### CPSC Staff Statement on the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report,
“Technical Note 1781 : Modeling and Measuring the Effects of Portable Gasoline Powered
Generator Exhaust on Indoor Carbon Monoxide Level” *



### March 2013

The report titled

, “Technical Note 1781: Modeling and Measuring the Effects of Portable Gasoline Powered Generator Exhaust on Indoor Carbon Monoxide Level,” presents the findings
of research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under an interagency agreement with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). † 

### This research was performed in support of CPSC’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to
address the carbon monoxide ( CO ) poisoning hazard associated with portable generators. ‡



### Under this agreement with CPSC , NIST performed certain generator testing and modeling studies. The tested generators included both commercial unmodified and low COemission prototype configurations. One series of tests characterized indoor CO concentrations resulting from portable generator s operating in the attached garage of a single level, single family house (SFH) under various use and environmental conditions. NIST used those empirical
test data to validate the ability of NIST’s indoor air quality (IAQ) model CONTAM to predict CO levels in the garage and the house. Another series of tests determined the generators’ CO
emission and oxygen consumption rates by testing them in a single -zone enclosed space. These rates were used as inputs to the CONTAM model validation and in simulation analyses to examine the potential performance of the low CO-emission prototype under a wider range of operating conditions than t hose actually tested with the generator operating in the attached

garage of the SFH

.

For two different commercially available unmodified generators ( i.e

., with carbureted engines lacking CO

- emission controls) tested in the single -zone enclosed space , CO emissions ranged from a low of around 500 grams per hour ( g/h ), at near ambient oxygen levels , to a high of nearly 4000 g/h as oxygen decreased to 17 percent . Tests of two modified, prototype generators (commercially available units adapted with closed

- loop electronic fuel injection and a small catalyst integrated into the muffler ) showed CO emissions reductions of more than

90 percent with most CO emission rates well below 500 g/hr ; and no trend toward higher
emission rates was se en as the oxygen level dr opped. CPSC staff will use th is information to develop a potential staff recommendation to the Commission as part of the process initiated with
the ANPR described above.

* This statement was prepared by C P SC staff, and the attached report was produced by NIST for CPSC staff. The statement and report have not been reviewed or approved by, and do not necessarily represent the views of, the Commission. † CPSC -I- 06

- 0012

. ‡ Portable Generators; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information

, Federal Register, 71 FR 74472, December 12, 2006.

# NIST Technical Note 1781

Modeling and Measuring the Effects of Portable

Gasoline Powered Generator Exhaust on Indoor

Carbon Monoxide Level

Steven J Emmerich

Andrew K Persily

Liangzhu (Leon) Wang

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1781

# NIST Technical Note 1781

Modeling and Measuring the Effects of Portable

Gasoline Powered Generator Exhaust on Indoor

Carbon Monoxide Level

Steven J Emmerich

Andrew K Persily

Energy and Environment Division Engineering Laboratory

Liangzhu (Leon) Wang

Concor dia University

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1781

February 2013

U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director

### Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or en dorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Techni cal Note 1781

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1781

, 14 1 pages ( February 2013 )
http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN

. 1781

CODEN: N TNOEFiii 

## Abstract

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is concerned about the hazard of acute
residential carbon monoxide ( CO ) exposures from portable gasoline powered generators that can result in death or serious and/or lasting adverse health effects in exposed individuals. In an initial approach to characterizing these hazards, CPSC measured the CO emission rates from generators by testing them in a small , laboratory test chamber (Brown 2006) . CPSC subsequently contracted with the University of Alabama (UA) to develop a low CO

- emission prototype generator by adapting offthe- shelf emission control technologies on a commercially available portable generator and then to

construct multiple units for testing . Under an interagency agreement with CPSC, NIST conducted a series of tests to characterize the indoor CO concentrations resulting from portable generators operating in the attached garage of a house under various use and environmental conditions so CPSC
staff co u ld analyze the safety implications of operating generator s under these conditions. The tested generators include both unmodified and modified low CO emission prototype configurations. NIST
used those test data to validate the ability of the CONTAM indoor air quality (IAQ) model to predict CO levels in the garage and the house and to develop an estimate of the uncertainty of these predictions relative to meas ured values. NIST also conducted test s with the generators operating in a
one-zone shed to derive their CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates. These rates were used both as inputs to the model validation e ffort as well as in simulation analys es conducted to examine the potential performance of the low CO -emission prototype under a wider range of operating
conditions.

To determine generator CO emission rates under more realistic conditions than those attained in a small , laboratory test chambe r, NIST conduc ted tests on the unmodified and modified generators ( i.e. with out and with CO emission controls) in a single -zone shed. For two different unmodified generators ( i.e ., without CO emission controls), it was found that CO emissions ranged from a low of around 500 g/h at near ambient O 2 

### levels to a high of nearly 4000 g/h as O 2 

### approached 17 %. The rates of CO generation and O 2 

### consumption in these unmodified generators were affected by multiple parameters, with the O 2 

### level in the space and the actual electric al output of the generator being two of the most important. Tests performed below 17 % O 2 

### showed a drop off in CO emissions due to poor engine performance under these conditions. Tests of two modified , prototype generators ( i.e., with CO emission controls) showed CO emissions reductions of over 90 % depending on the specific emission controls and operating conditions and no trend toward higher
emission rates was se en as O 2 

### levels dropped to 18 %.

A series of tests were also conducted to measure the emissio n and transport of CO when operating portable gasoline

- powered generators in an attached garage

. This series of tests included both unmodified and prototype generators operated in the garage attached to NIST’s manufactured test house . Testing was conducted under seven different test house/garage configurations to evaluate their impacts on the buildup of CO in the garage and its transport into different rooms in the house. The configurations studied included two different garage bay door positions (fully closed or open 0.6 m); two connecting door settings between the garage and the family room (fully closed or open 5 cm); and two house central heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HV AC ) fan settings (on or off). CO concentrations varied widely with peak house CO concentrations ranging from under

10 μ L/L to over 10,000 μ L/L (note that μ L/L are equivalent to ppm

v 

### ). As expected, the highest concentrations in the house resulted from operation of the unmodified generator in the garage with the bay door closed and the house access door open 5 cm. The lowest concentrations resulted fromiv 

### operation of a modified low CO -emission prototype in the garage with the bay door open 0.6 m and the house access door closed. These garage tests documented reductions of 85 % to 98 % in CO concentrations in the house due to emissions from two modified, prototype low CO- emission portable generators compared to a “stock” generator. Note that these results apply to the specific units tested and that other units, modifications and test conditions may produce different results.

An extensive model validation effort using the multizone airflow and IAQ model CONTAM was carried out using the data from the seven tests that were conducted with a generator operating in the attached garage of the test house to compare predicted CO concentrations with measured values. The agreement between the measurements and predictions of the O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and of the average CO calculated for the house zones was excellent for the collective set of data; a ll of the
calculated statistic al values met the ASTM D5157 criteria for comparing IAQ model predictions and

measurements . T he agreement , however, was somewhat worse for the garage CO concentrations

, with some parameters falling slightly outside the ASTM criteria limits. Overall, the average individual house zone and garage CO concentration predictions and measurements were within about 20 % and 30 % respectively when averaged over all cases.

Forty

- two simulations were then performed with the NIST CONTAM model to examine the potential performance of the prototype generator under a wider range of conditions than studied during the experiments at the test house. All of the simulations were based on the NIST
manufactured test house and the tested low CO emission prototype generator with and without a catalyst integrated in the muffler (referred to as cat muffler and noncat muffler, respectively). Model parameters that were varied included ambient conditions, CO emission rates, source locations and door positions. The highest house CO concentrations were found for the generator with the noncat muffler operated in the utility room of the house, with indoor CO concentrations reaching 2000 μ L/L for some cases. Operation of the generator with the cat muffler substantially reduced CO concentrations, however, they still reached levels of 280 μ L/L to 600 μ L/L for cases with the generator located in the utility room . The lowest indoor CO concentrations resulted from operation of the generator with the cat mu ffler in the garage, with CO concentrations in the house reaching

10 μ L/L to 160 μ L/L . Simulations also showed that, as expected, closed bedroom doors resulted in less uniform indoor concentrations and higher peak indoor zone concentrations, though the imp act varied greatly from about a 10 % to about a 100 % increase.



## Keywords

Generator; carbon monoxide; CONTAM; exposure; indoor air quality; health; measurements; multizone airflow model; simulationv 

## Table of Contents

Abstract

.......................................................................................................................................... iii
Keywords

................................................................................................................................. iv

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................x

Nomenclature

........................................................................................................................... xi

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Objective ....................................................................................................................................2
Contents of report ......................................................................................................................2
Experimental ....................................................................................................................................3
Methods and Equipment ............................................................................................................3

Instr umentation ..............................................................................................................3

Test House .....................................................................................................................3

Shed

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................4
Generators and Loading .................................................................................................5

Shed Test Results .............................................................................................................................8
Analysis Method ........................................................................................................................8

Generator B ................................................................................................................................9

Generator X ..............................................................................................................................13

Generator SO1 .........................................................................................................................16

Discussion of Shed Tests .........................................................................................................19
Garage Test Results .......................................................................................................................20
Testing Configurations.............................................................................................................20

Results ......................................................................................................................................22
Summary of Garage Tests ........................................................................................................54

Simulation ......................................................................................................................................56
Modeling Method.....................................................................................................................56
Garage Pressurization Tests .........................................................................................58

Model Validation .....................................................................................................................61

Statistical Evaluation of Model Predictions .................................................................61
Testing Configurations.................................................................................................62

RESULTS OF MODEL VALIDATION .................................................................................64

Case #1 .........................................................................................................................64

Case # 2 ........................................................................................................................66vi 

### Case # 3 ........................................................................................................................67

Case # 4 ........................................................................................................................68

Case # 5 ........................................................................................................................70

Case # 6 ........................................................................................................................72

Case # 7 ........................................................................................................................74
Summary ......................................................................................................................75
Prototype Generator Performance Simulations .......................................................................78
Garage source cases .....................................................................................................79
Utility source ................................................................................................................82

Closed bedroom door cases .........................................................................................84

Discussion of Simulation Results ............................................................................................85

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................87

Shed Tests ....................................................................................................................87
Garage Tests

................................ ................................ .................................................87

Simulations ..................................................................................................................88
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................89

References ......................................................................................................................................89
Appendix A Uncertainty Analysis of Shed Measurements ...........................................................92
Appendix B Summary of Instrument Calibrations ........................................................................98
Appendix C Additional Garage Tests ............................................................................................99vii 

## List of Figures

1 Aerial view of NIST manufactured test house 4

2 Floorplan of NIST manufactured test house 4

3 Front view of the test shed 5

4 Inside view of the test shed 5

5 S chematic of expe rimental setup in shed 6

6 Schematic of a generator operating in a single- zone space 9

7 Measured CO and O 2 concentrations of Tests 1 and 13 11

8 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 consumption rates at different

O 2 levels for Gen B 13

9 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 consumption rates at different

O 2 levels for unmodified Generator X 14

10 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 consumption rates at different

O 2 levels for modified Generator X 16

11 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 consumption rates at different

O 2 levels for Generator SO1 with CAT muffler 17

12 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 consumption rates at

different O 2 levels for Generator SO1 with nonCAT muffler 18

13a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test B (unmod Gen X,
Configuration 1) 22

13b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test B
(unmod Gen X, Configuration 1) 23

13c CO (high range) concentrations in the house for Test B
(unmod Gen X, Configuration 1) 23

14a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test O (mod Gen X,
Configuration 1) 24

14b CO concentrations in the house for Test O (mod Gen X, Configuration 1) 25

14c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test O (mod Gen X, Configuration 1) 25

15a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test N (Gen SO1,
Configuration 1) 2 6

15b CO concentrations in the house for Test N (Gen SO1, Configuration 1) 27

15c Temperatures and AFR measured on Gen SO1 in Test N (Gen SO1, Configuration 1) 28

16a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test F (unmod Gen X,
Configuration 2) 29

16b CO concentrations in the house for Test F (unmod Gen X, Configuration 2) 30

17a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test R (mod Gen X,
Configuration 2) 31

17b CO concentrations in the house for Test R (mod Gen X, Configuration 2) 32

17c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test R (mod Gen X, Configuration 2) 32

18a CO and O2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test T (Gen SO1,
Configuration 2) 33viii 18b CO concentrations in the house for Test T (Gen SO1, Configuration 2) 34

18c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test T (Gen SO1, Configuration 2) 34

19a CO and O2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test I ( unmod Gen X,
Configuration 3) 35

19b CO ( ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test I 36

19c CO (high range) concentrations in the house for Test I 36

20a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test Z ( Gen SO1
noncat, Configuration 3) 37

20b CO concentrations in the house for Test Z ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 3) 38

20c Temperatures and AFR measured on Gen SO1 in Test Z 39

21a CO (high range) and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test J
( unmod Gen X, Configuration 4) 40

21b CO concentrations in the house for Test J ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 4) 40

22a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test W ( Gen SO1,
Configuration 4) 41

22b CO concentrations in the house for Test W ( Gen SO1, Configuration 4) 42

22c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test W ( Gen SO1, Configuration 4) 42

23a CO (high range) and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test D
( unmod Gen X, Configuration 5) 43

23b CO concentrations in the ho use for Test D ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 5) 44

24a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AH ( Gen SO1
noncat, Configuration 5) 45

24b CO concentrations in the house for Test AH ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 5) 46

24c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test AH ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 5) 46

25a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test G ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 6) 47

25b CO concentrations in the house for Test G ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 6) 48

26a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test U ( Gen SO1,
Configuration 6) 49

26b CO concentrations in the house for Test U ( Gen SO1, Configuration 6) 50

26c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test U ( Gen SO1, Configuration 6) 50

27a CO and O2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test K (unmod Gen X Configuration 7) 51

27b CO concentrations in the house for Test K (unmod Gen X Configuration 7) 51

28a CO and O 2 concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test V (noncat Gen
SO1, Configuration 7) 52

28b CO concentrations in the house for Test V (noncat Gen SO1, Configuration 7) 53

28c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test V (noncat Gen SO1, Configuration 7) 54

29 CONTAM Sketchpad Representation of Test House 56

30 Test house and garage fan pressurization configurations 59

31 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case #1 65

32 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 2 66

33 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 3 68ix 34 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 4 70

35 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 5 71

36 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 6 73

37 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 concentrations for Case # 7 75

38 Comparison of predicted and observed individual house zone average CO

concentrations for all cases 77

39 Garage source, open bay door, closed house door, cat muffler cases 80

40 Utility source, closed utility door, cat muffler cases 83

41 CO concentrations for garage source, closed bay door, open house door, mild weather,

cat muffler with closed bedroom doors 85x **List of T ables** 

1 Hourly cyclic load profile 7

2 Summary of Gen B test results 10

3 Tests Conducted in Attached Garage 21

4 Summary of garage test results 55

5 Air Leakage Values 57

6 HVAC System Supply Flows 58

7 Fan Pressurization Test Results 60

8 Model Validation Tests Conducted 63

9 Statistical parameters for Case #1 65

10 Statistical parameters for Case # 2 67

11 O 2 dependent CO emission rate for Gen B 67

12 Statistical parameters for Case # 3 68

13 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat 69

14 Statistical parameters for Case # 4 70

15 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat 71

16 Statistical parameters for Case # 5 72

17 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat 72

18 Statistical parameters for Case # 6 73

19 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 noncat 74

20 Statistical parameters for Case # 7 75

21 Summary of statistical parameters from comparison of average observ ed and predicted
zone CO concentrations for all cases 76

22 Simulation results for garage source cases 81

23 Simulation results for utility source cases 84

24 Simulation results for closed bedroom door cases 85xi 

## Nomenclature

A in hourly air change rate of a test space evaluated at the ambient temperature , h
- 1

A out hourly air change rate of a test space evaluated at the space temperature , h
- 1

C CO CO concentration, mg/m 3

12 t,OH C water vapor volumetric concentration at time t 1 , m 3 /m 3

22 t,OH C water vapor volumetric concentration at time t 2 , m 3 /m 3

*

O 2 

### C non

- dimensional O 2 concentration

C out gas volumetric concentration outside the space , m 3 /m 3

in ,SF

6 C SF 6 concentratio n in the intake of the generator, m 3 /m 3

ex ,SF

6 C SF 6 concentration in the exhaust of the generator, m 3 /m 3

D gen displacement of the generator engine, m 3

ELA Effective leakage area, cm 2 at 4 Pa

ρ ,m K in ,mout,m 

### ρρ , ratio of density outside and inside the test space of a gas component “m”

d,SF

6 K SF 6 decomposition ratio in the generator

L

o output load of a generator

*

o L non

- dimensional generator load

P partial pressure of wat er vapor, Pa

P sat saturated water vapor pressure, Pa Q gen,in volumetric flow rate through the generator at the intake gas temperature, m 3 /h Q in volumetric air inflow of a test space , m 3 /h Q out volumetric air outflow of a test space , m 3 /h Q gen,ex vo lumetric flow rate through the generator at the exhaust gas temperature, m 3 /h

RPM revolutions per minute of the generator engine , min
- 1

S C source emission rate of a gas “ C ” at the air temperature of the test space, kg /h

*

CO S non

- dime nsional CO emission rate

min

, CO 

### S minimum CO emission rate, g/h

max, CO 

### S maximum CO emission rate, g/h

OH

2 S water emission rate from the generator , kg/h

S gen mass added from the generator to the test spac e , kg/h

*

O 2 

### S non

- dimensional O 2 consumption rate

T gas temperature, K

T gen,in temperature of the generator intake gas, K

T gen,ex temperature of the generator exhaust gas, K

V

s volume of the test space, m 3 

### φ w ater vapor relative humidity

gen η volumetric efficiency of the generator engine

in ,C 

### ρ density of a gas component inside the test space, kg/m 3

out,C 

### ρ density of a gas component outside the space, kg/m 3

in 

### ρ gas mixture density in the test space, kg/m 3

out,m 

### ρ density of gas mixture (= air 

### ρ ) outside the test space, kg/m 3xii1 

## Introduction

**Background**

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is concerned about the hazard of acute
residential carbon monoxide ( CO ) exposures from portable gasoline powered generators that can result in death or serious and/or lasting adverse health effects in exposed individuals. As of April

2012 , CPSC databases contain records of at least 755 (695 from generator use alone, 60 from generator use in conjunction with another CO-producing consumer product) deaths from CO poisoning associated with consumer use of generators in the period of 1999 through 2011 (Hnatov 2012). In addition, t he percentage of estimated non -fire, consumer product- related CO poisoning deaths specifically associated with generators for CPSC’s four most recent years of data are 51 % (2005), 49 % (2006), 38 % (2007) , and 49 % (2008) (Hnatov 2011). Typica lly, these deaths occur when consumers use a generator in an enclosed or partially enclosed space or
outdoors nea r an open door, window or vent, and they often occur after severe weather events
such as hurricanes and ice or snow storms . The initial health impact of CO is caused by anoxia: deprivation of oxygen supply. When inhaled, CO preferentially binds with the oxygen carrier in the red blood cells, hemoglobin (Hb), to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb), which causes the anoxia (Stewart 1975).

Since the possession of household generators in the U.S. has climbed continuously in recent years, from an estimated 9.2 million units in 2002 to 10.6 million units in 2005, CPSC is working to avoid future generator -related CO poisoning incidents, especially those assoc iated with operating a generator indoors (CPSC 2006) . Measures have been taken to educate people not to operate generators indoors and to require manufacturers of portable generators to warn
consumers of CO hazards with a warning labe l ( CFR 2007). In order to understand the CO exposures associated with such incidents and their potential reduction, the emission
characteristics of these generators need to be better characterized

.

In an initial approach to characterizing the se hazard s, CPSC measured the CO em ission rate s from generators by testing them in a small , laboratory test chamber (Brown 2006)

. Using those data, CPSC performed preliminary indoor air quality (IAQ) modeling and estimated that a 92 %
reduction in the CO emission rate based on these measure ments would likely result in a significant delay and reduced severity of the CO exposure in areas of a home remote from the generator location (Inkster 2006). CPSC subsequently worked with the University of Alabama (UA) to develop a low CO

- emission prototy pe generator by adapting off -the- shelf emission control technologies on a commercially

- available portable generator

. UA then construct ed multiple prototype generators by adapting the same emission control strategy onto other units powered by the same model engine. In conjunction with these efforts, CPSC established an interagency agreement with the National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST ) to model indoor time course profiles of CO concentrations throughout a single

- family residence resulting
fr om CO emissions from a portable generator operating in the attached garage of a home under
various use and environmental conditions to enable CSPC staff to understand the safety implications of operating a portable generator in these conditions. The agreem ent was later expanded to include a series of tests to provide empirical data to further characterize the hazard by measuring the emission and transport of CO when generators are operated in an actual building, to test them in a one -zone shed to derive the ir CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates

, and to provide model validation data.2 

### An interim report by Emmerich (2011) presents data from a series of tests of both unmodified
and UA-modified low CO emission prototype generators operated in the garage attache d to
NIST ’s manufactured house, a test facility designed for conducting residential indoor air quality (IAQ) studies. This double- wide manufactured house is similar in size to homes commonly involved in fatal consumer incidents (Hnatov 2012 ). The garage te sts described in the interim
report documented reductions of 85 % to 98 % in CO concentrations due to emissions from two modified, prototype low CO-emission portable generators compared to an unmodified generator in this house for the scenarios tested.



## Ob **jective**

The primary objective of this project was to measure and model CO emission and exposure, and
O 2 

### depletion, resulting from portable generators operating in a home’ s attached garage under
various use and environmental conditions in order to enable C PS C staff to analyze the safety implications of operating a portable generator under these conditions

.



## Contents of report

This report contains four main sections. The Experiment al section describes the experimental methods and equipment, test house and shed, and generators used in the experimental portion of this project. The Shed Test Results section presents the results of testing three different
generators operat ing in the test shed. The Garage Test Results presents the results of testing three
differen t generators operat ing in the attached garage of the NIST test house. The Simulation section describes the CONTAM model of the test house, the model validation effort and the simulations used to extend the measurement results to other scenarios. The report also contains three appendices including one describing the uncertainty analysis of the measurements, one on
instrument calibrations , and one with additional garage test results beyond those presented in the main body of the report.3 

## Experimental

**Method s**  **and Equipment**

Instrumentation

Gas concentrations were measured with two multi

- gas engine exhaust analyzers ( NOVA Analytics Model 7464), which are combination non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) and
electrochemical sensor technologies, referred to as N1 and N2 in the rest of this report. These analyzers measured CO on two channels covering different ranges of 0 % to 1 % and 0 % to 10 %, CO 2 

### from 0 % to 20 %, hydrocarbons (as hexane) from 0 % to 2 % and O 2 

### from 0 % to 25 %
with a reported accuracy of 1 % of full scale for all five channels . A n electrochemical sensor CO analyzer (NOVA Analytics Model 7461), referred to as N3 in this report, measured CO over a range of 0 ppm

v 

### to 2000 ppm
v 

### and with a reported accuracy of 1 % of full scale . T wo additional
NDIR CO ana lyzers were used, a Thermoelectron Model 48 (referred to as T E) and a Rosemount Model 880A (referred to as RM), both with ranges of 0 ppm v 

### to 1000 ppm
v 

### and reported accuracy of 1 % of full scale . Finally, a portable O 2 

### analyzer (Sybron Servomex O 2 

### Analyzer OA 580) was also used. Not all instruments were used during every test. Repeated calibrations during the test periods found that typical measurement uncertainties were consistent with the manufacturers’ reported accuracies. See Appendix B for more detail on calibrations. To protect the analyzers from condensed water and/or soot particles, desiccant and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters were used in the sampling system.

A ir change rate s w ere measured using tracer gas decay method (ASTM 20 11). A pulse of sulfur hexafluoride ( SF 6 

### ) was injected and allowed to mix before being measured with a gas chromatograph with an electron capture detector. A local weather station was used to measure
ambient conditions. All gas concentration, air temperature, and humidity data were recorded by an automated data acquisition system. Nabinger and Persily (2008) provide more details on the
SF 6 

### , temperature, humidity, and ambient weather condition measurements including
uncertainties.



### Test House
The test house used in this study was a manufactured house located on the NIST campus , which
was erected in 2002 (Nabinger and Persily 2008). An aerial view and floorplan of the house are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The house includes three bedrooms (MBR, BR2, and BR3), a livin g room (LR ), a family room (F AM ), a kitchen (KIT), and an attached garage. The house has a
floor area of 140 m 2 

### and a volume of 340 m 3 

### . The attached garage has a floor area of 36.5 m 2



### , a volume of 90 m 3 

### and was built as an addition to the house in 2007. Th e interior of the garage, including the ceiling, is finished with painted gypsum board. As part of the garage construction,

t he underlayment and siding of the exterior west wall of the house were removed and replaced with 3⁄4 inch gypsum board on studs with fibrous glass batt insulation in the wall cavity

.4 

### Figure 1 Aerial view of NIST manufactured test house

Figure 2 Floorplan of NIST manufactured test house

Measurements of gas concentrations were made at various points throughout the house using sample lines suspended 1.5 m above the floor in the center of each of the three bedrooms, the living room, the kitchen, and the family room, as well as five sample lines located near the four corners and center of the garage. The six individual living space locations were measured for one minute each in a repeating six minute cycle. The garage sample locations were measured separately, as well as a single mixed sample, the latter of which is reported here. Indoor air temperature and humidity were measured with sensors in each room of the house and on two opposite walls of the garage. The outdoor temperature and wind speed were measured at a weather station located about 6 m behind the house for tests conducted in 2008. For tests in 2010, wind speed data were collected from a weather station located on the roof of Building 226 on the NIST campus (ab out a mile from the test house) , however, wind direction data were still
collected at the local weather station

.



### Shed

E xperiments were also conducted in a shed, with dimensions of 4.88 m (L) × 3.05 m (W) ×

2.90 m (H) , as shown in Figures 3 and 4, for the purpose of measuring the CO emission rate and
O 2 

### consumption rate of the generators. The shed was used because it allowed better control of conditions than the garage and enabled a simplified single- zone analysis of the measurement
results (see Shed Test Results section for description of analysis method). An explosion-proof Garage Family

Room (FR) Kitchen (KIT) Living

Room (LV) Master Bedroom

Bed

Room3 Bed

Room2 N5 

### exhaust fan was installed in the wall opposite the door for shed ventilation a t the end of a test and for quick exhaust during an emergency. This fan was also used in selected tests to create a high air change rate to obtain CO emission rates at near ambient conditions. The shed also had two operable windows at both sidewalls, which were adjusted to vary the air change rate.

Figure 3 Front view of the test shed

Figure 4 Inside view of the test shed

Separate sample lines were placed mid -height in the center of the shed (midway between the walls) for CO, O 2 

### , and SF 6 

### . Non-dispersi ve infrared and electrochemical sensor CO analyzers (N1, N2 and N3 described in the I nstrumentation section) and a portable O 2 

### analyzer were used
to measure CO and O 2 

### respectively. A gas divider/diluter was also used to dilute the sampled CO
for the CO ana lyzer for some tests. The air temperature and humidity in the shed were measured
at two locations near two sidewalls.



### Generators and Loading

Generators were selected with electrical power output ratings in the size range most commonly involved in fatal consumer incidents, which is 5.0 kilowatts ( kW) to 6.5 kW (Hnatov 2012).
Tests were conducted with three different generators that were configured in multiple ways. Two unmodified ‘stock’ ( i.e ., in their as -purchased condition) generators were tested. The fi rst generator (referred to here as Gen B) has a full -load power rating of 5.5 kW with a 7.5 kW (10 horsepower, hp) carbureted , single- cylinder gasoline engine and no specific CO emission control6 

### technology. This same generator was also tested by CPSC in a small chamber as reported on by Brown (2006).

Figure 5 Schematic of experimental setup in shed

The second generator is powered by a carbureted 8.2 kW (11 hp) single -cylinder gasoline engine made by a different manufacturer than Gen B and has an advertised full- load electric power rating of 5.0 kW. This generator was tested in both unmodified condition (referred to as unmod Gen X) and as a modified low- CO emission prototype (referred to as mod Gen X). Th e unmodified generator operates at air

- fuel ratios ( AFR , ratio of mass of air to mass of fuel) in the range of 10 to 13 AFR depending on the load, which is common for small, air

- cooled carbureted engines. The modifications were made by the University of Alabama (UA) and included adding an engine management syste m (EMS) with associated sensors and actuators for electronic fuel injection (replacing the carburetor) and a muffler with a small catalyst integrated in it. The function of the EMS is to control ignition timing and fuel delivery through an engine control unit (ECU) microcomputer that receives input from a variety of system sensors. UA calibrated the ECU on the modified prototype to operate around a 14.6 AFR over the full range of loads. This AFR fuel control strategy is the primary means by which the p rototype aims to achieve its reduction in CO emissions. The catalyst primarily targets reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
and has relatively low catalytic activity because the EMS significantly reduces the available
oxidation constituents in the exhaust stream.

For t he third generator (referred to as Gen SO1) , a model similar to Gen X was obtained which had the same model engine but with an alternator with an output rating of 7 kW. It was tested
after UA modified it using the same fuel control strategy and largely the same emission control
hardware that was used in mod Gen X. One difference is that Gen S01 had a different model
ECU than that used on mod Gen X. Another difference noted during the testing is that its manufacturer included programming to ma intain rich AFR operation until the oil temperature rose above approximately 60 ° 

### C, resulting in an initial “spike” of CO when the engine was
started cold . This ECU also includes an algorithm developed by UA that can be switched on or
off by the test opera tor for testing purposes. The algorithm was intended to sense when the7 

### generator was operating in an enclosed space, based on engine operation parameters and w hen enabled, was intended to shut off the engine before a life-threatening CO hazard develops. Al l the tests with Gen SO1 that are reported in the main body of this report were performed with the algorithm disabled. Gen SO1 was also tested in a configuration with a muffler that did not contain a catalytic converter (referred to as the noncat muffler) . The purpose of testing with the

two different muffler versions was to measure the CO emissions produced in the engine due to the fuel control strategy alone (from tests with the noncat muffler) as well as get an indication of the catalyst ’ s performance in further lowering those emissions (from the tests with the cat muffler). A full description of the prototype configuration of both mod Gen X and Gen SO1 is provided i n greater detail in UA ’s report to CPSC (CPSC 2012).

To monitor prototype engine operation, generators mod GenX and Gen SO1 were outfitted with thermocouples and a Lambda sensor to measure AFR (ECM Model Lambda 5220, with an AFR range of 6 to 364 and reported accuracy of 0.2 for 12 < AFR < 18). The Lambda sensor and a thermocouple for measur ing engine

- out exhaust temperature were mounted through ports that UA provided on the exhaust manifold pipe between the engine and muffler. Cylinder head temperature was measured with a ring thermocouple mounted under the spark plug. Engine oil
temperature was measured with a thermocouple inserted into the sump. For some of the tests, muffler and shroud temperatures were also measured, using thermocouples mounted directly on their surfaces at the hottest locations previously identified by UA with infrared cameras during their prototype tests.

The generators were operated using reformulated gasoline with 10 % ethanol obtained from the NIST motor pool, which is purchased to the same specification year-round. The generators were placed on a spill- catching platform in the middle of the garage (or shed) with the exhaust pipe pointing towards the garage wall adjoining the house.

A portable alternating current ( AC ) resistive load bank connected to the generator’s 240-volt receptacle was used to draw electrical power and thereby act as a surrogate for consumer appliance loads . The load bank has manual switches in 250 W increments with a maximum setting of 10 kW. Some tests involved a constant load while others followed a cyclic load profile (see Table 1). This pro file is similar to the load profile used by UA during the durability and emission testing of their low CO emission prototype generator. It was derived from a test cycle developed by industry to replicate typical in- use operation of small utility engines wh en used in all types of engine -driven products (CPSC 2012). Because the actual delivered power did not always match the load bank settings, particularly when oxygen depletion was occurring, the delivered power was measured and recorded during all tests.

Table 1 Hourly cyclic load profile

Load bank setting (W) Duration (min)
no load 3

500 4

1500 18

3000 17.5

4500 12

5500 5.58 

## Shed Test Results

Few studies have been conducted directly on CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates associated

w ith gasoline -powered generators running indoors. Brown (2006) studied the CO emission rates from four different commercially

- available generators in an enclosed experimental chamber, where air temperature and air change rate were controlled to provide different operating
conditions . Also , the air change rates during these chamber tests were generally quite high compared with typical residences. Steady

- state CO concentrations were found to be more than

7400 μ L/L and O 2 

### levels as low as 18.5 %. CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates at steady state were also calculated, and were found to be affected by O 2 

### level, generator loading, and/or chamber air temperature.

While generator tests conducted in laboratory ch ambers offer a high degree of control, they do not allow consideration of the real-world impacts of varying outdoor weather or the lower and variable air change rates that occur in residential structures. Alternatively , operating a generator
in an enclosed space such as a garage or a storage shed, as opposed to a laboratory chamber, will be subject to uncontrolled temperatures and to lower ventilation rates determined by ambient weather conditions. To study generator CO emission rates under more realistic c onditions including emission controls , tests were conducted in a single -zone space. This section reports on
the measurement of CO emission rates from generators , operating in the unmodified carbureted configuration as well as in the low CO emission prototy pe configuration, ( i.e. with out and with
CO emission controls) in a test shed located outdoors. The CO emission rates and O 2 

### consumption rates are used for the prediction of CO emission , migration and exposure in
simulations

. 

## Analysis **Method**

To model a generator running inside an enclosed single- zone space, a theoretical model was constructed based on Figure 6. This model was used to calculate CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates from the concentrations measured during the tests. Assuming a gas
component, C , is either generated ( S C 

### > 0 ) or consumed ( S C 

### < 0 ) in the zone, a differential mass balance equation for C during a period of 12 

### ttt

−= ∆ can be expressed as



### ρ

C

, in 

### V

s 

### dC

dt = S C 

### − ρ C

, in 

### CQ

out 

### + ρ C

, out 

### C

out 

### Q in 

### (1)

by assuming the following: the gas component, C , is an ideal gas

, the concentration of C is uniform in the zone,

C 

### ρ , S C 

### , and Q are constant during 

## t ∆ , and
the mass of fuel added from the generator to the zone air is neglected

. Note: See the Nomenclature list for all terms in the equations.9 

### Figure 6 Schematic of a generator o perating in a single -zone space

The density of C in Eq. (1) can be obtained by the ideal gas law. S C 

### is positive when referred to

as S CO 

### , the emission rate of CO, and negative for S O2 

### , the consumption rate of O 2 

### . In the experiments presented in this report , the concentration of a gas component, C , was measured by a gas analyzer, as described above . The air change rate, Q , was determined by using the tracer

gas decay method using SF 6 

### . Gi ven that SF 6 

### may decompose at temperatures above 200  ̊C (Air Products 2006), the potential consumption of SF 6 

### in the generator engine, S SF6 

### (<0), was
examined but was found to be insignificant (Wang and Emmerich 2010).

After determining the air change rate of the space from the decay rate of the SF 6 

### (see Wang and Emmerich 2010 for details), S CO 

### and S O2 

### can be solved from Eq. (1) for the time period of t 1 

### to t 2

tA tA

t CO t CO

sout in CO CO
out out



### e eCC VA S ∆− ∆−



### − −

= 1 1, 2,

, 

### ρ 

### (2)

outo

m soutoutO

tA tA

tOtO

sout in O O 

### C K VA

e eCC VA S

out out

,

, , 1,2,

, 2 2 2 2

2 2 

### 1
ρ 

### ρ ρ

−

− −

= ∆− ∆−



### (3)

In addition

, several gas concent ration uniformity tests were conducted by collecting samples at five different locations in the shed. It was found that the thermal plume, which was driven by the heat from the running generator, mixed the shed very well through out testing . The variations among the five sample locations were less than 5 % for SF 6 

### , which met the uniformity requirement of 10 % in the ASTM standard (ASTM -E741-00 2006).



## Generator B

Using the same generator (B), Brown (2006) found that CO emission rate was closely related to generator load and O 2 

### level in small chamber tests . In th e current study, 13 tests of Gen B were conducted for load settings of 2.5 kW (half of the maximum load of the generator) and 5.0 kW (full load) for different air change rates (which result in different O 2 

### levels) and air temperature
as shown in Table 2 . Different air change rates were achieved by adjusting the shed windows to be opened with a 0.05 m × 0.2 m crack (OW) or completely closed (CW). Each test was also conducted at least twice to confirm the validity of the measurement data. Each test in Table 2 is named by its load setting, window adjustment and repe tition , for example, 2.5kW- OW -1 indicates the first test running under a 2.5 kW load setting and with open windows. Note that Tests 6, 11, and 12 were conducted after the generator engine was serviced (S = serviced), which entailed changing the oil an d cleaning the air filter. For Test 13, the shed was tightened to achieve a low air change rate (LA). Q in 

### Q out 

### S C 

### Generat or10 

### Table 2 Summary of Gen B Shed T est R esults

Load setting ( kW ) Test Name Run
Time
min Max CO ( μ L/L ) Min
O 2 (%) CO
Emission

rate s ( g/h ) O 2 Consumption

rate s ( g/h ) Air change

rate ( h -1 )

2.5 1 2.5kW- OW -1 80 3190 19.3 340 to 900 3300 to 4800 6.5

2 2.5kw- OW -2 63 5290 18.9 40 to 900 3300 to 4000 3.7

3 2.5kw- CW -1 86 23950 16.9 1100 to
3100 4600 to 5900 2.6

4 2.5kw- CW -2 101 23270 16.8 1000 to
3000 4200 to 5700 3.1

5 2.5kw- CW -3 80 20090 17.1 880 to
2600 4100 to 5100 2.9

6 2.5kw- CW

- S1 106 8160 18.2 500 to
1400 4200 to 5100 3.6

5.0 7 5.0kw- OW -1 90 18210 17.9 120 to
3700 5700 to 7100 4.7

8 5.0 kw

- OW -2 81 8420 19.1 1500 to
2600 4100 to 6500 7.6

9 5.0kw- CW -1 62 21320 17.4 1100 to
3600 5600 to 6700 3.7

10 5.0kw- CW -2 74 21200 17.1 1700 to
3000 4700 to 6400 2.9

11 5.0kw- CW

- S1 65 22470 16.9 1600 to
3500 5800 to 7600 3.0

12 5.0kw- CW

- S2 66 22280 17.0 70 to 3800 1400 to 7100 3.6

13 5.0kw- CW

- LA 86 25500 16.2 2000 to
3400 3900 to 6200 0.7



### Table 2 shows large variations in CO and O 2 

### levels between tests with Gen B under the different constant load settings and window position s. The CO level reach ed only 3190 μ L/L (note that

μ L/L are equivalent to the commonly used unit ppm

v 

### ) within 80 min in Test 1 when the generator was at half -load with the shed windows opened, but reached a maximum of 25500

μ L/L for an 86-min run-time under full load in Test 13 when the shed was tightened. The shed
O 2 

### concentration dropped significantly below ambient levels when operating the generator in this enclosed space. The largest decline occurred for Test 13, when the O 2 

### level was 16.2 % with the low air change rate and full loading. Table 2 also provides the measured air change rates and
time -averaged weather conditions. When the shed was tightened in Test 13, the air change rate reached its lowest value, 0.7 h -1 

### , which explains it reaching the highest CO level and lowest O 2 

### level . For the rest of the tests, the shed window positions played an important role. The air change rates of open

- window cases were all as high as or higher than those with closed windows. As a result, the opened window tests always had higher O 2 

### levels than thos e with closed windows for the same load. The CO levels in opened-window tests were generally lower than
closed -window cases. Note also that the weather conditions during these tests varied significantly. The ambient temperature ranged from 4.0 °C to 17.2 °C and the wind sp eed from 1.1 m/s to 6.8 m/s. The variations of weather provided realistic generator operating conditions for these experiments as compared to controlled chamber experiments. Note that the CO and O 211 

### levels in Table 2 are only provided to in dicate the range of test conditions, as these tests were primarily performed to determine CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates for use in the simulation effort described later in this report.

As an illustration of individual shed tests, Figure 7 shows the CO and O 2 

### measured for Tests 1 and 13 from Table 2. The patterns of CO concentration in both tests are almost an inverse to that
of the O 2 

### level for this unmodified generator. The CO level is low at the beginning of generator startup and increases steadil y as the O 2 

### level drops. As the O 2 

### drops further and causes a very rich fuel mixture in the engine, CO reaches a maximum level. Test 13 in Figure 7 shows an extreme case in which the generator eventually produces a zero electrical load when the O 2 

### drops

to around 16.4 %, although it was set at a full load and the engine crankshaft was still rotating

.

Figure 7 Measured CO and O 2 

### concentrations of Tests 1 and 13.

Figure 7 also shows that steady state was never reached for either test. A relatively stable period occurred at about 40 min for Test 1 and 45 min for Test 13, but they only held for a few minutes. These results differed from chamber experiments, where CO concentrations becomes constant after a period of time as complete steady state can be achiev ed under the controlled environment and higher air change rate. While these chambers tests are useful, the results from the shed confirm the importance of studying CO emission as a transient process under real weather
conditions and more realistic air chan ge rates to better understand generator performance in the
field.

In order to generalize these test results to other conditions beyond this particular test facility, it is important to convert the results into CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates. As seen in these tests, many factors can affect these rates directly or indirectly: space ventilation conditions, combustion conditions in the engine, O 2 

### level in the space, load setting, and the time over which the generator has been running. 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100O2(%)CO (μL/L)

Time (min) CO(Test 1) CO(Test 13) O2(Test 1) O2(Test 13)

Generator off(Test 1)

Generator on(Test 13)

Generator on(Test 1)

Zero load output(Test 13)

Generator off(Test 13)12 

### Figures 8 (a) and 8 (b) illustrate how 5 -min average CO emission rates and O 2 

### consumption rates ( 

### t

∆ = 5 min in Eqs. (7) and (8)) change with O 2 

### levels in the thirteen shed tests. Figure 8 (a) shows that for both full and half load settings CO emission rates increase with decreasing O 2 

### , reach maximum values when O 2 

### drop to about 17 % to 18 %, and then decline at lower O 2 

### levels.
Under the extreme case of Test 13 (5.0kw- CW

- LA) , the CO rate decreases dramatically as the
O 2 

### level reaches around 16.4 % with an electrical output of zero. Figure 8(b) shows an opposite
trend of O 2 

### consumption rate compared to CO. The O 2 

### consumption rate decreases notably near 16.4 %, corresponding to the zero electrical output caused by O 2 

### deficiency. Given that the engine cranksha ft was still rotating , the O 2 

### consumption rate was not quite zero, which explains the continual drop of O 2 

### in Test 13 of Figure 7, although the electrical output is zero.

The solid points in Figure 8 are data points for a half -load setting (2.5 kW) and the hollow ones for a full load setting (5.0 kW). As seen in previous small chamber test results in Brown (2006), a higher load setting generally results in more CO generated and O 2 

### consumed until the O 2 

### level reaches about 17 %, where data for full and half loads come together . This overlap corresponds to the drop in electrical output with the decrease of O 2 

### . Note that Figure 8 also shows the calculated uncertainty for each data point of CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates, which was mostly less than 20 % with a confidence level of 95 %. Appendix A discusses the uncertainty analysis in detail.

Figure 8 (a) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21CO Emission Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### (%) 2.5kw

- OW

- 1 2.5kw

- OW

- 2 2.5kw

- CW

- 1 2.5kw

- CW

- 2 2.5kw

- CW

- 3

2.5kw

- CW

- S1 5.0kw

- CW

- 1 5.0kw

- CW

- 2 5.0kw

- OW

- 1 5.0kw

- OW

- 2

5.0kw

- CW

- S1 5.0kw

- CW

- S2 5.0kw

- CW

- LA13 

### Figure 8 (b) Figure 8 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 

### consumption rates at different
O 2 

### levels for Gen B



## Generator X

Generator X was tested in both unmodified and modified (low CO emission) prototype configurations. The primary difference between the tests with Gen X and Gen B was the generator loading. Gen X was tested at load points selected to approximately match the points of

t he load profile used by UA (See Table 1) during the durability and emission testing of their low CO emission prototype generator.

Figures 9 (a) and 9(b) present the CO emission rates and O 2 

### consumption rates as a function of O 2 

### levels for unmodified Generator X. Although the tests of Gen X and Gen B were not identical, Figure 9 (a) show similar results in that the CO emission rates rang e from a low of around 500 g/h at near ambient conditions to a high of nearly 4000 g/h as O 2 

### approaches 17 %. Unlike Gen B, however, the emission rate is only clearly load -dependent when the O 2 

### drops below about

19 %. Fewer tests were performed on Generator X below 17 % O 2 

### but the results indicate a similar drop off in CO emissions due to poor engine performance under these conditions. - 7,500 - 7,000 - 6,500 - 6,000 - 5,500 - 5,000 - 4,500 - 4,000 - 3,500 - 3,000 - 2,500 - 2,000 - 1,500

16 17 18 19 20 21O2Consumption Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### (%) 2.5kw

- OW

- 1 2.5kw

- OW

- 2 2.5kw

- CW

- 1 2.5kw

- CW

- 2 2.5kw

- CW

- 3
2.5kw

- CW

- S1 5.0kw

- CW

- 1 5.0kw

- CW

- 2 5.0kw

- OW

- 1 5.0kw

- OW

- 2
5.0kw

- CW

- S1 5.0kw

- CW

- S2 5.0kw

- CW

- LA14 

### Figure 9(a)

Figure 9 (b) Figure 9 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 

### consumption rates at different
O 2 

### le vels for unmodified Generator X 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

16 17 18 19 20 21CO Emission Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) Idle(CO) 0.5kW(CO) 1.5kW(CO) 2.5kW(CO) 4.0kW(CO) 5.5kW(CO) 5.5kw

- 2(CO) 4.5kw(CO) 3.0kW(CO) 5.5kW

- 2

- NOVA2(CO) 1.5kW

- 2(CO) 0.5kW

- 2(CO)
Idle

- 2(CO) 4.5kW

- 2(CO) 3.0kW

- 2(CO) 5.5kW

- 3(CO)
0.5kW

- 3(CO) 3.0kW

- 3(CO) 5.5kW

- 4(CO) Idle

- 4(CO)
0.5kW

- 4(CO) 1.5kW

- 4(CO) 3.0kW

- 4(CO) 3.0kW

- 4(CO)
4.5kW

- 5(CO) 5.5kW

- 4b(CO) 5.5kW

- 5(CO) 5.5kW

- 6(CO)



### - 10,000

- 9,000 - 8,000 - 7,000 - 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,000 - 3,000 - 2,000 - 1,000 0

16 17 18 19 20 21O2Consumption Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) 

## Chart Title Idle(O2) 0.5kW(O2) 1.5kW(O2) 2.5kW(O2) 4.0kW(O2) 5.5kW(O2) 5.5kW

- 2(O2) 4.5kw(O2) 3.0kW(O2) 5.5kW

- 2

- NOVA2(O2) 4.5kw

- 2(O2) 3.0kW

- 2(O2) 1.5kW

- 2(O2) 0.5kW

- 2(O2) Idle

- 2(O2) 4.5kW

- 2(O2) 3.0kW

- 2(O2) 5.5kW

- 3(O2) 0.5kW

- 3(O2) 3.0kW

- 3(O2) 5.5kW

- 4(O2) Idle

- 4(O2) 0.5kW

- 4(O2) 1.5kW

- 4(O2) 3.0kW

- 4(O2) 4.5kW

- 4(O2) 4.5kW

- 5(O2) 5.5kW

- 4(O2) 5.5kW

- 5(O2) 5.5kW

- 6(O2)15 

### Figures 10 (a) and 10 (b) present the CO emission rates and O 2 

### consumption rates as a function of
O 2 

### levels for modified Generator X. Although modified Gen X was not tested as many times as unmodified Gen X, comparing Figure 10 (a) to Figure 9(a) shows the dramatic reduction in CO
emission rates due to the low CO emission modifications inc luded on the prototype. Most of the modified Gen X CO emission rates were well below 500 g/h. Although not enough low O 2 

### tests were performed to be conclusive, the CO emission rates at the highest loads did tend to increase
as O 2 

### dropped.

Figure 10 (a) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

16 17 18 19 20 21CO Emission Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) Idle

- GenXmod(CO) 0.5kW

- GenXmod(CO) 1.5kW

- GenXmod(CO)

3.0kW

- GenXmod(CO) 4.5kW

- GenXmod(CO) 5.5kW

- GenXmod(CO)16 

### Figure 10 (b) Figure 10 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 

### consumption rates at different
O 2 

### levels for modified Generator X



## Generator SO1

Generator SO1was tested at the same load points as Generator X but was not tested in an unmodified configuration. Instead, it was tested in two modified configurations – with and without a cataly st integrated in the muffler (referred to as cat muffler and noncat muffler, respectively ) . Figure 11 (a) and 11 (b) present the CO emission rates and O 2 

### consump tion rates as
a function of O 2 

### levels for Generator SO1 with the cat muffler (referred to as Gen SO1 cat)

. Comparing Figure 11 (a) to Figure 10(a) shows that Gen SO1 cat performed somewhat better
than modified Gen X. All measured CO emission rates for Gen SO1 cat were well below 500 g/h, and no trend toward higher emission rates w as seen as O 2 

### levels dropped to 18 %. However, as with Gen X, no tests were performed at levels as low as 17 %. - 10,000

- 9,000 - 8,000 - 7,000 - 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,000 - 3,000 - 2,000 - 1,000 0

16 17 18 19 20 21O2Consumption Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) Idle

- Xmod(O2) 0.5kW

- Xmod(O2) 1.5kW

- GenXmod(O2)

3.0kW

- GenXmod(O2) 4.5kW

- GenXmod(O2) 5.5kW

- GenXmod(O2)17 

### Figure 11 (a)

Figure 11 (b) Figure 11 Five

- minute averaged (a) C O emission rates and (b) O 2 

### consumption rates at different
O 2 

### levels for Generator SO1 with cat muffler 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

16 17 18 19 20 21CO Emission Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) 1.5kWSO1

- 2(CO) 3.0kWSO1cat

- 1(CO) 4.5kWSO1cat

- 1(CO) Idle

- 1 SO1cat(CO) 0.5

- 1 SO1cat(CO) 5.5 kW

- 1 SO1cat(CO) 1.5kW

- 1 SO1cat(CO) Idle

- 2 SO1cat(CO) 0.5 kW

- SO1cat2(CO) 5.5kw SO1cat

- 2(CO)



### - 10000

- 9000 - 8000 - 7000 - 6000 - 5000 - 4000 - 3000 - 2000 - 1000 0

16 17 18 19 20 21O2Consumption Rate (g/h)



### O 2 

### Level (%) 1.5kW

- SO1cat

- 2(O2) 3.0kW

- SO1cat

- 1(O2) 4.5kW

- SO1cat

- 1(O2)

Idle

- 1 SO1cat(O2) 0.5 kW

- 1 SO1cat(O2) 5.5 kW

- 1 SO1cat(O2)

1.5kW

- 1 SO1cat(O2) Idle

- 2 SO1cat(O2) 0.5 kW SO1cat

- 2(O2)
5.5 kW SO1cat

- 2(O2)18 

### Figure 12 (a)

Figure 12 (b) Figure 12 Five

- minute averaged (a) CO emission rates and (b) O 2 

### consumption rates at different
O 2 

### levels for Generator SO 1 with noncat muffler 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

16 17 18 19 20 21CO Emission Rate (g/h)

O 2 Level (%) Idle

- 1

- SO1nonCat(CO) 0.5kw

- 1

- SO1noncat(CO) 1.5kW

- 1

- GenSO1noncat(CO)

3.0kW

- 1

- SO1noncat(CO) 4.5kw

- 1

- SO1noncat(CO) 5.5kw

- 1

- SO1noncat(CO)

4.5kW

- 2

- SO1noncat(CO) 3.0kW

- 3

- SO1noncat(CO) 1.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO)

3.0kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO) 4.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO) 5.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO)

idle

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(CO) 5.5kW

- 5

- SO1noncat(CO) 0.5kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(CO)

1.5kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(CO) 4.5kW

- 5

- SO1noncat(CO) 3.0kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(CO)

0.5kW

- 5

- SO1noncat(CO) idle

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO) 0.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(CO)

idle

- 5

- SO1noncat(CO) idle

- 3

- SO1noncat(CO) 0.5kW

- 3

- SO1noncat(CO)

- 10000

- 9000 - 8000 - 7000 - 6000 - 5000 - 4000 - 3000 - 2000 - 1000 0

16 17 18 19 20 21O2Consumption Rate (g/h)

O 2 Level (%) Idle

- 1

- GenSO1noncat(O2) 0.5kw

- 1

- GenSO1noncat(O2) 1.5kW

- 1

- GenSO1noncat(O2)

3.0kW

- 1

- SO1noncat(O2) 4.5kw

- 1

- SO1noncat(O2) 5.5kW

- 1

- GenSO1noncat(O2)

4.5kW

- 2(SO1noncat(O2) 1.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(O2) 3.0kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(O2)

4.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(O2) 5.5kW

- 4

- SO1noncat(O2) idle

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(O2)

0.5 kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(O2) 1.5 kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(O2) 3.0 kW

- 2

- GenSO1noncat(O2)

idle

- 3

- SO1noncat(O2) 0.5kW

- 3

- SO1noncat(O2) 3.0kW

- 3

- SO1noncat(O2)

5.5kW

- 5

- SO1noncat(O2) 4.5kW

- 5

- SO1noncat(O2)19 

### Figures 1 2 (a) and 1 2 (b) present the CO emission rates and O 2 

### consumption rates as a function of
O 2 

### levels for Generator SO1 with the noncat muffler (referred to as Gen SO1 noncat). Comparing Figure 12 (a) to Figure 11(a) shows that Gen SO1 noncat had higher CO emission
rates than Gen SO1 cat. However, the measured CO emission rates for Gen SO1 noncat were still substantially lower than the emission rates of the unmodified generators, and no trend toward higher emission rates was seen a s O 2 

### levels dropped close to 17 %.



## Discussion **of Shed Tests**

A series of experiments were conducted to measure CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates of portable, spark- ignited, gasoline

- powered electric generator s ( in both unmodified carbureted configuration and prototype low CO emission configuration) operated in a single -zone shed.
These tests were used to derive the CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates to be used as inputs to a model validation effort, as well as for the simulation analyses conducted to examine the potential performance of the low CO -emission prototype under a wider range of operating conditions. For two different unmodified generators ( i.e. , without CO emission controls), i t was found that CO emission ranged from a low of around 500 g/h at near ambient O 2 

### levels, to a high of nearly 4000 g/h as O 2 

### approached 17 %. The rates of CO generation and O 2 

### consumption were affected by multiple parameters, with the O 2 

### level and the actual electrical output of the generator being two of the most important. Tests performed below 17 % O 2 

### showed a drop off in CO emissions due to poor engine performance under these conditions. Tests of two modified
prototype low CO emission generators ( i.e. , with CO emission controls) showed reductions of CO emissions of over 90 % depending on the specific emission controls and operating
conditions.20 

## Garage Test Results

NIST also conducted a series of tests to provide empirical data to characterize the emission and
transport of CO due to operating portable gasoline-powered generators in an attached garage

. This section of this report presents data from these tests of both unmodified and UA-modified prototype generators operated in the garage attached to NIST ’s manufactured test house. Note that these results apply to the s pecific units tested and that other units, modifications, houses and test conditions may produce different results.



## Testing Configurations

Testing was conducted under seven different test house configurations to evaluate their impacts on the buildup of CO in the garage and its transport into the different rooms in the house. These configurations included two different garage bay door positions (fully closed or open nominally 0.6 m), two connecting door settings between the garage and the family room (fully closed or open nominally 5 cm ), and two house central heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HV AC )
fan settings (on or off). All internal house doors were kept open throughout all tests.

There were multiple purposes in conducting tests under these different configurations. The

garage -house door positions directly affect the rate of engine exhaust transfer from the garage into the house. The status of the HVAC fan, which circulates the interior air throughout the rooms of the house, affects the CO distribution within the house. The fan operation also affects the house air change rate due to air distribution duct leakage within the crawl space (Nabinger and Persily 2008). It is also relevant to consider the fan status, even when there is a power outage, because the consumer may use the generator to provide power to the home’s central heating system, which includes providing power to the HVAC fan. Another reason for testing
under different garage door and garage -house door positions is that, with the gene rator operating in the garage, it is possible that the engine will consume the oxygen in the garage at a faster rate
than the rate at which natural air change replenishes oxygen . The degree of either door’s opening will impact whe ther or not the garage’s o xygen level can be maintained at ambient level and, if not, how low it will drop. Testing with different door positions enabled observations of the effects of different oxygen levels on generator engine performance. Variations in house configuration can be found in CPSC’s investigation reports of fatal CO poisonings involving generators (Hnatov 2010). These reports include cases in which consumers were aware of the CO poisoning hazard but attempted to provide what they considered “proper ventilation” by

ope rating the generator in a partially -open garage. A bay door opening of 0.6 m was selected in part based on it being within the range of openings that can be modeled using the multizone airflow and IAQ model CONTAM. The house door opening of 5 cm was selected because it is a reasonable opening to allow the passage of an extension cord from the generator into the house.

Table 3 includes a summary of the tests conducted including information on the generator tested,
the test house configuration (defined by door positions and fan status), a test identification code, the date the test was conducted, the average ambient temperature and wind speed , and the CO analyzers used . As described in the Instrumentation Section, several different analyzers were used during the tests to span the full range of CO concentrations, but data is presented only from the analyzer considered most appropriate for the CO concentration range in each test. All tests
listed in Table 3 were “cold start” tests. Additional garage tests are re ported in Appendix C.21 

### Table 3 Tests Conducted in Attached Garage

Generator House Configuration Garge bay

door Garage

to house

door HVAC
fan Test

ID Date Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) CO analyzers in garage CO analyzers
in house

unmod GenX 1 Close d Open OFF B 04/22/08 20.1 6.5 N1 N2, N3

modGenX 1 Closed Open OFF O 04/02/10 22.0 6.5 N2, N3 N1, R1

SO1 1 Closed Open OFF N 04/01/10 19.9 6.3 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 2 Open Closed OFF F 05/06/08 22.8 7.7 N1 N2, N3

modGenX 2 Open Closed OFF R 04/ 12/10 19.9 6.7 N2, N3 N1, R1

SO1 2 Open Closed OFF T 04/14/10 13.4 6.9 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 3 Closed Open ON I 05/15/08 22.8 7.4 N1 N2, N3

SO1 with
noncat muffler 3 Closed Open ON Z 05/05/10 28.3 6.7 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 4 Closed Closed ON J 05/21/08 18.2 9.6 N1 N2, N3

SO1 4 Closed Closed ON W 04/29/10 17.8 9.5 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 5 Closed Closed OFF D 04/30/08 12.2 8.2 N1 N2, N3

SO1 with
noncat muffler 5 Closed Closed OFF AH 05/13/10 15.6 6.5 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 6 Open Open O N G 05/07/08 25.1 7.0 N1 N2, N3

SO1 6 Open Open ON U 04/22/10 20.4 7.8 N2, N3 N1, R1

unmod GenX 7 Open Open OFF K 05/23/08 13.84 7.0 N1, T1 N2, N3

SO1 with
noncat muffler 7 Open Open OFF V 04/23/10 15.8 6.5 N2, N3 N1, R122 

## Results

Figures 13 throu gh 28 show the measurement results for all 16 tests listed in Table 3 , including CO concentration in the house and garage, O 2 

### concentration in the garage, and the measured
electric load supplied by the generator. In all tests, the generator was started at time 0 and was manually shut off by the test operator using a wireless switch that interrupted the engine’s ignition. T he data in the figures are plotted up until the time mechanical venting was initiated

, which typically immediately followed generator shu t- off . In some tests, where time and circumstances permitted, natural decay was allowed to occur after the generator was stopped, before mechanical venting was initiated. In those tests, the natural decay is plotted.

Figures 13a, 1 3b, and 13c show the results for Test B, which was a three hour test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 1 (garage bay door closed, garage access door to house open nominally 5 cm , and the house central HVAC fan off). Since it was a three hour test, the hourly cyclic load profile
in Table 1 was repeated three times. At the end of the third cycle, the generator was stopped, and the garage was mechanically vented

.

Figure 13a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test B (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

Figure 13a shows the concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of over 19,500 μ L/L and
the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the garage dropped by 3.8 % to nearly 17 % when the generator was stopped. It also shows that in the first load cycle, the delivered electric al output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied when the oxygen was already below 19 %. As the oxygen continued to drop in the subsequent load cycles, the delivered power fo r these load points decreased further. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210% OxygenCO (μL/L) Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O223 

### Figure 13b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test B (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

Figure 1 3c CO (high range) concentrations in the house for Test B (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

Figures 13b and 13c show the CO concentration in six rooms of the test house (see Figure 2 for room locations) as measured with the N3 ‘ppm range’ (where the CO concentration plot plateaus

at the instrument’s 2000 μ L/L limit) and N2 ‘high range’ CO instruments, respect ively. The CO 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM24 

### reached a peak concentration of over 6500 μ L/L in the family room, with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 3500 μ L/L to 6000 μ L/L. As described in the

I nstrumentation section , samples were taken for one minute at each l ocation on a rotating six minute cycle.

Figures 14a, 1 4b, and 14c show the results for Test O, which was a four and a half hour test of mod Gen X with the same test house configuration (Configuraiton 1) as used in Test B of unmod Gen X ( shown in Figure 13 ). After the generator was stopped, the garage and house were mechanically ventilated.

Figure 14a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test O (mod Gen X, Configuration 1)

As shown in Figure 1 4a, the garage CO concentration reach ed a peak of nearly 3000 μ L/L while the garage O 2 

### concentration dropped by 1.7 % to 19.5 % after completing the fourth cycle of the load profile. Note that the ppm instrument (N3) briefly topped out at this time, about 230 min
into the test . Also, the init ial O 2 

### concentration is shown as slightly above 20.9 % for this and
some other tests due to the limitations in instrument accuracy. The generator was intentionally stopped midway through the fifth load cycle.

At three hours into this test, the garage CO concentration was approximately 1400 μ L/L. Under fairly similar ambient conditions between this test and Test B, this CO concentration is a 93 % reduction compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in Test B . In that case, the garage CO was over 19,500 μ L/L at the same time during the test.

In the first load cycle, as the oxygen dropped, the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the three highest loads in the load cycle, 3000 W, 4500 W, and 5500 W. While the electrical output stayed near constant for the four cycles, the CO levels increased progressively and the oxygen decreased slightly with each additional cycle. 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270% OxygenCO(μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N2 HI

- CO N3 CO Delivered Load O225 

### Figure 14b CO concentrations in the house for Test O (mod Gen X, Configuration 1)

As seen in Figure 14b, t he peak CO concentration throughout the house was about 800 μ L/L, with a relatively uniform distribution in all the rooms despite the HVAC fan being off. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test B produced a peak concentration of over 6500 μ L/L in the family room

.

Figure 1 4c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test O (mod Gen X, Configuration 1) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270AFRTemperature (C)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp
Muffler surface temp Air

- fuel ratio26 

### The AFR (provided as a general indicator of the prototype engine ’s performance for this and other tests) and temperatures measured on modGen X during Test O are shown in Figure 1 4c. During this test, the e ngine performed off design with AFR largely ranging from around 14 to around 15.4 during each load cycle and reducing to rich operation when transitioning between the load cycles as well as during the high loads.

Figures 15a, 15b , and 15c show the results for Test N, which was a two hour test of Gen SO1 with the same test house configuration used in Test B of unmod Gen X and Test O of mod GenX (Configuration 1). This test was terminated earlier than planned after a fuse blew on the load bank after 114 min of operation, dropping half the load. The generator was turned off 138 min
after it was started. A natural decay period of 45 min was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting.

Figure 15a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test N (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

As shown in Figure 15a, there was an initial increase of CO to almost 220 μ L/L in the first 12 min after the generator was started. This rise is due to the rich operation upon cold engine

star t until the oil warms and the ECU transitions to the calibrated AFR fuel control. This initial
increase is observed at the start of each of the tests with Gen SO1. T he garage CO concentration reached a peak of around 300 μ L/L

, and the garage O 2 

### concentrati on dropped by 1.6 % to 19.4 % before the generator was stopped. The garage CO concentration after two hours is about 98 % lower than the concentration at two hours with unmod Gen X in Test B, which was about 13,000 μ L/L. In the first load cycle, as the oxygen dropped, the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank setting for the highest load in the load cycle, 5500 W. This difference increased in the subsequent load cycle as the oxygen level decreased. Comparing the performance of mod Gen X (F igure 14a) and Gen SO1 (Figure 15a) shows that, under similar 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load N2 O227 

### conditions (Configuration 1), Gen SO1 resulted in significantly lower CO concentrations at the
2 h mark.

Figure 15b CO concentrations in the house for Test N (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

As sh own in Figure 1 5b, t he concentration throughout the house was about 130 μ L/L when the generator was stopped after 114 min. There is a relatively even CO distribution among the rooms in spite of the HVAC fan being off. For the following 45 min in which the exhaust was allowed to naturally decay, CO continued to infiltrate from the garage into to the house, slightly increasing the house concentration to about 140 μ L/L before the concentration began dropping. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test B produced a pea k concentration of over 3500 μ L/L in the family room after 2 h. 0 50 100 150 200

0 30 60 90 120 150 180CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM28 

### Figure 1 5c Temperatures and AFR measured on Gen SO1 in Test N (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test N are shown in Figure 15c. With the except ion of two periods of AFR excursion after the engine warmed up ( i.e., after approximately 10 min), the engine operated at the calibrated AFR of 14.5 as the oxygen level dropped. The spike in AFR at the end of the test occurred when the engine was turned of f.

Figures 16 a and 16b show the results for Test F, which was a four hour test of unmod Gen X with Configuration 2 (garage bay door open, garage access door to house closed , and house
central HVAC fan off ). After the generator was stopped, the garage concentration was allowed to naturally decay for one hour before the garage and house were mechanically vented. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Muffler surface temp Cyl head temp
Shroud surface temp Oil sump temp Air

- fuel ratio29 

### Figure 16a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test F (unmod Gen X, Configuration 2)

The garage CO concentration peake d during each load cycle during the 1500 W load bank setting. The peak concentration rose slightly in each load cycle, reaching a maximum

concentration somewhat under 1500 μ L/L in the fourth load cycle. For this test, the garage was not instrumented with a low concentration CO analyzer, and the instrument uncertainty is large

relative to measured concentrations below 500 μ L/L

.

During this test, with the garage bay door open, the garage oxygen level decreased only slightly, down by 0.5 % to 20.5 %, and the delivered electrical output was consistent during each cycle, largely meeting the load bank setting with the exception of the 5500 W setting. 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O230 

### Figure 16b CO concentratio ns in the house for Test F (unmod Gen X, Configuration 2)

As shown in Figure 16b, the maximum house CO concentration was measured in the family room at just over 200 μ L/L about 15 min after the generator was stopped after a 4 h runtime. The master bedroom had the lowest peak concentration among all the rooms, reaching just over

150 μ L/L about 30 min after the generator was stopped.

Figures 17a, 1 7b, and 17c show the results for Test R, which was a four hour test of mod Gen X with the same test house configuration as used in Test F of unmod Gen X (Configuration 2). Mechanical venting was initiated right after the generator was stopped. 0 50 100 150 200 250

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CO(μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM31 

### Figure 17a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test R (mod Gen X, Configuration 2)

As seen in Figure 17a, the garage CO concentration was nominally steady at 30 μ L/L (though the uncertainty of the instrument is large relative to this level) , and the oxygen stayed nominally at ambient throughout the test. This is about a 98 % reduction in CO compared to the nearly

1500 μ L/L measured with unmod Gen X in Test F.

Th e delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the three highest loads in the load cycle, which occurred with no significant oxygen depletion. After this test, the unit was thoroughly inspected, including the wiring between the generator head and the 240-volt receptacle, but no anomalies were found. During UA’s development of this prototype, they
observed on several occasions that these wires and associated connector melted. 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O232 

### Figure 17b CO concentrations in the house for Test R (m od Gen X, Configuration 2)

The CO concentration throughout the house was nominally steady at 5 μ L/L in all rooms throughout the test (though the instrument uncertainty is large relative to this concentration). By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test F produced a maximum CO concentration in the family room at just over 200 μ L/L , corresponding to a reduction of around 98 % in Test R

.

Figure 1 7c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test R (mod Gen X, Configuration 2) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp

Muffler surface temp Air

- fuel ratio33 

### The AFR and temperatures measured on modGen X d uring Test R are shown in Figure 1 7c. During each load cycle, the engine primarily ran lean, with the AFR ranging from about 14.5 to 15.6. The spike in AFR at the end of the test corresponds to when the engine was turned off.

Figures 18a, 18b , and 1 8c sh ow the results for Test T, which was a three hour test of Gen SO1 with the same test house configuration as used in Test F and Test R of unmod Gen X and
mod GenX respectively (Configuration 2). The generator was stopped when a circuit breaker on
the 240-vol t receptacle tripped. Mechanical venting was initiated right after the generator was stopped.

Figure 18a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test T (Gen SO1, Configuration 2)

As shown in Figure 1 8a, there was an initial spike o f CO in the garage of over 300 μ L/L when the engine was started and as the oil warmed before operation transitioned to the calibrated AFR. The CO concentration then dropped and maintained a level of about 20 μ L/L throughout the test (though the uncertainty of the instrument is large re lative to this level). With the garage bay door open, the garage oxygen level stayed nominally at ambient. With the exception of the early peak, this CO concentration is over a 98 % reduction compared to the peak garage CO measured with unmod Gen X in Test F. Throughout the test, the delivered electrical output was consistent during each cycle, largely meeting the load bank setting with the exception of the 5500 W setting. Comparing the performance of mod Gen X (Figure 17a) and Gen SO1 (Figure 1 8a) shows that, for Configuration 2, both generators resulted in similar low CO concentrations after
the initial spike in Test T. 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load N2 O234 

### Figure 18b CO concentrations in the house for Test T (Gen SO1, Configuration 2)

As shown in Figure 18b, an initial spike of CO exceeding 50 μ L/L was measured in the family room about 25 min after the generator was started, but 5 min after that it dropped below 10 μ L/L and continued to drop for the remainder of the test. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test F produced a maximum CO concentration in the family room at just over 200 μ L/L.

Figure 1 8c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test T (Gen SO1, Configuration 2) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 30 60 90 120 150 180CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp Air

- fuel ratio35 

### The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test T are shown in Figure 1 8c. The engine operated at the calibrated AFR after the engine oil temperature warmed to about 70 ° 

### C.

After this series of tests was conducted, due to limitations in the test program resources that would not support continued testing of both prototypes, a decision was made to continue the testing only th e newer prototype Gen SO1 for drawing comparisons between performance of the prototype and stock generator.

Figures 19a, 1 9b, and 19c show the results for Test I, which was a four hour test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 3 (garage bay door closed , garage access door to house open 5 cm , and the
house central HVAC fan on). These conditions are similar to the three hour Test B with unmod
Gen X under Configuration 1 except for the HVAC fan status. Since the operation of HVAC fan primarily affects the airflow between rooms in the house and is not expected to significantly impact the airflow between the house and garage, this allows a comparison between the garage CO and oxygen levels in Tests I and B. After the generator was stopped, the building naturally
deca yed for one hour before the garage and house were mechanically vented.

Figure 19a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test I ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

Figure 19a shows that the concentration of CO in the ga rage reached a p eak of about 18,600 μ L/L and the concentration of O 2 

### in the garage had dropped by 3.7 % to 17.5 % when the generator was stopped

. It also shows that in the first load cycle the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied as the oxygen was approaching 19 %. As the oxygen continued to drop in the subsequent load cycles, the delivered power for these load points decreased further. These results are fairly similar to those in Te st B. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load N1 O236 

### Figure 19 b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test I ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

Figure 1 9c CO ( high range) concentrations in the house for Test I ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM37 

### Figures 19b and 19 c show the CO concentratio n in the rooms of the test house, as measured in the ‘ppm range’ (where the CO concentration plot plateaus at the instrument’s 2000 μ L/L limit)
and with the ‘high range’ CO instruments, respectively. The CO reached a peak concentration of around 10,500 μ L/ L in the family room , with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 8,000 μ L/L to 10,000 μ L/L. With the HVAC fan on in this test, there is a relatively more uniform distribution of CO compared to Test B in which the HVAC fan was off.

Figu res 20a, 2 0b, and 20c show the results for Test Z, which was a 4.75 h test of Gen SO1 with the noncat muffler (Configuration 3). The test ended when the generator ran out of fuel. (Note: this run time does not indicate a limit on potential run

- time as the tank was not full at the beginning of the test.) The test house configuration conditions are the same as that in the 4 h Test
I with unmod Gen X. They are also the same as that used in the 2 h Test N with Gen SO1 except that the HVAC fan was off in Test N and Gen SO1 had the catalyst

- installed muffler (referred to

as cat muffler) in Test N. Since the operation of the HVAC fan is not expected to significantly impact the airflow between the house and garage, the effect of the catalytic and non

- catalytic
muffl er on the resulting garage CO and oxygen levels between Tests Z and N (Configuration 3 and 1, respectively) up to the 2 h point can be seen. After the generator was stopped, the garage and house were mechanically vented.

Figure 20a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test Z ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 3)

As shown in Figure 20a, the CO concentration in the garage initially rose to about 470 μ L/L upon start, then lowered after the engine warmed up. It further increased and decr eased cyclically with each successive load cycle. By the end of the fourth load cycle, it had reached a nominal peak of 630 μ L/L and the oxygen dropped 1.6 % to 19.5%. This peak CO concentration is a 97 % reduction compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in Test I in which the garage CO reached about 18,600 μ L/L at the end of the fourth load cycle. 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O238 

### Figure 20a also shows that the delivered electrical output was progressively less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle as the oxygen dropped throughout the

test.

Figure 20 b CO concentrations in the house for Test Z ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 3)

As shown in Figure 20b, the CO concentration reached a peak of nominally 360 μ L/L at 4 h in the family room. There is a r elatively even distribution

, with all the rooms reaching at least

300 μ L/L , as would be expected with the HVAC fan on. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test I produced a peak CO concentration of around 10,600 μ L/L in the family room , with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 8,000 μ L/L to 10,000 μ L/L. 0 100 200 300 400 500

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM39 

### Figure 2 0c Temperatures and AFR measured on Gen SO1 in Test Z ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 3)

The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test Z are shown in Figure 20c. With the exception of a few short periods of AFR excursion after the engine warmed up, the engine operated at the calibrated AFR of about 14.5. The spike in AFR at the end of the test corresponds to when the engine was turned off.

Engine operation was, by an d large, comparable between Test Z and Test N, which were with
Gen SO1 and the cat muffler respectively. Therefore, the garage CO concentrations at the same time in each test can be compared to get an indication of the catalyst’s performance in further lowering the CO emissions. At 2 h into Test Z, the garage CO concentration was 500 μ L/L and the oxygen was 19.7 %. By comparison, at the end of the 2 h Test N, t he garage CO concentration reached a peak of around 300 μ L/L and the garage O 2 

### concentration dropped to 19.4 %. Therefore, the CO concentrations were approximately 40 % lower for Test Z with the catalyst than for Test N with the EMS alone. An unknown portion of the difference may be due
to differences in ambient or other test conditions.

Figures 2 1a a nd 21b show the results for the two and a quarter hour test of unmod Gen X, Test J, in Configuration 4 (garage bay door closed, garage access door to house closed , and the house
central HVAC fan on). After the generator was stopped, the garage was mechanically vented. For this test, the load cycle was applied in reverse order to that shown in Table 1. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp Muffler surface temp Air

- fuel ratio40 

### Figure 21a CO (high range) and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test J ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 4)

As shown in Figure 2 1a, at the time the generator was stopped, the garage CO concentration reached a peak of over 21,300 μ L/L and the oxygen dropped by 4.7 % to about 16 %. It also shows that in the first load cycle, the delivered electrical output matched the load bank settings with the exception of the 5500 W setting. However, during the third load cycle, as the oxygen
lev el dropped significantly, the generator’s ability to meet the load was severely compromised and the test was ended due to poor generator operation.

Figure 21 b CO concentrations in the house for Test J ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 4) 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM41 

### As shown in Figure 2 1b, t he CO reached a peak concentration of about 1,800 μ L/L in the family room, with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 1,200 μ L/L to 1,650 μ L/L.

Figures 22a, 2 2b, and 22c show the results for a six hour test of Gen SO1, Test W, with the same test house configuration as used in Test J of unmod Gen X (Configuration 4). The load cycle was applied with the same profile as that in Table 1, with the load going from low to high. After the generator was stopped, the garage was mechanically vented.

Figure 22a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in th e garage and measured load for Test W ( Gen SO1, Configuration 4)

As shown in Figure 22a, the CO concentration in the garage initially rose to 680 μ L/L, and then decreased after the engine warmed up. In the fourth load cycle, it reached a peak of about

960 μ L/L and the oxygen lowered by 2.8 % to 18.2 %.

At two and one quarter hours into this test, the garage CO concentration was nominally

640 μ L/L . Although the tests are not entirely comparable due to the opposite loading pattern, this CO concentration is a 97 % reduction compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in Test J in which the garage CO was over 21,300 μ L/L at the same time during the tes t.

In the first load cycle, the delivered electrical output exceeded the load bank settings except for the two highest loads. In the subsequent load cycles, as the oxygen level dropped, the delivered load was less than the load bank settings for the thr ee highest loads in the cycle. 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O242 

### Figure 22b CO concentrations in the house for Test W ( Gen SO1, Configuration 4)

As shown in Figure 2 2b, t he CO reached a peak concentration of about 145 μ L/L in the family room, with peak concentrations in the other rooms relatively evenly distributed just below that,

down to 100 μ L/L. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test J produced a peak CO concentration of over 1,800 μ L/L in the family room after 2 h of o peration.

Figure 2 2c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test W ( Gen SO1, Configuration 4) 0 100 200 300 400

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp Air

- fuel ratio43 

### The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test W are shown in Figure 22c. After the engine warmed up, the engine operated at the calibrated AFR for the n ext 30 min. There were then occasional periods of lean as well as rich operation, with most of them occurring during the transition between the load cycles when the load bank was switched from 5500 W to no load. The spike in AFR at the end of the test corresponds to when the engine was turned off.

Figures 2 3a and 23b show the results for the two hour test of unmod Gen X, Test D, in Configuration 5 (garage bay door closed, garage access door to house closed , and the house
central HVAC fan off)

. These conditions are the same as the two and a quarter hour Test J with unmod Gen X except in that test the HVAC fan was on. Since the operation of the HVAC fan is not expected to significantly impact the airflow between the house and garage, especially with the house door closed, this allows some degree of comparison to be made for the resulting garage CO and oxygen levels between Tests D and J. After the generator was stopped, the garage was mechanically vented.

Figure 23a CO (high range) and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test D ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 5)

Figure 23a shows the concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of almost 23,000 μ L/L

, and the concentration of O 2 

### in the garage dropped by 5.0 % to below 16 % when the generator was stopped. It also shows that in the first load cycle the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied as the oxygen was approaching 18 %. As the oxygen continued to drop in the subsequent load cycle, the delivered power for these load points decreased further. The results are similar to those in Test J desp ite the reversal of the load cycled pattern in Test J. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O244 

### Figure 23b CO concentrations in the house for Test D ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 5)

Figure 23b shows the CO reached a peak concentration of almost 1660 μ L/L in the family room with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 600 μ L/L to 1400 μ L/L. This is a comparable peak CO concentration to the 1670 μ L/L measured in the family room at the 2 h point in Test J. When comparing the other room time course profiles with those at the 2 h point in Test J, it can be observed that the mixing due to the operation of the HVAC fan made the most difference in the master bedroom. This effect is not consistent during all tests as other factors affecting mixing (such as temperature) differ from test to test.

Figures 24a, 2 4b, and 24c show the results for Test AH, which was a five hour test of Gen SO1
with the noncat muffler and the same conditions of the test house as used in the 2 h Test D with unmod Gen X (Configuration 5). These conditions are also the same as that used in the 6 h Test W with Gen SO1 except that in Test W Gen SO1 had the cat muffler and the HVAC fan was on. Since the operation of the HVAC fan is not expected to significantly impact the airflow between the house and garage, this allows some degree of comparison to be made for the resulting garage CO and oxygen levels between Tests AH and W. After the generator was stopped, the exhaust decayed naturally for 45 min and then the garage and hou se were mechanically vented. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM45 

### Figure 24a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AH ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 5)

As shown in Figure 24a, the CO concentration in the garage initially rose to nominally 670 μ L/L upon start, then continued to climb until it reached a nominal peak of 2300 μ L/L and oxygen lowered 3.5 % to 17.8 % in the garage during the second load cycle. This CO concentration is a 90 % reduction compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in Test D in which the CO in the garage at the end of the second load cycle was almost 23,000 μ L/L.

Figure 2 4a also shows that in the first load cycle the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle. During the sub sequent load cycles the delivered power degraded even further as the garage oxygen approached and then dropped
below 18 %. 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N2 HI

- CO N3 CO Delivered Load O246 

### Figure 24b CO concentrations in the house for Test AH ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 5)

As shown in Figure 2 4b, t he CO reached a peak concentration of about 470 μ L/L throughout the house, with even distribution among the rooms even though the HVAC fan was off. At 2 h into this test, the CO in the house was about 180 μ L/L. By comparison, the 2 h operation of unmod Gen X in Test D produced a peak CO concentration of almost 1660 μ L/L in the family room, with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 600 μ L/L to 1400 μ L/L.

Figure 2 4c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test AH ( Gen SO1 noncat, Configuration 5) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp

Muffler surface temp Air

- fuel ratio47 

### The AFR and temperatures measured on no ncat Gen SO1 during Test AH are shown in Figure

24 c. After the engine warmed up, it operated at the calibrated AFR for the next 30 min, but then had periods of off-design operation throughout the remainder of the test. The spike in AFR at the end of the test corresponds to when the engine was turned off.

Since engine performance during the first 40 min in Test AH was similar to that in Test W with Gen SO1 and the cat muffler, a comparison of each test’s garage CO concentration at that point in time sugges ts the prototype’s catalyst is providing about a 50 % reduction in the CO emissions compared with that provided by the EMS alone. At 40 min, the garage CO concentrations were

about 410 μ L/L and 820 μ L/L in Tests W and AH, respectively. This reduction is so mewhat larger than the 40 % reduction observed when comparing the garage CO concentrations in Tests
Z and N.

Figures 2 5a and 25b show the results for Test G, a 2 h test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 6 (garage bay door open, garage access door to house open 5 cm, and the house central HVAC fan on). After the generator was stopped, the garage was mechanically vented.

Figure 25a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test G ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 6)

As shown in Figure 2 5a, t he CO in the garage peaked at around 1100 μ L/L during the second load cycle (though the instrument uncertainty is large relative to the concentrations). With the garage bay door open, the oxygen level decreased 0.5 % to about 20.5 %. Throughout the test,

t he delivered electrical output met or exceeded the load bank settings. 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O248 

### Figure 25b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test G ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 6)

Figure 25b shows the CO reached a peak concentration of about 220 μ L/L in the family room, with slightly lower peak concentration s in the other rooms of around 190 μ L/L to 200 μ L/L.

Figure 26a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test U ( Gen SO1, Configuration 6) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O249 

### Figures 26a, 26b, and 26c show the results for Test U, which was a 2 h test of Gen SO1 with the

same conditions of the test house as used in the 2 h Test G with unmod Gen X (Configuration 6). After the generator was stopped, the exhaust decayed naturally for 30 min and then the garage
and house were me chanically vented.

As shown in Figure 26a, after an initial spike to nominally 260 μ L/L of CO in the garage shortly after the generator was started, it dropped and maintained a level below 30 μ L/L throughout the test. After the initial spike, this CO concentration reflects about a 97 % reduction compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in Test G in which the CO in the garage ranged from around

300 μ L/L to 1100 μ L/L for portions of the second load cycle. With the garage bay door open, the oxygen level stayed nominally at ambient.

Throughout the test, the delivered electrical output met or exceeded the load bank settings with the exception of the highest load setting.

Figure 26b CO concentrations in the house for Test U ( Gen SO1, Configuration 6)

As shown in Figure 2 6b, t he CO concentration in the family room initially spiked to abou t
90 μ L/L and then dropped to an even distribution in all rooms of the house around 30 μ L/L with

a continual decline to below 20 μ L/L before mechanical venting was initiated. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test G produced a nominal peak CO concentration of 220 μ L/L in the family room with a minimum peak concentration in the other rooms just below 190 μ L/L. 0 50 100 150 200

0 30 60 90 120 150CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM50 

### Figure 2 6c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test U ( Gen SO1, Configuration 6)

The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test U are shown in Fig ure 26 c. The engine operated at the calibrated AFR after the engine oil temperature warmed to nominally

70 ° 

### C. The spike in AFR at the end of the test corresponds to when the engine was turned off.

Figures 2 7a and 27b show the results for Test K, which was a 2 h 10 min test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 7 (garage bay door and garage access door to house open, and house central
HVAC fan off) . For this test, the load cycle was applied in reverse order to that shown in Table
1. The test house conditions fo r this test are similar to the 2 h Test G with unmod Gen X except in that test the HVAC fan was on. Since the operation of the HVAC fan is not expected to have a significant impact on the airflow between the house and garage, this allows some degree of

co mparison to be made for the resulting garage CO and oxygen levels between Tests K and G. After the generator was manually stopped, the garage and house were mechanically vented. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120 150AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp Air

- fuel ratio51 

### Figure 27a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Te st K (unmod Gen X Configuration 7)

As shown in Figure 27a, the CO in the garage peaked at about 680 μ L/L. This compares to the

1100 μ L/L reported in Test G with unmod Gen X that was measured with a high range CO analyzer. With the garage bay door open, th e garage oxygen level decreased to about 20.4 %. Throughout the test, the delivered electrical output exceeded the load bank settings with the exception of the highest load setting.

Figure 27b CO concentrations in the house for Test K (unmod Gen X Configuration 7) 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) T1 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM52 

### Figure 27b shows the CO reached a peak concentration of 320 μ L/L in the family room with peak concentrations in the other rooms just below that value, nominally 260 μ L/L when mechanical venting was initiated.

Figures 28a, 2 8b, and 28c show the results for Test V, which was a 2 h 15 min test of Gen SO1 with the noncat muffler and the same test house configuration as used in the 2 h Test K with unmod Gen X (Configuration 7). To match the reverse order load profile used Test K, the load cycle for this test was also applied in reverse order to that shown in Table 1. Th e test house conditions for this test are also the same as that used in the 2 h Test U with Gen SO1 except that
in Test U Gen SO1 had the cat muffler and the house central HVAC fan was on. After the generator was stopped, the garage and house were mechanically vented. D ue to a software error

, about 15 min of data were not recorded approximately 1 h into the test.

Figure 28a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test V (noncat Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

As shown in Figure 2 8a, afte r an initial spike to nominally 430 μ L/L of CO in the garage shortly after the generator was started, it dropped to a level near 50 μ L/L before rising to about 80 μ L/L during the brief third load cycle. Note that the missing data included the high load portion of the
second load cycle and a peak during this time cannot be ruled out. Excluding the initial peak of Test V, this is a reduction of 85 % to 88 % compared to that measured with unmod Gen X in

Test K , in which the CO in the garage ranged from 350 μ L/L to 650 μ L/L.

With the garage bay door open, the garage oxygen level stayed nominally at ambient. Throughout the test, the delivered electrical output met or exceeded the load bank settings, with the exception of a slight drop at the highest setting during the third load cycle. 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O253 

### Figure 28b CO concentrations in the house for Test V (noncat Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

As shown in Figure 2 8b, t he CO concentration in the family room initially spiked to 135 μ L/L and then dropped to a uniform concentration throughout the house o f around 75 μ L/L, with a

continual decline to 50 μ L/L , at which point the mechanical venting was initiated. With the exception of the first 25 min of the test, the distribution was very uniform despite the HVAC fan being off. By comparison, unmod Gen X in Test K produced a less uniform house distribution, with a peak CO concentration of nominally 320 μ L/L in the family room and concentrations in the other rooms just below that, down to 260 μ L/L. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM54 

### Figure 2 8c Temperatures and AFR measured in Test V (noncat Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

The AFR and temperatures measured on Gen SO1 during Test V are shown in Figure 28 c. The engine operated at the calibrated AFR after the engine oil temperatur e warmed to about 70 ° 

### C.

E ngine performance in this test was similar to that in Test U with Gen SO1 and the cat muffler

, with the caveats that the loads were applied in opposite order and some data were missed in Test V. A comparison of the 50 μ L/L garag e CO concentration in this test with the 20 μ L/L in Test U indicates the prototype’s catalyst is providing about up to a 60 % reduction in CO emissions from that provided by the EMS alone. This somewhat larger difference than found when comparing Tests Z t o N and Tests AH to W could be due to changes in infiltration rates or other
factors.



## Summary of Garage Tests

A series of tests were conducted in which portable gasoline- powered electric generators were operated in the attached garage of the NIST manufact ured test house. The data include CO
emission and O 2 

### depletion in the garage, CO migration into the test house and engine operation parameters. A summary of the test results is provided in Table 4. These tests document
reductions of 85 % to 98 % in CO concentrations due to emissions from two modified, prototype
low CO -emission portable generators compared to an unmodified generator. The second prototype (Gen SO1) resulted in lower CO concentrations during similar tests with the garage bay door closed while both prototypes resulted in low CO concentrations during tests with the garage bay door open. Note that these results apply to the specific units tested and that other units, modifications, and test conditions may produce different results. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 30 60 90 120AFRTemperature (oC)

Time (min) Engine

- out exhaust temp Cyl head temp Oil sump temp Air

- fuel ratio55 

### Table 4 Summar y of Garage T est R esults

Generator Test

ID Garage b ay door, house door,
HVAC Test
Duration (h) Peak Garage
CO
Concentration
( 

### μ L/L) % Reduction in peak garage CO
relative to
unmod GenX Peak CO
concentration
in house
( 

### μ L/L)

unmod
GenX B Closed,

open , off 3 19,500 (12,800 at 2 h) NA 6500

modGenX O Closed,

open , off 4.5 3000 (1,400 at 3 h) 93 800

SO1 N Closed,

open , off 2 300 9 8 14 0

unmod
GenX F Open

, closed, off 4 1, 5 00 NA 200

modGenX R Open

, closed, off 4 30 9 8 5

SO1 T Open

, closed, off 3 300 (20 afte r initial spike) 98 50

unmod
GenX I Closed,

open , on 4 18, 6 00 NA 10,600

SO1 with

noncat
muffler Z Closed,

open, on 4.75 6 3 0 97 360

unmod
GenX J Closed, closed, on 2.25 21,300 NA 1,800

SO1 W Closed, closed, on 6 960 (640 at 2.25 h) 97 145

unmod
GenX D Closed, closed, off 2 23,000 NA 1660

SO1 with

noncat
muffler AH Closed, closed, off 5 2,300 90 470

unmod
GenX G Open, open,

on 2 1,100 NA 220

SO1 U Open, open,

on 2 260 (< 30 after initial spike) 97 90

unmod
GenX K Open, open,
off > 2 6 8 0 NA 320

SO1 w ith

noncat
muffler V Open, open,
off > 2 430 (50 to 80 after initial spike) 85 to 88 135



### Notes: Unmod Gen X is an unmodified (stock) generator with a carbureted engine. Mod Gen X is a modified (prototype) generator with electronic fuel injection, an engine control unit and a catalytic converter. Gen SO1 is a modified (prototype) generator with electronic fuel injection, an engine control unit (different than mod Gen X), and a catalytic converter (not used in ‘noncat’ configuration). % reduction in peak gar age CO concentration excludes initial spike.56 

## Simulation

This section of the report describes the CONTAM model of the test house used to extend the
measurement results to other scenarios , ( e.g. weather conditions and house configuration. The primary object ive of these modeling efforts was to examine the potential performance of the prototype generators under a wider range of conditions than studied during the experiments at the
test house. This section starts with a detailed description of the CONTAM model of the test house, then describes a number of model validation cases, and finally presents simulation results for a broad range of cases. The purpose of the model validation effort was to establish the ability of the CONTAM model to predict CO levels in the garage and the house and to develop an
estimate of the uncertainty of these predictions relative to the measured values.



## Modeling Method

The simulations in this study used CONTAM (Walton and Dols 2010), a multizone IAQ and ventilation model developed in the Engineering Laboratory (EL) at NIST. The multizone approach is implemented by constructing a building model as a network of elements describing the flow paths ( e.g. HVAC ducts, doors, windows, cracks, etc.) between the zones (primarily rooms) of a building. The network nodes represent the zones, which are modeled with a hydrostatically varying pressure, and uniform temperature and pollutant concentration within
each zone . After calculating the airflow between zones and the outdoors, zone pollutant concentrations are calculated by applying mass balance equations to the zones. CONTAM has frequently been used to study a variety of residential IAQ issues in past simulation studies (Emmerich and Persily 1996, Emmerich et al. 2005). For more detail on the CONTAM model,
see the user ’s manual which is available online along with the latest version of the CONTAM program ( www.bfrl.nist.gov/IAQanalysis ).

The graphical representation of the main floor of the test hous e as it appears in CONTAM is shown in Figure 29 . The test house crawlspace and attic were included in the model but are not shown. The layout of the test house within CONTAM and the division of the zones were defined to represent the actual floorplan of th e test house as seen in Figure 2, therefore each zone typically represents one room although the kitchen, living, dining and family room spaces are combined into a single CONTAM zone , referred to as zone LFK, due to the lack of any partitions separating th em

.

Figure 29 CONTAM Sketchpad Representation of Test House Garage

LFK MBR BR2

BR357 

### Nabinger and Persily (2008) and Nabinger et al. (2010) describe a study of ventilation rates and energy consumption in the test house before and after a retrofit effort to improve the tightne ss of both the building envelope and air distribution systems. Th at study included fan pressurization tests of both the envelope and air distribution systems, measurements of HVAC system air flows and tracer gas decay tests of air change rates. A CONTAM ai rflow model of the building was created and the predicted infiltration rates agreed well with the measured values over a range of weather and system operation conditions. Tables 5 and 6 list the air leakage values (in terms of the effective leakage area (E LA) at a reference pressure difference of 4 Pa) and HVAC system airflows from Nabinger et al. (2010). The CONTAM model used a detailed duct model for the HVAC system and, as such, the modeled flow values varied somewhat from the measured values
in Table 6. Also, a duct leak of about 30 L/s was included in the belly. The belly, which is located between the floor of the living space and the crawlspace, contains the supply duct work
within an insulated membrane.

Table 5 Air Leakage Values

ELA at 4 Pa

Airf low path Post

- retrofit Living space envelope Exterior wall 0.13 cm 2 /m 2
Ceiling wall interface 0.73 cm 2 /m

Floor wall interface 1.12 cm 2 /m

Window #1 5.00 cm 2

Window #2 1.94 cm 2

Corner interface 0.73 cm 2 /m

Exterior doors 18.7 cm 2
Living space t o belly 1.43 cm 2 /m 2
Interior airflow paths Interior walls 2 cm 2 /m 2

Bedroom doorframe 410 cm 2
Open interior doors 2 m x 0.9 m

Bathroom doorframe 330 cm 2

Interior doorframe 250 cm 2

Closet doorframe 4.6 cm 2

Attic Attic floor 2 cm 2 /m 2

Roof vents 0.135 m 2 /each

Eave vents 296 cm 2 /m Crawl space and belly Exterior walls of crawl space 25 cm 2 /m 2
Rear crawl space vents 323 cm 2
Front crawl space vents 465 cm 2
Crawl space access door 206 cm 2
Crawl space to “belly” 181 cm 2

Duct leak into be lly 58 cm 258 

### Table 6 HVAC System Supply Flows

Airflow rate L/s

Room Vent No. Post

- retrofit
Family 1 54 Family 2 44

Kitchen 3 39 Dining 4 41

Bath2 5 40

Bed3 6 62

Bed2 7 21 Living 8 27 Living 9 28

Bed1 10 29

Bed1 11 25

Bath1 12 17

Ut ility 13 24

Total 450



### The CONTAM airflow model described by Nabinger et al. 2010 was modified to add the attached garage, including leakage paths from the garage to ambient and to the house. The modeled garage leakage was based on fan pressurizations tests conducted in April, July and August 2008 with analysis following the methods described by Emmerich et al. 2003.



### Garage Pressurization Tests
Additional pressurization tests were conducted on the house to measure the leakage of the house, garage, and the house- garage (HG) interface

. The pressurization tests were generally conducted according to ASTM Standard E 779-10 (ASTM 2010). Three configurations were used on the test house as shown in Figure 30:

1. Blower door (or pressurization fan) in the living space with the garage door open.

2. Blower door in the garage access door with the living space doors open.

3. Blower door in the living space with the HG interface door open.

In the figure and the analysis, each building is represented as two zones; a house zone (H ) and a

garage (G ) zone separated by the house- garage interface. Arrows indicate the location of the
blower door for each test and the direction of the airflow from the blower door fan . The pressure difference, ∆ P HG 

### , is the pressure difference across the h ouse- garage interface. The pressure differences across the living space exterior envelope for each test configuration are designated as

∆ P H 

### , while ∆ P G 

### designates the pressure differences across the garage exterior envelope.59 

### Figure 30 Test house and garage fan pressurization configurations

For each blower door test, measured airflows were recorded at multiple pressures ranging from 10 Pa to 70 Pa (not all spaces were pressurized to 70 Pa). The airflows and pressures were then fit to a power law equation : Q = C ( ∆ P) n 

### . For configuration 1, depressurizing the living space (H), while the garage door is open, effectively changes the garage space to an ambient zone. The house zone is bounded by the exterior envelope surfaces of the living space, H, and the HG
interface surface. The reverse is performed for the garage in test 2, in which the garage zone is bounded by the exterior envelope surfaces of the garage, G, and the HG interface surface. Finally, in configuration 3, the combined house and garage spaces are pressur ized.

As described in Emmerich et al. 2003, calculations for the test house are based on continuity, effective leakage area, and power law orifice equations. Applying the law of conservation of mass and the power law orifice equation yields a three by three matrix of airflow rates:

HG H 

### QQ n PCQ +=∆⋅= 1 11 

### (4)

HG G 

### QQ n PCQ +=∆⋅= 2 22 

### (5)

HG 

### QQ n PCQ +=∆⋅= 3 33 

### (6) Symbol Legend for Figures and Equations in this section

H – exterior envelope of house (living space) H’ – house exterior envelope and HG interface combined (H+HG) G
– exterior envelope of garage G’ – garage exterior envelope and HG interface combined (G+HG) HG
– HG interface Q # or L 

### – Airflow rate from blower door in configuration # or for surface designation (L) ∆ P # or L 

### – Pressure difference across a surface C # or L



### – flow coefficient for Q # or L60 

### Here, C 1 

### and n 1 

### are the flow parameters obtained from the curve fit to the data for configuration 1 (tested twice in depressurization mode only), C 2 

### and n 2 

### are obtained from the data for configuration 2 (tested 3 times in depressurization mode and once in pressurization mode), and
C 3 

### and n 3 

### are obtained from the data for configuration 3 (tested twice in depressurization mode only). With three equations and three unknowns, this matrix can be solved for Q H 

### , Q G 

### , and Q HG 

### , all at a specific reference pressure across surfaces H, G, and HG. Using these three airflow rates, the zone envelope and HG interface ELA’s are calculated using the effective leakage area equation (ASHRAE 2009) :



###       ∆⋅ =

ρ P Q ELA
2

(7)

Table 7 Fan Pressurization Test R esults

C 1 

### (m 3 

### /h·Pa n 

### ) 2 90

C 2 

### (m 3 

### /h·Pa n 

### ) 157

C 3 

### (m 3 

### /h·Pa n 

### ) 296

n 1 

### 0.61

n 2 

### 0.56

n 3 

### 0.65

ACH 50,H 

### (h - 1 

### ) 11.8

ACH 50, G 

### (h -1 

### ) 15.5

ELA 4,H 

### (cm 2 

### ) 574

ELA 4,G 

### (cm 2 

### ) 210

ELA 4,HG 

### (cm 2 

### ) 157

The total leakage from the house to the garage (ELA4,HG) of 157 cm 2 

### was equal to the average total leakage from the house to the garage for the five houses tested by Emmerich et al. (20 03). The effective leakage areas for G and HG from Table 7 were distributed vertically along the walls of the garage and on the ceiling in the CONTAM model.

Temperatures were measured in most of the individual rooms, garage, crawlspace and attic of the

te st house during the tests and used as input to the model. Temperatures in the LFK zone were based on an average of the living room, family room, and kitchen measurements. Both BR2 and

BR3 temperatures were based on measured BR3 temperatures as there was no measurement available for BR2 . Temperatures in the Utility zone were based on the adjacent family room
temperature except when the door to the garage was open in which case they were based on an average of the temperature in the LFK zone and the garage. Temperatures in other zones without measurements such as bathrooms were based on an average of all room ( i.e., not including garage, crawlspace or attic) measurements.61 

## Model Validation

This section describes the model validation efforts that were carried ou t to establish the ability of the CONTAM model to predict CO levels in the garage and the house and to develop an estimate of its uncertainty of these predictions relative to the measured values. A number of past studies ( e.g ., Emmerich and Nabinger (2001) and Emmerich et al. (2004) ) have also examined the issue of multizone IAQ model validation as reviewed in Emmerich (2001).



### Statistical Evaluation of Model Predictions
As part of this validation effort, predicted CO concentrations were compared with measured
values from a series of experiments in the test house. The predictions and measurements were compared using ASTM D5157 Standard Guide for Statistical Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality Models, which provides quantitative and qualitative tools for evaluation of IAQ models (ASTM 2008). It provides guidance in choosing data sets for model evaluation and focuses on evaluating the accuracy of indoor concentrations predicted by a model. As part of the comparison of CONTAM predictions to measurements of CO and O 2 

### concentrations, the ASTM D5157 suggested criteria were applied. The data sets collected during this study meet the ASTM D5157 criteria for model evaluation, as they are entirely independent of the data used to develop the model and to estimate model inpu ts. Also, the data are of sufficient detail to evaluate the CONTAM predictions of individual zonal CO concentrations.

ASTM D5157 provides three statistical tools for evaluating the accuracy of IAQ model predictions and two additional statistical tools for assessing bias. Values for these statistical criteria are provided to indicate whether the model performance is adequate. The tools for assessing agreement between predictions and measurements , and the criteria for model evaluation, include:

1) The correlati on coefficient of predictions and measurements should be 0.9 or greater.

2) The line of regression between the predictions and measurements should have a slope between 0.75 and 1.25 and an intercept less than 25 % of the average measured
concentration.

3) The normalized mean square error (NMSE) should be less than 0.25. The NMSE is
calculated as: 

# ∑

= 

### −= N

i po oipi 

### CCCC NMSE

1 2 

### 2/)( (8)

where C p 

### is the predicted concentration and C
o 

### is the observed concentration, and the over- bar represents an average over the N data points during the test period for each test case.

ASTM D5157 also provides two statistical measures of bias with values for judging adequate model performance. These measures of bias include:

1) Normalized fractional bias (FB) of the mean concentrations. Fractional bias should be 0.25 or
lower and is calculated as: 

# ( )

opop CCCC FB +−= /)(2 

### (9)

2) Fractional bias based on the variance (FS) which should be 0.5 or lower. FS is calculated as:62 

# ( ) 2 2 2 2 

### 2( ) / p p o o 

### FS 

## σ σ σ σ =− + (1 0)

where σ p 

### is the standard deviation of the predicted concentrations and σ o 

### is the standard
deviation of the observed concentrations.



### Testing Configurations
As previously discussed in the Garage Test Results section and a s part of the model validation effort, t est ing was conducted under seven different test house configurations to evaluate their impacts on the ability to predict the build-up of CO in the garage and its transport into the different rooms in the house. These configurations included two different garage bay door positions (fully closed or open nominally 0.6 m), two connecting door positions between the garage and the house (fully closed or open nominally 5 cm ), and two house central heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HV AC ) fan settings (on or off). When the garage bay door was open, there was also a vertical opening of approximately 0.15 m at the top of the bay door. All internal house doors were kept open throughout all validation tests and model analyses

.

Table 8 includes a summary of the v alidation tests conducted including information on the generator tested, the test house configuration (door positions and fan status), a test identification code, the date the test was conducted, the average ambient temperature and wind speed , and the
CO a nalyzers used . The validation tests in Table 8 with Gen SO1 were included in the garage
test results section , but those with Gen B were used exclusively for model validation

.63 

### Table 8 Model Validation Tests Conducted

Generator Garage bay

door Garage to ho use entry door HVAC
fan Date Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Load CO analyzers in

garage CO analyzers
in house

B Closed Open OFF 10/8/08 18.4 4.5 2.5
kW N1, T1 N2, N3

B Open Open OFF 10/23/08

a.m. 8.8 2.2 5 kW N1, T1 N2, N3

B Closed Closed ON 10/ 23/08

p.m. 13.1 3.8 5 kW N1, T1 N2, N3

SO1 cat Closed Open OFF 04/01/10 19.9 6.3 Cyclic N2, N3 N1, R1

SO1 cat Open Open ON 04/22/10 20.4 7.8 Cyclic N2, N3 N1, R1

SO1 cat Closed Closed ON 04/29/10 17.8 9.5 Cyclic N2, N3 N1, R1

SO1 with noncat
muffler Closed Closed OFF 05/13/10 15.6 6.5 Cyclic N2, N3 N1, R164 

## RESULTS **OF MODEL VALIDATION**

As shown in Table 8, seven validation cases were simulated under a variety of conditions between October 2008 and May 2010. The tests consisted of operating one of t he generators in the attached garage and measuring the concentrations in the house and garage for two to six hours.



### Case #1

In the first val idation case, Gen B was operate d with a nominal load of 2.5 kW for 2 h in the garage with the garage bay door closed, house entry door open and the HVAC system
off. Based on the shed test results and the fact that the O 2 

### in the garage did not drop below about 19 % during this test, a constant CO emission rate of 760 g/h and a constant
O 2 

### consumption rate of 4140 g/h we re applied in the simulations of this case . These
values are based on the average shed test results plotted on Fig ures 8a and 8b for O 2 

### at 19
% or above.

The observed and predicted CO and O 2 

### concentrations for the garage zone and the LFK
zone in the hou se are shown in Figure 31. Table 9 shows average observed and predicted
zone CO concentrations and percent differences

, along with the ASTM D5157 statistical parameters (described previously) calculated for the zone average concentrations. The suggested AS TM D5157 statistical criteria were evaluated for overall zone average concentrations for the entire testing period for all cases. The columns of Table 9 (and subsequent tables) include the zone average observed concentration (C
o 

### ), average predicted concent ration (C p 

### ), standard deviation of observed concentrations ( σ o 

### ), standard deviation of predicted concentrations ( σ p 

### ), correlation coefficient (R), regression slope (m), regression intercept divided by the average observed concentration (b/C
o 

### ), normalized mean square error (NMSE), fractional bias of the mean concent rations (FB), and fractional bias based on the variance (FS). The average concentration in the bottom row of the tables is a linear average of the five zone concentrations.65 

### Figure 31 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentrations for Case #1 (Note s : Plotted house concentration is from the LFK zone for Figures 31 through 37. The x -axis shows clock time for Figures 31 through 37.)

Table 9 Statistical parameters for Case #1 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p %
diff

GAR 2802 3066

- 265 9

LFK 435 414 21

- 5

MBR 307 337

- 30 10

Bed2 308 383

- 75 24

Bed3 289 369

- 81 28

Average | % diff erence | 15

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) N MSE FB FS

Room Average
Concentrations 828 914 1 100 1 200 1.00 1.09 1.5 0. 02 0.10 0.27



### The bold values in T able 9 are those that me e t the ASTM suggested criteria. Based on the statistical parameters, this case exhibits excellent agreement between measure ments and predictions. Specifically, the values for R, m, b/Co, NMSE, FS and FB calculated for the average zone concentrations all meet the ASTM D5157 suggested limits. Additionally, 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

14:02 14:31 15:00 15:28 15:57 16:26O2(%)CO (μL/L) Garage CO (observed) Garage CO (predicted) House CO (observed) House CO (predicted) Garage O2 (observed) Garage O2 (predicted)66 

### the average of the absolute percent differences between the zone values o f C
o 

### and C p 

### was 15 %.



### Case # 2
Case # 2 involved operation of Gen B in the garage with the bay door open, the house entry door open and the HVAC system fan off. A constant nominal load of 5 kW was applied for this case. Based on the shed test results and the fact that the O 2 

### in the garage did not drop below 20.8 % during this test, a constant CO emission rate of 1090 g/h (corresponding to the highest O 2 

### point during the shed testing [see Fig 6a] ) and a constant
O 2 

### consumption rate of 5640 g/h (see Fig 6b) were applied to the simulations.

The observed and predicted concentrations for garage zone and the LFK zone in the house are shown in Figure 32, and the calculated D5157 statistical parameters are shown
in Table 10. Based on the stat istical parameters, t he agreement between measurements and predictions was not as good as for Case #1. Specifically, only the values for R and

FB calculated for the average zone concentrations meet the ASTM D5157 suggested
limits while m , b/Co, NMSE, and FS fall outside the li mits. Also , the average of the absolute percent differences between the zone values of C
o 

### and C p 

### , i.e. , 24 %, was worse than Case 1

. This larger average value was driven primarily by a large difference in the

garage zone , though smaller differences are see n in the house zones. One possible reason for poorer agreement is the lack of shed test data for an O 2 

### level above 20.5 % (see Figure 8 a).

Figure 32 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentrations for Case # 2 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

10:19 11:24 12:28O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (predicted) House CO (Observed) House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)67 

### Table 10 Statistical parameters for Case # 2 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p % diff

GAR 329 470

- 142 43

LFK 96 61 34

- 36

MBR 55 49 6

- 11

Bed2 73 52 21

- 28

Bed3 50 51

- 1 2

Average | % difference | 24

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

Room Average
Concentrations 120 1 37 118 1 86 0.99 1. 57 -43 0.26 0.1 9 1.0



### Case # 3
Case # 3 involved operation of Gen B in the garage with the bay door closed , the house entry door closed and the HVAC system fan on. A constant nominal load of 5 kW was applied for this case. Based on average values from the shed test results in Figure 8, a constant O 2 

### consumption rate of 5940 g/h was applied and the CO emission rate w as dependent on the predicted O 2 

### level per the relationship in Table 11.

Table 11 O 2 

### dependent CO emission rate for Gen B

O 2 

### level (%) CO emission (g/h)

O 2 

### >20 1370

19<O 2 

### <20 2070

18<O 2 

### <19 3000

17< O 2 

### <18 31 5 0

O 2 

### <17 2140

The observed and predicted transient concentrations for the garage zone and the LFK
zone in the house are shown in Figure 33 , and the D5157 statistical parameters calculated for the zone average concentrations are shown in Table 12 . Based on the statistical parameters, this case resulted in agreement between measurements and predictions
similar to that seen in Case 2. Specifically, the values for R and b/Co calculated for the comparison of average zone concentrations meet the ASTM D5157 suggested limits while those for m, NMSE, FB, and FS fall outside the limits

. However, the average of the absolute percent differences between C
o 

### and C p 

### , i.e. , 16 %, was better than Case 2 . A gain

, there are large difference s in the garage zone concentrations, but differences in the house

zones are smaller

.68 

### Figure 33 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentratio ns for Case # 3

Table 12 Statistical parameters for Case # 3 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p %
diff

GAR 9542 12978

- 3436 36

LFK 434 322 111

- 26

MBR 275 254 20

- 7

Bed2 289 289 0 0

Bed3 262 289

- 27 10

Average |% difference| 16

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) N MS

E FB FS

Room Average
Concen tration 2160 28 27 4130 5 580 1.00 1. 37

- 6. 6 0.39 0.27 0. 85



### Case # 4
Case # 4 involved operation of Gen SO1 with the CAT muffler in the garage with the bay door closed, the house entry door open, the HVAC system fan off and a cyclic electrical 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

14:15 14:44 15:12 15:41 16:10O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (Predicted)
House CO (Observed)
House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)69 

### load. During the test, a load bank fuse failed and the load dropped in half for a few minutes before the fuse was replaced and the test continued. Also, this test includes a natural decay period of about 40 min (included in plots and an alysis below) following generator shut

- off.

Based on average values from the shed test results shown in Figure 11, load-dependent
O 2 

### consumption and CO emission rates were used for this case (see Table 13 ), with both rates dependent on the electrical loa d. In addition, past measurement of Gen SO1 operation in both the shed and garage showed that an initial spike of CO is consistently observed immediately following a cold start (note the ECU algorithm is programmed to operate rich upon start- up ). Based on analysis of cold start -up data following the method described previously for shed testing, a 430 g/h source of CO was included in the model

at start -up in place of the Table 13 value until the measured AFR exceeded 13.5 ( the first
five minutes of operation for this case)

.

Table 13 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat

Load bank setting (W) Duration (min) CO emission (g/h) O 2 

### consumption (g/h)
no load 3 20 2620

500 4 15 3880

1500 18 17 3080

3000 17.5 47 4820

4500 12 96 4370

5500 5.5 102 3710

The observed and predicted transient concentrations for the garage zone and LFK zone in
the house are shown in Figure 34 , and the D5157 statistical parameters calculated for the zone average concentrations are shown in Table 14. Based on the stat istical parameters, this case resulted in agreement between average concentration measurements and predictions similar to Case #2 . Specifically, only the value for R and FB calculated for the comparison of average zone concentrations met the ASTM D5157 suggested limits
while m , b/Co, NMSE, and FS fall outside the limits. Additionally, the average of the absolute percent differences between zone values of C
o 

### and C p 

### was 26 %, which was driven by a large difference in the garage zone but much smaller differ ences in the LFK

zone.70 

### Figure 34 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentrations for Case # 4

Table 14 Statistical parameters for Case # 4 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p % diff

GAR 175 326

- 151 86

LFK 85 73 12

- 14

MBR 83 69 14

- 17

Bed2 77 69 7

- 10

Bed3 69 70 0 1

Average |% difference| 26

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

Ro om Average
Concentrations 98 121 43 114 0.99 2.6

- 135 0.39 0.21 1.6



### Case # 5

Case # 5 involved operation of Gen SO1 with CAT muffler in the garage with the bay door open, the house entry door open and the HVAC system fan on . A cyclic load was applied f or this case. Also, this test includes a natural decay period of about 25 min following generator shut- off. Based on average values from the shed test results shown in Figure 11, load-dependent O 2 

### consumption and CO emission rates were used for this case 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

10:12 11:12 12:12 13:13O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (Predicted) House CO (Observed) House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)71 

### ( see Table 15 ) along with a 430 g/h source of CO at start

- up in place of the Table 1 5
emission until the measured AFR exceeded 13.5 (ten minutes for this case)

.

Table 15 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat

Load bank setting (W) Duration (min) CO e m ission (g/h) O 2 

### consumption (g/h)
no load 3 20 2620

500 4 15 3880

1500 18 17 3080

3000 17.5 47 4820

4500 12 96 4370

5500 5.5 102 3710

The observed and predicted transient concentrations for the garage zone and the LFK
zone in the house are shown in Figure 35 , and the D5157 statistical parameters calculated for the zone average concentrations are shown in Table 16. Based on the stat istical parameters, this case resulted in good agreement between measurements and predictions. The average a bsolute value of the percent differences between the zone measurements and predictions was 20 %, and the absolute difference was less than 10 μ L/L for all zones. Additionally, the value s for R

, NMSE

, and FB calculated for the comparison of average zone concentrations meet the ASTM D5157 suggested limits, while m , b/Co, and
FS fall somewhat outside the limits.

Figure 35 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentrations for Case # 5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5

0 100 200 300 400 500

12:14 12:43 13:12 13:40 14:09 14:38O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (Predicted) House CO (Observed) House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)72 

### Table 1 6 Statistical parameters for Case # 5 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p % diff

GAR 41 41.9

- 0.5 1

LFK 26 29.2

- 2.8 11

MBR 23 28.4

- 5.8 25

Bed2 21 28.5

- 7.5 36

Bed3 23 28.7

- 5.9 26

Average |% difference| 20

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

Room Average
Concentrations 27 31 8.4 5.9 0.98 0.69 48 0.03 0.15

- 0.54



### Case # 6

Case # 6 involved operation of Gen SO1 with C AT muffler in the garage with the bay
door closed , the house entry door closed and the HVAC system fan o n . A cyclic load was applied for this case. Based on the average values from the shed test results shown in Figure 11, load-dependent O 2 

### consumption and CO emission rates were used for this case (see Table 17 ) along with a 43 0 g/h source of CO at start

- up in place of the Table 1 7
emission until the measured AFR reached 13.5 (ten minutes for this case)

. There was a problem with the Family room temperature measurement for this case so the utility room temperature was set equal to the kitchen temperature.

Table 17 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 cat

Load bank setting (W) Duration (min) CO emission (g/h) O 2 

### consumption (g/h)
no load 3 20 2620

500 4 15 3880

1500 18 17 3080

3000 17.5 47 4820

4500 12 96 4370

5500 5.5 102 3710

The observed and predicted transient concentrations for the garage zone and the LFK
zone in the house are shown in Figure 36 , and the D5157 statistical parameters calculated for the zone average concentrations are shown in Table 18. The average absolute value of the percent differences between the zone measurements and predictions was 16 %. Based on the statistical parameters, this case resulted in excellent agreeme nt between measurements and predictions. Specifically, the values for R, m, b/Co, NMSE, FB and73 

### FS calculated for the comparison of average zone concentrations all meet the ASTM D5157 suggested limits.

Figure 36 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentra tions for Case # 6

Table 1 8 Statistical parameters for Case # 6 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p % diff

GAR 631 686

- 55 9

LFK 87 88 0 0

MBR 72 84

- 12 17

Bed2 63 84

- 22 34

Bed3 72 86

- 13 19

Average |% difference| 16

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

Room Average
Concentrations 185 206 250 269 1.00 1.07 3.5 0.02 0.10 0.25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

10:40 11:40 12:40 13:40 14:40 15:40 16:40O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (Predicted) House CO (Observed) House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)74 

### Case # 7

Case # 7 involved operation of Gen SO1 with non CAT muffler in the garage with th e bay
door closed , the house entry door closed and the HVAC system fan o ff . A cyclic load was applied for this case. This case included a natural decay for about 45 min after generator
shut- off (included in plots and analysis below). Based on average value s of the shed test
results shown in Figure 12, load-dependent O 2 

### consumption and CO emission rates were used for this case (see Table 19 ) along with an 840 g/h source of CO at start-up in place of the Table 19 emission until the AFR reached 13.5 ( the first ten minutes of operation for this case)

.

Table 19 Hourly cyclic load profile for Gen SO1 noncat

Load bank setting (W) Duration (min) CO emission (g/h) O 2 

### consumption (g/h)
no load 3 150 2580

500 4 88 2780

1500 18 97 3450

3000 17.5 236 4110

4500 12 271 4190

5500 5.5 236 4440

The observed and predicted transient concentrations for the garage zone and the LFK
zone in the house are shown in Figure 37 , and the D5157 statistical parameters calculated for the zone average concentrations are shown in Table 20. The average absolute value of the percent differences between the zone measurements and predictions was 17 %. Based on the statistical parameters, this case resulted in excellent agreement between measurements and predictions. Specifical ly, the values for R, m, b/Co, NMSE, FB and
FS calculated for the comparison of average zone concentrations all meet the ASTM D5157 suggested limits.75 

### Figure 37 Predicted and observed CO and O 2 

### concentrations for Case # 7

Table 20 Statistical paramete rs for Case # 7 (concentrations in units of μ L/L)

Zone C

o C p C

o -C p % diff

GAR 1712 1944

- 232 14

LFK 266 223 42

- 16

MBR 264 212 52

- 20

Bed2 263 216 47

- 18

Bed3 261 216 46

- 18

Average |% difference| 17

C

o C p σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

Room Average
Concentrations 55 3 5 62 64 8 772 1.00 1. 19

- 18 0. 04 0.02 0. 36



### Summary

Table 21 summarizes the statistical parameters calculated for all the cases based on the average zone concentrations. The bold values in Table 21 are those that meet the ASTM suggested criteria. As seen in the table, statistical agreement varies for the individual cases. The agreement was generally better for the cases with both the bay and house entry 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

10:55 11:55 12:55 13:55 14:55 15:55O2(%)CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage CO (Predicted) House CO (Observed) House CO (Predicted) Garage CO (Observed) Garage O2 (Observed) Garage O2 (Predicted)76 

### doors closed (3, 6, and 7). This improved agreement is not a surprise, as the cases with better agreement rely primarily on CONTAM’s ability to model airflow through small er leaks. While CONTAM includes elements to model flow through larger openings (used for the open bay and entry doors of Cases 1, 2, 4 and 5), those flow predictions are thought to be less reliable given the physical theory on which CONTAM is based. Table

21 shows that the statistical agreement was generally somewhat worse for those cases.

Table 21 Summa ry of statistical parameters from comparison of average observed and predicted zone CO concentrations for all cases

Case C

o C p Avg |%diff| σ o σ p R m b/C

o (%) NMSE FB FS

1 828 914 15 1 100 1 200 1.00 1.09 1.5 0.02 0.10 0.27

2 120 137 24 118 186 0.99 1.57

- 43 0.26 0.19 1.0

3 2160 2827 16 4130 5580 1.00 1.3 7

- 6. 6 0.39 0.27 0.8 5

4 98 121 26 43 114 0.99 2.6

- 135 0.39 0.21 1.6

5 27 31 20 8.4 5. 9 0.98 0.69 48 0.03 0.15

- 0 54 6 185 206 16 250 269 1.00 1.07 3.5 0.02 0.10 0.25

7 553 562 17 648 772 1.00 1.19

- 18 0.04 0.02 0.36

Overall summary statistic s for all test s

Garage CO 2180 2 790 28 3400 46 20 1.00 1. 36

- 7. 6 0. 28 0. 25 0. 81

Garage O 2 19.5 1 9. 1 2.5 1.1 1. 3 0.9 4 1. 18 -20 0.00 1

- 0.0 2 0. 41

House zones
CO 165 1 60 17 130 128 0.9 6 0.9 4 3. 0 0. 05

- 0.0 3

- 0.08



### While the statistical evaluation of the individual cases is useful to understand strengths and weaknesses of the model, a more important statistical evaluation is the comparison of
the entire set of cases. This overall evaluation indicates the model’s ab ility to predict the relative outcome when individual parameters are changed (e.g., door open vs. closed

, or one type of generator vs . another). The last three rows of Table 21 include summary statistics for the average CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and for the average CO calculated for the house zones. The agreement between the measurements and predictions
for this entire set of cases was excellent for both the g arage O 2 

### concentrations and the
house CO concentrations. A ll of these statistic al values met the D5157 criteria. T he
agreement , however, was somewhat worse for the garage CO concentrations

, with some parameters falling slightly outside the ASTM criteria limits

. The average concentrations
for individual house zones ( i.e. , LFK, MBR, BR2 and BR3 ) from all cases are plotted in Figure 38 to show the comparison of predictions and measurements. T o summarize

, average individual house zone and garage CO concentration predictions and77 

### measurements were within about 20 % and 30 % respectively when averaged over all

cases.

Figure 38 Comparison of predicted and observed individual house zone average CO
concentrations for all cases

As discussed previously (Emmerich 2001), absolute validation of a complex model, such as CONTAM, is impossible as there are infinite possible building models that can be created by a user. However, the primary objective of this experimental validation is to evaluate the accuracy of the CONTAM model predictions for this specific application , to identify large sources of error , and to determine the level of confidence that we may have in the predictions for the other cases simulated. For the cases modeled in this effort, no significant errors in the CONTAM model were identified. Additionally, some of the discrepancies between model predictions and experimental measurements may be due to

measurement limitations instead of model deficiencies. For example, this effort involv ed a fairly rich data set in terms of number of variables monitored and spatial and temporal detail. Still, there are additional measurements that would have been helpful for the
simulations . Specifically, the utility room provided the primary pathway for contaminant transport from the garage into the house; however, temperatures and concentrations were not measured in this zone. Also, uncertainties in experimental measurements include more than simply the instrument accuracy. Many of the reported measurements are a single point that was used to represent an average room concentration. The ability of this single point measurement to represent the room may be questionable at times. y = 0.94x + 4.92
R2 = 0.92

0 100 200 300 400 500

0 100 200 300 400 500Predicted (μL/L)

Observed ( μ L/L)78 

## Prototype Generator Performance **Simulation s**  As previously mentioned, a prim ary objective of these simulations was to examine the potential performance of the prototype generator under a wider range of conditions than studied during the experiments at the test house, such as a longer period of generator operation and operation in a house location other than the garage

. Th ese additional simulations were performed to allow analys es of the safety implications of operating a portable generator in these conditions. All of the se simulations , a total of 42, were based on the NIST manufactured test house model and the tested generators, which were extensively validated as described above.

Model parameters that were varied included ambient conditions, CO emission rates, source locations (location of the operating generator) and door positi ons. All simulations used steady state weather with three ambient temperatures (mild , 15 °C; cold, 0 °C; and hot 30 °C) and one wind condition (2 m/s blowing towards the garage bay door).

Since the garage measurements reported above clearly establish the danger of operating the unmodified generators in an attached garage, it was decided to focus the simulations on the potential performance of the reduced CO emission prototype. The refore, the CO
emission rates in the simulation were based on operation of Gen SO1 (both with and without cat muffler) under the cyclic load profile for 18 hours followed by 6 hours with the generator off. The 18 hour period of operation is a conservative estimate based on the fuel consumption rate at a low load and a 5 gallon gas tank capacity; the actual run time would likely be shorter under real operation but using 18 hours provides a more conservative estimate of the CO levels and exposure. Based on the shed test results, the previously- validated load -dependent CO emission rat es of Table 13 were used for Gen SO1 with cat muffler along with a constant 430 g /h of CO at start -up in place of the Table 13 emission for the first 10 minutes of operation (typical time to reach an AFR of 13.5 for the model validation cases) . Similarly , the previously- validated

, load

- dependent CO
emission rates of Table 19 were used for Gen SO1 with noncat muffler along with a constant 840 g /h of CO at start

- up for the first 10 minutes of operation.

The simulations included the generator located in eit her the attached garage or in the utility room of a modified test house model with the garage removed. For garage source cases, 4 door position combinations were considered: bay door (closed or 0.6 m open) and garage/utility access door positions (closed o r 5 cm open). For the utility source cases, two positions of the utility/family room connecting door were modeled (closed and 5 cm open). The temperature, source strength, location and door factors resulted in a matrix of

36 cases. See Tables 22 and 23 for lists of the garage and utility source cases, respectively.

The HVAC system fan was modeled as off for all cases. Typically all other interior house doors were modeled as open but, for a set of 6 additional cases, the bedroom doors were
modeled as closed (See Table 24 for closed bedroom door cases). Interior zone
temperatures were set at 23 °C except for source zones and zones adjacent to source zones. Source zones were initially 23 °C, then experienced a linear increase over 2 h to 40 °C, which was held constant until the generator stop ped operating , followed by a79 

### linear decrease over the final 6 h back to 23 °C. Zones adjacent to the source zone experienced a linear increase over 2 h to 30 °C until the generator stops operating and a linear decrease over the final 6 h to 23 °C.



### Garage source cases Figure 39 presents the simulation results for the cold, mild and hot ambient temperature

case s with Gen SO1 with cat muffler in the garage with the bay door open and the house
door closed. For these cases, the CO concentration in the garage spikes to around

200 μ L/L to 300 μ L/L , but then drops and remains well below 100 μ L/L and does not

exceed 30 μ L/L in the house. It can also be seen in Figure 39 that the temperature
difference between the rooms of the house with the open doors resulted in very uniform concentrations regardless of ambient temperature. The other garage source cases have mostly similar patterns with t he primary difference among all the cases with different door positions being the peak ga rage and house concentrations reached.

Table 22 presents the peak CO concentrations in the house (not including utility room) and garage for all of the garage source cases. In general, for a specific set of door positions, increasing the ambient temperatu re from cold to mild to hot resulted in higher garage and house CO concentrations with the impact of a change from cold to hot being as large as a factor of 3. The results for cases 4 through 6 show that adding the open house door increased the peak house CO concentration, but the concentrations were still

at or below 50 μ L/L in the house.

As expected, the results for cases 7 through 9 with the garage source, closed bay door, closed house door and cat muffler show that with the garage bay door closed the CO concentration reaches much higher peak concentrations in both the garage (850 μ L/L to

1300 μ L/L) and house (30 μ L/L to 100 μ L/L) compared to the garage bay door open cases. As shown for cases 10 through 12, opening the house door results in slightly lower garage CO (710 μ L/L to 810 μ L/L) but higher house CO (70 μ L/L to 160 μ L/L) compared to cases 7 through 9 as more CO migrates to the house from the garage through the open door.

The larger CO source for the prototype with noncat muffler (cases 13 through 24 in Table 22) resulted in peak garage CO concentrations approximately 2 to 3 times higher than for the equivalent case with cat muffler. The increase in peak house CO concentrations due to the noncat muffler source ranged from a factor of 3 to 4. The noncat muffler source results also display the same impacts due to do or opening/closing and ambient temperature as the cat muffler source cases. The highest peak garage CO concentrations were for the noncat source with closed bay door and closed house door at 4300 μ L/L while the highest peak house CO concentration was for the noncat source with closed bay door and open house door at 530 μ L/L.80 

### Figure 39 Garage source, open bay door, closed house door, cat muffler cases (a) cold (0 ° 

### C) , (b) mild (15 ° 

### C), (c) hot (30 ° 

### C ) ambient temperature 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L)Garage CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage LFK MBR

BR2 BR3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L)Garage CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage LFK

MBR BR2

BR3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L)Garage CO Concentration (μL/L) Garage LFK

MBR BR2

BR381 

### Table 22 Simulation results for garage source cases

Sim

ID Source
location Generator Bay
door House
Door Weath

er Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) House Peak CO Concentration,

(E xcluding Utility Room) ( μ L/L)

1 garage SO1 cat open closed cold 170 10

2 garage SO1 cat open closed mild 260 20

3 garage SO1 cat open closed hot 300 30

4 garage SO1 cat open open cold 170 20

5 garage SO1 cat open open mild 240 30

6 garage SO1 cat open open hot 300 50

7 garage SO1 ca t closed closed cold 850 30

8 garage SO1 cat closed closed mild 1000 60

9 garage SO1 cat closed closed hot 1300 100

10 garage SO1 cat closed open cold 710 70

11 garage SO1 cat closed open mild 770 110

12 garage SO1 cat closed open hot 810 160

1 3 garage SO1 noncat open closed cold 330 40

14 garage SO1 noncat open closed mild 500 60

15 garage SO1 noncat open closed hot 600 100

16 garage SO1 noncat open open cold 310 70

17 garage SO1 noncat open open mild 470 90

18 garage SO1 noncat open open hot 600 150

19 garage SO1 noncat closed closed cold 2700 100

20 garage SO1 noncat closed closed mild 3300 190

21 garage SO1 noncat closed closed hot 4300 350

22 garage SO1 noncat closed open cold 2000 250

23 garage SO1 noncat closed open mi ld 2300 380

24 garage SO1 noncat closed open hot 2600 53082 

### Utility source
Simulations were also performed with the generator operating in the living space of the house as opposed to the garage. Figure 40 presents the simulation results for the cold,
mil d and hot ambient temperature case s with Gen SO1 operating in the utility room with
the door closed . For these cases, the CO concentration in the house (not including the utility room in which the peak concentration exceeds 5000 μ L/L ) reaches a peak of 280

μ L/L to 520 μ L/L . The variation on the house peak CO concentration due to variations in the ambient temperature was close to a factor of two , with higher concentration associated with higher temperature. The other utility room s ource cases (listed in Table 23) showed a similar effect of ambient temperature. However, there was no notable effect on the CO distribution among the different rooms in the house.

Table 23 presents the peak CO concentrations in the house (not including utility room) and in the utility room (not including the initial concentration spike) for all of the utility
source cases. The results for cases 28 through 30 show that adding the open utility door increased the peak house CO concentrations by up to 20 % compared to the closed utility
door cases . As seen in Table 23 for cases 31 through 36, t he larger CO source for the prototype with noncat muffler results in the peak CO concentration in the house (not including the utility room) increasing by a factor of 3 to 4 times the equivalent cat
muffler cases. The worst case is the prototype with noncat muffler in the utility room with the door open and hot weather which results in a peak house CO concentration of

about 2000 μ L/L.83 

### Figure 40 Utility source, closed utility door, cat muffler cases (a) cold (0 o 

### C), (b) mild (15 o 

### C), (c) hot (30 o 

### C) ambient temperature 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L) LFK

MBR

BR2

BR3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L) LFK

MBR

BR2

BR3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L) LFK

MBR

BR2

BR384 

### Table 23 Simulation results for utility source cases

Sim

ID Source
location Generator Utility

door Weath er Utility Room
Peak CO
Concentration

(excluding initial spike) ( μ L/L) House Peak CO Concentration, (excluding utility room) ( μ L/L)

25 utility SO1 cat closed cold 2200 280

26 utility SO1 cat closed mild 2500 460

27 utility SO1 cat closed hot 3500 520

28 utility SO1 cat open cold 1200 330

29 utility SO1 cat open mild 1400 490

30 utility SO1 cat open hot 1500 600

31 utility SO1

noncat closed cold 6000 950

32 utility SO1

noncat closed mild 6600 1500

33 utility SO1

noncat closed hot 7500 1900

34 utility SO1

noncat open cold 3500 1100

35 utility SO1

noncat open mild 3 7 00 1600

36 utility SO1

noncat open hot 4100 2000



### Closed bedroom door cases The cases presented in Tables 22 and 23 all included open bedroom doors, which results
in signifi cant mixing between house zones. S elected cases were also simulated with closed bedroom doors to examine the impact of this factor, in part to understand the CO exposure for cases in which occupants sleep with their bedroom doors closed.

Figure 41 pres ents the simulation results for mild ambient temperature case with Gen
SO1 with cat muffler operating in the garage with closed bay door, open house door, and closed bedroom doors. As expected, this case results in far less uniform house zone

concentration s than the open bedroom door cases, which range from a peak of 20 μ L/L in

the BR 2 zone to 130 μ L/L in the LFK zone.

Table 24 presents the peak house CO concentration for all 6 closed bedroom door cases
which show an increase in peak concentration of up to about 30 % in the LFK zone85 

### compared to the equivalent cases with open bedroom doors; however, the bedrooms had generally lower concentrations, with the impact ranging from a bout an 80 % decrease to
about a 2 % increase.

Figure 41 CO concentrations for garage source, closed bay door, open house door, mild ambient temperature , cat muffler with closed bedroom doors

Table 24 Simulation results for closed bedroom door cases

Sim

ID Source
location Generator Bay or Utility

door House
door Weather House Peak CO
Concentration

(excluding utility room) ( μ L/L)

37 garage SO1 cat closed open mild 130

38 garage SO1 cat closed closed cold 40

39 garage SO1

non cat open open hot 160

40 garage SO1

non cat closed open mild 45 0

41 utility SO1 cat open NA mild 490

42 utility SO1

non cat closed NA cold 1000



## Discussion **of Simulation Results**

A set of 4 2 simulations were performed to examine the potential performance of the
prototype generator with and without the catalyst in the muffler under a wider range of 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:00House CO Concentration (μL/L) LFK

MBR

BR2

BR386 

### conditions than studied during the experiments at the test house. All of the simulations
were based on the NIST manufactured test house model and the reduced CO emission prototype generator, which was extensively validated as described above. Model parameters th at were varied included ambient conditions, CO emission rates, source locations and door positions.

As expected the highest house CO concentrations were found for the generator with noncat muffler operated in the utility room of the house, with indoor CO concentrations reaching 2000 μ L/L for one case. Operation of the generator with cat muffler in the utility room substantially reduced CO concentrations, however, they still reached high levels of

280 μ L/L to 600 μ L/L . The lowest indoor CO concentrations resulted from operation of
the cat muffler generator in the garage with peak house CO concentrations as low as

10 μ L/L (after an initial spike on start -up). Simulations also showed that, as expected, closed bedroom doors resulted in less uniform indoor concentrations and higher peak concentrations in the LFK zone (up to a 30 % increase) and typically lower peak concentrations in the bedrooms (up to an 80 % decrease).87 

## Conclusion

Under an interagency agreement with CPSC, NIST conducted a series of tests to characterize the indoor time course profiles of CO concentrations resulting from portable
generator s. These tests include both unmodified as well as modified low CO emission prototype configurations, operating in the attached garage of a home under various use and environmental conditions, and were conducted so CPSC staff co u ld analyze the safety implications of operating the generators under these conditions. NIST used those
test data to validate the ability of the CONTAM model to predict CO levels in the garage
and the house and t o develop an estimate of the uncertainty of its predictions relative to
the measured values. NIST also conducted tests with the generators operating in a onezone shed to derive their CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates, to be used as input to
the ir model validation effort as well as for simulation s conducted to examine the potential performance of the low CO -emission prototype under a wider range of operating
conditions.



### Shed Tests
Very limited study has been conducted directly on CO emission and O 2 

### consumption rates associated with gasoline -powered generators running indoors. Brown (2006) studied
the CO emission rates from four different commercially

- available generators in an enclosed experimental chamber, where air temperature and air change rate were controlled to provide different operating conditions. However , the air change rates were generally quite high compared with typical residences. O perating a generator in an enclosed space such as a garage or a storage shed, as opposed to a laboratory chambe r, will be subject to uncontrolled temperatures and to lower ventilation rates determined by
ambient weather conditions. To determine generator CO emission rates, tests were conducted in a single-zone shed on generators operating in the unmodified carburet ed configuration as well as in the low CO emission prototype configuration. A literature search did not reveal previous studies on CO emission from generators in real conditions,
where O 2 

### levels can become significantly lower than ambient, and thereby impact CO
emission

.

For two different unmodified generators ( i.e., without CO emission controls), i t was found that CO emission s ranged from a low of around 500 g/h at near ambient O 2 

### levels to a high of nearly 4000 g/h as O 2 

### approach 17 %. The rates of CO g eneration and O 2 

### consumption in these unmodified generators were affected by multiple parameters, with
the O 2 

### level in the space and the actual electrical output of the generator being two of the most important. Tests performed below 17 % O 2 

### showed a drop off in CO emissions due to poor engine performance under these conditions. Tests of two modified low CO emission prototype generators ( i.e ., with CO emission controls) showed reductions of CO emissions of over 90 % depending on the specific emission controls and operating conditions and no trend toward higher emission rates was se en as O 2 

### levels dropped to
18 %.



### Garage Tests

A series of tests were also conducted to measure the emission and transport of CO due to operating portable gasoline- powered generato rs in an attached garage

. This series of tests88 

### included both unmodified and UA-modified prototype generators operated in the garage
attached to NIST ’s manufactured test house. Testing was conducted under seven different
test house /garage configurations to evaluate their impacts on the buildup of CO in the garage and its transport into the different rooms in the house. These configurations included two different garage bay door positions (fully closed or open 0.6 m ), two connecting door settings between the garage and the family room (fully closed or open 5 cm), and two house central heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HV AC ) fan settings (on or off). CO concentrations varied widely with peak house CO concentrations ranging from under 10 μ L/L to over 10,000 μ L/L . As expected, the highest concentrations resulted from operation of the unmodified generator in the garage with the bay door closed and the house access door open . T he lowest concentrations resulted from operation of a reduced- emis sion prototype in the garage with the bay door open and the
house access door closed.

These garage tests documented reductions of 85 % to 98 % in CO concentrations due to
emissions from two modified, prototype low CO-emission portable generators compared
to a “stock” unmodified generator. Note that these results apply to the specific units tested and that other units, modifications and test conditions may produce different
results.



### Simulations

A set of 4 2 simulations were performed with the NIST CONTAM mod el to examine the potential performance of the prototype generators under a wider range of conditions than studied during the experiments at the test house. All of the simulations were based on the
NIST manufactured test house model and the tested reduced CO emission prototype
generator . Model parameters that were varied included ambient conditions, CO emission rates, source locations and door positions.

An extensive model validation effort was first carried out using results from seven garage

tests to es tablish the ability of the CONTAM model to predict CO levels in the garage and the house and to develop an estimate of its uncertainty of these predictions relative to
the measured values. An absolute validation of a complex model, such as CONTAM, is impos sible as there are infinite possible building models that can be created by a user. For
the cases modeled in this effort, no significant errors in the CONTAM model were
identified. The agreement between the measurements and predictions of the O 2 

### concentrat ions in the garage and of the average CO calculated for the house zones for th e collective set of data was excellent . A ll of the calculated statistic al values met the ASTM
D5157 criteria. T he agreement , however, was somewhat worse for the garage CO

concen trations

, with some parameters falling slightly outside the ASTM criteria limits. Overall, the average individual house zone and garage CO concentration predictions and measurements were within about 20 % and 30 % respectively when averaged over all

cases.

As expected , the highest house CO concentrations were found for the generator with noncat muffler operated in the utility room of the house, with indoor CO concentrations exceeding 2000 μ L/L for some cases. Operation of the generator with cat muffler89 

### sub stantially reduced CO concentrations; however, they still reached levels of 280 μ L/L

to 600 μ L/L . The lowest indoor CO concentrations resulted from operation of the generator with cat muffler in the garage with CO concentrations in the house reaching

10 μ L /L to 160 μ L/L . Simulations also showed that, as expected, closed bedroom doors resulted in less uniform indoor concentrations and higher peak concentrations in the LFK zone (up to a 30 % increase) and typically lower peak concentrations in the bedrooms (up to an 80 % decrease).



## Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under interagency agreement CPSC -I-06-0012. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Donald W. Switzer, Janet Buyer, Christopher J. Brown, Sandy Inkster, Han Lim and Susan Bathalon from CPSC, and Gregory T. Linteris and Steven J. Nabinger from NIST.



## References

Air Products. 2006. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Sulfur Hexaf luoride.

ASHRAE. 2009. Handbook of Fundamentals Chapter 16 . ASHRAE.

ASTM. 2008. Standard Guide for Statistical Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality Models.
D5157-08 American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM. 2006. Standard test method for determining air change in a single zone by means of a tracer gas dilution . E741-06 American So ciety for Testing and Materials

.

ASTM. 2010. Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan
Pressurization. E779-10 American Society for Testing and Materials.

Bassett, M. Infiltration and L eakag e Paths in Single F amily Houses - a Multizone

I nfiltration C ase Study. (1990) AIVC Technical Note 27, Air Infiltration and Ventilation
Centre.

Brown, C. J. 2006. Engine-drive Tools, P hase 1 T est R eport for P ortable E lectric Generators; U.S. Consumer Produ ct Safet y Commission: Bethesda, MD.

CFR. 2007. 16 CFR part 1407, Portable Generators; Final Rule; Labeling Requirements

, Federal Register, 72 FR 1443, January 12, 2007 and January 18, 2007.

CPSC . Portable Generators: Legal Memorandum and staff briefing p ackage for advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Bethesda, MD, 2006; p 295.90 

### CPSC . Performance and accountability report; U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Bethesda, MD, November, 2007; p 140.

CPSC . Technology Demonstration of a Prototype L ow Carbon Monoxide E mission

P ortable G enerator ; U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Bethesda, MD, August, 2012; p 413.

Dols WS and Walton GN. CONTAM User Guide and Program Documentation (2008 ) NISTIR 7251, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Emmerich SJ and Nabinger SJ. Measurement and Simulation of the IAQ Impact of Particle Air Cleaners in a Single-Zone Building . (2001) International Journal of HVAC&R Research Vol. 1, No. 7, ASHRAE.

Emmerich SJ. “Validation of Multizone IAQ Modeling of Residential- scale Buildings: A Review” (2001) ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 107.2. 49.

Emmerich, S.J., Gorfain, J.E., Howard-Reed, C., Air and Pollutant Transport from Attached Garages to Residential Living Spaces

- Lit erature Review and Field Test (2003) International Journal of Ventilation, Vol., 2 (3).

Emmerich, S. J., & Persily, A. K. (1996). Multizone modeling of three residential indoor air quality control options. Building Simulation ‘95

.

Emmerich, S. J., Persily, A., & Nabinger, S. 2002. Modeling moisture in residential buildings with a multizone IAQ program. Proceedings of Indoor Air 2002.

Emmerich, S. J., Reed, C. H., & Gupta, A. (2005). Modeling the IAQ impact of HHI interventions in inner-city housing

. NIST IR 5212, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Emmerich, S.J., Howard-Reed, C., Nabinger, S.J., Validation of Multizone IAQ Model Predictions for Tracer Gas in a Townhouse (2004) Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 25 (4).

Emmerich, S. and Wang, L. 2011. Measured CO Concentrations at NIST IAQ Test House from Operation of Portable Electric Generators in Attached Garage

– Interim Report to U.S. Consumer Products Commission.

Hnatov, M. V. 2012 . Incidents, Deaths , and In

- Dep th I nvestigations Associated with

Non

- Fire Carbon Monoxide from Engine

- Driven Generators and Other Engine -Driven Tools, 1999-2011; U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: Bethesda, MD.91 

### Hnatov, M.V. 2011. Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide Deaths Associated with th e Use of Consumer Products, 2008 Annual Estimates, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD.

Luce, C., Heiser, B., Siemer, M., and B. Smith . 2006. Redesign of the mud buggy to reduce emissions by conversion to propane fuel. In Multi- disciplin ary engineering d esign conference, Rochester, NY

.

Nabinger, SJ, AK Persily, and WS Dols. 2010. Impacts of Airtightening Retrofits on Ventilation Rates and Energy Consumption in a Manufactured Home. NIST Technical

Note 1673.

Nabinger, SJ and AK Persily. 2008. Airtightness, Ventilation and Energy Consumption in a Manufactured House: Pre- Retrofit Results . NISTIR 7478.

Proctor, C. L.; Berger, M. C.; Fournier, D. L.; and S. Roychoudhury. 1987. Sulfur
hexafluoride as a tracer for the verification of waste

- dest ruction levels in an incineration process. Florida University.

Stewart, R. D. 1975. The effect of carbon monoxide on humans. Annual review of pharmacology . 15, 409-23.

Taylor, B. N., C. E. Kuyatt and T. National Institute of Standards and. 1994. Guide lines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Wang, L., and Emmerich, S.J. 2010. In situ Experimental Study of Carbon Monoxide Generation by Gasoline-Powered Electric Generator in an Enclosed Space. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 60 (1 2 ).

Wang, L. , Emmerich, S.J., Persily A.K. and C-C Lin. 2012. Carbon Monoxide Generation, Dispersion and Exposure from Indoor Operation of Gasoline- powered Electric Generators under Actual Weather Conditions. Building and Environment 56:

283-290.92 

## A ppendix A Uncertainty Analysis of Shed Measurements

This Appendix presents the uncertainty analysis method for calculation of the CO
emission and O 2 

### consumption rates determined from testing the generators in the test shed. Sample calculations are presented in detail.

The u ncertainty of A out 

### can be expressed as:



### 2A1AK V Q

1t2t )C ln C (ln A d,SF

s in

, gen 2t,SF 1t,SF

out 6 6 6 

### += +

− −

=

So the propagation of uncertainty for A out

A2) u(A1, 2 (A2)u (A1)u )(Au 2 2

out 2

c ++=



### u (

A1 ) is calculated from

2/1 

### )2N( )))t,C (ln r(tan(arccos |1A|)1A(u

− =



### r(lnC, t) is the correlation coefficient of lnC and t

.

From our p retests of checking SF 6 

### decomposition, the covariance of A1 and A2

0.07341% A2) u(A1, −=

),( 2 )()()()()2(

,, 2 ,,

, 22

,

, 22

, 2

6 6

6 6 dSF in gen

s in gen dSF

dSF

s in gen
in gen

s dSF 

### KQu V QK Ku V Q Qu V K Au + + =

d,SF

6 K 

### = -4 %, which were obtained from our pretests of the SF 6 

### decomposition.
To get the uncertainty of Q gen,in 

### , we can look at the uncertainty propagation of Eq. (6)



### )(u) 2 RPM D()Q(u

gen 22

gen in

, gen 

### η =

gen η 

### is 85 % ± 5 % (Luce et al. 2006) so based on Eq. (A-7) of NIST uncertainty
guidance (Taylor et al. 1994) , we have

%89.2 3 %5 )( == gen 

### u η



### Then 99.0)(

, = in gen Qu 

### m 3 

### /h. If we assume 0),(

, , 6 = dSF in gen KQu 

### , then93 

### 0301.0K V Q 2A d,SF

s in

, gen

6 

### −= =

)K(u) V Q ()Q(u) V K ()2A(u d,SF 22

s in

, gen

in

, gen 22

s d,SF 2

6 6 

### + =

0131.0)2A(u =



### Example of A out 

### Uncertainty Calculation To calculate the uncertainty of air change rate in Test 1 of Table 2 :

)1A(u 

### = 0.18

% 0.07341 A2) u(A1, −=

0131.0)2A(u =



### So 

### A2) u(A1, 2 (A2)u (A1)u )(Au 2 2

outc 

### ++= = 0.2 . For a confidence level of 95% , select

k

= 2, then )(Auk

outc 

### ⋅ 

### = 0.4

, A out 

### = 6.5 ± 0.4 hr -1



### Uncertainty of CO Emission Rate

)C,C,A,(f e1 eCC VA S 1t, CO 2t, CO out in

, CO )2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t, CO 2t, CO

sout in

, CO CO
out out 

### ρ ρ =

− −

=

− −



### The uncertainty propagation for S CO 

### was estimated as



### )C(u) C f ()C(u) C f ()A(u) A

f ()(u) f ()S(u 1t, CO 22

1t, CO 2t, CO 22

2t, CO out 22

out in

, CO 22

in

, CO CO 2

c 

### ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂

= ρ ρ

w here

in

, CO CO
)2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t, CO 2t, CO

sout

in

, CO 

### S

e1 eCC VA f

out out



### ρ ρ =

− −

= ∂ ∂

− −



### ] )e1( )eCC(e)2t1t( e1 e)2t1t)(C( [VA A S

A

f

2 )2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t, CO 2t, CO )2t1t(A )2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t, CO

sout in

, CO

out CO

out

out out out out out

− − − − −



### − − − + − − − += ∂ ∂ ρ94 )2t1t(A sout in

, CO
2t, CO out 

### e1 1 VA C f

−



### − = ∂ ∂ ρ

)2t1t(A )2t1t(A

sout in

, CO
1t, CO out out



### e1

e VA C f

− −



### − −= ∂ ∂ ρ



### To account for the uncertainty of using averaged density during 

### t ∆

2/12

in

, CO N

1i i, in

, CO in

, CO 

### ]) ( )1N(N 1 [)(u ρρ ρ 

# ∑

= 

### −

− =



### )C(u 2t, CO 

### and )C(u 1t, CO 

### were obtained from calibration curves of the CO analyzer as

follows.

Suppose the regression function from a calibration curve is



## X2B1BY ⋅+=

where X is the expected value, for example, a known concentration of a gas cylinder, and

Y is the m easured value during calibration. During a formal test, if Y is the measured raw data

2B/)1BY(X

c 

### −=



### Where X
c 

### is the corrected data by using the calibration curve, whose uncertainty can be
determined from:



### )2B,1B(uCC2)2B(uC)1B(uC)Y(uC)X(u 2B1B 2 2

2B 2 2

1B 2 2

Y c 

### + + + =

where

2B 1

Y X C c

Y 

### = ∂ ∂

=



### 2B 1

1B X C c

1B 

### −= ∂ ∂

=

2 c 2B 

### 2B )1BY(

2B X C −

−= ∂ ∂

=95 

### 3 a )Y(u = 

### , which can be either determined as a Type B uncertainty from a, the

accuracy of the analyzer, or as a standard deviation for a Type A uncertainty if multiple
observations of Y are available.

)2B(uX)2B,1B(u 2

−=



### where X 

### is the averaged X of the expected value during a calibration.

An E xample of CO Emission R ate U ncertainty C alculation

The maximum CO emission rate of Test 1 in Table 2 is 900 g/h.

in

, CO 

### f

ρ ∂ ∂

= 0.81 ;

out 

### A

f

∂ ∂



### =

0.10 ;

2t, CO 

### C f

∂ ∂

= 531.14 ;

1t, CO 

### C f

∂ ∂

=

- 337.59 ; )(u in

, CO 

### ρ 

### = 0.001

From a calibration curve of the CO analyzer for this test

, )C(u 1t, CO 

### = 91.03 mg/m 3 

### ;
)C(u 2t, CO 

### = 88.09 mg/m 3 

### ; So the uncertainty of S CO 

### when S CO 

### = 878 g/ h is

)C(u) C f ()C(u) C f ()A(u) A f ()(u) f ()S(u 1t, CO 22

1t, CO 2t, CO 22

2t, CO out 22

out in

, CO 22

in

, CO CO c ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂

= ρ ρ



### ≈ 60 g/hr

For a confidence level of 95 % and k = 2, S CO 

### = 900 ± 120 g/ h

Uncertainty of O 2 

### Consumption Rate



### )K,C,C,A,(fC K VA

e1 eCC VA S ,m1t,O2t,Oout in ,O out,o

,m soutout,O
)2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t,O2t,O

sout in ,OO 2 2 2 2 2

out out

2 2

2 2 ρ

ρ 

### ρ ρ ρ =

−

− −

=

− −



### The uncertainty propagation for

2 O S 

### was

)S(u) S f ()K(u) K

f ( )C(u) C

f ()C(u) C f ()A(u) A

f ()(u) f ()S(u

gen 22

gen ,m 22

,m 1t,O 22

1t,O 2t,O 22

2t,O out 22

out in ,O 22

in ,O O 2

c 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂

=

ρ

ρ ρ ρ



### where

)2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t,O2t,O

sout

in ,O out out

2 2

2 

### e1 eCC VA f

− −



### − −

= ∂ ∂

ρ96 ρ 

### ρ ρ ρ

,m out,osout,O

2 )2t1t(A )2t1t(A

1t,O2t,O )2t1t(A )2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t,O

sout in ,O )2t1t(A )2t1t(A
1t,O2t,O

s in ,O

out



### K CV ] )e1( )eCC(e)2t1t( e1 e)2t1t)(C( [VA e1 eCC V A

f

2 2

out out

2 2 out out out

2

2 out out

2 2

2



### −

− − − + − − − +

− −

= ∂ ∂

− − − − −

− −

)2t1t(A sout in ,O
2t,O out 2

2 

### e1 1 VA C f

−



### − = ∂ ∂ ρ

)2t1t(A )2t1t(A

sout in ,O
1t,O out out

2

2 

### e1 e VA C

f

− −



### − −= ∂ ∂ ρ

out,o

,m 2 soutout,O

,m 2 2 

### C K VA

K

f

ρ ρ 

### ρ

= ∂ ∂

2/12

in ,O N

1i i, in ,O in ,O 

### ]) ( )1N(N 1 [)(u

2 2 2 

### ρρ ρ 

# ∑

= 

### −

− =

1/2 2 2

out A2)] u(A1, 2 (A2)u (A1) [u )u(A ++=

)C(u 2t,O

2 

### and )C(u 1t,O

2 

### can be obtained using the same method as )C(u 2t, CO 

### and

)C(u 1t, CO 

### .

in

, m out, air

,m 

### K ρ ρ

ρ 

### =

2/12

,m N

1i i,,m ,m 

### ])KK( )1N(N 1 [)K(u
ρ ρ ρ 

# ∑

= 

### −

− =



### Example of O 2 

### Consumption Rate Uncertainty Calculation

The maximum O 2 

### consumption rate of Test 1 in Table 2 is 4800 g/hr.

in ,O

2 

### f

ρ ∂ ∂

= 55.79 ;

out 

### A

f

∂ ∂



### = -0.69;

2t,O 2 

### C f

∂ ∂

= 743.30 ;

1t,O 2 

### C

f

∂ ∂

=

- 395.40 ;

ρ ,m 

### K

f

∂ ∂

= 65.41 ; )(u in ,O

2 ρ 

### =

4.6×10 -4 

### ; )C(u 2t,O

2 

### = )C(u 1t,O

2 

### = 0.01%

When neglecting the added fuel from the generator to the shed, 0S

gen =97 )K(u) K

f ( )C(u) C f ()C(u) C f ()A(u) A

f ()(u) f ()S(u

,m 22

,m 1t,O 22

1t,O 2t,O 22

2t,O out 22

out in ,O 22

in ,O O 2

c 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

ρ

ρ ρ ρ

∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂
+ ∂ ∂

=

)S(u

2 Oc 

### ≈ 170 g/h. For a confidence level of 95% and k = 2,

2 O S 

### = 4800 ± 3 40 g/h98 

## Appendix B Summary of Instrument Calibrations

This table summarizes the calibrations of the CO and O 2 

### analyzers covering the testing periods included in this repo rt. The table includes the date of the calibrations, the standard error for each instrument channel for each calibration, and the average standard error and the average standard error relative to the full scale for each device based on all of the calibrations. Not all analyzer channels were calibrated on each date due to instrument failure or other issues. Table 3 in the report describes which instrument was
used for each test , and the instruments are described in the Instrumentation section of the main body . For comparison, the manufacturer’s stated accuracy for all of these analyzers
is 1 % of full scale.

N2 N1 N2 N2 N1 N1 Nova3 TE RM

Date O 2 O 2 hi CO lo CO hi CO lo CO CO CO CO
std

error (%) std

error (%) std

error (%) std

error (%) std

error (%) st d

error (%) std

error (ppm) std

error (ppm) std

error (ppm)

3/17/2008 0.0105 0.0191 0.0160 0.0036 0.0096 0.0056 NA NA

4/17/2008 0.0203 0.0243 NA NA NA 0.0094 26.3 NA

4/21/2008 0.482 0.0290 0.0107 0.0033 0.0033 0.0072 23.4 NA NA

4/29/2008 0.0317 0.029 9 0.0090 0.0035 0.0026 0.0031 18.1 NA NA

5/5/2008 0.0210 0.0344 0.0052 0.0035 0.0028 0.0056 18.1 NA NA

5/13/2008 0.0255 0.0794 0.0397 0.0229 0.0074 0.0094 10.8 23.0 NA

5/21/2008 0.0192 0.0305 0.0026 0.0059 0.0062 0.0094 26.0 18.0 NA

6/2/2008 0.0551 0.0 225 0.0108 0.0074 0.0065 0.0035 NA NA NA

6/10/2008 0.0140 0.0298 0.0086 0.0108 0.0081 0.0155 44.4 NA NA

3/17/2010 0.239 NA 0.0090 NA 0.0070 0.0045 14.4 NA NA

4/9/2010 0.0543 NA 0.0029 0.0065 0.0091 0.0067 13.8 NA 0.387

4/28/2010 0.0625 NA 0.0056 0.0004 0.0028 0.0003 11.0 NA NA

5/12/2010 0.0798 NA 0.0088 0.0253 0.0028 0.0057 6.87 NA 3.22

5/27/2010 0.0745 NA 0.0144 0.0215 0.0076 0.0225 11.6 NA 4.62

7/1/2010 0.0443 NA 0.0086 0.0123 0.0447 0.0056 15.9 NA 6.36

Average of
all
calibrations 0.082 2 0.0332 0.0108 0.0098 0.0086 0.0076 18.5 20.5 3.65

Percent of full scale 0.33 0.13 0.36 1.08 0.29 0.85 1.03 2.27 0.4199 

## Appendix C Additional Garage Tests

Table C1 provides a complete listing of all tests of the portable generators conducted in
the test house garage. The results of these tests were not included in the interim report (Emmerich and Wang 2011 ), but are provided here to support additional analysis of the
results

. Plots of the test result s that were not included in the main body of this report are included in Figures C1 through C27. The tests are grouped by test house configuration (see Table C2 for description of test house configurations).100 

### Table C1 Additional Tests Conducted in Attached Garage

Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

unmod
GenX B 4/22/08 cyclic profile 1 20.1 6.5 3 19,500 17.1 NA Figure 13

unmod
GenX E 5/1/08 cyclic profile 1 13.3 1.8 2 13,100 17.5 NA Figure C1

modGenX

with cat O 4/2/10 cyclic profile 1 22 6.5 4.5 3000 19.4 NA Figure 14

SO1 with
catmuffler

and algorithm
disabled N 4/1/10 cyclic profile 1 19.9 6.3 2 300 19.4 NA Figure 15

SO1 w ith
catmuffler

and algorithm

enabled L 3/25/10 cyclic profile 1 21. 3 8.4 0.5 420 20.5 Yes Not plotted
due to
instrument

error. SO1 with
catmuffler

and algorithm

enabled M 3/31/10 cyclic profile 1 15 .1 10.0 0.8 370 20.3 Yes Figure C2

Gen B P 4/6/10 cyclic profile 1 3 4.0 9.0 2 5500 19. 8 NA Figure C3

Gen B AU 7/9/10 cyclic profile 1 32.0 6.5 1 3200 20.0 NA Figure C4

Gen B AG 5/10/10 500 W 1 17.5 8.6 2 5100 20.0 NA Figure C5101 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AP 5/21/10 500 W 1 23.7 6. 9 0.2 27 0 20.9 Y Figure C 6

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AV 7/9/10 500 W 1 35.1 6.3 2 (manually shut off) 27 0 20.3 N o Figure C7

Gen B AI 5/14/10 5500

W 1 20.8 7.5 1.1 5500 19.6 NA Figure C8

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm
disabled AR 5/21/ 10 5500

W 1 32. 8 6.7 4 92 0 19.0 NA Figure C9

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm
disabled AS 6/10/10 5500

W 1 27.6 8. 5 4 8 90 19. 0 NA Figure
C10

SO1 with

noncat
muffler AL 5/19/10 5500

W 1 16. 9 7. 9 0.7 (manually shut off) 810 20.1 No Figure
C11102 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

and algorithm

enabled

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AM 5/20/10 5500

W 1 24.0 7. 7 7 min 720 21 .0 Y Figure
C12

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AN 5/20/10 2500

W 1 28. 5 6.6 13 min 400 21 .1 Y Figure
C13

unmod
GenX F 5/6/08 cyclic profi le 2 22.8 7.7 4 1,500 20.5 NA Figure 16

unmod
GenX H 5/14/08 cyclic profile 2 23.2 4.0 4 1,200 20.8 NA Figure
C14

modGenX R 4/12/10 cyclic profile 2 19.9 6.7 4 30 20.7 NA Figure 17

SO1 with
catmuffler

and algorithm
disabled T 4/14/10 cyclic profile 2 12 .7 6.9 3 300 20.7 NA Figure 18

SO1 with
catmuffler

and S 4/13/10 cyclic profile 2 10.5 6.4 0.9 210 21 .0 Y Figure
C15103 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

algorithm

enabled

Gen B Q 4/7/10 cyclic profile 2 30.0 7. 7 4 480 21.0 NA Figure
C16

unmod
GenX I 5/15/08 cyclic profile 3 22.8 7.4 4 18, 600 17.5 NA Figure 19

unmod
GenX A 4/18/08 cyclic profile 3 24.5 2.5 1.5 9, 2 00 18. 6 NA Figure
C17

unmod
GenX C 4/24/08 cyclic profile 3 22. 2 2.9 4 21,000 17.0 NA Figure
C18

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm
disabled Z 5/5/10 cyclic profile 3 28.3 6. 7 4.75 630 19.5 NA Figure 20

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AA 5/6/10 cyclic profile 3 27. 6 9.0 1.6 1000 20.0 Y Figure
C19

unmod
GenX J 5/21/08 cyclic profile 4 18.2 9.6 2.25 21,300 16 .0 NA Figure 21

SO1 with
catmuffler

and algorithm
disa bled W 4/29/10 cyclic profile 4 17.8 9.5 6 960 18.2 NA Figure 22104 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

SO1 with
catmuffler

and algorithm

enabled X 4/30/10 cyclic profile 4 24.7 7.1 0.6 730 19.8 Y Figure
C20

unmod
GenX D 4/30/08 cyclic profile 5 12.2 8.2 2 23,000 below 16 NA Figure 23

SO1 wi th

noncat
muffler

and algorithm
disabled AH 5/13/10 cyclic profile 5 15.6 6.5 5 2,300 17.8 NA Figure 24

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AB 5/7/10 cyclic profile 5 21. 6 6.6 1 1500 19.2 Y Figure
C21

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabl ed AQ 5/21/10 cyclic profile 5 27.7 6. 7 0.8 660 19.4 Y Figure
C22

unmod
GenX G 5/7/08 cyclic profile 6 25.1 7 2 1,100 20.5 NA Figure 25

SO1 with
catmuffler U 4/22/10 cyclic profile 6 20.4 7.8 2 260 20.9 NA Figure 26105 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

and algorithm
disabled

SO1 with

catmu ffler

and algorithm

enabled Y 4/30/10 cyclic profile 6 28.3 7.8 0.5 250 21 Y Figure
C23

unmod
GenX K 5/23/08 cyclic profile (high to low) 7 13.8 7 >2 680 20.4 NA Figure 27

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm
disabled V 4/23/10 cyclic profile (high
to l ow) 7 15.8 6.5 >2 430 20.9 NA Figure 28

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AC 5/7/10 cyclic profile 7 24.6 6.5 10 min 520 21 Y (but not
confirmed
that it was algorithm) Not plotted as

test was only 10

min

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm AD 5/7/10 cyclic profile 7 24. 1 7.1 6 min 340 21 Y Not plotted as

test was only 6 min106 Generator Test

ID Date Load
Profile Test

h ouse Config Outdoor Temp

(°C) Wind speed (m/s) Approx.

Run Time (h) Garage Peak
CO
Concentration ( μ L/L) Lowest Garage O 2 Concentration (%) Automoatic

s hut

- off
activated Notes

enabled

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AW 7/9/10 cyclic (high to low) 7 29.3 6.3 1 290 21.1 Y Figure
C27

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AO 5/20/10 cyclic profile 7 30.6 6 .4 1 .1 110 20.9 Y Figure
C2 5

Gen B AJ 5/19/10 5

. 5 k W 8 15. 8 7.1 3 190 21.1 NA Figure
C2 6

SO1 with

noncat
muffler

and algorithm

enabled AK 5/19/10 5

. 5 k W 8 16.9 8. 2 1.4 200 21. 1 Y Figure
C2 7107 

### Table C2 House Configurations Test house Configuration Garage bay door Garage to house entry door HVAC fan

1 Closed Open 5 cm OFF

2 Open 0.6 m Closed Off

3 Closed Open 5 cm On

4 Closed Closed On

5 Closed Closed Off

6 Open 0.6 m Open 5 cm On

7 Open 0.6 m Open 5 cm Off

8 Fully Open Open 5 cm Off



### Figures C1a, C1b, and C1c show the results for Test E, which was a 2 h test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 1 (garage bay door closed, garage access door to house open nominally 5 cm , and the house central HVAC fan off) with the cycl ic load profile (see
Table 1 in the body of the report). Since it was a two hour test, the hourly cyclic load profile in Table 1 was repeated two times. At the end of the second cycle, the generator was stopped, and the garage was mechanically vented.

Fi gure C1 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test E (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

Figure C1 a shows the concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of over 13,000 μ L/L (note that μ L/L are equivalent to the commonly used unit for CO concentration of ppm

v 

### ) and the volume fraction of O 2 

### dropped by 3. 5 % to nearly 17.5 % when the generator was stopped

. It also shows that in the first load cycle, the delivered
electrical load was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied when the oxygen was below 19 %. As the 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L) Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O2108 

### oxygen continued to drop in the subsequent load cycles, the delivered power for these load points decreased further.

Figures C1 b and C1 c show the CO co ncentration in six rooms of the test house (see Figure 2 for room locations) as measured on the ‘ppm range’ (where the CO concentration plot plateaus at the instrument’s 2000 μ L/L limit) and ‘high range’ CO instruments, respectively. The CO reached a peak concentration of over 6000 μ L/L in the family room , with peak concentrations in the other rooms ranging from about 4000 μ L/L

to 6000 μ L/L. The results of Test E were similar to those of Test B, described in the body of the report, which was the same genera tor under the same house configuration.

Figure C1 b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test E (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM109 

### Figure C1 c CO (high range) concentrations in the house for Test E (unmod Gen X, Configuration 1)

Figures C2a an d C2b show the results for Test M, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 1 and the cyclic
load . The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 0.8 h. A natural decay period of about 0.5 h was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting. The results shown in Figures C2 a and C2b for Test M, prior to generator shut -off, are similar to those in Figure 15 for Test N in the body of the report (a
test of the same generator and house configuration but without the shut- off activated). 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM110 

### Figure C2 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test M (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C2 b CO concentrations in the house for Test M (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C3a, C3b (the CO concentration exceeded the limit of the ppm range instrument), and C3c show the results for Test P, which was a two hour test of Gen B in Configuration

1 with the cyclic load . Figure C3a shows the concentration of CO in th e garage reached a 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 15 30 45 60 75% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load N2 O2

0 50 100 150 200

0 20 40 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM111 

### peak of over 5500 μ L/L and the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to about 19.8 % when the generator was stopped.

Figure C3 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test P (Gen B, Configuration 1)

Figure C3 b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test P (Gen B, Configuration 1) 12 14 16 18 20 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N2 HI

- CO N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM112 

### Figure C3 c CO (high range) concentrations in the house for Test P (Gen B, Configuration 1)

Figures C4a and C4b show the results for Test AU, which was a one hour test of Gen B in Configuration 1 wi th the cyclic load . Figure C4 a shows the concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of over 3000 μ L/L and the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to about 20 % when the generator was stopped.

Figure C4a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AU (Gen B, Configuration 1) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

12 14 16 18 20 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

0 30 60% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N2 HI

- CO N3 CO Delivered Load O2113 

### Figure C4 b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test AU (Gen B, Configuration 1)

Figures C5a and C5b show the results for Test AG, which was a 2 h test of Gen B in Configuration 1 with a constant 500 W load. The concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of over 5000 μ L/L and t he volume fraction of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to about 20 % when the generator was stopped.

Figure C5 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AG (Gen B, Configuration 1) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Delivered Load N2 HI

- CO O2114 

### Figure C5 b CO concentrations in the house for Test A G (Gen B, Configuration 1)

Figures C6a and C6 b show the results for Test AP, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 1 and a constant 500 W load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 10 min. A natural decay period of about 20 min was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Run Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM115 

### Figure C6 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AP (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C6 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AP (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C7a and C7 b show the results for Test AV, which was also a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 1 and a constant

500 W load. The algorithm did not shut off the generator so it was stopped manually after
2 h. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM116 

### Figure C7 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AV (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C7 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AV (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C8a and C8b show the results for Test AI, which was a 1.1 h test of Gen B in Configuration 1 with a constant 5500 W load. The concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak of about 5500 μ L/L and the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to about 19.6 % when the generator was stopped.

Figure C8 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AI (Gen B, Configuration 1) 12 14 16 18 20 22

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0 30 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM117 

### Figure C8 b CO concentrations in the hous e for Test AI (Gen B, Configuration 1)

Figures C9a and C9 b show the results for Test AR, which was a 4 h test of Gen SO1 with test house configuration 1 and a constant 5500 W load. During this test, the load bank overheated multiple times (resulting in the temporary sharp drops in load seen in Figure 9a) and, following the test, the exhaust manifold was found to be loose, which may have impacted the test results. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Delivered Load NOVA2 ppm HI

- CO O2

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 30 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM118 

### Figure C9 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AR (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C9 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AR (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C10a and C10b show the results for Test AS, which was also a 4 h test of Gen
SO1 with test house configuration 1 and a constant 5500 W load. As with Test AR, the load bank overheated multiple times during this test. The results of Test AR were very
similar to those of Test AS. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM119 

### Figure C10a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AS (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C1 0 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AS (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C11a and C11b show the results for Test AL, which was a test of Gen SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled with test house configuration 1 and a constant 5500 W load. The algorithm did not shut off the generator before it was manually stopped and the
test terminated after about 40 min when a generator circuit breaker tripped. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM120 

### Figure C11a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AL (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C11 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AL (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C12a and C12b show the results for Test AM, which was also a test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 1 and a constant 5500 W load. The algorithm shut off the generator after about 7 min, which was followed by a 2 h natural decay period before mechanical venting of the house. 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 10 20 30 40% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Manual shut

- off N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 10 20 30 40CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM121 

### Figure C12a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AM (Gen SO 1, Configuration 1)

Figure C12 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AM (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figures C13a and C13b show the results for Test AN, which was a test of Gen SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 1 and a constant 2500 W 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Manual shut

- off N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM122 

### load. The algorithm shut off the generator after about 13 min which was followed by a 1 h natural decay period before mechanical venting of the house.

Figure C13a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AN (Gen SO1, Configuration 1)

Figure C13 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AN (Gen SO1, Configuration 1) 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Manual shut

- off N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM123 

### Figures C14 a and C14b show the results for Test H, which was a 4 h test of unmod Gen X with Configuration 2 (garage bay door open , garage acce ss door to house closed , and the house central HVAC fan off). The results of Test H were similar to those for Test F which was the same generator and house configuration. The peak concentration occurred during the 1500 W setting and rose slightly in each l oad cycle, reaching a maximum

concentration near 1 200 μ L/L in the fourth load cycle. For this test, the garage was not instrumented with a low concentration CO analyzer, and the instrument uncertainty is large relative to measured concentrations below 500 μ L/L . During the course of this test, with the garage bay door open, the oxygen level dipped only slightly, and the delivered electrical output was consistent during each cycle, largely meeting the load bank setting with the exception of the 5500 W setting.

Figure C14 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test H (unmod Gen X, Configuration 2)

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240% OxygenCO (μL/L) Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O2124 

### Figure C14b CO concentrations in the house for Test H (unmod Gen X, Configuration 2)

Figures C15a and C15b show the results for Test S, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 2 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 0.9 h. The results shown in Figure C15 for Test S, prior to generator shut-off, are similar to those in Figure 18 in the body of the report for Test T (a test of the same generator and house configuration but
without the shut- off activated). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM125 

### Figure C15a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test S (Gen SO1, Configuration 2)

Figure C15 b CO concentrations in the house for Test S (Gen SO1, Configuration 2)

Figures C16a and C16b show the results for Test Q, which was a 4 h test of Gen B with the house in Configuration 2 under the cyclic load . Figure C16a shows the concentration 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM126 

### of CO in the garage reached a peak of near 500 μ L/L and the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the

garage did not measurably change when the generator was stopped

.

Figure C16a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test Q (Gen B, Configuration 2)

Figure C16 b CO (ppm range) concentrations in the house for Test Q (Gen B, Configuration 2) 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 FAM MBR KIT LR127 

### Figures C17a and C17b show the results for Test A, which was a 1.5 h test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 3 (garage bay door closed , garage access door to house open two
inches , and the house central HVAC fan on). These conditions are the same as Test I and the results of Test A were similar to the first 1.5 h of Test I (see Figure 19 in the body of the report ). After the generator was manually stopped, the garage and house were mechanically vented. Figure C17a shows that the concentration of CO in the ga rage reached a peak of about 92 00 μ L/L and the concentration of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to 18.6 % when the generator was stop ped

. It also shows that in the first load cycle the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the load cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied as the oxygen was approaching 19 %.

Figure C17 a CO an d O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test A ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0 30 60 90% OxygenCO (μL/L) Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O2128 

### Figure C17b CO ( high range) concentrations in the house for Test A ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

Figures C18a and C18b show the results for Test C, which was a 4 h test of unmod Gen X in Configuration 3 followed by a 1 h natural decay. These conditions are the same as Test I and the results of Test C were similar to those of Test I (see Figure 19 in the body of the report ). Figure C18a shows that the concen tration of CO in the ga rage reached a peak of about 21,000 μ L/L and the concentration of O 2 

### in the garage dropped to 17.0 % when the generator was stopped . It also shows that during the first load cycle the delivered electrical output was less than the load bank settings for the two highest loads in the cycle, 4500 W and 5500 W, which were applied as the oxygen was around 19 %. As the oxygen continued to drop in the subsequent load cycles, the delivered power for
these two load points decreased further. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

0 30 60 90CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM129 

### Figure C18 a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measur ed load for Test C ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

Figure C18b CO ( high range) concentrations in the house for Test C ( unmod Gen X, Configuration 3)

Figures C19a and C19b show the results for Test AA, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled with test house configuration 3 and the cyclic 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300% OxygenCO (μL/L) Load (W)

Time (min) N1 HI

- CO N1 LO

- CO Delivered Load O2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM130 

### load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 1.6 h. A natural decay period of about 1 h was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting. The results shown in Figure C19 for Test AA, prior to generator shut- off, are similar to those in Figure 20 (in the body of the report) for Test Z (a test of the same generator and house configuration but without the shut- off activated) although the CO

concen tration reached a higher level during the initial spike for Test AA

.

Figure C19a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AA (Gen SO1, Configuration 3)

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2131 

### Figure C19 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AA (Gen SO1, Configuration 3)

Figures C20a and C20b show the results for Test X, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 4 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 0.8 h. A natural decay period of about 1.2 h was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting. The results shown in Figure C20 for Test X, prior to generator shutoff, are similar to those in Figure 20 for Test Z (a test of the same generato r and house configuration but without the shut- off activated). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 30 60 90 120 150CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM132 

### Figure C20a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test X (Gen SO1, Configuration 4)

Figure C20 b CO concentrations in the house for Test X (Gen SO1, Configuration 4)

Figures C21a and C21b show the results for Test AB, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 5 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 1 h. A natural decay period
of about 1.1 h was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM133 

### venting. The results shown in Figure C21 for Test AB, prior to generator shut- off, are similar to those in Figure 24 (in the body of the report) for Test AH (a test of the same generator and house configuration but without the shut- off activated) although the initial spike in CO concentration in the garage was larger for Test AB.

Figure C21a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AB (Gen S O1, Configuration 5)

Figure C21 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AB (Gen SO1, Configuration 5) 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 30 60 90 120CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM134 

### Figures C22a and C22b show the results for Test AQ, which was also a shut- off test of
Gen SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house co nfiguration 5 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 0.8 h. A natural decay period of about 1.5 h was included after the generator was stopped, followed by mechanical venting. Figure C22a shows no initial spike in CO concentration in the garage for Test AQ because Test AQ was a warm start while Test AB was a cold start.

Figure C2 2a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AQ (Gen SO1, Configuration 5)

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2135 

### Figure C2 2 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AQ (Gen SO1, Configuration 5)

Figures C23a and C23b show the results for Test Y, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 6 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 0.5 h, followed by mechanical venting. The results shown in Figure C23 for Test Y, prior to generator shutoff, are very similar to those in Figure 2 6 (in the body of the report) for Test U (a test of
the s ame generator and house configuration but without the shut- off activated). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM136 

### Figure C23a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test Y (Gen SO1, Configuration 6)

Figure C23 b CO concentrations in the house for Test Y (Gen SO1, Configuration 6)

Figures C24a and C24b show the results for Test AO, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 7 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 1.1 h, followed by mechanical venting. The results shown in Figure C24 for Test AO do not show an initial 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM137 

### spike in garage CO concentration like that in Figure 28 (in the body of the report) for Test V (a test of the same generator and house configuration but without the shut- off activated) but with a somewhat smaller initial spike in concentration.

Figure C24a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AW (Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

Figure C24 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AW (Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

Figures C2 5 a and C2 5b show the results for Test AO, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 7 and the cyclic load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approxi mately 1.1 h, followed by 12 14 16 18 20 22

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 30 60% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0 30 60CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM138 

### mechanical venting. The results shown in Figure C25 for Test AO do not show an initial spike in garage CO concentration like that in Figure C24 for Test AW (a test of the same generator and house configuration but loaded in a high to low cyclic pattern ), likely
because Test AO was a warm start

.

Figure C2 5a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AO (Gen SO1, Configuration 7)

Figure C2 5 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AO (Gen SO1, Configuration 7) 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Manual shut

- off N3 CO Delivered Load O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM139 

### Figures C2 6 a and C2 6b show the results for Test AJ, which was a 3 h test of Gen B with the house in Configuration 8 with a 5500 W load . Figure C2 6a shows the concentration of CO in the garage reached a peak near 200 μ L/L and the volume fraction of O 2 

### in the

garage did not measurably change during the test.

Figure C2 6a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AJ (Gen B, Configuration 8)

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) N3 CO Delivered Load O2140 

### Figure C2 6 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AJ (Gen B, Configuration 8)

Figures C2 7 a and C2 7b show the results for Test AK, which was a shut- off test of Gen
SO1 with the shutoff algorithm enabled under test house configuration 8 and a 5500 W load. The algorithm shut off the generator after approximately 1.4 h, followed by mechanical venting.

Figure C2 7a CO and O 2 

### concentrations in the garage and measured load for Test AK (Gen SO1, Configuration 8) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 30 60 90 120 150 180CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM

17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

0 20 40 60 80% OxygenCO (μL/L), Load (W)

Time (min) Manual shut

- off N3 CO Delivered Load O2141 

### Figure C2 7 b CO concentrations in the house for Test AK (Gen SO1, Configuration 8)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 20 40 60 80CO (μL/L)

Time (min) BR3 BR2 LR MBR KIT FAM