Topics in Catalysis Vols. 16/17, Nos.

1–4, 2001 15

Future US motor vehicle emission standards and the role of advanced

emission control technology in meeting those standards
Bruce I. Bertelsen
Executive Director Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association

Future emission standards applicable to diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles and engines are reviewed. The important role of advanced
catalyst technology to meet these new standards is discussed and progress reported.
KEY WORDS: air pollution; motor vehicles; emission control technology; diesel particulate filter; catalytic converter

1. Introduction shown in table 1 and the Tier 2 standards are shown in

table 2.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in The Tier 2 standards, which are based in large part on
the process of establishing the next generation of emis- California’s LEV II program adopted in 1998, require all
sion standards for gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger passenger cars and light trucks to eventually meet the same
cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and buses. These stringent standards by 2009. The EPA rule does differ from
emission standards, which will take effect in the 2004– the California program in several respects. First, manu-
2009 timeframe, will define the emission control strate- facturers are required to meet a corporate average 120 000
gies in the United States for the next decade and beyond. mile 0.07 NOx standard (California established a per ve-
The next generation of emission control will employ a sys- hicle 0.07 gpm NOx requirement, but has a corporate av-
tems approach combining advanced engine and fuel deliv- erage non-methane organic gas (NMOG) standard). Sec-
ery technology, advanced emission control technology, and ond, LDT3s and LDT4s are given more time to meet the
low sulfur fuel. Advanced catalyst-based technology will corporate average 0.07 gpm NOx standard (100% by 2009)
play a central role in the emission control system of the fu- compared to passenger cars and LDT1s and LDT2s (100%
ture. by 2007), whereas California applies the same require-
This presentation will review future emission standards ments to all vehicles up to 8500 lbs. GVWR. Third, EPA
applicable to diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles and en- has included medium-duty passenger vehicles in the pro-
gines. It also will discuss the important role advanced cat- gram. Finally, since under EPA’s rule the manufacturers
alyst technology will play in helping both diesel and gaso- are able to certify to one of several different sets of stan-
line vehicles meet these new, stringent emission standards, dards or “bins”, they have the option of certifying diesel
and finally, it will report on the results of two demonstration engines to slightly less stringent PM (0.02 gpm) and NOx
programs sponsored by the manufacturers of emission con- (0.2 gpm) standards than found with the California LEV II
trols association (MECA) which illustrate the progress being program.
made in developing and applying advanced, catalyst-based The cornerstone of the Tier 2 program is that manufactur-
emission control technology. ers may choose to comply by certifying the mix of vehicles
to different sets of standards or bins, as long as the corporate
2. Future emission standards in the United States average meets the applicable interim or final NOx standard.
In the final rule, there are eight emission standard bins (1–8)
2.1. Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty for the Tier 2 standards and two additional bins (9–10) that
passenger vehicles are available only during the interim period and will be elim-
inated before the final phase-in of the Tier 2 program. An
On 21 December 1999, EPA finalized new, more stringent eleventh bin, shown in table 3, is available only for MDPVs
standards (“the Tier 2 standards”) for light-duty vehicles and expires in 2008.
(passenger cars), light-duty trucks up to 8500 lbs. GVWR,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles (8501–10 000 lbs. 2.1.1. Emission standards for vehicles <6000 lbs. GVWR
GVWR) to be phased in between 2004 and 2009 and the (LDVs and LLDTs)
Agency established new, nationwide limits for sulfur lev- The Tier 2 corporate average 120 000 mile 0.07 gpm
els in gasoline to a 30 ppm per gallon average begin- NOx standard for passenger cars (LDV) and light, light-duty
ning in 2005 and an 80 ppm per gallon cap beginning in trucks (LLDT), which are made up of LDT1s and LDT2s,
2006. The phase-in schedule for the Tier 2 standards is will be phased in as follows: 2004 – 25%, 2005 – 50%,

1022-5528/01/0900-0015$19.50/0  2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation

16 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards

Table 1
Tier 2 and interim non-Tier 2 phase-in and exhaust averaging sets (bold lines around shaded areas indicate averaging sets).

a 0.60 NO cap applies to balance of LDT3s/LDT4s, respectively, during the 2004–2006 phase-in years.
x
b Alternative phase-in provisions permit manufacturers to deviate from the 25/50/75% 2004–2006 and 50% 2008 phase-in requirements
and provide credit for phasing in some vehicles during one or more of these model years.
c Required only for manufacturers electing to use optional NMOG values for LDT2s or LDT4s and MDPV flexibilities during the
applicable interim program and for vehicles whose model year commences on or after the fourth anniversary date of the signature of
this rule. See discussion in text.
d MDPVs, HLDTs and MDPVs must be averaged together.
e Diesels may be engine-certified through the 2007 model year.

Table 2
Tier 2 light-duty full useful life exhaust emission standards (grams per mile).

Bin # NOx NMOG CO HCHO PM Comments

10 0.6 0.156/0.230 4.2/6.4 0.018/0.027 0.08 a,b,c,d

9 0.3 0.090/0.180 4.2 0.018 0.06 a,b,e

The above temporary bins expire in 2006 (for LDVs and LLDTs) and 2008 (for HLDTs)
8 0.20 0.125/0.156 4.2 0.018 0.02 b,f
7 0.15 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.02
6 0.10 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.01
5 0.07 0.090 4.2 0.018 0.01
4 0.04 0.070 2.1 0.011 0.01
3 0.03 0.055 2.1 0.011 0.01
2 0.02 0.010 2.1 0.004 0.01
1 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.00
a Bin deleted at end of 2006 model year (2008 for HLDTs).
b The higher temporary NMOG, CO and HCHO values apply only to HLDTs and expire after 2008.
c An additional temporary higher bin restricted to MDPVs is discussed below.
d Optional temporary NMOG standard of 0.280 g/mi applies for qualifying LDT4s and MDPVs only.
e Optional temporary NMOG standard of 0.130 g/mi applies for qualifying LDT2a only, see text.
f Higher temporary NMOG standard is deleted at end of 2008 model year.

Table 3
introduce vehicles meeting the Tier 2 standards as early as
Temporary interim exhaust emission standards bin (bin 11) for MDPVs.a
2001 and could pursue an alternative phase-in schedule as
NOx NMOG CO HCHO PM long as at least 25% of the vehicles are Tier 2 compliant in
Full useful life 0.9 0.28 7.3 0.032 0.12 2004 and 100% are Tier 2 compliant in 2007. Passenger cars
(120 000 mile) and LLDTs make up 86% of the vehicles in the <8500 lbs.
a Bin expires after model year 2008. GVWR category.
For passenger cars and light, light-duty trucks not re-
2006 – 75% and 2007 – 100%. To meet this requirement, quired to meet the Tier 2 standards for 2004–2006, a corpo-
manufacturers may certify to one of the available bins (1–8) rate average 120 000 mile 0.3 gpm NOx standard would ap-
shown in table 2. Manufacturers will have the flexibility to ply for these years. To meet this requirement, manufacturers
 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards 17

may choose from bin 1 to 10, as shown in table 2. Man- would be excluded from the interim averaging pool. Begin-
ufacturers electing to introduce vehicles meeting the Tier 2 ning in 2008, manufacturers must chassis certify diesel ve-
standards early in 2001–2004 to generate NOx credits to be hicles and include them either in the interim program or in
used in later years, or to be sold to other manufacturers, have the final Tier 2 program.
the option of certifying to a 100 000 or 120 000 mile useful
life. For manufacturers electing the 100 000 mile useful life, 2.1.4. Evaporative emission standards
the credits would be discounted by 17%. Manufacturers may According to EPA’s projections, evaporative emissions
also obtain extra NOx credits for the early introduction of from passenger cars and light-duty trucks represent nearly
vehicles certified to bins 1 or 2. half of the estimated light-duty NMHC inventory for the
2007–2010 time frame. EPA finalized more stringent evap-
2.1.2. Emission standards for vehicles >6000 lbs. GVWR orative standards for all Tier 2 passenger cars and light-duty
(HLDTs) trucks, which for most vehicles represent more than a 50%
Heavy, light-duty trucks (LDT3 and LDT4) would be re- reduction in diurnal plus hot soak standards.
quired to meet a corporate average 0.2 gpm NOx (120 000
mile) standard to be phased-in on the following schedule: 2.1.5. Gasoline sulfur regulations
2004 – 25%, 2005 – 50%, 2006 – 75% and 2007 – 100%. EPA finalized a requirement for a refinery 30 ppm average
Those HLDTs not subject to the interim corporate average sulfur level on an annual basis beginning in 2005. However,
during the phase-in years would be subject to the least strin- refiners would be given the flexibility to gain credits through
gent bins. The Clean Air Act, however, requires that man- the introduction of low sulfur gasoline as early as 2000 and
ufacturers of HLDTs be given at least a four year lead-time to average, bank, and trade sulfur reductions. In addition
from the date the standards are promulgated until the date to the 30 ppm average requirements, an 80 ppm sulfur per
they take effect. This means that engine test groups intro- gallon cap is established beginning in 2006.
duced before the fourth anniversary of the signing of the
Tier 2 rule are not covered under the Tier 2 program. To ad- 2.2. On-highway heavy-duty vehicles and engines
dress this issue, EPA has provided two compliance options
for HLDT interim standards, which are designed to achieve 2.2.1. Engine and vehicle emission standards
equivalent emission reductions. In 2008, 50% of the heavy, On 29 October 1999 (64 FR 58472), EPA published its
light-duty trucks would be required to meet the corporate proposal covering the technological feasibility finding for
average 120 000 mile 0.07 gpm NOx standard and in 2009 the previously adopted diesel HDE 2004 standards and new
100% would be required to meet the corporate average 0.07 standards for gasoline-powered HDVs. The proposed rule
NOx standard using the bins 1–8 shown in table 2. would:

2.1.3. Emission standards for medium-duty passenger – reaffirm that the previously adopted 2004 model year
vehicles non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) + NOx and partic-
EPA defines a MDPV as any complete vehicle from 8500 ulate matter (PM) standards (2.5 g/bhp h NOx + NMHC
to <10 000 lbs. GVWR designed for the transportation of and 0.1 g/bhp h PM) are technologically feasible and can
persons, including conversion vans. Any vehicle that (1) has be met with currently available diesel fuel;
a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (2) is designed to ac- – set new, more stringent standards for all heavy-duty otto-
commodate more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the cycle (e.g., gasoline-fueled) engines and vehicles which
driver’s seat, or (3) has a cargo box of six feet or more in inte- will result in an approximate 75% reduction in HC and
rior length is not considered a MDPV. MDPVs, like HLDTs, NOx emissions from this category of vehicles;
must meet the final Tier 2 standards by 2009 at the latest. – require OBD systems for all heavy-duty vehicles and en-
Prior to 2009 MDPVs are required to meet interim stan- gines at or below 14 000 lbs. GVWR and revise the OBD
dards. The interim standards are based on a corporate aver- requirements for diesel light-duty vehicles and trucks;
age full life NOx standard of 0.20 gpm, which are phased in and
25/50/75/100%, respectively, in 2004–2007. MDPVs must – implement additional certification test procedures and as-
be grouped with HLDTs for the interim phase-in. To ad-
sociated standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles to
dress concerns expressed by manufacturers regarding work-
address the issue of off-cycle emissions.
load burden and availability of chassis testing for diesel ve-
hicles, EPA provided additional flexibility. The Agency cre- Table 4 shows the proposed standards for gasoline-
ated an additional upper bin (bin 11) for use only by MDPVs powered heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The current NOx
and only for the interim program (2004–2008), as shown in standard for both diesel and gasoline vehicles is 4.0 g/bhp h.
table 3. The current HC standard for diesel is 1.3 g/bhp h and for
In addition, for diesel MDPVs manufactured prior to gasoline is 1.1 g/bhp h.
2008, EPA will allow manufacturers the option of meeting EPA, in its 1999 proposal, announced that the Agency
the heavy-duty engine standards in place for the coincid- plans to propose in early 2000 second-stage standards
ing model year. Diesels meeting the engine-based standards (called the “Phase 2” standards). EPA suggested that the
18 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards

Table 4 Table 5
Proposed NOx and HC standards for gasoline vehicles. Advanced engine/exhaust/emission control strategies for gasoline-powered
vehicles.
Gross vehicle weight NOx HC
(GVW) (g/mi) (g/mi) Technology Advancements to be employed

8500–10 000 pounds 0.9 0.28 Catalyst technology • Layered washcoat and support materials
10 001–14 000 pounds 1.0 0.33 with high thermal stability
14 001 pounds and above 1.0 g/bhp h • High cell density catalyst supports (substrates)
(combined NOx and HC) • Thin-walled (lower mass) catalyst supports
• Mounting materials with improved durability
• New catalyst support designs (e.g., hexagonal
more stringent standards could take effect as early as 2007 cell structure, contoured end cones)
and could call for a reduction of up to 90% for both NOx • Thermally-insulated components
and PM emissions over the levels required by the 2004 stan- Electronic engine controls • Higher idle speeds with engine spark retard
dards. If the 90% requirement were adopted, this would • Higher speed computer processors
translate into emission standards of 0.2 g/bhp h NOx and • Model-based control algorithms
0.01 g/bhp h PM. • Injectors with improved fuel atomization
• Variable cam/valve timing
2.2.2. Low sulfur diesel fuel • Electronic EGR
On 13 May 1999 (64 FR 26142), EPA invited comments • Electronic throttle control
on setting more stringent sulfur limits for diesel fuel sold for • CVT (transmissions)
use by on-road vehicles and establishing a sulfur limit for Emission system sensors • Linear oxygen sensors
diesel fuel sold for use by off-road vehicles and equipment. (control and diagnostics) • Planar oxygen sensors
In April or May 2000, EPA is expected to propose new sulfur • Fast response temperature sensors
limits on diesel fuel. EPA appears to be leaning towards a • Combination NOx /O2 sensor
national standard to be implemented as early as mid-2006.
Thermal management • Air-gap manifolds, exhaust pipes, and
EPA has yet to announce the level it intends to propose, but converter shells offer low heat capacity and
speculation is growing that the Agency will propose a sulfur high heat insulation to improve converter
cap below 30 ppm and, possibly, as low as 15 ppm. warm-up and minimize outer surface
temperatures
2.3. Other US EPA regulatory initiatives

Looking to the future, EPA has several additional regu-

latory initiatives that it is evaluating for proposal over the employing advances in engine technology, advanced cata-
next several years. First, EPA is expected to propose be- lyst technology and low sulfur fuel. EPA, in its final rule,
fore the end of 2000 new PM standards (referred to as the stated that the type of control strategies likely to be em-
Tier 3 standards) for off-road diesel engines to take effect ployed included ongoing improvements in computer soft-
in the 2006–2008 timeframe and EPA is expected to eventu- ware, engine air/fuel controls, advances in catalyst designs
ally propose that off-road engines meet emission standards and catalyst/system integration, increases in precious metal
comparable to the soon-to-be-proposed on-highway HDEs loading, and other exhaust system/catalyst system improve-
Phase 2 standards. The later standards would necessitate the ments. Table 5 lists the types of engine/exhaust/catalyst
use of both NOx and PM exhaust emission control technol- technology improvements and advancements that likely will
ogy. Second, EPA is planning to adopt emission standards be employed to meet the Tier 2 standards. For diesel-fueled
for a variety of off-road spark-ignition (SI) engines, includ- vehicles, EPA stated that exhaust control technology likely
ing off-road engines >25 horsepower (hp), engines >25 hp would be necessary. For NOx emissions, EPA listed lean
used in handheld lawn and garden equipment, and stern- NOx catalysts, NOx adsorbers and selective catalytic re-
drive engines used in recreational marine vessels. Depend- duction (SCR) as potential technologies. For PM control,
ing on the stringency of these standards, catalyst technology EPA identified oxidation catalysts and PM filter technology.
may be employed to help achieve compliance. EPA stressed the importance of low sulfur fuel in enabling
catalyst-based emission control technology to be optimized
for maximized emission reductions.
3. Technological solutions to meet future emission
standards in the United States
3.2. An illustration of strategies that are available to help
3.1. Strategies for meeting the Tier 2 emission standards for the Tier 2 standards
passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty
passenger vehicles A program to demonstrate the performance of advanced
emission control systems was conducted at Southwest Re-
As noted above, the technological solution to meeting the search Institute in 1998–1999 on behalf of the manufacturers
Tier 2 standards adopted by EPA will be a systems approach of emission controls association (MECA) to evaluate emis-
 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards 19

Table 6
sion control strategies in light of EPA’s anticipated adoption
Emission control strategies employed in MECA demonstration program.
of the Tier 2 emission standards and California’s LEV II pro-
gram [1]. For this program, two passenger cars – a Buick Strategy Description
LeSabre (six-cylinder engine) and a Ford Crown Victoria Hydrocarbon and carbon Advanced systems
(eight-cylinder engine) – and two light-duty pick-up trucks – monoxide control techniques • Small, high-density Pd light-off catalysts
a Toyota T100 (a six-cylinder, LDT1) and a Chevrolet Sil- • Thermally-insulated components
verado (an eight-cylinder, LDT3) – were selected for testing, Modified controls
modification, and emission system performance optimiza- • Variable rate air injection to balance
tion. The Silverado was 1999 Federal Tier I compliant while enrichment
the other three vehicles were 1997 Federal Tier I compli- NOx control techniques Advanced systems
ant. • High cell density
Each new vehicle was driven 4000 miles on California • Increased volume
Phase II reformulated gasoline over the EPA ASADP RDP-II • Advanced washcoats
mileage accumulation driving cycle. The new gasoline sul- Modified controls
fur limits adopted by the US EPA are based on California’s • EGR control modification
Phase II reformulated gasoline. After the initial mileage • EGR cooling
• EGO switch point shifting
break-in was completed, each vehicle was emissions tested
• Fuel injection intercept
on the FTP-75 test cycle. In these and all other FTP tests
run as part of this program, test vehicles were fueled with
emissions grade California Phase II reformulated gasoline.
Hydrocarbon speciation and modal emissions analyses were tested in its final tuned configuration over multiple modal
performed on each cycle of the FTP test. The stock baseline FTP-75 tests cycles. Hydrocarbon speciation was performed
modal emissions were examined and various systems includ- on each cycle of two of the final FTP tests. These results
ing advanced catalysts, insulated exhaust components, and characterized the tuned emission performance of each ad-
modified vehicle controls were developed in order to lower vanced emission system after 4000 vehicle miles. Each ad-
tailpipe emissions of each test vehicle significantly below vanced catalyst system was then engine aged using an ac-
their Tier 1 emission performance levels. celerated thermal aging cycle. The aging cycle used was
After installing the advanced systems, the vehicles were an engine dynamometer cycle based on the published Gen-
again driven for 4000 miles on California Phase II refor- eral Motors RAT-A aging schedule. California Phase II re-
mulated fuel using the EPA ASASP RDP-II mileage accu- formulated gasoline was used for all of the engine aging
mulation driving cycle. The base performance of the ad- done in this program. The RAT-A cycle was adjusted to
vanced catalyst system was then determined with the stock increase the inlet exhaust temperature to the first catalyst
vehicle controls over the FTP-75 test cycle. As part of an in the converter system to 820 ◦C during the stoichiometric
effort to optimize the emission performance of these ad- cruise mode of the aging cycle for this test program. For
vanced emission systems, the base modal emission test re- the two passenger car systems, 100 h of aging time with
sults were analyzed and vehicle control modifications were this schedule was used to simulate a high mileage condi-
formulated to reduce the remaining high emission modes of tion. For the light-duty trucks, system-aging time was ex-
operation. Control modifications were performed using a tended to 125 h in recognition of the more severe duty cy-
computer controlled-signal intercept system (Emissions Re- cles of some light-duty pick-up trucks relative to passenger
duction Intercept and Control system or ERIC). This com- cars. The actual mileage correlation to aging hours is ap-
puter intercept methodology was used to recognize and mod- plication specific, but as referenced in the literature [2–4],
ify only driving modes associated with high tailpipe emis- 100 h of engine aging with the RAT-A cycle can correspond
sion modes, thereby minimizing the level of modification to 100 000 miles of in-service use on some vehicle platforms.
to the stock vehicle control system. The control tuning ap- The systems were retested over the FTP-75 after engine ag-
proach developed for each vehicle was unique to the plat- ing on each test vehicle to characterize the emission perfor-
form. The computer intercept techniques used in this pro- mance durability of each system. No modifications to the
gram were capable of modifying selected vehicle control optimized control strategies developed during the program’s
parameters without setting codes in the vehicles’ on-board tuning phase were made after aging of the emission compo-
diagnostic monitoring systems. Tuned control strategies had nents.
no measurable impact on the test vehicles-fuel economy over The test results for each of the four test vehicles used in
the FTP driving cycle. The modified control strategies also this program are summarized in figure 1.
did not result in any detectable changes to vehicle driveabil- The composite FTP emissions for the 100 h aged Buick
ity during FTP evaluations. The types of engine adjustments LeSabre and Ford Crown Victoria, and the 125 h aged Toy-
and advanced catalyst strategies employed are listed in ota T100 and Chevrolet Silverado with tuned advanced tech-
table 6. nology systems, were less than the California light-duty ve-
After the advanced technology systems and the modified hicle LEV II ULEV 120 000 mile and the US EPA’s Tier II
engine controls were integrated and tuned, each vehicle was standards (bin 5), as shown in figure 1. The total toxic
20 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards

to significantly lower tailpipe emission levels from today’s

Federal Tier 1 levels to the recently adopted EPA Tier 2 stan-
dards and the California LEV II standards. This program
was especially successful in demonstrating very low NOx
tailpipe emission levels (below 0.07 g/mi for each of the four
aged systems evaluated), a key feature of EPA’s Tier 2 pro-
gram. The program results also exhibit the importance of the
system design aspects on vehicle emission performance. In
order to reach the ultralow emission levels demonstrated by
each of the four test vehicles, it was important and necessary
to install advanced emission control systems and to integrate
these systems with the engine controls. In each case, the test
Figure 1. Aged FTP emission test results for the four vehicles (g/mi). vehicles made use of advanced converter technologies that
were passive in design. They incorporated advanced cat-
alyst formulations, high cell density ceramic and metallic
substrates, and exhaust component insulation technologies.
Finally, it is important to note that all vehicles were oper-
ated and tested on California phase II reformulated gasoline
which will become the standard fuel in the US under EPA’s
new gasoline sulfur rule.

3.3. Strategies to meet the on-road heavy-duty diesel engine

Phase 2 standards

Engine manufacturers are expected to use a combination

of engine modifications and EGR to meet EGR to the 2004
standards. In some instances, an oxidation catalyst may be
employed to control any increases in PM emissions result-
ing from the use of EGR to ensure that the engine meets the
0.1 g/bhp h standard. To meet the expected Phase 2 heavy-
Figure 2. A comparison of toxic emissions for three test vehicles as com- duty engine standards a systems approach will be needed
pared to other vehicles (mg/mi). that combines advanced engine technology and both NOx
and PM exhaust control technologies. To enable the use and
complete optimization of the existing and emerging NOx
emissions for each vehicle with the tuned 4000 mile ad- and PM exhaust emission control technologies, very low sul-
vanced technology systems were also considerably lower fur diesel fuel will be needed. Diesel particulate filters or
than 4000 mile stock vehicle systems. The largest reduc- “traps” will likely be used to meet the very stringent Phase 2
tion in toxic emission was accompanied by the largest reduc- PM standards. NOx adsorber and selective catalytic reduc-
tion in NMHC and NMOG over stock. Although there was tion (SCR) appear to be the leading strategies to help meet
no toxics data for the stock Silverado, because there was a the tough Phase 2 NOx standards.
large decrease in NMHC with the tuned, advanced system,
it is anticipated that the vehicle would also have demon- 3.4. An illustration of catalyst-based exhaust control
strated a large decrease in toxic emissions over the stock technologies to achieve low emission levels for
configuration. The large reductions observed in toxic emis- heavy-duty engines
sions with the advanced catalyst systems on each of the vehi-
cles tested highlights the synergy between improved hydro- MECA conducted a test program at Southwest Research
carbon performance and improved performance in reducing Institute (SwRI) in 1998–1999. The objective of the test pro-
toxic emissions. Technologies aimed at improved cold-start gram was to evaluate the performance of a variety of com-
hydrocarbon emission performance also provide significant mercially available exhaust emission control technologies on
reductions in toxic emissions. Figure 2 compares the tox- a current design heavy-duty diesel engine with standard no. 2
ics emission levels for the three vehicles in the MECA test diesel (368 ppm) fuel, lower sulfur (54 ppm) diesel fuel, and,
program with toxic emission levels of older vehicles certi- in a limited number of cases, zero ppm sulfur fuel [5]. The
fied to meet the federal Tier 1 standards and earlier emission technologies evaluated included:
standards.
The results from this test program provide clear evidence • diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs),
that advanced emission control technologies are available • diesel particulate filters (DPFs),
 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards 21

• selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and

• fuel-borne catalysts (FBCs) in combination with exhaust
control technology.

In this paper, the test results for filters and SCR technol-
ogy will be reviewed since these are among the candidate
technologies expected to be employed to meet EPA’s antici-
pated Phase 2 heavy-duty engine standards.
A 1998 12.7 l Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC), 400 hp,
series 60 engine was selected to represent a typical cur-
rent design on-road heavy-duty diesel engine. Exhaust gas
re-circulation (EGR) was incorporated onto the engine for
some of the testing. The majority of the testing was con- Figure 3. Polyaromatic hydrocarbon emissions with and without diesel par-
ducted using the US on-road HDE transient certification test ticulate filters (mg/bhp h).
procedure. Unlike the light-duty vehicle test program dis-
cussed above, the emission control technologies tested in
this program were not aged.

3.4.1. Diesel particulate filters

Three different filter technologies were tested to exam-
ine potential emission reductions with standard no. 2 and
lower sulfur diesel fuel (54 ppm S). Two filters were tested
with regular diesel fuel (368 ppm S). One system had a cat-
alytic coating applied directly to the filter element and the
other incorporated a fuel-borne catalyst used in conjunction
with an uncatalyzed filter element. These technologies re-
duced transient emissions of particulate by 70% or more, Figure 4. PM and NOx emissions test results for SCR combined with diesel
total hydrocarbons by as much as 94%, and carbon monox- particulate filters (g/bhp h).
ide by up to 63%. On regular sulfur fuel, the DPF tech-
nologies tested reduced transient PM emissions to 0.022 and reductions of 62 and 52%, respectively, were measured for
0.016 g/bhp h. These systems were also tested in combina- carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons emissions.
tion with exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) to determine the
combined effect on PM and NOx + HC emissions. Combin- 3.4.2. Selective catalytic reduction
ing EGR with the systems achieved NOx + HC emissions SCR was tested on 368 ppm sulfur fuel alone and with
two different DPF technologies. SCR was also tested in
of less than 2.5 g/bhp h while reducing PM emissions to sig-
combination with a DOC technology using 54 ppm sul-
nificantly below 0.05 g/bhp h in both instances and as low as
fur fuel. The SCR system combined with DPF technol-
0.01 g/bhp h.
ogy resulted in NOx + HC emissions in the range of 1.10–
Using 54 ppm sulfur fuel lowered the engine out partic-
1.17 g/bhp h, representing a reduction of approximately 70%
ulate by 13% to 0.063 g/bhp h. A low sulfur catalytic filter
as compared to engine out NOx emissions, and PM emis-
utilizing an upstream NOx conversion catalyst was tested. It
sions of 0.002–0.01 g/bhp h, as shown in figure 4. The ulti-
was also tested in combination with EGR. Particulate emis-
mate design target for SCR technology will be to control en-
sion reductions of 87%, hydrocarbon emission reductions
gine out NOx at a 90% or greater level to enable engines to
of 95%, and carbon monoxide emission reductions of 93%
meet the very stringent NOx standards being contemplated
were achieved. The DPF technology designed for this type by the US EPA.
of fuel reduced PM emissions to 0.008 g/bhp h. Testing the
system with EGR showed that NOx + HC emissions below
2.5 g/bhp h can be achieved while reducing PM emissions to 4. Conclusion
substantially below 0.05 g/bhp h. The US Environmental Protection Agency is in the
The capability of DPFs to reduce polyaromatic hydrocar- process of establishing very stringent emission standards for
bon emissions was evaluated for both the 368 and 54 ppm virtually every category of motor vehicle. These standards,
sulfur fuels. Reductions in excess of 80% were found in which will take effect in the 2004–2009 timeframe, and will
both instances, as shown in figure 3. require substantial emission reductions over the levels cur-
At the conclusion of the test program, a filter system orig- rently required. Meeting these stringent standards present
inally tested on 368 ppm sulfur fuel was tested on zero sulfur significant engineering challenges. The solution will be a
fuel to quantify the benefits of the very low sulfur levels. PM systems approach combining advanced engine designs, ad-
emission levels of 0.005 g/bhp h were achieved. Substantial vanced catalyst-based control technologies, and low sulfur
22 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards

fuel. Engine, vehicle, and emission control manufacturers References

are working together to develop and optimize the needed
technological solutions. The prospects for meeting these [1] MECA, Final report (1999).
[2] G.S. Sims and J. Sandeep, SAE paper 881589.
very stringent emissions levels, as illustrated by two recent [3] D.J. Ball, A.G. Mohammed and W.A. Schmidt, SAE paper 972846.
test programs discussed in this presentation, appear to be ex- [4] J.R. Theis, SAE paper 942058.
cellent. [5] MECA, Final report (1999).