This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 4: Fuel Consumption, Emissions, and Cost-Effectiveness of an Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel Compared to Conventional Diesel Fuels
Technical Paper
2005-01-1724
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) began using an ultra-low-sulfur, low aromatic, high cetane number diesel fuel (TxLED, Texas Low Emission Diesel) in June 2003. They initiated a simultaneous study of the effectiveness to reduce emissions and influence fuel economy of this fuel in comparison to 2D on-road diesel fuel used in both their on-road and off-road equipment. The study incorporated analyses for the fleet operated by the Association of General Contractors (AGC) in the Houston area. Some members of AGC use 2D off-road diesel in their equipment. One off-road engine, two single-axle dump trucks, and two tandem-axle dump trucks were tested. The equipment tested included newer electronically-controlled diesels. The off-road engine was tested over the TxDOT Telescoping Boom Excavator Cycle. The dump trucks were tested using the “route” technique over the TxDOT Single-Axle Dump Truck Cycle or the TxDOT Tandem-Axle Dump Truck Cycle. Compared to 2D on-road diesel fuel, for the operating cycles and engines/vehicles tested, TxLED showed an average decrease in NOx emissions of about 5.5%. The results of cost-effectiveness analyses for the TxDOT and AGC fleets are also discussed.
Recommended Content
Authors
- Ronald D. Matthews - University of Texas
- Matt Hall - University of Texas
- Joe Anthony - Southwest Research Institute
- Rick Baker - Eastern Research Group
- Jolanda Prozzi - University of Texas
- Randy Machemehl - University of Texas
- Terry Ullman - Southwest Research Institute
- Don Lewis - Texas Dept. of Transportation
Citation
Matthews, R., Hall, M., Anthony, J., Baker, R. et al., "The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 4: Fuel Consumption, Emissions, and Cost-Effectiveness of an Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel Compared to Conventional Diesel Fuels," SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-1724, 2005, https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-1724.Also In
CI Engine Performance for Use With Alternative Fuels, and New Diesel Engines and Components
Number: SP-1978; Published: 2005-04-11
Number: SP-1978; Published: 2005-04-11
References
- DeFries, T. Smith M.V. Anthony J. Kishan S. Ullman T. Matthews R.D. Lewis D. “The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 1: Development of TxDOT-Specific Test Cycles with Emphasis on a “Route” Technique for Comparing Fuel/Water Emulsions and Conventional Diesel Fuels,” SAE Paper 2004-01-0090 Journal of Fuels and Lubricants Vol. 112 2004
- Matthews, R.D. Anthony J.W. Hall M.J. Ullman T. Lewis D. “The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 2: Comparisons of Fuel Consumption and Emissions for a Fuel/Water Emulsion and Conventional Diesel Fuels” SAE Paper 2004-01-0087 Journal of Fuels and Lubricants Vol. 112 2004
- Prozzi, J. Machemehl R. Baker R. DeFries T.H. Matthews R.D. Lewis D. The Texas Diesel Fuels Project, Part 3: Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for an Emulsified Diesel Fuel for Highway Construction Equipment Fleets SAE Paper 2004-01-0086 Journal of Fuels and Lubricants Vol. 112 2004
- Ullman, T.L. “Investigation of the Effects of Fuel Composition on Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Emissions,” SAE Paper 892072 1989
- Ullman, T. L. Mason R.L. Montalvo D.A. “Effects of Fuel Aromatics, Cetane Number, and Cetane Improver on Emissions from a 1991 Prototype Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,” SAE Paper 902171 1990
- http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/
- Lanham, B. private communication September 23 2004
- Baker, R. “Development of a Revised Emissions Inventory for construction Equipment in the Houston Galveston Ozone Non-Attainment Area,” April 20 2002
- EPA “Strategies and Issues in Correlating Diesel Fuel Properties with Emissions - Staff Discusion Document,” July 2001