Supporting Information

A Vehicle Specific Power Approach to Speed- and Facility- Specific Emissions

Estimates for Diesel Transit Buses

Haibo Zhai, 1 H. Christopher Frey, 1 * and Nagui M. Rouphail 2

1
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State

University, Campus Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908

2
Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE), North Carolina State University

Centennial Campus, Campus Box 8601, Raleigh, NC 27695-8601

* Corresponding author:

Tel: 1-919-5151155

Fax: 1-919-5157908

Email: frey@ncsu.edu

Number of Pages: 42
Number of Figures: 16
Number of Tables: 10
This supporting information (SI) provides supplemented texts, tables and figures to further

describe the VSP-based model development and validation, and speed- and facility- specific

average emission rates estimates and their evaluation. The information provided includes:

(1) Emissions standards for diesel buses;

(2) Accuracy of measurements from the Portable Emission Measurement System (PEMS);

(3) Bus link speed profiles to get insights on link-based bus activity patterns and their

association with mean speeds and emissions;

(4) Data division to investigate the representative of model calibration and validation

datasets;

(5) Exploring the relationship between VSP and emissions before model development;

(6) Assessing the effects of autocorrelation on modal emissions model;

(7) Inter-vehicle variability in VSP mode average emission rates;

(8) Effects of acceleration on CO VSP modal emission rates;

(9) Validation of the VSP modeling approach and uncertainty analysis;

(10) Time distributions of VSP modes for multiple links with the same attributes;

(11) ANVOA results regarding the effect of facility type and link mean speed on transit bus

emission rates;

(12) Time distribution of VSP modes for various speed ranges; and

(13) Tables complementing the results in the main paper.

S1. Emissions Standards for Diesel Buses

EPA’s new diesel engine emission standards applied to these buses are 1.3 g/bhp-hr, 15.5 g/bhp-
hr and 4.0 g/bhp-hr for HC, CO and NOx, respectively (1).

S1
S2. Portable Emission Measurement System (PEMS) Accuracy

The mass-based emission rates are calculated by fuel flow rate, mole fraction of pollutant and

molecular weight ratio of pollutant versus fuel (2). In an independent evaluation, the cycle

average measurements from the SEMTECH-D were compared to Federal Reference Method

(FRM) measurements (3). Based on 6 sets of measurements, the average difference in cycle

emission rate was 3% for CO2, -5% for hydrocarbons, 9% for NOx, and 35% for CO. Thus, the

measurements agreed well for CO2, HC, and NOx. The larger error for CO is attributed to low

exhaust gas concentrations, which are subject to larger errors because of detection limits.

Global positioning system (GPS) repeatability in altitude was reported to be 1 to 2 meters

(3). The typical range of road grade is -4 to 4%.

S3. Link Speed Profiles of Transit Buses

Various vehicle activities such as deceleration and acceleration produce different levels of

vehicle emissions. Link speed profiles of transit buses were analyzed in order to get insights on

link-based activities patterns for transit buses and their association with link mean speeds and

emissions. For transit buses, a link was defined as the road segment between two bus stops. The

defined links were characterized by the segment attribution such as roadway type. Link classes

included principal arterials, minor arterials, local and collector streets. There were two types of

bus speed profiles as shown in Figure S-1: ( ) the one that had no traffic control stops; and ( )

the other that had traffic control stops. As shown in Table S-1, the speed profile ( ) had lower

mean speed than speed profile ( ). However, CO2, CO and NOx emission rates based upon the

distance (g/mile) from speed profile ( ) were larger than from speed profile ( ) whereas its

average emission for HC was lower than from speed profile , which implied that traffic control

stops can affect bus activities and emissions.

S2
S4. PEMS Database Division

The PEMS database was divided into two parts: a calibration dataset and a validation dataset for

model development and validation. Because driving modes affect vehicle emission rates, the

similarity of bus activities between both datasets was investigated prior to using them in order to

evaluate whether both datasets were representative or not. The cumulative distribution function

(CDF) plots of vehicle speeds and accelerations were generated for the calibration and validation

datasets to ensure that activities in both datasets were comparable. As shown in Figure S-2, the

values of CDF for a given speed or acceleration were very close to each other for both datasets,

which indicates that there are similar patterns of vehicle activities between the calibration and

validation datasets and that both datasets were representative of each other.

S5. Relationship between VSP and Emission Rates

The relationship between VSP and emissions was explored through the use of scatter plots. As

shown in Figure S-3, emission rates were very low and were almost the constant for VSP less

than -10 m2/s3. However, emission rates gradually increased with the VSP values when VSP

values were in the range from -10 to 0 m2/s3. There was generally a monotonic increase in

emissions with positive VSP for all pollutants, with the exception of CO emission rates which

tended to decrease when VSP values were above about 10 m2/s3 (see paper for an explanation as

to why this may be the case) In general, monotonic relationships motivated the development of

the VSP binning approach.

Examination of the data showed that there were positive VSP values in previous seconds

for the current data point whose VSP value was in the range from -10 to 0 m2/s3. Therefore, it is

S3
necessary to further investigate the randomness in the dataset. The randomness in the dataset is

ascertained by computing autocorrelations for data values at varying time lags. The sample

autocorrelation plot in Figure S-4 showed that the time series of emissions had an autocorrelation

between current and adjacent observations in previous several seconds. The autocorrelation

explained the reason that emission rates corresponding to VSP values from -10 to 0 m2/s3

displayed increasing trends.

As shown in Figure S-5a, CO emissions are sensitive to bus acceleration. During heavy

acceleration, more fuel is injected and more incomplete combustion may occur, which result in

high CO emissions. There are fewer samples with heavy acceleration for Mode 8 than Modes 6

and 7, which are shown in Figure S-5b.

S6. Effects of Autocorrelation on Modal Emissions Model

As shown in Figure S-4a for Bus 1, for the time lag up to 2 seconds for CO, NOx, and HC and 6

seconds for CO2, the autocorrelation is larger than 0.50. There are similar situations for other

buses. Thus, the effect of autocorrelation on the VSP modal emissions model needs to be

evaluated.

Before evaluating the effect of autocorrelation on emission rates, the averaging duration

per VSP mode event for typical speed profiles is investigated, as shown in Figure S-6. These

two speed profiles are typical. During the vehicle driving, one speed profile has traffic control

stops, and the other has no traffic stops. These two speed profiles were on different links. The

duration per VSP event ranged from 1.0 second to more than 30.0 second for two speed profiles.

Each VSP mode event is affected by speed, acceleration and road grade. As shown in Figure S-6

(a) and (b), when the vehicle started to accelerate, there were some 1-second VSP mode events

S4
distributed among various VSP modes. When the vehicle lightly accelerated or cruised for a

while, and then decelerated on a downhill, VSP may change from positive to negative values.

Thus, VSP mode event changed, and some 1-second mode events may appear. The average

duration per VSP mode event for each mode for typical speed profiles are summarized in Table

S-2. The average duration per VSP mode event for each mode ranged from 1.2 seconds to 5.0

seconds for two speed profiles. The overall average duration per event across modes for the

original datasets are 1.7 seconds and 2.0 seconds for two speed profiles.

In order to reduce autocorrelation, the data were grouped into segments of various

consecutive times. Given average durations from 1.2 seconds to 5.0 seconds per VSP modal

event for real-world link speed profiles, the second-by-second data are averaged using

consecutive averages of 2, 3 and 5 seconds to evaluate the implications of autocorrelation on the

VSP modal modeling. Modal models involve averaging of the data. Therefore, it is useful to

evaluate the effect of averaging on autocorrelation.

As an example, the autocorrelation coefficients of emission rates for the 2-, 3- and 5-

second consecutive moving average datasets for Bus 1 are shown in Figure S-4. Compared to the

original second-by-second dataset, the autocorrelation coefficients for the consecutive average

datasets consistently decrease for all pollutant as averaging time increases.

Consecutive averaging was applied to the calibration datasets. A 2, 3 or 5 second average

VSP was calculated:

t
VSP =
1
(VSPi ) (S-1)
t i =1

Where:

i = time index;

t = consecutive average seconds (2 second or 3 second or 5 second);

S5
 VSPi = vehicle specific power at a given second i (kW/ton);

VSP = consecutive average vehicle specific power (kW/ton).

The modal emission rates were estimated based on each version of the 2-, 3- and 5-second

consecutive average calibration data. The differences for modal emission rates based on

consecutive average dataset and the original calibration dataset are given in Table S-3. The

differences of modal emission rates are classified into three ranges ( ±5%, ±10%, >±10%), and

the number of VSP modes for each range is summarized for each pollutant in Figure S-7.

The overall average differences in modal emission rates for eight modes are not more

than 3% for CO2, NOx and HC, and not more than 5% for CO, when comparing original second-

by-second and each of 2, 3 and 5 second consecutive averages. For CO2, NOx and HC, the

absolute differences in modal emission rates for individual modes are not more than 10% for the

2- and 3-second consecutive average datasets; however, for the 5-second consecutive average

dataset, there is one mode for each of these pollutants for which the absolute differences in

modal emission rates are more than 10% and less than 16%. For CO, there are two modes for

the 2-second consecutive average dataset, three modes for the 3-second consecutive average

dataset and four modes for the 5-second consecutive average dataset for which such absolute

differences are more than 10% for CO. These results indicate that the consecutive averages have

relatively larger effects on individual modal emission rates for CO than those for other pollutants

because CO has lower autocorrelation for time lags of more than 2 seconds, compared to other

pollutants, as shown in Figure S-4(a).

Using the fleet validation dataset, modal models based on 2-, 3- and 5- second

consecutive average datasets are evaluated. Total emissions are estimated using these new modal

emission rates and compared to total measured emissions. The estimation errors for all trips

S6
emissions are given in Table S-4 and compared for different versions of consecutive average-

based models. The average difference of estimation errors in total emissions estimated for 12 trip

speed profiles is 0.1 to 1.3 percent for CO2, HC and NOx, and 1.4 to 4.1 percent for CO when

comparing each of 2, 3 and 5 second consecutive average-based models to the original modal

model based on second-by-second data. Therefore, autocorrelation is found to have no

significant effects on trips emissions predicted by the VSP modal emissions model.

S7. Inter-Vehicle Variability in VSP Modal Average Emission Rates

Vehicle activities affect emissions. The CDFs of vehicle speed were plotted for individual buses.

As shown in Figure S-8, buses had different activities patterns. For example, Buses 7, 9 and 10

were related to low speed activities. However, Buses 11, 14 and 15 are related to high speed

activities. For Buses 7, 9 and 10, there are 65 to 70 percent of speeds less than 20 mph, and 60

percent of speed less than 20 mph for Bus 6, whereas there are 40 percent of speeds less than 20

mph for Bus 11, and 50 to 54 percent of speeds less than 20 mph for Buses 14 and 15. Trip

average speed was 12 mph and 14 mph for Buses 9 and 10, which are much lower than average

speeds of 24 mph for Bus 11 and 21 mph for Bus 14.

Inter-vehicle variability in VSP modal average emission rates was investigated before

combining data from different vehicles to estimate fleet average emission rates. As shown in

Figure S-9, the modal average emission rates were estimated based upon individual vehicle data,

which in general, are significantly different. As summarized in Table S-5, the number of

samples for each of eight VSP modes for individual vehicle is more than 100, except for VSP

Mode 8 for Buses 1, 11 and 15, which indicates that there are sufficient samples to estimate

modal average emission rates. As shown in Figure S-10, in general, VSP modal average

S7
emission rates of CO2, NOx and HC monotonously increased with the VSP mode for all buses

except for modal average emission rates of HC from Buses 14 and 15.

There were similar varying trends for CO emissions for all buses. For CO, modal

average emission rates increased with VSP mode up to Modes 5 or 6 or 7 and then decreased.

Comparisons of multiple buses emissions indicated that there was a large inter-vehicle

variability in emissions for HC. Compared with modal average HC emission rates of other

vehicles, each of the eight modal average emission rates for Bus 10 were almost all the lowest.

For Buses 14 and 15, modal average emission rates for the VSP Modes 1, 2 and 3 are larger than

those for high VSP modes, which are also much larger than modal average emission rates of the

VSP Modes 1 and 2 of other buses. Different from other buses, the correlation coefficients

between HC emission rates and VSP for Buses 14 and 15 were 0.04 and -0.18, which indicated

low correlation between two variables.

For diesel vehicles, HC emissions have a dependence on equivalence ratio. Equivalence

ratio is defined as actual fuel versus air ratio normalized with respect to the stoichiometric fuel

versus air ratio:

mf
ma
= actual
(S-2)
mf
ma
stoichiometric

Where:

= Equivalence ratio;

f = index of fuel;

a = index of air;

m = the mass;

S8
 mf
= fuel versus air mass ratio.
ma

As shown in Figure S-11(a), high HC emission rates in gram per second occurred across fuel

lean equivalence ratios. As an alternative, HC emission rates were estimated based on brake

horse power. As shown in Figure S-11(b), there is a more clear relationship between equivalence

ratio and brake-specific HC emissions. Similar to results by Frey et al, 2002, high HC emission

rates occurred at low values of equivalence ratio less than 0.40. As shown in Figure S-11(c),

equivalence ratio and VSP are weakly related; the R2 value between them is 0.38. In addition, the

R2 value between brake horse power and VSP is 0.26. Thus, the VSP modal approach does not

explain a large portion of the variability in HC emission rates. On the other hand, HC emission

rates and total emissions from on-road diesel engine are small relative to those from gasoline

engines.

There was a smaller inter-vehicle variability in modal average emission rates on a relative

basis for CO2 and NOx than for HC and CO.

S8. Effects of Acceleration on CO VSP Modal Emission Rates

CO emissions are sensitive to acceleration. Quantification of heavy acceleration in individual

VSP modes helps illustrate the trends that CO modal emission rate for VSP Mode 8 is smaller

than for VSP Mode 6 or 7 for some vehicles shown in Figure S-9b. Percentages of data for

heavy acceleration events in individual high VSP modes for each vehicle are summarized in

Table S-6. As shown in Figure S-11, the ratio of modal emission rates for VSP Mode 8 versus 6

or 7 increases with the ratio of percentage of heavy acceleration more than 3 mph/s. For vehicles

with the modal emission rates ratios less than 1.0 for VSP Mode 8 versus 6 or 7, there are higher

percentages of samples with heavy acceleration for VSP Modes 6 and 7 than for VSP Mode 8,

S9
which account for lower modal emission rate for VSP Mode 8; for vehicles with the modal

emission rates ratios more than 1.0, there are higher percentages of heavy acceleration events

associated with VSP Mode 8.

S9. Validation for VSP modeling approach with Uncertainty Estimates

Once VSP mode average emission rates were estimated based upon the model calibration dataset,

validation was carried out. The validation database consisted of 12 subsets, each of which was

selected from individual vehicles and was ten minutes in length as described in the main paper.

Using modal average emission rates with 95% confidence intervals shown in Figure 2 of the

main paper, total emissions of individual subsets were estimated for each of buses and then

compared with corresponding measured total emissions. Subsequently, estimation errors were

calculated for each bus.

Because VSP mode average emission rates had large confidence intervals, especially for

CO and HC, uncertainty estimates of total emissions were included in the model validation. Total

emissions for each bus are estimated with uncertainty ranges as follows:

8
TE = Ti × ERi (S-3)
i =1

8
t (11,0.025) × SDi
TE Lower = Ti × ( ERi ) (S-4)
i =1 12

8
t (11,0.025) × SDi
TE Upper = Ti × ( ERi + ) (S-5)
i =1 12

Where:

TE = Total estimated emissions for a bus trip (g);

TE Lower = Lower boundary of total estimated emissions for a bus trip (g);

S10
 TE Upper = Upper boundary of total estimated emissions for a bus trip (g);

i = Index of VSP mode, 1, 2, …, 8;

ERi = Modal average emission rate of Mode i (g/s);

SDi = Standard deviation of modal average emission rates of 12 buses for Mode i (g/s)

Ti = Time spent in Mode i (s);

t = t-value of Student’s distribution with 11 degrees of freedom for 95% confidence

intervals.

Total emissions were estimated based on individual data subset. Uncertainty ranges of

estimation errors for 12 buses are given in Figure S-13. The average values of mean estimation

errors of 12 buses for selected pollutants are displayed in Figure S-14. The results show that the

VSP modeling approach generated different estimation errors for different pollutants. The mean

estimation error for CO2 for one bus was less than +/- 20%. For CO, NO and HC, estimation

errors substantially decreased when emissions increased. However, for HC emissions, the

approach exhibited significantly different performance for different vehicles. Zero estimation

error was enclosed by the uncertainty ranges of estimation errors for many buses. The average

values of the 12 mean estimation errors with 95% CIs shown in Figure S-14 indicated that VSP

modeling has good ability to predict CO2, NOx and CO emissions from diesel transit buses.

However, it had a larger estimation error for HC emissions due to relatively larger inter-vehicle

variability in HC emissions from transit buses.

S10. Time Distributions of VSP Modes for Multiple Links with the Same Attributes

Emission estimates based on the VSP-modeling approach and measured speed profiles were

determined by the fraction of travel time spent in each VSP mode. It was necessary to

S11
investigate whether patterns of VSP mode time distributions were similar among multiple links

with the same speed ranges and facility type before data from multiple links (in the same speed

range and roadway type) were combined to estimate link-based speed- and facility-specific

average emission rates. For example, time distributions of VSP modes for selected link speed

profiles on principal arterials were calculated for mean link speed from 25 mph to 30 mph. As

shown in Figure S-15a, about 37 % of the time on average was spent in VSP Mode 1, and less

than 12 % was spent in any other mode. As shown in Figure S-15b, the CV value for the

percentage of time distribution is 0.25 for VSP Mode 1 and ranges from 0.41 to 0.72 for other

modes. Time distribution was similar among multiple links for this speed range and data from

multiple links with the same attributes were combined.

S11. ANOVA Test on the Effects of Facility Type and Mean Speed on Buses Emissions

An ANOVA test was carried out to evaluate the effect of facility type and mean speed on transit

buses emissions for each of selected pollutants. Three speed ranges (10-15 mph, 15-20 mph and

20-25mph) and three facility types (major arterial, minor arterial, local and collector) were

included in the ANOVA test. As shown in Table S-7, all p-values corresponding to facility type

were more than .05 and p-values corresponding to mean speed were less than .001, which

implied that facility type did not appear to be a major explanatory variable when compared with

speed.

S12. Time Distribution of VSP Modes for Various Speed Ranges

Facility type did not appear to be a major explanatory variable. Thus, data across facility types

could be combined to increase the sample size and reduce the statistical sampling error. Based on

S12
the combined database, the time distribution of VSP Modes for various speed ranges is shown in

Figure S-16. VSP Mode 1 dominated the link travel time for all speed bins. With an increase in

link mean speed, the percent of time spent in Mode 1 decreased whereas the time spent in higher

VSP modes increased.

S13 Complementing the Results in the Main Paper

Tables S-8, S-9 and S-10 are given to complement the results for Figures 1(b), 2 and 3 in the

main paper.

References

(1) DieselNet. Heavy-Duty Trucks and Bus Engines. Available at

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php.

(2) Carl Ensfield Sensors. On-Road Emissions Testing of 18 Tier 1 Passenger Cars and 17

Diesel Powered Public Transportation Buses; EPA420-R-02-030, Prepared by Carl

Ensfield Sensors, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI,

October 2002.

(3) Durbin, T.D.; Johnson, K.; Cocker III, D.R.; Miller, J.W.; Maldonado, H.; Shah, A.;

Ensfield, C.; Weaver, C.; Akard., M.; Harvey, N.; Symon, J.; Lanni, T.; Bachalo, W.D.;

Payne, G; Smallwood, G.; Linke, M. Evaluation and comparison of portable emissions

measurement systems and federal reference methods for emissions from a back-up

generator and a diesel truck operated on a chassis dynamometer. Environ. Sci. Technol.

2007, 41 (17), 6199 -6204.

S13
List of Figures and Tables in the Supporting Information

Figure S-1 Typical speed profiles for transit buses

Figure S-2 Empirical cumulative distribution functions for calibration and validation datasets
Figure S-3 Emission rates vs. vehicle specific power based on Bus 1 data
Figure S-4 Autocorrelation of instantaneous emissions based on Bus 1 data
Figure S-5 CO emission rate and bus acceleration based on Bus 1 data
Figure S-6 VSP mode events for typical speed profiles
Figure S-7 Number of VSP modes for the differences of modal emission rates based on the
original and consecutive averages calibration dataset
Figure S-8 Empirical cumulative distribution function of speeds for individual buses

Figure S-10 Inter-vehicle variability in modal average emission rates

Figure S-11 Relationship between equivalent fuel air ratio and vehicle specific power based on
one bus trip data
Figure S-12 Relationship between ratio of percentage of heavy acceleration and ratio of modal
emission rates for VSP Mode 8 versus 6 and 7
Figure S-13 Errors of estimates of total emissions based upon individual validation data subsets
Figure S-14 Individual bus average estimation errors
Figure S-15 Time distributions of VSP modes on the links of principal arterial for average speed
15-20 mph

Table S-1 Link mean speed and average emissions for selected speed profiles
Table S-2 Averaging length of time per VSP mode event
Table S-3 Differences of modal emission rates based on the original and consecutive average
calibration datasets
Table S-4 Estimation errors for the fleet validation dataset based on the original and consecutive
average calibration datasets
Table S-5 Sample size for VSP modes for individual vehicles
Table S-6 Percentage of samples for heavy acceleration events in individual high VSP modes for
each vehicle (%)
Table S-7 ANOVA tests for effects of facility type and mean speed on link average emission
rates
Table S-8 Definition of VSP modes for transit buses
Table S-9 Fleet-based modal average emission rates for diesel buses
Table S-10 Link-based average emission rates for diesel buses

S14
 50
I
40 II
Speed (mph)
30 Bus Stop Traffic Control Stop Bus Stop

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time Trace (sec)

Figure S-1 Typical speed profiles for transit buses

S15
 100
Calibration Dataset
Validation Dataset

Percent (%) 75

50

25

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Speed (mph)

(a) Speed

100
Calibration Dataset
Validation Dataset
75
Percent (%)

50

25

0
-10 -5 0 5 10
Acceleration (mph/s)

(b) Acceleration
Figure S-2 Empirical cumulative distribution functions for calibration and validation datasets.

S16
 0.24

CO Emission Rate (g/s)

0.18

0.12

0.06

0.00
-30 -10 10 30
VSP (kW/ton)

(a) CO

0.6
NO Emission Rate (g/s)

0.45

0.3

0.15

0
-30 -10 10 30
VSP (kW/ton)

(b) NOx
HC Emission Rate (mg/s)

3.6

2.7

1.8

0.9

0.0
-30 -10 10 30
VSP (kW/ton)

(c) HC
Figure S-3 Emission rates vs. vehicle specific power based on Bus 1 data

S17
 1.00
CO2
CO
0.75
NOx
Autocorrelation

HC
0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time Lag (sec)

(a) Original dataset

1.00 CO2
CO
0.75 NOx
Autocorrelation

HC
0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Interval Lag

(b) 2-second consecutive average dataset

Figure S-4 Autocorrelation coefficient of instantaneous emissions based on Bus11 data including
all VSP values. Continued on next page

S18
 1.00
CO2
CO
0.75
NOx
Autocorrelation

HC
0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Interval Lag

(c) 3-second consecutive average dataset

1.00
CO2
CO
0.75
NOx
Autocorrelation

HC
0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Interval Lag

(d) 5-second consecutive average dataset

Figure S-4 Continued

S19
 1

0.1
CO (g/s)
0.01

0.001

0.0001
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Acceleration (mph/s)

(a) CO versus acceleration based on all Bus 1 data

1

0.1
CO (g/s)

VSP Mode 6
0.01
VSP Mode 7
VSP Mode 8
0.001
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration (mph/s)

(b) CO versus acceleration based on VSP modes 6, 7 and 8 data

100%
Cumulative Frequency

75%

50%
VSP Mode 6
25% VSP Mode 7
VSP Mode 8
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acceleration (mph/s)

(c) Cumulative frequency of acceleration for VSP Modes 6, 7 and 8

Figure S-5 CO emission rate and bus acceleration based on Bus 1 data

S20
 50 8
7
40 6
Speed (mph)

VSP Mode
30 5
4
20 3
10 2
1
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125
Time(sec)
Speed
(a) Speed Profile I VSP Mode

50 8
7
40 6
Speed (mph)

VSP Mode
30 5
4
20 3
10 2
1
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Time (sec)
Speed
(b) Speed Profile II VSP Mode

100%
Cumulative Frequency

75%

50%
Speed Profile I
25% Speed Profile II

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Duration per VSP Mode Event (sec)

(c) Cumulative time-weighted frequency of duration per VSP mode event for two speed profiles
Figure S-6 VSP mode events for typical speed profiles

S21
 25
Difference

Number of VSP Modes

20 ±5%
±10%
15 > ±10%
10

0
CO2 CO NOx HC Total

(a) Original versus 2-second consecutive average-based models

25
Difference
Number of VSP Modes

20 ±5%
±10%
15 > ±10%
10

0
CO2 CO NOx HC Total
a) Original versus 3-second consecutive average-based models
25
Differences
Number of VSP Modes

20 ±5%
±10%
15
> ±10%
10

0
CO2 CO NOx HC Total

(c) Original versus 5-second consecutive average-based models

Figure S-7 Number of VSP modes classified by the differences of modal emission rates based on
the original and consecutive averages calibration dataset

S22
 100% Bus1
Bus 10
Bus2
Bus 9
Bus4
75% Bus 7 Bus 5
Bus5
Bus6
Bus7
Percent

50% Bus8
Bus 11 Bus9
Bus 14 Bus10
Bus11
25% Bus 15
Bus14
Bus15

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Speed (mph)

Figure S-8 Empirical cumulative distribution function of speeds for individual buses

S23
 40

30
CO2 (g/s)
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(a) CO2

0.5

0.4
NOx (g/s)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(b)
Figure S-9 VSP modal average emission rates based on one bus data
Continued on next page

S24
 0.10

0.08

CO (g/s) 0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(c)

4.0

3.0
HC (mg/s)

2.0

1.0

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(d)
Figure S-9 Continued

S25
 40 Bus1
Bus2
Bus4
30 Bus5
Bus6
CO2 (g/s) Bus7
20 Bus8
Bus9
Bus10
10 Bus11
Bus14
Bus15
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(a) CO2
Bus1
0.25
Bus2
Bus4
0.20 Bus5
Bus6
0.15 Bus7
CO (g/s)

Bus8
Bus9
0.10 Bus10
Bus11
0.05 Bus14
Bus15

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(b) CO
Figure S-10 Inter-vehicle variability in modal average emission rates.
Continued on next page

S26
 0.50 Bus1
Bus2
Bus4
0.40 Bus5
Bus6
NOx (g/s) 0.30 Bus7
Bus8
Bus9
0.20 Bus10
Bus11
0.10 Bus14
Bus15
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(c) NOx
Bus1
4.0
Bus2
Bus4
Bus5
3.0
Bus6
HC (mg/s)

Bus7
Bus8
2.0
Bus9
Bus10
Bus11
1.0
Bus14
Bus15

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(d) HC
Figure S-10 Continued

S27
 0.008

0.006
HC (g/s) 0.004

0.002

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Equivalence Ratio

(a) Equivalence ratio versus HC emission rate (in g/s)

0.8
HC (g/bhp-hr)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Equivalence Ratio

(b) Equivalence ratio versus HC emission rate (in g/bhp-hr)

50
R2 = 0.38
25
VSP (kW/ton)

-25

-50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Equivalence Ratio

(c) Equivalence ratio versus VSP

Figure S-11 Relations of equivalence ratio with HC emission rate and vehicle specific power
based on one bus trip data

S28
 Ratio of Modal Emission Rate for
1.5

VSP Mode 8 versus 6

1.0

y = 0.18Ln(x) + 0.79
0.5
R2 = 0.88

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Ratio of Percentage of Heavy Acceleration for VSP
Mode 8 versus 6

(a) Ratio of percentage of heavy acceleration for VSP Mode 8 versus 6

Ratio of Modal Emission Rate for

1.5
VSP Mode 8 versus 7

1.0

y = 0.21Ln(x) + 0.80
0.5
R2 = 0.77

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Ratio of Percentage of Heavy Acceleration for VSP
Mode 8 versus 7

(b) Ratio of percentage of heavy acceleration for VSP Mode 8 versus 7

Figure S-12 Relationship between ratio of percentage of heavy acceleration and ratio of modal
emission rates for VSP Mode 8 versus 6 and 7a
a
Each data point represents the average result for one bus.

S29
 75

Error of Estimate (%)

50

25

-25

-50
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
CO2 Measured Emissions per Bus (g)

(a) CO2

150
Error of Estimate (%)

100

50

-50
0 30 60 90 120 150
NOx Measured Emissions per Bus (g)

(b) NOx
Figure S-13 Errors of estimates of total emissions based upon individual validation data subsets a
Continued on next page

S30
 250
200

Error of Estimate (%) 150

100
50
0

-50
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CO Measured Emissions per Bus (g)

(c) CO

1000
Error of Estimate (%)

750

500

250

-250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
HC Measured Emissions per Bus (g)

(d) HC
Figure S-13 Continued a

a
represents uncertainty ranges of errors of emission estimate

S31
 Individual Average Estimation Error (%)
200

150

100

50

-50

-100
CO2 CO NOx HC

Figure S-14 Individual bus average estimation errors for trip emissions a
a
The boxplot has lines at the smallest observation, lower quartile, median, upper quartile and
largest observation. Any data observation which lies more than 1.5*IQR (interquartile range,
subtracting the lower quartile from the upper quartile) lower than the first quartile or 1.5*IQR
higher than the third quartile is considered an outlier.

S32
 50%

40%
Percentage of Time
30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(a) Average percentage of time for a given VSP mode and 95% confidence interval on mean

0.8
Coefficient of Variation

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode

(b) Coefficient of variation for the percentage of time

Figure S-15 Average time distributions of VSP modes on the links of principal arterials for
average speed 25-30 mph

S33
 80
Link Mean Speed
5-10 mph
Percentage of Time (%) 60 10-15 mph
15-20 mph
20-25 mph
40
25-30 mph

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
VSP Mode
Figure S-16. Average time distribution of VSP modes for all facility types based upon data
for 7 buses for which GPS data were available

S34
 Table S-1 Link mean speed and average emissions for selected speed profiles
Link Mean Speed Average Emission (g/mile)
Speed Profile
(mph) CO2 CO NOx HC
32.9 1322.5 3.68 20.44 0.25
24.3 1360.5 5.65 21.07 0.17

Table S-2 Averaging length of time per VSP mode event

Speed Profile I Speed Profile II
VSP Number of Average Length Number of Average Length
Mode Instantaneous of Time per Event Instantaneous of Time per Event
Events (sec) Events (sec)
1 13 3.3 23 5.0
2 10 1.5 15 1.5
3 4 2.0 12 1.4
4 8 1.8 8 1.6
5 10 1.2 12 1.2
6 5 1.2 5 1.6
7 6 1.3 7 2.3
8 9 1.2 7 1.4
Max. 13 3.3 23 5.0
Min. 4 1.2 5 1.2
Overall
8 1.7 11 2.0
average

S35
 Table S-3 Differences of modal emission rates based on the original and consecutive average calibration datasets (%)
VSP Mode CO2 CO NOx HC
2-Sec 3-Sec 5-Sec 2-Sec 3-Sec 5-Sec 2-Sec 3-Sec 5-Sec 2-Sec 3-Sec 5-Sec
1 -6 6 -1 -2 3 7 -3 5 0 2 -1 4
2 -5 8 -12 -7 9 -12 -7 8 -16 -4 5 -11
3 -2 3 -4 9 -7 13 1 3 -6 2 3 -1
4 -4 5 -3 -11 8 5 -2 2 -4 -4 2 -3
5 0 -2 2 0 -4 -3 2 -3 3 -1 2 -4
6 3 -5 6 8 -11 -5 2 -4 5 -1 -1 1
7 6 -7 8 2 14 -19 4 -5 8 5 -2 1
8 5 -6 7 -11 13 -29 2 -1 9 1 1 -10
Average across modes 0 0 0 -2 3 -5 0 1 1 0 1 -3

Table S-4 Estimation errors for total emissions based on the fleet validation dataset using modal models developed from the original
and consecutive average calibration datasets (%)a
Calibration Dataset
Pollutant
Original Dataset 2-Sec Moving Average Dataset 3-Sec Moving Average Dataset 5-Sec Moving Average Dataset
CO2 2.6 2.5 2.4 3.3
CO 5.9 4.5 2.7 1.8
NOx 4.3 3.7 3.0 3.4
HC 3.0 3.6 2.7 1.8
a
Based on the fleet validation dataset, total emissions estimates using modal models are compared to total measured emissions to
calculate estimation errors.

S36
 Table S-5 Sample size for VSP modes for individual vehicles
VSP Bus Number
Sum
Mode 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15
1 991 1577 3874 4286 3801 4743 4037 4503 4162 2097 2570 2704 39345
2 213 415 960 678 643 364 786 538 1142 627 455 685 7506
3 221 306 760 514 491 254 465 324 646 772 379 472 5604
4 164 266 549 426 384 250 484 550 555 704 298 386 5016
5 154 206 491 355 335 269 509 606 412 425 225 336 4323
6 170 166 462 369 281 417 471 356 253 177 168 240 3530
7 166 161 496 403 343 606 400 254 150 115 217 165 3476
8 98 124 252 279 409 419 118 206 146 55 371 97 2574
Sum 2177 3221 7844 7310 6687 7322 7270 7337 7466 4972 4683 5085 71374

S37
Table S-6 Percentage of samples for heavy acceleration events in individual high VSP modes for
each vehicle (%)
Percent of Samples for Acceleration > 3 mph/s in Given VSP Modes
Vehicle Number
Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8
2 9 7 5
4 15 21 12
5 10 8 3
6 11 12 12
7 13 8 2
8 4 2 2
9 9 14 55
10 11 23 54
11 7 11 35
14 6 7 11
15 10 7 42

S38
 Table S-7 ANOVA tests for effects of facility type and mean speed on link average emission
rates
Pollutant Source DF Sum of Squares F Ratio Prob. > F
Mean Speed 2 2.94E+02 4.69E+01 <.001
CO2
Facility Type 2 1.84E+00 2.94E-01 0.75
Mean Speed 2 3.45E-03 5.61E+01 <.001
CO
Facility Type 2 7.21E-05 1.17E+00 0.31
Mean Speed 2 3.46E-02 6.07E+01 <.001
NOx
Facility Type 2 2.25E-04 3.94E-01 0.67
Mean Speed 2 5.15E-07 6.23E+01 <.001
HC
Facility Type 2 1.14E-08 1.38E+00 0.25

S39
 Table S-8 Definition of VSP modes for transit buses
VSP Mode VSP Range (kW/ton)
1 VSP 0
2 0<VSP<2
3 2 VSP<4
4 4 VSP<6
5 6 VSP<8
6 8 VSP<10
7 10 VSP<13
8 VSP 13

S40
 Table S-9 Fleet-based modal average emission rates for diesel buses
Modal Average Emission Rates
VSP Mode
CO2 (g/s) CO (g/s) NOx (g/s) HC (mg/s)
1 2.4 0.009 0.04 1.23
2 7.8 0.036 0.13 1.70
3 12.5 0.045 0.18 1.75
4 17.1 0.072 0.22 1.84
5 21.2 0.085 0.24 1.94
6 24.8 0.091 0.26 2.05
7 27.6 0.084 0.28 2.08
8 29.5 0.062 0.31 2.15

S41
 Table S-10 Link-based average emission rates for diesel buses
Link Mean Link-based Average Emission Rates
Speed (mph) CO2 (g/s) CO (g/s) NOx (g/s) HC (mg/s)
5-10 6.3 0.024 0.09 1.42
10-15 8.8 0.031 0.11 1.49
15-20 10.6 0.038 0.13 1.57
20-25 11.8 0.042 0.145 1.61
25-30 12.7 0.044 0.155 1.66

S42