0.0140
-0.1436 -0.3887 0.0253 0.0170
-0.1159 -0.5417 0.0340 0.0411

Computed Deviations from wean

Observed Deviations from Mean

The error vector can now be computed as the difference between
the observed and the computed vectors according to

e=y- Xb
as shown below.

-0.0057 0.0033 -0.0090
0.0214 0.0010 0.0204
0.0074 ~0.0022 0.0096
0.0006 0.0005 0.0002
0.0053 0.0071 -0.0018
0.0156 0.0142) _ 0.0014
0.0227] ~ 0.0189) — 0.0038
0.0251 0.0209 0.0042
0.0206 0.0211 -0.0005
0.0140 0.0215 0.0075
0.0170 0.0253 -0.0083

| 0.0411 |. 0.0340 | 9.0072 |

Note that the maximum error is 0.02, at 10 mph, where the
actual value of the correction factor as tabulated in Table I1.14
is 1.751. Thus the maximum error is only slightly over 1%.

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 22


and stabilized emissions (Bag 2) are measured over different
driving cycles, it might be preferable to normalize the two
results to the same average speed. The necessary calibration
for this purpose could be provided by a series of tests in
which the first 505 seconds of the FTP is followed by a
repetition of the first 505 seconds without any vehicle

off time. In this way the Bag 2 results could be referenced
to a "Bag 1 result obtained under-‘stabilized conditions."

It is true, of course, that to implement the methodology
for purposes of regional air-quality assessment one must have
available a distribution of soak and run times. It is
believed, however, that the required data could be obtained
by sample survey methods and that average or "effective"
soak and run times characteristic of the scenario can be
derived. These effective times would have to be defined in
such a way that they reflect the impact of the joint distri-
bution of soak and run times, rather than as a simple average,
but statistical approaches to such problems are well known.

In summary, an alternative to the three-bag method of
adjusting emissions for cold-start/stabilized/hot-start
fractions is proposed. It is believed that the method could
be implemented with only minor modification of present test
procedures and that it has the advantage of circumventing the
need to determine effective warm-up times for various use
scenarios. Further evaluation of the approach is recommended.
An essential part of this evaluation would be the development
of a data base to define how the weighting factors vary as a
function of soak and run times. As noted above, the required
data base could be developed as an addendum to existing

emission-testing programs, such as certification and in-use
surveillance.

Falcon R&D Page 20


€t ebeg

ayy uooteg

TABLE 5

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1977 Ford LTD

Over the First 505 Seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table B-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc co Pco Fuel Economy (F.E.) PPLE.
Time (gms/mi) (%) (gms/mi) (8) (mi/gal)

10 min 0.39 0.0 3.91 | 0.0 15.98 0.0
20 min 0.72 37.50 2.51 -5.49 15.10 21.10
30 min 0.93 61.36 3.67 -0.94 15.52 11.03
lhe 1.03 72.73 3.38 | -2.08 15.29 16.54
2hr 1.08 78.41 3.56 | -1.37 14.84 27.34
4 hr 0.78 44.32 3.96 0.20 14.15 43.88
8 hr 1.23 95.45 12.48 33.63 12.40 85.85
16 hr 1.27 100.00 29.39 100.00 11.81 100.00
36 hr 2.06 189.80 37.63 132.33 12.46 $4.41



asy ussTeg

Speed Correction Factors

Normalized Equations

MIC MAHA SHAS HAL S 4A oh eA, oD

T ‘ON zadeg BUTYIOM

b ebeg

in co wag FAL SHA, sey Sea, shan, Pa
ROx s Ay + A tA aay en, sf
GaoQuPs } - .
ree 0.22461F +03 <0 29097E +00 -9,472492-03 9.694085 905 -0,372308-D7
cos O.181F ol -0.25466E400 -0-487405-03 Oe 7ES21E-05 $06649S)] 5-07
NOks 0246422401 © 0, 250118490 <De2B703E-03 04 2N758E-05
GROUPS 2 .
HCs O,A31 038491 0 -29957E+00 =0 446695~03 0,648 BE-05 $9, 3634665-57
Cos 0.23399 9, 296995400 HO 47749E “03 GeTEGTSE-05 04029007
NOXs 0, 163635 -0,13830E+09 s-O,137)45=03 0, 10C3SE“05 040
GRouPs 3
Kos O.22656F40) W0,26999E400 004335645403 0, 65074F=05 HO e37B1LOE=07
“O,Z9147E8OS $0,337055-03 0452978205 0. 28244E=97
0253605 =02 HO SOBCZER OG O6477292-06 Gee

¢
NOXS 0112657401

+ 9D, 35950E-01


A hypothesis advanced in this working paper is that emission
rates, expressed in terms of grams/mile, also have "floor"
and "ceiling" values. The floor value, mathematically
speaking, must be zero, but in practice the emission rates will
tend to be of some finite value even when the vehicle is
operating under the most ideal conditions. As a practical
assumption, these “most ideal conditions" can be taken as
"stabilized operation." The ceiling value is not so clearly
limited, but it would have to be of finite, albeit very large,
magnitude even if all the fuel burned were converted to
pollutant. In practice, one can visualize a "worst possible"
condition which is seldom if ever exceeded. For the purposes
of the arguments in this paper it is not particularly damaging
that the proposed ceiling is occasionally exceeded if these
exceedances are very rare or tend to occur under use scenarios
(e.g., very long soak times) which practically never occur.

It is now proposed that the determination of realistic
floor and ceiling emission rates may suffice to define
emissions over the entire spectrum of thermal operating
histories, once the envelope of histories has been "calibrated"
for various combinations of soak and run times. Note that
this approach eschews completely the notion of "warm-up time"
or "time to stabilization." Under the assumption that
stabilization is approached asymtotically, time to stabili-~
zation can be defined only arbitrarily. Moreover, if a means
is provided for computing emissions for all scenarios of
interest, the question of stabilization time is irrelevant.

Data required to implement the proposed approach are
acquired readily with little, if any, modification of present
testing practice. If cold-start emissions (Bag 1) are taken
as the ceiling and stabilized emissions (Bag 2) are taken
as the floor, the spectrum of all values between these limits
can be represented as weighted sums of the two. The presently
used hot-transient phase (Bag 3) could provide a check point
for such weighting and could be augmented by one or more
additional check points representing soak times intermediate
between 10 minutes and 16 hours. In this way the standard
method of reporting emissions according to the FTP would not
need to be disturbed, but the information provided by the FIP
could be augmented and used in a more effective way. One diffi-
culty, however, does remain. Since cold-start (Bag 1) emissions

Palcon R&D Page 19


~3-

Following an engine-off period, vehicle operation is said to
be hot transient (hot start) if the engine-off time is less
than 30 minutes and the temperature is 75° F or greater.

if the temperature is 20° F or less, the allowable engine-of£
time drops to 10 minutes. Interpolation can be used between
the two temperature levels.

Once engine~off time is used to differentiate between hot transient
and cold transient operation, a definition is needed for transient
operation as a function of engine-off time and ambient temperature.

Several studies have been performed by EPA to address the transient
operation definition. These studies are.

1. Bureau of Mines, "Ambient Temperature and Vehicle Emissions",
EPA 460/3/74-028, December 1974; 26 vehicles, 4 different
ambient temperatures, one soak condition, emission readings at
2, 5.5, 8.4, 15.6, and 22.9 minutes. —

2. In house work on five vehichles, January, 1977 (unpublished);
2 different ambient conditions, five different soak conditions

emission readings at 2, 5.5, 7.1, 8.4, 12.8, 17.1, and 22.9
minutes,

3. Ongoing contract work on five vehicles; one ambient condition,
nine different soak conditions, emission readings at 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 minutes.

At the present time, detailed analyses have not been performed.
However, the necessary stages of detailed analysis can be outlined.
First, it is necessary to define when operation is “warm or stabilized”.
Two criteria are possible for this assessment; emission levels or
temperature levels. Temperature levels can be catalyst temperature,
oil temperature, water temperature, or intake air temperature.
While emission levels have been recorded in discrete bag samples,
temperature levels are normally recorded continuously. Given the
difference in measurement/recording techniques, there may be less
variability in using a temperature definition. However, since the
bottom line item is emissions, extra variability is introduced with
the undefined link between temperature and emissions. Future
analyses will pursue both approaches.

The first stage of analysts will be to develop a curve of time to
reach stabilized emissions as a function of engine-off time for
ambient temperatures in the range of the FIP. Data sources 2 and 3
can be used for this assessment. If. possible, separate curves
should be developed for pre-1975 models, 1975 and later catalyst
equipped models, and 1975 and later non-catalyst modes.

A I-4


€-AL v

TABLE Iv-1

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Chevrolet Impala

Over the First 505 seconds of the FTP

(Data from Table A-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc | co Poo Fuel P
Time (gms/mi) (8) | (oms/mi) (8) (gal/mi) PLE.
10 min 0.53 22.98 7.13 16.14 13.47 -128.57
20 min 0.61 27.95 6.08 12.58 13.20 -101.02
30 min 0.88 44.70 6.87 15.26 13.08 -88.77
Lohr 1.09 57.76 7.95 18.92 12.61 -40.82
2 hr 1.38 75.78 10.10 26.21 12.14 7.14
4.hr 1.34 73.29 14.18 40.04 i 11.88 33.67
8 hr 1.27 68.94 16.52 47.93 | 11.28 34.89
16 hr 1.77 100.00 | 312.86 100.00, 12.23 100.00
36 hr 1.56 86.96 28.70 89.28 | 11.06 117.3
Hot Stabilized 0.16 i 2.37 12.21



Emissions (gms./mi.) = £ (xy Xgr ores xp) (1)

where xX), X27, ---, X refer to such quantities as ambient
temperature,vehicle average speed, and the like. Even to
identify the appropriate “variables” is problematical, as
evidenced by concern previously expressed with regard to the
adequacy of the concept of average speed. Moreover, the
equation (1 ) is vehicle specific, and to develop such an
equation for every vehicle or class of vehicle would clearly
entail exorbitant effort. The hope of the correction factor
concept is that the vehicle or vehicle-class dependent aspect
of equation (1 ) can be extracted as a scalar multiplier and
that the equation can thereby be reduced to nondimensional form.
In short, it is assumed that the relative effect on emissions
of incremental changes Axz, Axa, .++4 AXp is unaffected by
the absolute level of emissions factored out of the response
relation.

Viewed in the above light, equation (1) becomes
Emissions (qms/mi.) = Emission factor (gms/mi.) * CF(x), Xa) +++, Xp)
{2 )

where the first quantity on the right-hand side is vehicle

or group dependent and the second quantity is a non-dimensional
function of the variables x), Xgr cece X and is considered

to be common to all vehicles in the class of interest. Thus

the very existence of CF(x,, x2, ---, X,) rests on an implicit
assumption which can be either too strong or too weak, depending
on the complexity of the response relation and the degree of
commonality of that function as one goas from one vehicle or
class of vehicles to another. Means for analytically evalu-
ating the degree of commonality reside in factor analytic
methods such as principal component analysis, as illustrated

in Working Paper No. 1. The correction factor function,

viewed as a response “surface" (hypersurface) does not
necessarily have the same "shape" for all cases of interest

and may need to be resolved into two or more component

surfaces, each of which has to be scaled by a multiplier

much as in the original assumption of single separable scalar
and non-dimensional functional parts.

17


and

p= GFL 2 3
FS as = Ay + 2a, s + 3A3 so o+ An, s (1-5)
or
. 2 3
P_ Ay + 2a, s+ 3A, so o+ 4a, s
a 7
PA) +A, S +A, 87 + AZ S' +A, 8 (1-6)

An appreciation of these relations can be obtained by
comparing correction factors computed at 1-mph increments

in Table II.le of Becker (op. cit.).

In Table I-1 below

these incremental changes in correction factors are tabulated

at 5 mph to 6 mph, 10 mph to 11 mph,
for HC, CO and NO, for Group 2 vehicles.

both as incremental changes
fractions of the correction
60 mph respectively. It is
factors for CO and HC range
of the sensitivity to speed

speed of 19.6 mph prevailing in the FTP.

60 mph to 61 mph
Values are expressed
in correction factors and as
factors prevailing at 5, 10,
noted that although the correction
from 3.3 to less than 0.5, most

is in the range below the average
This fact could

eee

eee

possibly be of value in attempts to simplify the correction
factor vs speed relations.

The shape of the correction factor curves for CO and HC
suggest a hyperbola of the form xy = constant in cartesian
coordinates. Quite clearly it would be fortuitous if such
a simple function applied. Note, however, that dimensionally
this notion has an interesting aspect. Recalling that the
correction factors are simply multiples of grams/mile
emissions at standard conditions (19.6 mph), one has

gms/mi * mi/hr. = gms/hr

or emissions per unit time rather than emissions per unit
distance traveled. It is quite possible that this change of
basis, though not reducing to a constant, could give a much
simpler relation and one having a certain amount of engi-
neering credibility.

To examine this suggestion, consider Table I-2. In this
table the correction factors for Group 2 hydrocarbons are
tabulated at 5 mph increments together with the product of
correction factor and speed. In the last column there is

A2


Evidence of undue complexity in the formulation of speed
correction factors is found in the fact that the coefficients
in (1) or (2) appear to be highly correlated, as shown in
Figure 1, in which Ag has been plotted against A, for CO
for the 18 groups. The correlation coefficient for the plot
is 0.69. Similarly, one can compute correlations for all
pairs of coefficients to obtain a 6x 6 correlation matrix,
as shown in Table I. Note that many of the correlation
coefficients approach either +1 or -1l. The result is that
the correlation matrix is effectively of less than full rank.
Indeed, if one computes the eigenvalues of the matrix only
two are found to be of appreciable magnitude. This fact suggests
that the coefficients do not vary independently from group
to group but are highly covariant. Consequently, a simpler
expression with fewer terms should suffice to represent the
speed vs. emission relations for the various vehicle groups.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table II for hydrocarbon
emissions (HC) and from Table III for nitrogen oxide emissions
(NOx). Note, particularly, that the correlation matrix for
NO, has only one eigenvalue of appreciable magnitude and is
consequently of rank 1.

Falcon R&D

Working Paper No. 1 Page 9


APPENDIX I

EMISSION FACTOR USER INFORMATION SHEET:
HOT/COLD/ STABILIZED OPERATION


The correlations among coefficients of the emission versus
speed equations suggest that attention be directed to Table I1.4,
in which the equations have been used to compute emissions for
5-mph increments of speed. One can compute the covariance (or
correlation) between correction factors for 5 mph and 10 mph,

5 mph and 15 mph, ..., 55 mph and 60 mph to produce a 12 x 12
matrix of covariances or correlations for each of the three
pollutants. For the purpose of this analysis the covariance
matrix is preferred, because it retains the scale aspect of

the relation between correction factors for various speeds.

It can be shown that the number of linearly independent
functions needed in a regression equation to represent emissions
as a function of speed can be deduced from the eigenvalues

of the covariance matrix and that the form of these “basis
functions" can be deduced from the corresponding eigenvectors.!

First, let us direct attention to the eigenvalues of the
12 x 12 covariance matrices (see Table 4). Only eigenvalues

TABLE 4
EIGENVALUES OF COVARIANCE MATRICES

FOR SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS
EVALUATED AT 5-mph SPEED INTERVALS

co He NOx

0.7126 0.1364 0.2499

0.0250 0.0141 0.0298

0.0009 0.0002 0.0005
0.0001

significant to the fourth decimal place are tabulated. Note
that the first eigenvalue constitutes 96.5% of the trace for

co, and 90.6% and 89.2% of the trace for HC and NOx, respectively.
Thus it appears that "most" of the particularization for vehicle
group could be achieved by a single basis function. If

further refinement is required, a second basis function could

be used, but this second function would serve only to "trim"

the effect of the first function and provide a second-order
refinement.

lon. ov. McAdams, "A Factor Analytic Approach to the Identification of

Manufacturing Systems," Proc. of the CIRP Seminars on Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1972), pp. 79-97

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1 Page 14


The preliminary speed-correction factors were generated
by application of the Modal Emission Model (MEM). It should
be noted, however, that this model applies only to warmed-up
vehicles and to vehicles operating in a standard ambient of
75°F. A further complication is introduced by the fact that
the MEM takes into consideration the actual speed vs time
profile prevailing in a driving sequence, whereas any correction
factor based on average speed does not. In reality there
is an unlimited number of speed-time profiles which could
map into the same average speed, but a concession made in
the R-factor is that this many-to-one mapping is permissible.

The preliminary speed correction factors, as derived by
application of the MEM, were found to be nonlinear functions
of average speed. Whether the complexity of the functional
forms assumed for these relations is justifiable is subject
to question, however. For example, the correction factor
vs speed relations for HC and CO show steep gradients only
at low speed, and it is possible that a simpler functional
form would be capable of retaining "most" of the information
in the exponential fifth-order polynomials. Some further
observations pertinent to this point are given in Appendix I.

Whatever the form of the preliminary speed correction
factors, one needs now a way to adjust these correction
factors for the operating condition of the engine, whether
cold start, hot start or stabilized. In other words one
must make the speed correction factors for warmed-up engines
bag specific.

The method employed for this purpose, as described by
Becker ?, is based on two factors which can affect bag emissions.
One is that the average speeds for the several baqs are
different and different from the average speed of 19.6 mpg
over the FTP driving cycle. The other stems from the state
of warm-up of the vehicle as that state affects the actual
generation of pollutants. In other words, even if the average
speed in Bag 1 (cold start) were the same as for the total
FTP driving cycle, there would still be a difference
between cold-start emissions and emissions from vehicles in
the warmed-up state.

@) “Supplement 8 Light Duty Vehicle Correction Factors," Memo Janet Becker
to J. Hidinger/J. Horowitz (3/7/77).


These anomalies, however, are not considered serious nor
obstructive to the formulation of a weighting-factor approach.
Part of the difficulty, it is believed, arises from errors of
emission measurement and the manner in which these errors
propagate in the computation of P. In general,

pa wt Bus
Eos ~ Pus

where E, = emissions after soak time t, Eys = hot start
emissions, and Egg = cold start emissions. Thus errors in
the determination of Eyg and Eag could induce appreciable
error in P. In general application of the method, however,
it is likely that P would be determined on an aggregated
basis (i.e., for groups of vehicles) and errors would tend
to be averaged out. It is also possible, of course, that
soak times somewhat greater than 10 minutes could produce
emissions slightly lower than those associated with the
classical hot transient by virtue of evaporative losses and
other minor effects of relatively short duration. It is
believed, however, that such phenomena would have such a
small effect that they could be ignored. Finally, the
tendency for the 36-hour soak to exhibit higher emissions
than the 16-hour soak suggests that a reference other than
the 16-hour soak might be appropriate. On the other hand,
such long soak times would rarely occur in practice and for
that reason could likewise be ignored.

Implementation of the variable-weighting approach requires
further development in order to be practical. For example,
it would be necessary to explore the question of vehicle-to-
vehicle commonality of P, expressed as a function of soak
and run times, and to develop the necessary functional
representations. Moreover, it would be necessary to develop
a strategy by which a local or area survey of vehicle use
patterns could be converted into either a distribution of P
values or into some form of appropriate average P value.
Finally, it might well be that cold-start and hot-start
transient emissions do not represent the best choice of
limiting emissions on which to base the continuum approach;
perhaps cold-start and stabilized emission levels might be

Falcon R&D Page 17


TABLE A-1

CO CORRECTION FACTORS AT 5 mph INCREMENTS

Speed (mph)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Raw Data Column Means

3.3247 1.7269 1.2176 -9854 -8357 +7184 -6273 5669 5384 -5250 5010 -4129

Raw Data Column Sigmas
-7624 2447 -0739 -0053 -0489 +0755 -0919 1032 1141 1272 1361 - 1308

Transformed Data (Deviation Scores)

- .9357 +2639 -.0756 -0056 -0533 0846 - 1057 11917 1286 - 1380 - 1460 - 1451
~ .0057 -0241 -0074 - 0006 «0053 -0156 -0227 0251 +0206 +0140 -0170 -0411
3313 1297 -0334 = ~.0004 -0013 -0196 -0357 -0477 -0356 -0290 0410 -10217
-2963 71 +0354 -.0014 _-.0127 +0114 -.0083. --.0109. -.0194 .-.0320 -.0360 = -.0139
1.2293 3931 -1114 -.0064 = -.0547,-.0744 -.0843. -.0979 -.1184.-.1410 -.1430 = -.0899
1.1863 3761 -1084 =-.0064 = -.0577.  -.0814  -.0943. --.1099 -.1294 -.1510-.1560 -.1139
~8493 2761 .0814 ~.0104 =-.0597  -.0854 = -.1013.-.1139.-.1304 = -.1500  -.1600 -. 1399

'

- .9797 -.3089 = -.0966 -0066 -0693 - 1086 +1327 1501 - 1666 - 1860 «2000 1871
-1.0477  -.3319  -.1046 -0076 -0773 1226 «1527 1761 «2006 -2300 . .2550 +249)
- .7837  -.2389 -.0686 -0046 -0373 -0516 -0567 -0621 0716 -0830 «0880 0651
- .8087 -.2529 -.0696 -0036 -0273 -0276 -0237 0241 +0316 +0410 -0330 -.0159

- .4397 -.1869 -.0686 -0056 +0553 0856 -1017 1101 1206 +1330 1420 +1257
- 4663 -1891 +0734 =-.0054  -.0647 -1064 --.1313. -.1469 -.1584 -.1700 .1770  -.1669
«7313 +2231 0634 = -.0034 -.0317 -0434 -.0503 -.0569 -.0664 -.0740 0650 -.0219

1
1

1
'

- .7257 -.2679 = -.0906 - 0066 +0643 +0956 W117 1241 1386 1560 - 1600 117)
-0593 -0171 -0194 =-.0024 -.0407. -.0774 =-.1003 --.1089-.1094 = -.1150 --,1410 =. 1859
+9143 +2531 -0754 -.0044 -.0537 -.0844 =-.1023 -.1129 -.1214 -.1300 = -.1370 -.1349

~.3367  -.1469 -.0346° .0006 -.0147 -.0474 -.0703 -.0739 -.0614 -.0470 -.0670 -.1479

A-l+a


ke

a

i

Falcon R&D
Working Paper No. 1

Page 10

35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40

33° (0.34 «OO

27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0,32 0.

25 0.26 0.

0

~ Relation Between Coefficients in Speed Correction Factor Equation

FIGURE 1


Thus the total "trip time" is

0.0603 + 0.2444 + 0.0799 = 0.3846 hrs. = 23 minutes

and the fractions of time in each "bag" are:

29608 = 0.1568 for cold start (Bag 1)
0.2444 _ _
0.3846 ~ 0.6355 for stabilized (Bag 2)
07
91 = 0.2077 for hot start (Bag 3).

The point to be made here is that the FTP driving sequence
taken as the reference to which other driving scenarios are
compared, implies not only certain average speeds and fractions
of miles in each mode but also a "typical" or average trip
length and certain fractions of total vehicle operating times
in each of the three modes of operation. It is to be under-
stood, of course, that either the vehicle executes the trip
from a cold start or from a hot start. Thus the time for
"warm-up" in the cold start, when it occurs, is (3.59 mi.)/
(25.6 mi. hr.) = 0.14 hr. = 8.4 minutes, not the "expected”
value of 3.6 minutes as calculated above.

In view of the above considerations it seems logical to
consider their implications when one envisions a scenario
departing from the reference conditions. For example, consider
one of the cases given in Table I1.5 of Becker (op. cit.):

% cold, % stable, % hot start 40, 30, 30

Ave. speed Bag 1, 2, 3 = 10, 10, 10
The fraction of trips originating "cold" is given by

240 0.40 | .
ROE Ta = OT = OVSTI4 (ives, 578)

13


Taking the 10-minute soak time as reference, one sees that it
takes approximately 2 hours of cooling to degrade fuel economy
to the extent that about 10% more fuel is consumed over the
505-second cycle. This time is compared wihtout about 6 minutes
in the warm-up cycle.

The "time constants" estimated by the above procedures
can not be interpreted in the strict exponential sense because
of the mechanisms involved in translating temperature into
fuel economy (or emissions). In reality, fuel economy is a
composite function

FE. = 9 [+ (trun? toa) | .

Although f (trun, tsoak) can be regarded as temperature and
although temperature may vary exponentially as the run and

soak times tyun and tgoax, fuel economy may take a somewhat
different form from exponential. Similar comments can be made
for HC, CO and NOx emissions. Nevertheless, the prospect

of a "heat budget" or time-history approach to emissions as a
function of soak and run times is attractive from the standpoint
of physical understanding of the process.

A III-4


APPENDIX IV

WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR ADJUSTING EMISSIONS

FOR VEHICLE THERMAL OPERATING HISTORY

An approach is proposed for adjusting emissions according
to the thermal operating history of a vehicle, as expressed
by its profile of soak and run times. The approach assumes
a "floor" value representing the lowest level of emissions
which might ever be expected and a "ceiling" value representing
the highest level anticipated. It is then postulated that
emission levels for all combinations of soak and run times can
be expressed as weighted combinations of these two extreme
values.

Reasonable definitions of the floor and ceiling values
might be based on the hot stabilized (HST) and cold transient
(CTR) values of the FTP respectively. Then one can assume
that

EL = P Eopp + (-P) Bago (Iv-1)
or
p = t “HST_
Forr ~ “ust (1v-2)

where Ey, denotes emissions during the first 505 seconds of
the FTP after a soak time t.

Values of P computed by equation (Iv-2) are given in
Tables Iv-l through Iv-5. The data are taken from Srubar
(op. cit.) and represent five vehicles which were subjected
to tests after various soak times. One notes that the 10
minute soak times exhibit P values which are generally of
the order of 10% to 20%. Since the 10-minute soak times
represent conditions which are essentially hot transient,
the results suggest that this condition is only slightly
worse than stabilized operation but is "slightly contaminated"
with cold-start behavior.

A Ty-l


3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations aimed at an optimal approach for future
correction factor development are evolved primarily in Working
Paper No. 2. These recommendations are based on the incontro-
vertible fact that correction factors represent an attempt
to express the functional dependence of emissions on a host
of variables and that a designed experiment is best suited
for defining this function. The experiment should be based
on the best available engineering estimates and experience
pertinent to the complexity of the functional relation, the
interaction of variables, and the relative importance of
these variables in the emission-generation process. The
thrust of the emission-factor formulation should be to separate
vehicle or vehicle-class dependent aspects of emissions from
incremental effects more or less common to all vehicles.

Specific recommendations, therefore, are as follows:

° Systematic analysis of the degree of commonality of
the effects of emission-related variables should
precede attempts to develop a correction-factor
response function.

° Correction factors are best determined through a
designed experiment in which the allocation of
"treatments" (that is, combinations of levels of
the variables Xpr XQe ceee Xp) is made according
to the anticipated degree of nonlinearity within
variables and degree of interaction among variables.

° Mathematical representation of correction factors
should be approached with due regard to the magni-
tude and engineering importance of variables
perceived to be important. The prospect of
combined or derived variables should not be over-
looked nor should the fact that variables originally
identified may be highly covariant.

fe) Difficulties arising from numerical constraints
imposed by choice of units can often be avoided by
nondimensionalization of independent or predictor
variables as well as the dependent variable.


a3sy uooTeg

GI ebeg

Percent Cold Start Operation as a Function of Soak Time

TABLE 7

for HC, CO and Fuel Economy for a 1976 Chevrolet Vega

Over the First 505 Seconds of the FTP

{Data from Table D-2, Srubar, op. cit.)

Soak HC Puc co Poco Fuel Economy (F.E.) PRE.
Time (gms/mi) (%) (gms/mi) (8) (mi/gal)

10 min 0.39 0.00 1.01 0.00 22.71 0.00
20 min 0.48 11.25 2.09 8.05 22.84 -3.05
30 min 0.53 17.50 1.89 6.56 23.20 -11.50
1 hr 0.69 37.50 2.24 9.16 22.19 12.21
2 hr 0.64 31.25 3.68 19.89 20.97 40.84
4 hr 0.85 57.50 5.36 32.41 19.70 70.66
8 hr 1.03 80.00 14.63 101.49 19.41 (77.46
16 hr 1.19 100.00 14.43 100.00 18.45 100.00
36 hr 1.27 110.00 19.90 140.80 18.45 100.00



Covariance Matrix

-0967

-0304

0097
-.0006
-.0073
-.0117
~.0147
-.0169
-.0188
-.0209
~.0223
-.0214

-0304

-0097

- 0037
~.0002
-.0023
~.0038
-.0047
-.0055
-.0061
- .0068
-.0072
~.0069

Eigenvalues

-1364

0141

Eigenvectors

- .8282
~.2627
~.0862
- 0060
0694
1741
- 1450
- 1666
- 1840
-2024
2191
2196

-4684
-1224
-.0038
0043
0843
- 1822
2538
~ 2869
-2937
-3005
-3630
+5199

-0097
-0031
-0010
-0001
-0008
-0014
+0017
-0020
-0022
-0024
-0026
-0026

-0002

2934
-8847
-3290
.0117
-0698
-0305
1212
-1314
-0201
- 1488
2013
- 1568

-.0006
- .0002
-.0001
-0000
-0001
-0007
-0001

0002 °

-0002
-0002
-0002
-0002

-0001

~.0457
-.0793
-0286
-0014
~.1288
«2645
23175
«3262
+3124
-.2027

.0860

«7423

-.0073
-.0023
-.0008
-0001
-0008
-0013
-0017
-0019
-0021
+0023
-0025
0027

-0000

TABLE A-2 (Continued)

-.0117
~ .0038
-.0014
-0001
-0013
-0023
-0029
-0033
-0036
-0039
0043
-0047

.0000

-.0147
-.0047
-.0017
-0001
-0017
0029
-0038
0043
-0047
0051
+0056
-0062

-0000

-.0169
-.0055
~.0020
-0002
-0019
+0033
+0043
+0050
«0054
-0058
-0064
+0071

-9000

-.0188
-.0061
-.0022
-0002
+0021
-0036
-0047
-0054
-0058
-0063
.0070
-0077

-0000

-.0209
-.0068
-.0024
-0002
«0023
-0039
0051
-0058
-0063
-0069
-0076
-0083

-0000

~ 0223
~.0072
~.0026
-0002
-0025
0043
+0056
-0064
-0070
-0076
-0084
0092

-0000

-.0214
-.0069
- 0026
-0002
-0027
-0047
-0062
-0071
-0077
-0083
+0092
+0104

-0000

(Other eigenvectors make insignificant contribution)

A-2-b


Emission Factor User Information Sheet:
Hot/Cold/Stabilized Operation

Problem Identification:

The recent Revised Emission Factors Document contains a single correction
factor for hot/cold welghting, average speed, and ambient temperature.

In the previous EPA emission factor document, AP-42, Supp 5, cold
operation was defined as 505 seconds of operation following a 4

hour engine-off period for non-catalyst vehicles and a 1 hour

engine-off period for catalyst vehicles. The recent emission

factor document did not provide a definition of cold or hot transient
operation. This information guide will provide users with the
appropriate definitions and some methodologies which can be used to
collect the necessary input data.

Definitional Constraints:

A correction factor for vehicle temperature would ideally relate
emissions to a series of variables including time since vehicle
start-up, time vehicle was turned-off prior to start-up, severity

of cycle over which vehicle has been driven since start-up, vehicle
identifying information and aubient conditions. This relationship
would be a predictive regression relationship and would be normalized
to equal one if the vehicle were completely warmed-up. This relationship
would then be applied on a second by second basis to the EPA modal
emission model. Since vehicle temperature changes on a second by
second basis, it would not be absolutely correct to apply a single
correction factor to an entire cycle.

The data are not available to develop a functional relationship of
the type just described; the development of such a relationship
would require extensive amounts of second by second emission data
as a function of all of the variables of interest. An equally
important limitation fs that Federal Test Procedure emission data
collected in the large studies of in-use vehicles have divided the
data into three distinct operational categories. A single emission
value is available for the first 505 seconds of operation following
a 16 hour engine off period. A second emission value is available
for, an 870 second period of stabilized (warmed-up) operation.
Finally, a third emission value is available for 505 seconds of
operation following a ten minute engine off period. These three
pieces of data can be used to develop average correction factors
for cold start, stabilized, and hot start operation. In each case,
the correction factor is an average of the effect of vehicle temperature

oyer a fairly long‘time period during which, vehicle temperature
and vehicle emissions are changing.

A 1-2


TABLE A-3

NO, CORRECTION FACTORS AT 5 mph INCREMENTS

x
Speed (mph)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Raw Data (Column Means}
1.0477 -9402  .9437 1.0062 1.0910 1.1726 1.2375 1.2837 1.3208 1.3702 1.4651 1.6499

Raw Data (Column Sigmas)

-2100 -0683 -0274 -0032 «0492 -0965 1325 1528 +1618 1772 +2021 2868

Transformed Data (Deviation Scores)

-4603 +1198 ~.0027 -0038 -0700 - 1464 ~2025 +2273 «2302 2378 +2989 -4791

1973 -0908 -0303 -.0022 -.0170 -.0266 -.0345 -.0447 -.0558 -.0642 -.0611 -.0349
-.0547 -0058 +0163 -.0022 -.0330 -.0636 -.0875 -.1017 -.1078 -.1122 -.1251 -.1609

-0183 +0518 +0363 «-.0042 =-.0530 =-.0976 «=-.1325 -.1547-.1688 «= ~.1812, -.2081 = -.2659
-.0667 0298 -0373 --.0042 «--.0650 «-.1236 «= -.1675 -.1927,  -.2058 = -.2192 -.2571 -.3519
-.1177-=.0162 -0123 --.0022. «--.0350 -.0706 «= -.0965 0 -.1107, -.1148 = -.1202)-.1421 2049
~.0417 -0088 -0163 -.0022 -.0320 ~-.0626 -.0875 -.1037 -.1138 -.1202 -,1431  -.1669
+2393 -0658 -0003 -0018 -0370 0824 1215 -1453 - 1562 1608 1759 +227)
-0983 -0258 -0003 -0008 +0140 0274 +0375 -0393 0372 0358 +0459 -0831
2793 +0568 = -.0137 -0038 -0610 1244 21725 1963 «2032 +2118 +2559 -3811
1363 ~0408 -0023 -0008 +0180 0474 -0625 -0773 -0862 0918 1049 +1361
-0307  -.0802 ~.0567 0058 - 0830 «1574 ~2165 2583 +2852 3078 +3349 4201
-4557 --.1342-~.0097, -.0022-.0480 «= -.1026 = -.1405 =. 1517-11458) -.1492) - 2071-3819
-1457, -.0372 -.0197 -0018 +0210 «0354 0455 -0483 +0482 0508 +0609 0861
-0373  -.0332 = ~.0347 -0038 «0570 «1074 ~ 1455 - 1683 -18C2 1938 +2259 +3051
- 1887 -0028 -0423) -.0052 = -.0890 -.1726 9 -.2355 -.2697,  -.2848 = -.3032) -.3621-.5139
-2367  -.0762 -.0097 -.0002 «-.0220. -.0516 =-.0765 =-.0907 -.0948 «=-.0962)-. 1121S -.1639
+2287) ~.1212 —-.0467 -0028 -0330 +0494 +0565 -0603 -0652 0758 +0949 1271

A-3-a