I N T E R D I S C I P L I N A R Y L I V E L Y A P P L I C A T I O N S P R O J E C T

AUTHORS:
Lei Yu
(Transportation Studies)
yu_lx@tsu.edu
Texas Southern University
3100 Cleburne Avenue
Houston, TX 77004
Don Small
(Mathematics)
U.S. Military Academy
West Point, NY 10996
Lafayette College
Easton, PA 18042
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Remote Emission-Sensing
Technique
3. Emission Data Collection
4. Data Conversion
5. Regression Analysis
6. Emission-Based Speed
Optimization
7. Real-World Applications
References
Sample Solution
Notes for the Instructor
About the Authors
The UMAP Journal 24 (4) 451-472. Copyright 2003 by COMAP, Inc. All rights
reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for per-
sonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or
distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice.
Abstracting with credit is permitted, but copyrights for components of this work
owned by others than COMAP must be honored. To copy otherwise, to republish, to
post on servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior permission from COMAP.
Vehicle Emissions 451
Vehicle Emissions
MATHEMATICS CLASSIFICATIONS:
Algebra
DISCIPLINARY CLASSIFICATIONS:
Traffic Engineering
PREREQUISITE SKILLS:
1. Elementary algebra
2. Regression techniques
3. Elementary optimization
PHYSICAL CONCEPTS EXAMINED:
1. Concept of a mobile source for vehicle emissions
2. Optimal driving speeds to minimize emissions
3. Total vehicle emissions for a given speed profile
COMPUTING REQUIREMENT:
1. Spreadsheet and ability to use it
2. Calculator and ability to use it
452 24.4 (2003)
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Remote Emission-Sensing Technique
3. Emission Data Collection
4. Data Conversion
5. Regression Analysis
6. Emission-Based Speed Optimization
7. Real-World Applications
References
Sample Solution
Notes for the Instructor
About the Authors
1. Introduction
Cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses emit signicant quantities of carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and ne particles
(PM). These chemical compounds play dominant roles in air pollution prob-
lems. In the densely populated Northeast, where the air pollution problem is
especially severe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has projected
that highway vehicles will account for approximately 38% of the total NOx in-
ventory and 22%of the total HCinventory in 2005, in spite of the tighter motor
vehicle standards in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Trafc.
Vehicle emissions, especially CO, NOx, and HC, are harmful to the health
of humans. CO is a tasteless, odorless, and colorless gas produced through
the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. CO enters the bloodstream
through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to the bodys organs
and tissues. The health threat from exposure to CO is most serious for those
Vehicle Emissions 453
who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or pe-
ripheral vascular disease. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with
impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning
ability and performance of complex tasks. NOx emissions also produce a wide
varietyof healthandwelfare effects. Nitrogendioxide canirritate the lungs and
lower resistance to respiratory infection (such as inuenza). NOx emissions are
important in acid rain, affecting both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At-
mospheric deposition of nitrogen leads to excess nutrient enrichment problems
(eutrophication). Finally, HC, in combination with NOx in the presence of
heat and sunlight, will form ozone. Ozone forms readily in the atmosphere,
usually during hot summer weather. Ground-level ozone is the prime ingre-
dient of smog, the pollution that blankets many areas during the summer.
Short-term exposures (13 hours) to high ambient ozone concentrations have
been linked to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for
respiratory problems.
With the rapid increase of the number of motor vehicles along with world-
wide economic development, the vehicle emission problem has worsened.
Many governments have started to implement certain vehicle emission-control
strategies. Steady progress in reducing certain air pollution problems is occur-
ring in the US, Europe and Japan. Globally, the use of advanced pollution-
control technology, especially catalysts has been spreading, as has the use of
unleaded gasoline. However, the continued economic growth in the world re-
quires the use of strategies that do not impose negative effect on the economic
development, in other words, do not restrict vehicle ownership. Examples
of such strategies that have already been implemented in many cities in the
world include advanced trafc-control techniques, integrated transportation
planning process, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies.
Past research has shown that driving patterns greatly inuence the amount
of vehicle emissions. Frequent acceleration and deceleration tend to generate
more emissions than smoother driving. An effective trafc signal timing plan
cansmoothtrafc owina manner that reduces the emissions. Inaddition, well
planned transportation projects or activities can change the driving patterns of
vehicles in the city at a more macroscopic level.
2. Remote Emission-Sensing Technique
The key to success in developing an emission-control strategy is obtaining
accurate quantication of vehicle emissions under various trafc and envi-
ronmental scenarios. The remote emission-sensing device that is used in this
project is calledSMOGDOG. It performs environmental monitoringtomeasure
automotive emissions. The SMOGDOGcan simultaneously measure emission
concentrations of CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 in the dispersing exhaust cloud of
vehicles. A special feature of the SMOG DOG is its capability in detecting a
vehicles instantaneous speed and acceleration rate.
454 24.4 (2003)
Figure 2. SMOG DOG in action.
3. Emission Data Collection
SMOG DOG was used to collect vehicle emission data from a freeway on-
ramp in Houston, TX (Figure 2). The operation of SMOG DOG requires that
the vehicle be in motion. Hence, the emission data for the idling mode are
not collected. Instead, vehicle idling emissions will be calculated based on the
regression models that are developed. Table 1 illustrates the emission data on
CO and HC concentrations that were collected.
Problem: Developmodels relatingvehicle speedandvehicle exhaust emissions
of CO and HC. Formulate speed recommendations based on your model and
the given data. Use of spreadsheet technology is strongly recommended. Input
the data in Table 1 into a spreadsheet (4 columns). You will add four more
columns in Requirement 2 and two more in Requirement 4.
Requirement 1
Use the data in Table 1 to
plot the CO concentration (%) vs. speed data, and
plot the HC concentration (%) vs. speed data.
Vehicle Emissions 455
Table 1.
CO and HC concentration data collected by SMOG DOG in Houston.
Data # Speed (mph) CO% HC% Data # Speed (mph) CO% HC%
1 9.98 0.27 0.000027 31 43.22 0.32 0.000032
2 10.97 0.22 0.000022 32 44.20 0.29 0.000029
3 15.40 0.30 0.00003 33 45.05 0.39 0.000039
4 15.69 0.03 0.000003 34 46.59 0.79 0.000079
5 16.44 0.21 0.000021 35 47.06 0.73 0.000073
6 17.11 0.89 0.000089 36 47.51 0.54 0.000054
7 18.66 0.19 0.000019 37 47.86 0.07 0.000007
8 19.04 0.79 0.000079 38 48.92 0.33 0.000033
9 20.95 0.08 0.000008 39 49.78 0.43 0.000043
10 21.52 0.07 0.000007 40 49.81 0.55 0.000055
11 23.41 1.61 0.000161 41 50.50 0.72 0.000072
12 24.82 0.77 0.000077 42 50.52 0.21 0.000021
13 25.15 0.76 0.000076 43 51.48 0.18 0.000018
14 26.35 1.91 0.000191 44 52.18 0.61 0.000061
15 27.02 0.40 0.00004 45 52.87 0.92 0.000092
16 27.62 0.06 0.000006 46 53.25 0.19 0.000019
17 29.90 0.36 0.000036 47 53.62 0.44 0.000044
18 30.04 0.18 0.000018 48 54.32 0.22 0.000022
19 30.67 0.58 0.000058 49 55.19 0.34 0.000034
20 31.99 0.12 0.000012 50 56.07 0.49 0.000049
21 34.97 1.02 0.000102 51 56.33 0.15 0.000015
22 35.10 0.53 0.000053 52 56.56 0.76 0.000076
23 35.94 1.11 0.000111 53 58.29 0.12 0.000012
24 36.98 0.29 0.000029 54 58.75 0.12 0.000012
25 37.69 1.67 0.000167 55 59.44 0.35 0.000035
26 37.90 0.62 0.000062 56 61.40 0.83 0.000083
27 38.74 0.27 0.000027 57 62.00 0.21 0.000021
28 40.58 0.09 0.000009 58 63.65 0.35 0.000035
29 41.63 0.30 0.00003 59 67.11 0.35 0.000035
30 42.12 0.54 0.000054 60 76.68 0.47 0.000047
4. Data Conversion
To develop models relating vehicle speed to emission quantities, we intro-
duce two emission quantities: emission factor (g/mi) and emission rate (g/s).
Theemissionfactor is thenumber of grams emittedwhenthevehicle
travels one mile.
The emission rate is the total emission in grams that a vehicle emits
per second.
We dene the following variables:
CO%: CO emission concentration (%);
HC%: HC emission concentration (%);
COs: CO emission rate in grams per second (g/s);
456 24.4 (2003)
HCs: HC emission rate in grams per second (g/s);
COm: CO emission factor in grams per mile (g/mi);
HCm: HC emission factor in grams per mile (g/mi);
u: a vehicles instantaneous speed in miles per hour (mph);
u
optimal
: optimal speed (mph) that minimizes emissions;
b
0
, b
1
, c
0
, c
1
: constant values (regression model coefcients).
Conversion of emission concentrations to emission rates is problematic.
Manyscientists andengineers use the followinglinear correlationrelationships,
developed for the emission concentrations and emissions factors by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Conversion from emission concentrations to emission factors:
COm (g/mi) = 11.1 CO% + 21.3, (1)
HCm (g/mi) = 63.3 HC% + 1.7. (2)
Conversion from emission concentrations to emission rates:
COs (g/s) =
COm (g/mi) u mph
3600
, (3)
HCs (g/s) =
HCm (g/mi) u mph
3600
. (4)
Requirement 2
Use (1)(4) to convert the CO/HC concentrations in Table 1 to CO/HC
emission factors and CO/HC emission rates. Expand your spreadsheet table
to include the 8 columns: Data #, Speed, CO%, HC%, COm, HCm, COs, and
HCs.
Requirement 3
Draw four graphs to show the relationships between speed and CO/HC
emission factors as well as CO/HC emission rates using the data prepared in
Requirement 2. Based on your visual analysis of these graphs, which rela-
tionships display a better regularity of shapes and trends; emission factors or
emission rates?
Vehicle Emissions 457
5. Regression Analysis
Inmany engineering andscientic applications, relationships betweenvari-
ables are established by rst collecting data fromexperimental studies in either
the laboratory or the eld. This data is then plotted and relationship discerned.
In this project, the two variables in the relationship represent the speed and
the CO/HC emission rates. Because of potential errors in measurement, the
data shown in the graphs drawn in Requirement 3 may not fall precisely on a
smooth curve. For this reason, the task of the analysis becomes threefold:
to hypothesize the mathematical form of the relationship between the two
variables (model postulation);
to estimate the parameters of the model based on the collected eld data
(model calibration); and
to determine howwell the calibratedrelationshipexplains the observeddata
(goodness of t).
This analysis process is called regression.
Scientic research on vehicle emissions has shown that the best mathemat-
ical function to model the relationship between the speed and the CO or HC
emission rate is the natural logarithm, expressed in the following forms:
ln(COs) = b
0
+ b
1
u, (5)
ln(HCs) = c
0
+ c
1
u. (6)
The speed u is the independent or explanatory variable. The emission rates, COs
or HCs, are called the dependent or explained variables. The constant coefcients
c
0
and c
1
are the model parameters. Data from Requirement 2 can be used to
plot ln(COs) vs. speed and ln(HCs) vs. speed. Calibrating the model means
determining the unknown values of the parameters in (5) or (6) to obtain the
best t to these plots. The goodness of t is measured by the coefcient of
correlation, r. Its value can range from1 to +1. If r is near +1, there exists a
highpositive correlation; if it is near 1, there exists a highnegative correlation;
and if it is around zero, there exists no correlation between the independent
and the dependent variables.
Requirement 4
Use the regression technique and the data prepared in Requirement 2 to
calibrate (5) and (6). The data for COs and HCs prepared in Requirement 2
need to be transformed by the natural logarithm (ln) before a simple linear
regression can be carried out. Hint: Add columns for ln(C0s) and ln(HCs) to
your spreadsheet table constructed in Requirement 2. Then plot the ln(C0s)
vs. speed and form the linear regression. Repeat for ln(HCs) vs. speed.
458 24.4 (2003)
Requirement 5
Calculate the coefcient correlations for the regressions in Requirement 4.
Are the models acceptable? Why? Drawthe line plot for each of the regression
equations generated.
6. Emission-Based Speed Optimization
Emission rates (g/s) can be transformed into emission factors (g/mi) by
solving (3) for COm and (4) for HCm. The new equations are:
COm (g/mi) =
COs (g/s) 3600 (s/h)
u (mi/h)
, (7)
HCm (g/mi) =
HCs (g/s) 3600 (s/h)
u (mi/h)
. (8)
Equations (3) and (4) for the emission rates are in the form y = mx, where the
slopes are COm/3600 and HCm/3600. Because these slopes are positive, the
emission rates are monotonically increasing functions of speed; hence, there
are no minimum values for a moving vehicle. The situation is less clear for the
emission factors described by (7) and (8). These equations can be transformed
into explicit functions of speed by solving for COs and HCs in the results of
Requirement 4 and then substituting these results into (7) and (8). Doing this
yields
COs (g/s) =
3600e
b
0
+b
1
u
u
, (9)
HCm (g/s) =
3600e
c
0
+c
1
u
u
. (10)
A graphical analysis can now be made to determine what speeds will min-
imize the emission factors. Knowledge of these speeds is critical information
for developing an advanced trafc management scheme to reduce emission
amounts.
Requirement 6
Draw a graph with two curves, one for the relationship between the speed
and the COemission rate, and the other for the relationship between the speed
and the CO emission factor. Draw a second graph with two curves, one for the
relationship between the speed and the HCemission rate, and the other for the
relationship between the speed and the HC emission factor. Let the speed be
measured starting from 0 to 70 mph in increments of 5 mph. Then calculate
the emission rates by solving for COs and HCs in the equations generated in
Requirement 4, and the emission factors using (9) and (10). Based on the visual
analysis of the graphs, is there a speed that can minimize the emission factor?
Vehicle Emissions 459
Requirement 7
Approximate the speeds corresponding to the minimumpoints onthe emis-
sion factor plots. What speed do you recommend for minimizing both the CO
and HC emission factors? Hint: On a graphing calculator, use the trace feature
to trace a point along the curve to the minimumposition or use the table feature
to determine the coordinates of the minimum point. For a spreadsheet, iterate
the function values to determine the minimum.
7. Real-World Applications
If all drivers traveled at the optimal speed, the total CO or HC emissions
would be the minimum. On the other hand, if vehicles are driven at varying
speeds, the resulting emissions will be higher. To analyze such a pattern, we as-
sume two different speed proles experienced by two different vehicles. Both
vehicles are driven for 30 s, but the rst vehicle travels at a constant speed of
35 mphwhile the speedof the secondvehicle varies between29 and42 mph(see
Table 2). After 30 s, both vehicles have driven the same distance, 1540 ft. Al-
though both vehicles have been driven the same distance during the same time
period, it is expected that the resulting vehicle emissions would be different.
Table 2 illustrates the details of these two different speed proles.
Requirement 8
Based on Table 2, plot two graphs, one for the constant speed prole, and
one for the varying speed prole. For each speed prole, there should be
two curves, one for the relationship between time and speed, and one for the
relationship between time and the distance. Use different y-axes for speed and
distance.
Requirement 9
Use the regression equations derived from Requirement 4 to calculate the
CO and HC emissions at each second for the two different speed proles in
Table 2. Make your calculation in a table. Then, calculate the total CO and HC
emissions for the entire travel of the two speedproles. What can youconclude
from your calculations?
Requirement 10
Assume that an accident happened on a location of a freeway segment. A
police ofcer came to the scene to process the necessary paperwork for this
accident and towing vehicles came to remove all vehicles involved. It took a
Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Distance (ft) Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Distance (ft)
1 35 51 1 42 62
2 35 103 2 41 122
3 35 154 3 40 180
4 35 205 4 39 238
5 35 257 5 38 293
6 35 308 6 38 349
7 35 359 7 37 403
8 35 411 8 36 456
9 35 462 9 35 507
10 35 513 10 34 557
11 35 565 11 33 606
12 35 616 12 32 653
13 35 667 13 31 698
14 35 719 14 30 742
15 35 770 15 30 786
16 35 821 16 30 830
17 35 873 17 29 873
18 35 924 18 29 915
19 35 975 19 30 959
20 35 1027 20 31 1005
21 35 1078 21 32 1052
22 35 1129 22 33 1100
23 35 1181 23 34 1150
24 35 1232 24 35 1201
25 35 1283 25 36 1254
26 35 1335 26 37 1308
27 35 1386 27 38 1364
28 35 1437 28 39 1421
29 35 1489 29 40 1480
30 35 1540 30 41 1540
Constant Speed Profile Varying Speed Profile
460 24.4 (2003)
Table 2.
Speed proles driven by two vehicles.
total of 40 min fromthe start of the accident to the time when the accident scene
is completely cleared. During this period, a total of 200 vehicles have to stop.
Assume the average wait is 30 min per vehicle. Calculate the total additional
CO and HC emissions that were generated by these 200 vehicles due to the
trafc accident. What can you conclude from your calculation? Hint: Derive
the idling emissions rates by setting the speed equal to zero in the results of
Requirement 4.
References
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). 291. Vehicle Emission
Reductions. Paris, France: OECDPublications Services (2, rue Andr e Pascal,
75775 Paris Cedex 16, France).
Sorbe, N. 1995. Hughes Employee Vehicle Exhaust Remote Sensing and Emis-
sions Evaluation Project. Report prepared for the Mobile Source Air Pollu-
tion Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) under the AB2766 Program. El
Segundo, CA: Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.
Vehicle Emissions 461
Yu, L. 1998a. CollectionandEvaluationof Modal Trafc Data for Determination
of Vehicle Emission Rates under Certain Driving Conditions. Research
Reports 1485-1, 1485-2, and 1485-3F for TxDOT Project No. 0-1485, Center
for Transportation Training and Research. Houston, TX: Texas Southern
University.
. 1998b. Remote vehicle exhaust emission-sensing for trafc simu-
lation and optimization models. Journal of Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment 3: 337347.
CO% Versus Speed
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
C
O

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
462 24.4 (2003)
Title: Vehicle Emissions
Sample Solution
Requirement 1: The graphs between the speed and COand HCconcentrations
are shown in Figures S1 and S2.
Figure S1. CO concentration vs. speed.
Based on visual analysis of these graphs, clearly the speed is not correlated
with the COor HCconcentrations. The data are scattered and do not showany
regularity of shapes or trends.
Requirement 2: The generated table is shown in Table S1.
Requirement 3: See Figures S3S6. A visual analysis of the graphs suggests
that the CO/HCemission rates have greater regularity of shape and trend with
the speed than do the CO/HC emission factors.
Requirement 4: The resulting regression equations are:
ln(COs) = 2.46215 + 0.028383u, or COs = e
2.46215+0.028383u
,
ln(HCs) = 4.91624 + 0.030929u, or COs = e
4.91624+0.030929u
.
HC% Versus Speed
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
H
C

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
CO (g/mi) Versus Speed
0.0000
5.0000
10.0000
15.0000
20.0000
25.0000
30.0000
35.0000
40.0000
45.0000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
C
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
m
i
)
Vehicle Emissions 463
Figure S2. HC concentration vs. speed.
Figure S3. CO emission factor vs. speed.
Data # Speed CO% HC% COm(g/mi) HCm(g/mi) COs(g/sec) HCs(g/sec)
1 9. 98 0. 27 0. 0096 24.2970 2.3077 0.0674 0.0064
2
10. 97 0. 22 0. 0058
23.7420 2.0671 0.0723 0.0063
3 15. 40 0. 30 0. 0038 24.6300 1.9405 0.1054 0.0083
4
15. 69 0. 03 0. 0031
21.6330 1.8962 0.0943 0.0083
5 16. 44 0. 21 0. 0161 23.6310 2.7191 0.1079 0.0124
6
17. 11 0. 89 0. 0031
31.1790 1.8962 0.1482 0.0090
7
18. 66 0. 19 0. 0055
23.4090 2.0482 0.1213 0.0106
8
19. 04 0. 79 0. 0241
30.0690 3.2255 0.1590 0.0171
9
20. 95 0. 08 0. 0065
22.1880 2.1115 0.1291 0.0123
10
21. 52 0. 07 0. 0007
22.0770 1.7443 0.1319 0.0104
11
23. 41 1. 61 0. 0063
39.1710 2.0988 0.2547 0.0136
12 24. 82 0. 77 0. 0187 29.8470 2.8837 0.2057 0.0199
13
25. 15 0. 76 0. 0257
29.7360 3.3268 0.2077 0.0232
14 26. 35 1. 91 0. 0370 42.5010 4.0421 0.3110 0.0296
15
27. 02 0. 40 0. 0206
25.7400 3.0040 0.1932 0.0225
16 27. 62 0. 06 0. 0050 21.9660 2.0165 0.1685 0.0155
17
29. 90 0. 36 0. 0256
25.2960 3.3205 0.2101 0.0276
18 30. 04 0. 18 0. 0041 23.2980 1.9595 0.1944 0.0163
19
30. 67 0. 58 0. 0036
27.7380 1.9279 0.2363 0.0164
20
31. 99 0. 12 0. 0161
22.6320 2.7191 0.2011 0.0242
21
34. 97 1. 02 0. 0013
32.6220 1.7823 0.3169 0.0173
22
35. 10 0. 53 0. 0084
27.1830 2.2317 0.2650 0.0218
23
35. 94 1. 11 0. 0122
33.6210 2.4723 0.3356 0.0247
24
36. 98 0. 29 0. 0061
24.5190 2.0861 0.2518 0.0214
25 37. 69 1. 67 0. 0350 39.8370 3.9155 0.4171 0.0410
26
37. 90 0. 62 0. 0206
28.1820 3.0040 0.2967 0.0316
27 38. 74 0. 27 0. 0152 24.2970 2.6622 0.2615 0.0286
28
40. 58 0. 09 0. 0037
22.2990 1.9342 0.2514 0.0218
29 41. 63 0. 30 0. 0063 24.6300 2.0988 0.2848 0.0243
30
42. 12 0. 54 0. 0133
27.2940 2.5419 0.3193 0.0297
31 43. 22 0. 32 0. 0147 24.8520 2.6305 0.2983 0.0316
32
44. 20 0. 29 0. 0141
24.5190 2.5925 0.3010 0.0318
33
45. 05 0. 39 0. 0247
25.6290 3.2635 0.3207 0.0408
34
46. 59 0. 79 0. 0239
30.0690 3.2129 0.3891 0.0416
35
47. 06 0. 73 0. 0079
29.4030 2.2001 0.3844 0.0288
36
47. 51 0. 54 0. 0171
27.2940 2.7824 0.3602 0.0367
37
47. 86 0. 07 0. 0071
22.0770 2.1494 0.2935 0.0286
38 48. 92 0. 33 0. 0248 24.9630 3.2698 0.3392 0.0444
39
49. 78 0. 43 0. 0345
26.0730 3.8839 0.3605 0.0537
40 49. 81 0. 55 0. 0150 27.4050 2.6495 0.3791 0.0367
41
50. 50 0. 72 0. 0138
29.2920 2.5735 0.4109 0.0361
42 50. 52 0. 21 0. 0173 23.6310 2.7951 0.3316 0.0392
43
51. 48 0. 18 0. 0056
23.2980 2.0545 0.3332 0.0294
44 52. 18 0. 61 0. 0352 28.0710 3.9282 0.4068 0.0569
45
52. 87 0. 92 0. 0186
31.5120 2.8774 0.4627 0.0423
46
53. 25 0. 19 0. 0282
23.4090 3.4851 0.3462 0.0515
47
53. 62 0. 44 0. 0013
26.1840 1.7823 0.3900 0.0265
48
54. 32 0. 22 0. 0329
23.7420 3.7826 0.3582 0.0571
49
55. 19 0. 34 0. 0211
25.0740 3.0356 0.3844 0.0465
50
56. 07 0. 49 0. 0054
26.7390 2.0418 0.4165 0.0318
51 56. 33 0. 15 0. 0039 22.9650 1.9469 0.3593 0.0305
52
56. 56 0. 76 0. 0351
29.7360 3.9218 0.4671 0.0616
53 58. 29 0. 12 0. 0169 22.6320 2.7698 0.3664 0.0448
54
58. 75 0. 12 0. 0103
22.6320 2.3520 0.3693 0.0384
55 59. 44 0. 35 0. 0038 25.1850 1.9405 0.4158 0.0320
56
61. 40 0. 83 0. 0068
30.5130 2.1304 0.5204 0.0363
57 62. 00 0. 21 0. 0084 23.6310 2.2317 0.4070 0.0384
58
63. 65 0. 35 0. 0068
25.1850 2.1304 0.4452 0.0377
59
67. 11 0. 35 0. 0089
25.1850 2.2634 0.4695 0.0422
60
76. 68 0. 47 0. 0073
26.5170 2.1621 0.5648 0.0460
464 24.4 (2003)
Table S1.
Speed proles driven by two vehicles.
HC (g/mi) Versus Speed
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
3.0000
3.5000
4.0000
4.5000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
H
C

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
m
i
)
CO (g/sec) Versus Speed
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
C
O

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
s
e
c
)
Vehicle Emissions 465
Figure S4. HC emission factor vs. speed.
Figure S5. CO emission rate vs. speed.
HC (g/sec) Versus Speed
0.0000
0.0100
0.0200
0.0300
0.0400
0.0500
0.0600
0.0700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (mph)
H
C

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
s
e
c
)
Speed Line Plot
-4
-2
0
0 50 100
Speed
l
n
(
C
O
)
LN(CO)
Predicted LN(CO)
466 24.4 (2003)
Figure S6. HC emission rate vs. speed.
Requirement 5: r(COs) = 0.9089, r(HCs) = 0.8644.
Both correlation coefcients are close to one, so both regression equations
have acceptable goodness of t. Since r(COs) is slightly higher than r(HCs),
the regression equation for COs is better than the one for HCs.
Figure S7. Line plot for the speed and the CO emission factor.
Requirement 6: From Figures S9S10, there clearly exists a speed value that
minimizes either the CO emission factor or the HC emission factor. On the
other hand, the emission rates are monotonically increasing functions of the
speed.
Requirement 7: u
optimal
for CO = 35 mph; u
optimal
for HC = 32 mph.
Speed Line Plot
-10
-5
0
0 50 100
Speed
l
n
(
H
C
)
LN(HC)
Predicted LN(HC)
CO Emissions Versus Speed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80
Speed (mph)
C
O

(
g
/
m
i
)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
C
O

(
g
/
s
e
c
)
CO (g/mi)
CO (g/sec)
HC Emissions Versus Speed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 20 40 60 80
Speed (mph)
H
C

(
g
/
m
i
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
H
C

(
g
/
s
e
c
)
HC (g/mi)
HC (g/sec)
Vehicle Emissions 467
Figure S8. Line plot for the speed and the HC emission factor.
Figure S9. Relationships between the CO emission rates/factors and the speed.
Figure S10. Relationships between the HC emission rates/factors and the speed.
Speed Profile 1 - Constant Speed
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
S
p
e
e
d

(
m
i
/
h
r
)
Distance (ft)
Speed (mph)
Speed Profile 2 - Varying Speed
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
A
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
f
t
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
S
p
e
e
d

(
m
i
/
h
r
)
Distance (ft)
Speed (mph)
468 24.4 (2003)
Requirement 8: See Figures S11S12.
Figure S11. Illustration of constant speed prole.
Figure S12. Illustration of varying speed prole.
Vehicle Emissions 469
Requirement 9: See Table S2.
Table S2.
Second-by-second calculations.
Constant Speed Prole Varying Speed Prole
Time Speed 1 CO 1 HC 1 Speed 2 CO 2 HC 2
1 35 0.2302 0.02163 42 0.2808 0.02686
2 35 0.2302 0.02163 41 0.2730 0.02604
3 35 0.2302 0.02163 40 0.2653 0.02525
4 35 0.2302 0.02163 39 0.2579 0.02448
5 35 0.2302 0.02163 38 0.2507 0.02373
6 35 0.2302 0.02163 38 0.2507 0.02373
7 35 0.2302 0.02163 37 0.2437 0.02301
8 35 0.2302 0.02163 37 0.2437 0.02301
9 35 0.2302 0.02163 37 0.2437 0.02301
10 35 0.2302 0.02163 36 0.2368 0.02231
11 35 0.2302 0.02163 35 0.2302 0.02163
12 35 0.2302 0.02163 34 0.2238 0.02097
13 35 0.2302 0.02163 33 0.2175 0.02033
14 35 0.2302 0.02163 32 0.2114 0.01971
15 35 0.2302 0.02163 31 0.2055 0.01911
16 35 0.2302 0.02163 30 0.1998 0.01853
17 35 0.2302 0.02163 29 0.1942 0.01797
18 35 0.2302 0.02163 29 0.1942 0.01797
19 35 0.2302 0.02163 30 0.1998 0.01853
20 35 0.2302 0.02163 31 0.2055 0.01911
21 35 0.2302 0.02163 32 0.2114 0.01971
22 35 0.2302 0.02163 33 0.2175 0.02033
23 35 0.2302 0.02163 34 0.2238 0.02097
24 35 0.2302 0.02163 35 0.2302 0.02163
25 35 0.2302 0.02163 36 0.2368 0.02231
26 35 0.2302 0.02163 37 0.2437 0.02301
27 35 0.2302 0.02163 38 0.2507 0.02373
28 35 0.2302 0.02163 39 0.2579 0.02448
29 35 0.2302 0.02163 40 0.2653 0.02525
30 35 0.2302 0.02163 41 0.2730 0.02604
TOTAL EMISSIONS 6.9064 0.6489 7.0382 0.66273
For the CO emissions, the varying speed prole generates a total of 7.04 g
comparing with the 6.91 g for the constant speed prole (2% higher). Similarly
for the HCemissions, the varying speed prole generates a total of 0.663 g com-
paring with the 0.649 g of emissions for the constant speed prole (2% higher).
Since the optimal speed is 35 mph for CO and 32 mph for HC, the constant
speed prole in this requirement should result in the minimum CO emissions
and close to minimum HC emissions. Although the 2% higher emissions does
not seem like a signicant amount, this is just for 30 s for a single vehicle. You
can imagine howmuch additional emissions would be generated if all vehicles
in the city drive at varying speeds of a signicant level. On the other hand, the
trafc managers should try to implement trafc management strategies that
would encourage or force drivers to drive at desired and constant speeds.
470 24.4 (2003)
Requirement 10: Set speed to 0 in the regression equations in Requirement 4
to derive the idling emission rate in units of grams per second:
COs when idling = e
2.46215+0.028383u
= 0.08525 g/s,
HCs when idling = e
4.91624+0.030929u
= 0.00733 g/s.
Therefore, during the 30 min delay, a vehicle will emit the following total CO
and HC emissions:
CO idling emissions for one vehicle for 30 min = 0.08525 30 60=153.45 g,
HC idling emissions for one vehicle for 30 min = 0.00733 30 60= 13.194 g.
Therefore, the total COemissions for 200 vehicles = 153.45 200 = 30,690 g and
the total HC emissions for 200 vehicles = 13.194 200 = 2,639 g.
From the above calculation, we can see that one trafc accident can result
in considerable additional CO and HC emissions. Considerably more emis-
sions will be produced if many trafc accidents happen in the city. Therefore,
reducing the number of trafc accidents can reduce the vehicle emissions.
Vehicle Emissions 471
Title: Vehicle Emissions
Notes for the Instructor
This project is designed for students to practice algebraic calculations, data
analysis, and optimization using real-world vehicle emission data. The vehicle
emission issue is becoming more and more important because of the stricter
regulations imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ve-
hicle emissions are a big source of air pollution and are related to many of our
health problems.
The key to the successful completion of this project is a clear understanding
of the sequence of the data, the denitions of the variables, the relationships
between variables, as well as the algebraic, data analysis, and optimization
concepts. Any additional information related to vehicle emission-control can
be introduced in the class. The instructor can introduce various emission data
collectiontechniques. Theinstructor canalsointroducemorecomplicatedmod-
eling and data analysis techniques.
The simplest regression equation is used in this project, which although
nonlinear, includes only one variable. The instructor can encourage students
to test various regression formulas and different combinations of variables. For
instance, other regression models to consider include
COs = b
0
+ b
1
u + b
2
u
2
,
HCs = c
0
+ c
1
u + c
2
u
2
.
Requirements 49 can be repeated with these other regression formulas.
The instructor can also encourage students to search literature on other
existing vehicle emission models. Students can compare the calculation results
between the models developed in this project and other models.
472 24.4 (2003)
About the Authors
Lei Yu is Professor and Chairperson of the Trans-
portation Studies Department at Texas Southern Uni-
versity. He is also a Changjiang Scholar of Beijing Jiao-
tong University. He received a bachelors degree in
TransportationEngineeringfromNorthernJiaotongUni-
versity, Beijing, China and a masters degree in Pro-
duction and Systems Engineering from Nagoya Insti-
tute of Technology, Nagoya, Japan. His Ph.D. degree
in Civil Engineering was awarded by Queens Univer-
sity in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His research inter-
ests involve highway trafc operations and modeling,
urban transportation planning, the ITS-related technologies and applications,
and vehicle exhaust emission modeling. Since 1994, Yu has been the Princi-
pal Investigator (PI) of more than 25 research projects that were sponsored by
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Federal Highway Administra-
tion (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Southwest Region Univer-
sity Transportation Center (SWUTC) program, National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), and Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC); the
total funding amount is over $2 million. Dr. Yu has published more than 50
research papers in the Journal of Transportation Research, Transportation Research
Records, and the Journal of Transportation Engineering, as well as in various peer-
reviewed conference proceedings. Dr. Yu is an active member of the Institute of
TransportationEngineers (ITE), the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers (ASCE)
and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). He is a registered engineer in
the State of Texas. He also belongs to numerous committees, councils, and task
forces in regional, state, national, and international organizations.
Don Small graduated from Middlebury College and
received his Ph.D. degree in mathematics from the Uni-
versity of Connecticut. He taught mathematics at Colby
College for 23years before joiningthe Mathematics Depart-
ment at the U.S. Military Academy in 1991. He is active
in the calculus and college algebra reform movements
developing curricula, authoring texts, and leading faculty
development workshops. Active in the Mathematical As-
sociation of America (MAA), Don served a term as Chairman and two terms
as Governor of the Northeast Section and has been a long-term member of
the MAAs CRAFTY committee. His interests are in developing curriculum
that focuses on student growth while meeting the needs of partner disciplines,
society, and the workplace. He is also a member of AMATYC and AMS.