RIT-CIMS/USDOTE20 Test and Evaluation Program

May 2010Brian DuddySenior Program ManagerRIT – CIMS585 -475- 2262bjdasp@rit.edu

1

Rochester Institute of TechnologyCenter for Integrated Manufacturing Studies (CIMS)

E20 Test and Evaluation Program

• Program Background• Test Objectives• E20 Study Fleet Vehicles• Emissions Testing Plan• Test Results to Date• Fleet Monitoring• Remaining Issues• Summary

2

RIT CIMS E20 Program Background• In July 2007 CIMS was asked by US DOT to do a study on 10

vehicles running E20 in support of the “20 in 10” initiative.• DOT RITA asked for conventional vehicles, at least 4-7 years

old that had not regularly been exposed to E10 ethanol. • We folded this program into an existing research grant for

alternative fuels (ethanol, biodiesel & hydrogen).• We were already looking at the performance of E85 in

Monroe County (NY) flex fuel fleet.• Aug 07 - MC agreed to dedicate a 10 vehicle set to running on

E20. (Light duty trucks and sedan.)• Sept-Oct 07 – Set up fuel storage, driver cards, vehicle

monitoring systems, plan for emissions testing (E0&E20).• Nov-Dec 07 – Emissions on E0 to baseline vehicles.

3

Monroe County / Rochester, NY Area • Testing in Monroe County offered

unique opportunities and conditions– 1300 sq. mile region – Four season testing

• Cold weather starts• Hot weather soak

– Diverse vehicle set– Multiple drivers– Urban and Rural

Monroe County Airport Temperature (F)

0102030405060708090

100

5/1/

2007

6/1/

2007

7/1/

2007

8/1/

2007

9/1/

2007

10/1

/200

7

11/1

/200

7

12/1

/200

7

1/1/

2008

2/1/

2008

3/1/

2008

4/1/

2008

5/1/

2008

6/1/

2008

7/1/

2008

8/1/

2008

9/1/

2008

10/1

/200

8

11/1

/200

8

12/1

/200

8

1/1/

2009

2/1/

2009

Max Temp F Min Temp F

4

Snapshot of Monroe County Vehicle FleetVehicles running on Ethanol• 300 Conventional Light Duty Vehicles – E20 fueled• 100 Flex Fuel Vehicles (Impalas, Uplanders) (E20 and E85)• 100 Sheriff vehicles (Ford Crown Victoria) (E20 and E85)

Other Alternative Energy Vehicles:• 300+ Diesel vehicles (B5/B20)• 25 hybrids (Silverados, Malibus,

Escapes)• First-generation battery powered

vehicles • Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle

(GM Project Driveway)• Green Fueling Station(B20/E85/E20/Hydrogen/CNG)

5

RIT CIMS E20 Test Objectives• Impact to public of E20 operation in conventionalvehicles – driveability. (Key DOT Objective)

• Exhaust emission deltas between E0 and E20.

• Impact to vehicle fleets – durability, maintenance.

• Impact to fuel economy vs. E0 operation.

• Life cycle cost of E20 fuel operation.

• Report on supply chain issues with ethanol fuel.6

RIT/MC 10-Vehicle E20 Study FleetMonroe County E20 Vehicle Testing List

Model Year Manfr Model TypeDate of Emissions Test -

gasolineMileage at

testCurrent Mileage

1998 Ford F150 Pickup 3-6 Dec 2007 73860 101763

2000 Chevy Impala Sedan 6-8 Nov 2007 83030 99008

2001 Ford F250 Pickup 4x4 11-14 Nov 2007 54499 68320

2001 Ford F250 Pickup 4x4 6-8 Nov 2007 107611 149664

2001 Chevy Silverado Pickup 4x4 27-30 Nov 2007 119776 154439

2001 Chevy Suburban/Blazer 4x4 27-30 Nov 2007 48787 66338

2002 Chevy G3500 Van 11-14 Nov 2007 82794 103304

2002 Ford F250 Pickup 4x4 11-13 Dec 2007 120818 134551

2002 GMC Sierra Pickup 4x4 27-30 Nov 2007 51123 70477

2004 Ford F250 Pickup 4x2 1-3 Nov 2007 29738 61923 7

RIT E20 Emissions Testing PlanTailpipe Emissions from 10 vehicle test group

Baseline UnleadedNov-Dec 2007

E20 “Deltas”Jun-Jul 2008

E20 Mid-TermAug-Nov 2009Back-To-Back

5 Gases(NOx, THC, NMHC, CO,

CO2)

5 Gases 5 Gases & Ethanol in exhaust stream* for NMOG calculations

Fuel Economy (F.E.)E0 Road Fuel

F.E. w/E20 Road Fuel

F.E. deltas with controlled fuels

* With support from NREL

All testing done at Delphi Technical Center, Rochester NY

8

Emissions Testing Program• Emissions evaluation performed at Delphi Technical

Center Rochester world-class facilities.– Criteria pollutants measured during FTP75

evaluation.– Three runs on each fuel – if any anomalies, test was

rerun to get three good samples.– Horiba OPE series emissions analyzer.– Nov 2009 testing included measuring tailpipe ethanol

emissions with equipment provided by NREL.• Real world work vehicles in a high precision testing

facility.

9

Delphi Vehicle Emissions Lab - Rochester

10

1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999

Delphi TCR Vehicle Emission Lab (VEL2)

Bag Bench Tailpipe Bench Engine Bench

Sam

ple

Cond

ition

ing

Uni

tConstant Volume Sampler

Critical Flow Venturi

Sample Bags

8.5” Twin Roll Chassis Dynamometer

Cooling Fan

Driver’sTrace

Robertson, 10/96

Combustion Analysis System

BCO(L) 0-100 PPM - 1500 PPMBCO2 0-1.5% - 3.00%BHC 0 - 25 PPM - 100 PPMBNOx 0 - 25 PPM - 150 PPMBCH4 0 - 25 PPM

Temperature control: 72° ± 2°FHumidity control: 50 ± 2 grain

1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999

Bag Bench Tailpipe Bench Engine Bench

HorribaSystem

11

RIT E20 Program Timeline

July 2007DOT Request

Aug 200710 Vehicles Identified

Nov 2007E0 Emissions

Aug 2009E0-E20 EmissionsMPG/Alcohol

Jun 2008E20 Emissions

Feb 200810 Veh on E20

Dec 2008All MC conventional veh on E20

Dec 2009Paper Pub

Sept 2008EPA Waiver for Full Test Program

2008 2009 20102007

Oct 2008Driver Interviews

Nov 2010DOTProgramConcludes

12

Emissions Test Results

-13.9%

4.7%

-26.9%

6.2%-0.6%

-60.0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

HC CH4 CO NOX CO2

RIT Fleet Data: Fuel-Effect Emission Trends (2nd Test (11/09): E20 %D from E00)

Mean

3562

3675

4029

4030

4066

4075

4126

4137

4140

4230

HCRun1

HCRun2

CH4Run1

CH4Run2

CO/10Run1

CO/10Run2

NOXRun1

NOXRun2

CO2/10kRun1

CO2/10kRun2

E20 0.105 0.122 0.020 0.028 0.069 0.080 0.237 0.285 0.075 0.071

E00 0.118 0.174 0.018 0.033 0.082 0.143 0.214 0.337 0.074 0.073

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

g/m

i

4230, 2004 Ford F250 Truck, FTP Composite Weighted Emissions Comparing E20 and Conventional Road Fuel (E00)

Run DatesE00 Run1 - 11/07E20 Run1 - 8/08E20 Run2 - 11/09E00 Run2 - 11/09

• Current Back-to-Back data shows significant improvement in HC and CO and neutral on CO2.

• Historic trend indicates some degradation in emissions (expected).

13

Emissions Test Results• All the measurements for both fuels were well below the

EPA limit for Criteria Pollutants

• Cold (20°F) start testing vs. ambient indicates degradation in HC and CO, however, less for E20 than E0.

HCRun1

HCRun2

HC%D

CH4Run1

CH4Run2

CH4%D

CO/10Run1

CO/10Run2

CO%D

NOxRun1

NOxRun2

NOx%D

CO2/10kRun1

CO2/10kRun2

E20 % Change 103.5% 21.43% 66.63% -0.80% 3.34%

E00 % Change 129.5% 38.57% 94.37% 3.25% 4.60%

E20 0.111 0.225 0.028 0.034 0.109 0.182 0.419 0.415 0.052 0.054

E00 0.115 0.264 0.023 0.032 0.118 0.229 0.410 0.424 0.052 0.055

103.5%

21.4%

66.6%

-0.8%

3.3%

129.5%

38.6%

94.4%

3.2% 4.6%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

% C

hang

e w

ith T

empe

ratu

re

g/m

i

3562, 1998 Ford F150 Truck, FTP Composite Weighted Emissions Comparing E20 and Conventional Road Fuel (E00) at Ambient and 20F

Run TemperatureRun1 =72FRun2 =20F

14

E0-E20 Fuel Economy Results• MC vehicle data was sorted for dedicated fuel use, 1 year of

data per fuel, minimum of 20 data points per fuel, same organization for both fuels.

• Practical (On-road)– 5.93% average measured reduction in 47 fleet vehicles.

• Theoretical (Fuel Energy)– 6.85% calculated reduction based on fuel energy.

• Experimental (Delphi)– Roughly 6.5% reduction based on measured carbon

emissions during chassis dynamometer FTP testing.• Results are consistent with expectations for energy content of

E20 fuel.

15

E20 Fuel Economy Results• Fuel economy was determined

through on-road data and experimentally.

• Odometer and fuel volume collected through MC PetroVend fuel control system.

• Data ported to RIT database for analysis.

• General observations: on-road fuel economy can be greatly impacted by:– Seasonal variation– Usage: organization / mission /

driver

16

E20 Drivability Results• Driver Surveys

– MC Drivers filled out fueling and performance cards for one calendar year

– Additionally took end-of-year survey

• No driving issues• Positive comments• High Mileage vehicle has 32,000 miles on E20

17

Use of Networkcar Vehicle Monitoring System• All 10 study vehicles and a number of other E20 vehicles are

equipped with the commercial Networkcar monitoring system linked into the OBD network.

• System provides GPS location, speed ranges, idle time and alerts when vehicle detects a fault or failure.

18

E20 Fleet Tracking• All data on MC and RIT vehicles is

imported into RIT proprietary database for all vehicles.– 630 Vehicles; 88,647 Fueling Entries;

15,552 Maintenance Entries.– Maintenance, fuel use, and TCO can

be calculated per fuel.– Looking for critical system failures

MTBCF• Analysis of full E20 TCO is in progress.

19

• The RIT program features a unique public-private partnership between the University, MC and Delphi.

• The RIT project has by far the largest and most comprehensive E20 fleet study: vehicle types and ages, weather, # of drivers.

• 10 Study vehicles have driven over 200K miles on E20; fleet has consumed over 300K gallons of E20 and driven well over 4 million miles so far…

• The results of the E20 program will be folded in to our overall assessment of the “Technology Readiness” of alternative fuels.

• E20 and E85 are being evaluated along with biodiesel and hydrogen ICE.

RIT Research Highlights

20

Issues with remaining testing• Our DOT research grant finishes in Nov 2010.• Not addressed in any of the studies: Impact of

ethanol on “aftermarket” parts.• Industry and Gov’t still must evaluate

motorcycle/recreational vehicle fleets.• The County wishes to continue using E20 in their

vehicles, but our testing waiver will expire with our DOT program.

• We likely won’t get to see E20 over the “full useful life” of many vehicles before Nov.

21

Summary• RIT-CIMS was able to execute an effective E20 Test and

Evaluation on an aggressive timeline.• Neither CIMS nor Monroe County has uncovered any

adverse effects of E20 on their vehicle fleet.• Fuel mileage is impacted, but results are as expected.• Tailpipe emissions are either a “wash” or in some cases,

significantly lower.• Drivers and fleet managers are happy with E20.• Total ownership cost is TBD - will depend on supply

chain, subsidies, tax credits, etc. (Is E10 cheaper than E0?)

22

Questions?

Brian DuddySenior Program Manager

RIT – CIMSRochester NY

585 -475- 2262bjdasp@rit.edu

23