Topics in Catalysis Vols. 16/17, Nos.
1–4, 2001
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
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in
the process of establishing the next generation of emis-
sion standards for gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and buses. These
emission standards, which will take effect in the 2004–
2009 timeframe, will define the emission control strate-
gies in the United States for the next decade and beyond.
The next generation of emission control will employ a sys-
tems approach combining advanced engine and fuel deliv-
ery technology, advanced emission control technology, and
low sulfur fuel. Advanced catalyst-based technology will
play a central role in the emission control system of the fu-
ture.
This presentation will review future emission standards
applicable to diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles and en-
gines. It also will discuss the important role advanced cat-
alyst technology will play in helping both diesel and gaso-
line vehicles meet these new, stringent emission standards,
and finally, it will report on the results of two demonstration
programs sponsored by the manufacturers of emission con-
trols association (MECA) which illustrate the progress being
made in developing and applying advanced, catalyst-based
emission control technology.
2. Future emission standards in the United States
2.1. Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles
On 21 December 1999, EPA finalized new, more stringent
standards (“the Tier 2 standards”) for light-duty vehicles
(passenger cars), light-duty trucks up to 8500 lbs. GVWR,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles (8501–10 000 lbs.
GVWR) to be phased in between 2004 and 2009 and the
Agency established new, nationwide limits for sulfur lev-
els in gasoline to a 30 ppm per gallon average begin-
ning in 2005 and an 80 ppm per gallon cap beginning in
2006. The phase-in schedule for the Tier 2 standards is
15
shown in table 1 and the Tier 2 standards are shown in
table 2.
The Tier 2 standards, which are based in large part on
California’s LEV II program adopted in 1998, require all
passenger cars and light trucks to eventually meet the same
stringent standards by 2009. The EPA rule does differ from
the California program in several respects. First, manu-
facturers are required to meet a corporate average 120 000
mile 0.07 NOx standard (California established a per ve-
hicle 0.07 gpm NOx requirement, but has a corporate av-
erage non-methane organic gas (NMOG) standard). Sec-
ond, LDT3s and LDT4s are given more time to meet the
corporate average 0.07 gpm NOx standard (100% by 2009)
compared to passenger cars and LDT1s and LDT2s (100%
by 2007), whereas California applies the same require-
ments to all vehicles up to 8500 lbs. GVWR. Third, EPA
has included medium-duty passenger vehicles in the pro-
gram. Finally, since under EPA’s rule the manufacturers
are able to certify to one of several different sets of stan-
dards or “bins”, they have the option of certifying diesel
engines to slightly less stringent PM (0.02 gpm) and NOx
(0.2 gpm) standards than found with the California LEV II
program.
The cornerstone of the Tier 2 program is that manufactur-
ers may choose to comply by certifying the mix of vehicles
to different sets of standards or bins, as long as the corporate
average meets the applicable interim or final NOx standard.
In the final rule, there are eight emission standard bins (1–8)
for the Tier 2 standards and two additional bins (9–10) that
are available only during the interim period and will be elim-
inated before the final phase-in of the Tier 2 program. An
eleventh bin, shown in table 3, is available only for MDPVs
and expires in 2008.
2.1.1. Emission standards for vehicles <6000 lbs. GVWR
(LDVs and LLDTs)
The Tier 2 corporate average 120 000 mile 0.07 gpm
NOx standard for passenger cars (LDV) and light, light-duty
trucks (LLDT), which are made up of LDT1s and LDT2s,
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
may choose from bin 1 to 10, as shown in table 2. Man-
ufacturers electing to introduce vehicles meeting the Tier 2
standards early in 2001–2004 to generate NOx credits to be
used in later years, or to be sold to other manufacturers, have
the option of certifying to a 100 000 or 120 000 mile useful
life. For manufacturers electing the 100 000 mile useful life,
the credits would be discounted by 17%. Manufacturers may
also obtain extra NOx credits for the early introduction of
vehicles certified to bins 1 or 2.
2.1.2. Emission standards for vehicles >6000 lbs. GVWR
(HLDTs)
Heavy, light-duty trucks (LDT3 and LDT4) would be re-
quired to meet a corporate average 0.2 gpm NOx (120 000
mile) standard to be phased-in on the following schedule:
2004 – 25%, 2005 – 50%, 2006 – 75% and 2007 – 100%.
Those HLDTs not subject to the interim corporate average
during the phase-in years would be subject to the least strin-
gent bins. The Clean Air Act, however, requires that man-
ufacturers of HLDTs be given at least a four year lead-time
from the date the standards are promulgated until the date
they take effect. This means that engine test groups intro-
duced before the fourth anniversary of the signing of the
Tier 2 rule are not covered under the Tier 2 program. To ad-
dress this issue, EPA has provided two compliance options
for HLDT interim standards, which are designed to achieve
equivalent emission reductions. In 2008, 50% of the heavy,
light-duty trucks would be required to meet the corporate
average 120 000 mile 0.07 gpm NOx standard and in 2009
100% would be required to meet the corporate average 0.07
NOx standard using the bins 1–8 shown in table 2.
2.1.3. Emission standards for medium-duty passenger
vehicles
EPA defines a MDPV as any complete vehicle from 8500
to <10 000 lbs. GVWR designed for the transportation of
persons, including conversion vans. Any vehicle that (1) has
a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (2) is designed to ac-
commodate more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the
driver’s seat, or (3) has a cargo box of six feet or more in inte-
rior length is not considered a MDPV. MDPVs, like HLDTs,
must meet the final Tier 2 standards by 2009 at the latest.
Prior to 2009 MDPVs are required to meet interim stan-
dards. The interim standards are based on a corporate aver-
age full life NOx standard of 0.20 gpm, which are phased in
25/50/75/100%, respectively, in 2004–2007. MDPVs must
be grouped with HLDTs for the interim phase-in. To ad-
dress concerns expressed by manufacturers regarding work-
load burden and availability of chassis testing for diesel ve-
hicles, EPA provided additional flexibility. The Agency cre-
ated an additional upper bin (bin 11) for use only by MDPVs
and only for the interim program (2004–2008), as shown in
table 3.
In addition, for diesel MDPVs manufactured prior to
2008, EPA will allow manufacturers the option of meeting
the heavy-duty engine standards in place for the coincid-
ing model year. Diesels meeting the engine-based standards
17
would be excluded from the interim averaging pool. Begin-
ning in 2008, manufacturers must chassis certify diesel ve-
hicles and include them either in the interim program or in
the final Tier 2 program.
2.1.4. Evaporative emission standards
According to EPA’s projections, evaporative emissions
from passenger cars and light-duty trucks represent nearly
half of the estimated light-duty NMHC inventory for the
2007–2010 time frame. EPA finalized more stringent evap-
orative standards for all Tier 2 passenger cars and light-duty
trucks, which for most vehicles represent more than a 50%
reduction in diurnal plus hot soak standards.
2.1.5. Gasoline sulfur regulations
EPA finalized a requirement for a refinery 30 ppm average
sulfur level on an annual basis beginning in 2005. However,
refiners would be given the flexibility to gain credits through
the introduction of low sulfur gasoline as early as 2000 and
to average, bank, and trade sulfur reductions. In addition
to the 30 ppm average requirements, an 80 ppm sulfur per
gallon cap is established beginning in 2006.
2.2. On-highway heavy-duty vehicles and engines
2.2.1. Engine and vehicle emission standards
On 29 October 1999 (64 FR 58472), EPA published its
proposal covering the technological feasibility finding for
the previously adopted diesel HDE 2004 standards and new
standards for gasoline-powered HDVs. The proposed rule
would:
– reaffirm that the previously adopted 2004 model year
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) + NOx and partic-
ulate matter (PM) standards (2.5 g/bhp h NOx + NMHC
and 0.1 g/bhp h PM) are technologically feasible and can
be met with currently available diesel fuel;
– set new, more stringent standards for all heavy-duty otto-
cycle (e.g., gasoline-fueled) engines and vehicles which
will result in an approximate 75% reduction in HC and
NOx emissions from this category of vehicles;
– require OBD systems for all heavy-duty vehicles and en-
gines at or below 14 000 lbs. GVWR and revise the OBD
requirements for diesel light-duty vehicles and trucks;
and
– implement additional certification test procedures and as-
sociated standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles to
address the issue of off-cycle emissions.
Table 4 shows the proposed standards for gasoline-
powered heavy-duty engines and vehicles. The current NOx
standard for both diesel and gasoline vehicles is 4.0 g/bhp h.
The current HC standard for diesel is 1.3 g/bhp h and for
gasoline is 1.1 g/bhp h.
EPA, in its 1999 proposal, announced that the Agency
plans to propose in early 2000 second-stage standards
(called the “Phase 2” standards). EPA suggested that the
18 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards
Table 4
Proposed NOx and HC standards for gasoline vehicles.
Gross vehicle weight NOx HC
(GVW) (g/mi) (g/mi)
8500–10 000 pounds 0.9 0.28
10 001–14 000 pounds 1.0 0.33
14 001 pounds and above 1.0 g/bhp h
(combined NOx and HC)
more stringent standards could take effect as early as 2007
and could call for a reduction of up to 90% for both NOx
and PM emissions over the levels required by the 2004 stan-
dards. If the 90% requirement were adopted, this would
translate into emission standards of 0.2 g/bhp h NOx and
0.01 g/bhp h PM.
2.2.2. Low sulfur diesel fuel
On 13 May 1999 (64 FR 26142), EPA invited comments
on setting more stringent sulfur limits for diesel fuel sold for
use by on-road vehicles and establishing a sulfur limit for
diesel fuel sold for use by off-road vehicles and equipment.
In April or May 2000, EPA is expected to propose new sulfur
limits on diesel fuel. EPA appears to be leaning towards a
national standard to be implemented as early as mid-2006.
EPA has yet to announce the level it intends to propose, but
speculation is growing that the Agency will propose a sulfur
cap below 30 ppm and, possibly, as low as 15 ppm.
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
next several years. First, EPA is expected to propose be-
fore the end of 2000 new PM standards (referred to as the
Tier 3 standards) for off-road diesel engines to take effect
in the 2006–2008 timeframe and EPA is expected to eventu-
ally propose that off-road engines meet emission standards
comparable to the soon-to-be-proposed on-highway HDEs
Phase 2 standards. The later standards would necessitate the
use of both NOx and PM exhaust emission control technol-
ogy. Second, EPA is planning to adopt emission standards
for a variety of off-road spark-ignition (SI) engines, includ-
ing off-road engines >25 horsepower (hp), engines >25 hp
used in handheld lawn and garden equipment, and stern-
drive engines used in recreational marine vessels. Depend-
ing on the stringency of these standards, catalyst technology
may be employed to help achieve compliance.
3. Technological solutions to meet future emission
standards in the United States
3.1. Strategies for meeting the Tier 2 emission standards for
passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty
passenger vehicles
As noted above, the technological solution to meeting the
Tier 2 standards adopted by EPA will be a systems approach
Table 5
Advanced engine/exhaust/emission control strategies for gasoline-powered
vehicles.
Technology Advancements to be employed
Catalyst technology • Layered washcoat and support materials
with high thermal stability
• High cell density catalyst supports (substrates)
• Thin-walled (lower mass) catalyst supports
• Mounting materials with improved durability
• New catalyst support designs (e.g., hexagonal
cell structure, contoured end cones)
• Thermally-insulated components
Electronic engine controls • Higher idle speeds with engine spark retard
• Higher speed computer processors
• Model-based control algorithms
• Injectors with improved fuel atomization
• Variable cam/valve timing
• Electronic EGR
• Electronic throttle control
• CVT (transmissions)
Emission system sensors • Linear oxygen sensors
(control and diagnostics) • Planar oxygen sensors
• Fast response temperature sensors
• Combination NOx /O2 sensor
Thermal management • Air-gap manifolds, exhaust pipes, and
converter shells offer low heat capacity and
high heat insulation to improve converter
warm-up and minimize outer surface
temperatures
employing advances in engine technology, advanced cata-
lyst technology and low sulfur fuel. EPA, in its final rule,
stated that the type of control strategies likely to be em-
ployed included ongoing improvements in computer soft-
ware, engine air/fuel controls, advances in catalyst designs
and catalyst/system integration, increases in precious metal
loading, and other exhaust system/catalyst system improve-
ments. Table 5 lists the types of engine/exhaust/catalyst
technology improvements and advancements that likely will
be employed to meet the Tier 2 standards. For diesel-fueled
vehicles, EPA stated that exhaust control technology likely
would be necessary. For NOx emissions, EPA listed lean
NOx catalysts, NOx adsorbers and selective catalytic re-
duction (SCR) as potential technologies. For PM control,
EPA identified oxidation catalysts and PM filter technology.
EPA stressed the importance of low sulfur fuel in enabling
catalyst-based emission control technology to be optimized
for maximized emission reductions.
3.2. An illustration of strategies that are available to help
the Tier 2 standards
A program to demonstrate the performance of advanced
emission control systems was conducted at Southwest Re-
search Institute in 1998–1999 on behalf of the manufacturers
of emission controls association (MECA) to evaluate emis-
 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards
sion control strategies in light of EPA’s anticipated adoption
of the Tier 2 emission standards and California’s LEV II pro-
gram [1]. For this program, two passenger cars – a Buick
LeSabre (six-cylinder engine) and a Ford Crown Victoria
(eight-cylinder engine) – and two light-duty pick-up trucks –
a Toyota T100 (a six-cylinder, LDT1) and a Chevrolet Sil-
verado (an eight-cylinder, LDT3) – were selected for testing,
modification, and emission system performance optimiza-
tion. The Silverado was 1999 Federal Tier I compliant while
the other three vehicles were 1997 Federal Tier I compli-
ant.
Each new vehicle was driven 4000 miles on California
Phase II reformulated gasoline over the EPA ASADP RDP-II
mileage accumulation driving cycle. The new gasoline sul-
fur limits adopted by the US EPA are based on California’s
Phase II reformulated gasoline. After the initial mileage
break-in was completed, each vehicle was emissions tested
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
performed on each cycle of the FTP test. The stock baseline
modal emissions were examined and various systems includ-
ing advanced catalysts, insulated exhaust components, and
modified vehicle controls were developed in order to lower
tailpipe emissions of each test vehicle significantly below
their Tier 1 emission performance levels.
After installing the advanced systems, the vehicles were
again driven for 4000 miles on California Phase II refor-
mulated fuel using the EPA ASASP RDP-II mileage accu-
mulation driving cycle. The base performance of the ad-
vanced catalyst system was then determined with the stock
vehicle controls over the FTP-75 test cycle. As part of an
effort to optimize the emission performance of these ad-
vanced emission systems, the base modal emission test re-
sults were analyzed and vehicle control modifications were
formulated to reduce the remaining high emission modes of
operation. Control modifications were performed using a
computer controlled-signal intercept system (Emissions Re-
duction Intercept and Control system or ERIC). This com-
puter intercept methodology was used to recognize and mod-
ify only driving modes associated with high tailpipe emis-
sion modes, thereby minimizing the level of modification
to the stock vehicle control system. The control tuning ap-
proach developed for each vehicle was unique to the plat-
form. The computer intercept techniques used in this pro-
gram were capable of modifying selected vehicle control
parameters without setting codes in the vehicles’ on-board
diagnostic monitoring systems. Tuned control strategies had
no measurable impact on the test vehicles-fuel economy over
the FTP driving cycle. The modified control strategies also
did not result in any detectable changes to vehicle driveabil-
ity during FTP evaluations. The types of engine adjustments
and advanced catalyst strategies employed are listed in
table 6.
After the advanced technology systems and the modified
engine controls were integrated and tuned, each vehicle was
19
Table 6
Emission control strategies employed in MECA demonstration program.
Strategy Description
Hydrocarbon and carbon Advanced systems
monoxide control techniques • Small, high-density Pd light-off catalysts
• Thermally-insulated components
Modified controls
• Variable rate air injection to balance
enrichment
NOx control techniques Advanced systems
• High cell density
• Increased volume
• Advanced washcoats
Modified controls
• EGR control modification
• EGR cooling
• EGO switch point shifting
• Fuel injection intercept
tested in its final tuned configuration over multiple modal
FTP-75 tests cycles. Hydrocarbon speciation was performed
on each cycle of two of the final FTP tests. These results
characterized the tuned emission performance of each ad-
vanced emission system after 4000 vehicle miles. Each ad-
vanced catalyst system was then engine aged using an ac-
celerated thermal aging cycle. The aging cycle used was
an engine dynamometer cycle based on the published Gen-
eral Motors RAT-A aging schedule. California Phase II re-
formulated gasoline was used for all of the engine aging
done in this program. The RAT-A cycle was adjusted to
increase the inlet exhaust temperature to the first catalyst
in the converter system to 820 ◦C during the stoichiometric
cruise mode of the aging cycle for this test program. For
the two passenger car systems, 100 h of aging time with
this schedule was used to simulate a high mileage condi-
tion. For the light-duty trucks, system-aging time was ex-
tended to 125 h in recognition of the more severe duty cy-
cles of some light-duty pick-up trucks relative to passenger
cars. The actual mileage correlation to aging hours is ap-
plication specific, but as referenced in the literature [2–4],
100 h of engine aging with the RAT-A cycle can correspond
to 100 000 miles of in-service use on some vehicle platforms.
The systems were retested over the FTP-75 after engine ag-
ing on each test vehicle to characterize the emission perfor-
mance durability of each system. No modifications to the
optimized control strategies developed during the program’s
tuning phase were made after aging of the emission compo-
nents.
The test results for each of the four test vehicles used in
this program are summarized in figure 1.
The composite FTP emissions for the 100 h aged Buick
LeSabre and Ford Crown Victoria, and the 125 h aged Toy-
ota T100 and Chevrolet Silverado with tuned advanced tech-
nology systems, were less than the California light-duty ve-
hicle LEV II ULEV 120 000 mile and the US EPA’s Tier II
standards (bin 5), as shown in figure 1. The total toxic
20 B.I. Bertelsen / Future US motor vehicle emission standards
Figure 1. Aged FTP emission test results for the four vehicles (g/mi).
Figure 2. A comparison of toxic emissions for three test vehicles as com-
pared to other vehicles (mg/mi).
emissions for each vehicle with the tuned 4000 mile ad-
vanced technology systems were also considerably lower
than 4000 mile stock vehicle systems. The largest reduc-
tion in toxic emission was accompanied by the largest reduc-
tion in NMHC and NMOG over stock. Although there was
no toxics data for the stock Silverado, because there was a
large decrease in NMHC with the tuned, advanced system,
it is anticipated that the vehicle would also have demon-
strated a large decrease in toxic emissions over the stock
configuration. The large reductions observed in toxic emis-
sions with the advanced catalyst systems on each of the vehi-
cles tested highlights the synergy between improved hydro-
carbon performance and improved performance in reducing
toxic emissions. Technologies aimed at improved cold-start
hydrocarbon emission performance also provide significant
reductions in toxic emissions. Figure 2 compares the tox-
ics emission levels for the three vehicles in the MECA test
program with toxic emission levels of older vehicles certi-
fied to meet the federal Tier 1 standards and earlier emission
standards.
The results from this test program provide clear evidence
that advanced emission control technologies are available
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
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-
duty engine standards a systems approach will be needed
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
and PM exhaust emission control technologies, very low sul-
fur diesel fuel will be needed. Diesel particulate filters or
“traps” will likely be used to meet the very stringent Phase 2
PM standards. NOx adsorber and selective catalytic reduc-
tion (SCR) appear to be the leading strategies to help meet
the tough Phase 2 NOx standards.
3.4. An illustration of catalyst-based exhaust control
technologies to achieve low emission levels for
heavy-duty engines
MECA conducted a test program at Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI) in 1998–1999. The objective of the test pro-
gram was to evaluate the performance of a variety of com-
mercially available exhaust emission control technologies on
a current design heavy-duty diesel engine with standard no. 2
diesel (368 ppm) fuel, lower sulfur (54 ppm) diesel fuel, and,
in a limited number of cases, zero ppm sulfur fuel [5]. The
technologies evaluated included:
• diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs),
• 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).