TEST REPORT OMT 4005

Transcription

1 TEST REPORT OMT 4005 On-board Emission Measurement on Wheel loaders with different emission standards Stage IIIA: L220 F Stage IIIB: L220 G Stage IV: L220 H Charlotte Sandström Dahl Kristina Willner AVL SWEDEN

2 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 2 of 51 Table of contents Table of contents... 2 Summary... 4 Introduction... 5 Contacts... 5 Acknowledgement... 5 Test objects... 6 Volvo L220F... 6 Volvo L220G... 8 Volvo L220H Test equipment Analyser calibration Test information Test fuel Test site Test evaluation Test results EU NRMM Test results Evaluation of NRMM exclusions Conclusions Bibliography Appendix 1: Analyzer calibration Appendix 2: EFM calibration Appendix 3: Gas bottles Appendix 4: Photos from test site Appendix 5: NRMM non-working events... 50

3 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 3 of 51 AVL MTC AB Address: Armaturvägen 1 P.O. Box 223 SE Haninge Sweden Tel: Fax: SE_info@avl.com Web:

4 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 4 of 51 Summary AVL Motortestcenter AB (AVL) has on commission by the Swedish Transport Administration tested three wheel loaders of emission standards Stage IIIA (Volvo L220F), Stage IIIB (Volvo L220G) and Stage IV (Volvo L220H) with Portable Emissions Measurement Equipment (PEMS). Regulated emissions (for engines); carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (THC), nitrogen oxides (NO x) and particulate mass (PM) as well as fuel consumption (FC) and CO 2 were measured. The test location was a gravel-pit managed by Skanska and located near Eskilstuna. The machines were tested, operated by their everyday drivers, in daily use which consists of moving gravel around the pit. For each machine two tests were performed and evaluated both as whole test and according to the averaging window principle based on work and CO 2 mass emissions, as proposed for In-Service Conformity Procedure for Nonroad Mobile Machinery in EU [1]. 8.0 Emissions of NOx from the different machines 100 Emissions of PM from the different machines Test 1 Test Test 1 Test 2 g/kwh mg/kwh Stage IIIA Stage IIIB Stage IV 0 Stage IIIA Stage IIIB Stage IV Figure 1 Emissions of NOx (g/kwh), whole test. Figure 2 Emissions of PM (mg/kwh), whole test. Comparison of the machines from the different emission standards shows that the levels were substantially reduced for the latter standards. The comparison of NOx and PM emissions from the whole test are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The machines are within the acceptable Conformity Factors, presented in Table 1, with the exception of NOx emissions from the Stage IIIB machine. Table 1 Summary of Conformity Factors for the machines Stage IIIA/L220F* Stage IIIB/L220G Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Conformity Factor CO 0,34 0,42 n.d n.d n.d n.d Conformity Factor THC n/a n/a 0,15 0,08 0,03 0,03 Conformity Factor NOx n/a n/a 2,21 2,28 0,31 0,19 Conformity Factor THC+NOx 1,81 1,69 n/a n/a n/a n/a Conformity Factor PM 0,48 0,5 0,35 0,45 0,15 0,14 *Emission limits based on stationary cycle NRSC In order to overcome the problem with the effect of idling, a draft proposal for the EU NRMM evaluation regarding exclusion of data from non-working events has been suggested. The effect of exclusions (such as using the 90 percentile vs 100 percentile and 20% power threshold vs no

5 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 5 of 51 power threshold) have also been investigated in this report. Each test was calculated with and without these exclusions. Introduction AVL has on commission by the Swedish Transport Administration and in accordance to framework agreement TRV 2010/68422, carried out emission validation tests on three wheel loaders of emission standards Stage IIIA (Volvo L220F), Stage IIIB (Volvo L220G) and Stage IV (Volvo L220H). The purpose of the testing was to compare emission performance and fuel consumption of machines of different emission standards and to evaluate emission results according to the work based window method proposed for the In-Service Conformity for Nonroad Mobile Machinery in EU [1]. Contacts Name Company Responsibility Contact information Magnus Lindgren The Swedish Commissioner magnus.lindgren@trafikverket.se Transport Administration Magnus Nord AVL MTC Technician, test operator magnus.nord@avl.com Charlotte AVL MTC Project leader, test evaluation and charlotte.sandstrom@avl.com Sandström Dahl report Kristina Willner AVL MTC Test evaluation and report kristina.willner@avl.com Peter Östberg AVL MTC Technician, test operator peter.ostberg@avl.com Acknowledgement The manufacturer of the wheel loaders, Volvo Construction Equipment (VCE), have kindly supported in practical issues during the testing and provided information regarding the engine data for the machines. The machines were situated at a gravel-pit in Eskilstuna which was managed by Skanska. All the testing was performed at the Skanska work site, where the instrument was installed on the machines and the tests were performed during normal daily work. We would hereby like to acknowledge the personnel at VCE and Skanska for their helpful assistance during the measurements.

6 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 6 of 51 Test objects Volvo L220F Figure 3 L220F with test equipment mounted above the right hind wheel The L220F machine was an older machine with emission standard Stage IIIA. The machine had exceeded its expected lifetime. Vehicle/Machine information Vehicle/Machine name (manufacturer and commercial names): Volvo Construction Equipment L220F Vehicle/Machine model: Wheel loader Machine weight [ton]: Total weight [ton]: Full bucket adds approx 10 tons to machine weight Engine information Engine: Volvo D12D LB E3 Engine manufacturer: Volvo Construction Equipment Category of machine: Stage IIIA Category H kw P 560 kw Engine displacement [litres]: 12 Number of cylinders: 6 Engine rated power: rpm]: 1600 Engine peak torque: rpm]: Transmission: Volvo THE 305 After treatment system: Internal EGR ECU Protocol for PEMS logging: J1939 Limits used for calculation of EU conformity factors: Table 7

7 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 7 of 51 Installation: Figure 4 PEMS installation on machine Figure 5 Exhaust Flow Meter mounted on the exhaust pipe

8 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 8 of 51 Volvo L220G Figure 6 L220G with test equipment mounted behind cab The L220G was of emission standard Stage IIIB. Vehicle/Machine information Vehicle/Machine name (manufacturer and commercial names): Volvo Construction Equipment L220G Vehicle/Machine model: Wheel loader Machine weight [ton]: 32,8 Total weight [ton]: Full bucket adds approx 10 tons to machine weight Engine information Engine: D13H-E Engine manufacturer: Volvo Construction Equipment Category of machine: Stage IIIB Category L kw P 560 kw Engine displacement [litres]: 12,8 Number of cylinders: 6 Engine rated power: rpm]: Engine peak torque: rpm]: 1100 Transmission: Volvo HTL 306 After treatment system : DPF with active regeneration Reagent specification: n.a ECU Protocol for PEMS logging: J1939 Limits used for calculation of EU conformity factors: Table 7

9 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 9 of 51 Installation: Figure 7 PEMS installation on the machine Figure 8 Exhaust Flow Meter mounted on the exhaust pipe

10 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 10 of 51 Volvo L220H Figure 9 L220H with test equipment mounted behind the cab The L220H machine is of emission standard Stage IV, and was new when the PEMS testing started. Vehicle/Machine information Vehicle/Machine name (manufacturer and commercial names): Volvo Construction Equipment L220H Vehicle/Machine model: Wheel loader Machine weight [ton]: 35,5 Total weight [ton]: Full bucket adds approx 10 tons to machine weight Engine information Engine: D13J Engine manufacturer: Volvo Construction Equipment Category of machine: Stage IV Category Q kw P 560 kw Engine displacement [litres]: 12,8 Number of cylinders: 6 Engine rated power: rpm]: Engine peak torque: rpm]: 1100 Transmission: Volvo HTL 307B After treatment system : SCR, DPF Reagent specification: Commercially available AdBlue (urea). ECU Protocol for PEMS logging: J1939 Limits used for calculation of EU conformity factors: Table 7

11 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 11 of 51 Installation: Figure 10 PEMS installation on the machine Figure 11 Exhaust Flow Meter mounted on the exhaust pipe

12 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 12 of 51 Test equipment PEMS Equipment, brand and type: AVL M.O.V.E GAS PEMS 493 AVL M.O.V.E PM PEMS 494 Sensors EFM-HS 5 Figure 12 AVL M.O.V.E The M.O.V.E is developed by AVL for testing of vehicles and equipment under real-world operating conditions. The instrument is an on-board emissions analyzer which enables tailpipe emissions to be measured and recorded simultaneously while the vehicle/machine is in operation. The following measurement subsystems are included in the AVL M.O.V.E GAS PEMS emission analyzer: - Heated Flame Ionization Detector (HFID) for total hydrocarbon (THC) measurement. - Non-Dispersive Ultraviolet (NDUV) analyzer for nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) measurement. - Non-Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) analyzer for carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO 2) measurement. - Electrochemical sensor for oxygen (O 2) measurement. The AVL M.O.V.E PM PEMS combines the time resolved photo-acoustic soot measurement principle with a gravimetric PM measurement which operates with a gravimetric filter. The time-resolved particulate (PM) emissions are calculated by weighing the loaded gravimetric filter after the end of the test and, additionally, using the time resolved soot signal and the exhaust mass flow as inputs. The instrument consists of the following main components: - The Micro Soot Sensor measuring unit (MSS) which is designed for continuous measurement of soot concentrations, and;

13 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 13 of 51 - The Gravimetric Filter Module (GFM) which provides total PM using the gravimetric filter method. The instruments are operated in combination with an electronic vehicle exhaust flow meter, Sensors EFM-HS. The M.O.V.E. instrument uses the flow data together with exhaust component concentrations to calculate instantaneous and total mass emissions. The flow meter is available in different sizes depending on engine size of the tested machine. The PM sampling probe is fitted approximately 50 cm/20 upstream of the exit of the exhaust gas system which is according to EU NRMM directive 97/68/EC (and later amendments). The AVL M.O.V.E SYSTEM GAS PEMS 493 has been verified by TÜV and meets the requirements of the regulation (EU) NO. 582/2011 Annex II and (EU) No. 64/2012, certification no: AM-Z.01. The AVL M.O.V.E PEMS system is also approved according the standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 40 CFR Part AVL PM PEMS 494 has by EPA, 40 CFR Part 1065, been approved as an alternative system. PEMS power supply: 2 * Portable Genset via 24 V battery pack, 1.6 kw each. Figure 13 Gas- and PM-PEMS equipment

14 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 14 of 51 Table 2 Analyzer accuracy Table 3 Analyzer drift

15 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 15 of 51 Analyser calibration Zeroing (pre-test, auto, and post-test) has been performed with nitrogen gas. Zero-span of the gas analysers have been performed prior to and after the tests. The results are presented as drift corrected. For the EU calculations, no drifts exceed the 2% limit. For detailed calibration information, please see enclosed documents: Appendix 1: Analyzer calibration Appendix 2: EFM calibration Appendix 3: Gas bottles Reference filters and test filters were weighed at AVL prior to the test and after the test. Test filters were, after being weighed at AVL, placed in filter cassettes which were stored in plastic zip-bags at all times except during the test. Thereby the test filters were never exposed to ambient air between the pre-test weighing and the post-test weighing. For each test filter batch, two reference filters were kept at AVL during the tests and the other two were brought to the test site. Reference filters brought to the test site were stored in the same kind of filter cassettes as the test filters, and were kept in a plastic zip-bags and protected by foam rubber. Test information Test fuel All tests were performed with commercially available MK1 diesel. Extract from the standard for Swedish Mk1 fuel specification are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Swedish Mk1 diesel fuel extract from standard Fuel Property Unit According to SS :2011 Cetane number - min 51,0 15 C kg/m3 800,0-830,0 Sulphur mg/kg max 10,0 Aromatics Vol% max 5,0 Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) Vol% max 7,0

16 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 16 of 51 Test site The three machines were tested at the same gravel pit. The PEMS instrument was installed on the machines and the measurements were performed during the daily use with drivers from Skanska. The same driver operated the Stage IIIA machine and the Stage IV machine, whereas a different driver operated the Stage IIIB machine. The three machines performed similar work during the testing, basically consisting of movement of gravel at the work site. Mounting of equipment, test start and end Gradient, approx. 300m Piles of gravel Gravel crush*2 Figure 14 Schematic drawing of test site Photos from the test site are included in Appendix 4. Detailed information of the tests are presented in Table 5.

17 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 17 of 51 Table 5 Test data L220F Date of test Test duration [s] Trip Work (kwh) Trip work corresponding to no. of NRTC's performed Average Power (kw) Average Torque (Nm) Average, Engine Speed (rpm) Average ambient temperature [ C] 1) Average Rel Hum [%] 1) Test , ,1 Test , ,5 Average speed (km/h) L220G Test , ,3 Test , ,7 L220H Test , ,4 Test , ,2 1) Temp and humidity sensor placed on the side of the machines.

18 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 18 of 51 As mentioned earlier, the three machines were tested at the same gravel-pit in Eskilstuna. The normal work consisted of removing materials from the crushers. The material was distributed to different locations depending on the gravel size. The work performed by the wheel loaders were generally very transient with frequent change of load (full bucket empty bucket full bucket etc.), and with very limited idle periods. The engine power (in %) from one test for each machine is presented in Figure 15 - Figure 17, showing similar load patterns. Figure 18 shows (tailpipe) exhaust temperatures for the different machines demonstrating adequate temperatures for proper after treatment system functionality. Figure 15 Engine power percentage, test 2, L220F Figure 16 Engine power percentage, test 2, L220G

19 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 19 of 51 Figure 17 Engine power percentage, test 2, L220H Exhaust gas temperatures Temp [ C] Stage IIIA Stage IIIB Stage IV Time [s] Figure 18 Exhaust gas temperatures (tailpipe)

20 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 20 of 51 Test evaluation Calculation software and version used: AVL Concerto PEMS, version 4.5, work environment release Rel4_B109. The data evaluation software has been verified by TÜV and meets the requirements of the regulation (EU) NO. 582/2011 Annex II and (EU) No. 64/2012, certification no: AM-Z.02. Calculation input: Reference work and CO 2 mass (for EU NRMM evaluation: engine work/co 2 mass for the NRTC, warm cycle): The data for the L220G and L220H machines was kindly provided by the manufacturer. The L220F machine (emission standard Stage IIIA) was not type approved according to the transient NRTC cycle and the reference work and CO 2 mass for this machine is estimated by the evaluation software (AVL Concerto PEMS). The input data are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Reference data for work and CO 2 mass Machine Reference work (kwh) CO2 mass (kg) Stage IIIA/L220F (estimated) Stage IIIB/L220G (manufacturer input) Stage IV/L220H (manufacturer input) Torque signal [Nm]: Engine torque= (load (at current speed) % * indicated torque (at current speed) - friction torque (at current speed) The three machines are type approved in accordance to three different emission standards. The limits for the regulated components are presented in Table 7 and shows the growing stringency for the latter emission levels. This is also reflected in the exhaust aftertreatment for the machines; where the L220F machine (Stage IIIA) is equipped with an internal EGR, the L220G (Stage IIIB) has a DPF with active regeneration and the L220H (Stage IV) is equipped with an SCR and a DPF. Table 7 Emission limits used for calculation of conformity factors, applicable to vehicles with net power: 130 kw P 560 kw Category CO [g/kwh] HC [g/kwh] HC+NOx [g/kwh] NOx [g/kwh] PM [g/kwh] Stage IIIA* 3.5* 4.0* 0.2* Stage IIIB Stage IV *Up to Stage IIIA the machines are tested according to the stationary test cycle NRSC.

21 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 21 of 51 In Table 8 the proposed conformity factors for EU legislation are presented. Table 8 Proposal for maximum allowed conformity factors for NRMM in EU [1] Maximum allowed conformity factor NOx CO THC PM Test results All test results are presented as drift corrected. The test results from the measured emission components are presented in Table 9 - Table 11. In this section the whole test has been evaluated, and no exclusions have been applied. Two test sequences were performed for each machine refered to as Test 1 and Test 2 in the following presentation of the test results. More information regarding test data can be found in Table 5. Table 9 All events brake specific emissions from machine L220F Stage IIIA/L220F Test 1 Test 2 CO 2 g/kwh CO g/kwh 1,09 1,11 THC g/kwh 0,12 0,10 NO g/kwh 6,38 5,98 NO 2 g/kwh 0,35 0,31 NOx g/kwh 6,73 6,29 Soot mg/kwh 70,17 66,29 PM mg/kwh 85,7 81,9 Table 10 All events brake specific emissions from machine L220G Stage IIIB/L220G Test 1 Test 2 CO 2 g/kwh CO g/kwh n.d n.d THC g/kwh 0,02 0,00 NO g/kwh 3,61 3,26 NO 2 g/kwh 0,64 1,26 NOx g/kwh 4,25 4,51 Soot mg/kwh 0,43 0,41 PM mg/kwh 7,8 10,4

22 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 22 of 51 Table 11 All events brake specific emissions from machine L220H Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 CO 2 g/kwh CO g/kwh n.d n.d THC g/kwh n.d n.d NO g/kwh 0,14 0,11 NO 2 g/kwh 0,06 0,07 NOx g/kwh 0,20 0,18 Soot mg/kwh 0,44 0,46 PM mg/kwh 3,07 3,13 The emissions of NOx and PM for the different emission standards are presented in Figure 19 and Figure 20. The reduction of both NOx and PM emissions from Stage IIIA (L220F) up to Stage IV (L220H) is substantial L220F L220G Test 1 Test 2 g/kwh L220H Stage IIIA Stage IIIB Stage IV Figure 19 Emissions of NOx from the whole test. mg/kwh L220F Test 1 Test 2 L220G L220H Stage IIIA Stage IIIB Stage IV Figure 20 Emissions of PM from the whole test.

23 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 23 of 51 For the particulate emissions, the instrument combines a Micro Soot Sensor (which provides a time-resolved measurement) with a gravimetric filter method. The measurement principles are explained in more detail in the Test equipment chapter. Comparison between the two methods are presented in Table 12. Table 12 PM-Soot comparison Stage IIIA/L220F Stage IIIB/L220G Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Soot mg/kwh 70,17 66,29 0,43 0,41 0,44 0,46 PM mg/kwh 85,69 81,88 7,76 10,43 3,07 3,13 PM/soot - 1,22 1,24 18,05 25,44 6,98 6,80 For the Stage IIIA machine the PM and soot emissions are high. The quote between PM/soot indicates that the time-resolved soot measurement can be used as a trace for the PM measured on filter. The emissions have been extensively reduced for the Stage IIIB machine, and even more so for the Stage IV machine. The soot emissions are reduced to the same level for the Stage IIIB and the Stage IV machines, but the PM emissions have been even further reduced for the Stage IV machine. Both these machines are equipped with DPFs, but the DPF for the Stage IV machine is more advanced. According to the proposal for In-Service testing for NRMM, there are data exclusions which should be applied to the test data. These exclusions have primarily been introduced to handle long periods of idling. The method for handling non-working events are presented in Appendix 5. In the following section the test results are calculated according to the EU evaluation method where the data are analyzed through moving average windows based on work or CO 2-mass. The results have been evaluated both with and without the appliance of non-working events where Evaluation method 1 is with exclusions; and Evaluation method 2 is without exclusions of nonworking events.

24 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 24 of 51 EU NRMM Test results Evaluation method 1: With exclusions of non-working events; Evaluation method 2: Without exclusions of non-working events. Table 13 Work Window test results machine Stage IIIA/L220F Work Window test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IIIA/L220F Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 Ref Work kwh 33,3 33,3 33,3 33,3 EU Power Threshold % min ave Power % 26,44 26,27 32,28 30,73 max ave Power % 44,83 44,83 51,33 51,33 Points Total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 94,35 97,29 94,73 97,05 Work Window Total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % Average CO g/kwh 1,11 1,11 1,31 1,31 Min CO g/kwh 0,91 0,91 1,13 1,13 Max CO g/kwh 1,33 1,33 1,55 1,55 90% CO g/kwh 1,2 1,2 1,46 1,46 EU Limit CO g/kwh 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 Conformity Factor CO - 0,34 0,34 0,42 0,42 Average THC g/kwh 0,13 0,13 0,1 0,11 Min THC g/kwh 0,1 0,1 0,06 0,06 Max THC g/kwh 0,15 0,15 0,14 0,15 90% THC g/kwh 0,15 0,15 0,13 0,13 EU Limit THC g/kwh Conformity Factor THC - n/a n/a n/a n/a Average THC+NOx g/kwh 6,82 6,82 6,41 6,41 Min THC+NOx g/kwh 6,18 6,18 5,36 5,36 Max THC+NOx g/kwh 7,6 7,6 7,08 7,09 90% THC+NOx g/kwh 7,22 7,22 6,76 6,76 EU Limit THC+NOx g/kwh 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 Conformity Factor THC+NOx - 1,81 1,81 1,69 1,69 Average NOx g/kwh 6,69 6,69 6,31 6,3 Min NOx g/kwh 6,08 6,08 5,3 5,3 Max NOx g/kwh 7,45 7,45 6,94 6,94 90% NOx g/kwh 7,07 7,07 6,63 6,63 EU Limit NOx g/kwh Conformity Factor NOx - n/a n/a n/a n/a Average PM g/kwh 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,09 Min PM g/kwh 0,08 0,08 0,00 0,00 Max PM g/kwh 0,10 0,10 0,11 0,11 90% PM g/kwh 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,1 EU Limit PM g/kwh 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 Conformity Factor PM - 0,48 0,48 0,50 0,50

25 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 25 of 51 Table 14 CO 2 mass test results machine Stage IIIA/L220F CO 2 mass test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IIIA/L220F Test 1 Test 3 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 CO 2 reference mass g EU Max CO 2 Win Duration s CO 2 Win Min Duration s CO 2 Win Max Duration s Points total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 94,35 97,29 94,73 97,05 CO 2 Windows total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % ave (mass) CO g 30,67 30,78 37,25 37,28 min (mass) CO g 24,34 24,34 29,68 29,68 max (mass) CO g 37,81 38,98 47,63 47,63 90%Perc (mass) CO g 33,94 34,12 44,33 44,28 EU Limit (mass) CO g 116,55 116,55 116,55 116,55 Conformity Factor CO - 0,29 0,29 0,38 0,38 ave (mass) THC g 3,61 3,62 2,97 2,98 min (mass) THC g 2,63 2,63 1,94 1,94 max (mass) THC g 4,35 4,35 4,12 4,12 90%Perc (mass) THC g 4,03 4,03 3,79 3,81 EU Limit (mass) THC g Conformity Factor THC - n/a n/a n/a n/a ave (mass) THC+NOx g 189,51 189,52 182,08 181,98 min (mass) THC+NOx g 164,86 164,86 145,57 145,57 max (mass) THC+NOx g 222,27 222,27 217,05 217,05 90%Perc (mass) THC+NOx g 205,1 205,02 203,41 203,33 EU Limit (mass) THC+NOx g 133,2 133,2 133,2 133,2 Conformity Factor THC+NOx - 1,54 1,54 1,53 1,53 ave (mass) NOx g 185,9 185,9 179, min (mass) NOx g 162,23 162,23 143,63 143,63 max (mass) NOx g 217,92 217,92 212,93 212,93 90%Perc (mass) NOx g 201,07 200,99 199,62 199,52 EU Limit (mass) NOx g Conformity Factor NOx - n/a n/a n/a n/a ave (mass) PM g 2,47 2,47 2,43 2,42 min (mass) PM g 2,16 2, max (mass) PM g 2,81 2,81 3,06 3,06 90%Perc (mass) PM g 2,68 2,67 2,92 2,92 EU Limit (mass) PM g 6,66 6,66 6,66 6,66 Conformity Factor PM - 0,4 0,4 0,44 0,44

26 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 26 of 51 Table 15 Work Window test results machine Stage IIIB/L220G Work Window test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IIIB/L220G Test 1 Test 3 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 Ref Work kwh 34,8 34,8 34,8 34,8 EU Power Threshold % min ave Power % 25,84 20,14 26,27 25,49 max ave Power % 36,67 36,67 32,69 32,69 Points Total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 89,35 94,89 95,74 96,63 Work Window Total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % Average CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d Min CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d Max CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d 90% CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d EU Limit CO g/kwh 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 Conformity Factor CO Average THC g/kwh 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 Min THC g/kwh 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 Max THC g/kwh 0,11 0,11 0,02 0,02 90% THC g/kwh 0,03 0,03 0,02 0,02 EU Limit THC g/kwh 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 Conformity Factor THC - 0,15 0,17 0,08 0,08 Average NOx g/kwh 4,14 4,17 4,47 4,47 Min NOx g/kwh 3,89 3,89 4,34 4,34 Max NOx g/kwh 4,56 4,8 4,72 4,81 90% NOx g/kwh 4,41 4,5 4,56 4,56 EU Limit NOx g/kwh 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 Conformity Factor NOx - 2,21 2,25 2,28 2,28 Average PM g/kwh 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 Min PM g/kwh 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 Max PM g/kwh 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 90% PM g/kwh 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 EU Limit PM g/kwh 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 Conformity Factor PM - 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,45

27 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 27 of 51 Table 16 CO 2 mass test results machine Stage IIIB/L220G CO 2 mass test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IIIB/L220G Test 1 Test 3 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 CO 2 reference mass g EU Max CO 2 Win Duration s CO 2 Win Min Duration s CO 2 Win Max Duration s Points total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 89,35 94,89 95,74 96,63 CO 2 Windows total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % ave (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d min (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d max (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d 90%Perc (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d EU Limit (mass) CO g 121,8 121,8 121,8 121,8 Conformity Factor CO ave (mass) THC g 0,65 0,68 0,38 0,39 min (mass) THC g 0,46 0,46 0,26 0,26 max (mass) THC g 3,55 3,55 0,48 0,48 90%Perc (mass) THC g 0,77 0,87 0,46 0,46 EU Limit (mass) THC g 6,61 6,61 6,61 6,61 Conformity Factor THC - 0,12 0,13 0,07 0,07 ave (mass) NOx g 117,03 117,93 129,69 129,79 min (mass) NOx g 106,06 106,06 123,04 123,04 max (mass) NOx g 137,54 137,54 138,03 140,43 90%Perc (mass) NOx g 128,48 130,77 132,66 132,86 EU Limit (mass) NOx g 69,6 69,6 69,6 69,6 Conformity Factor NOx - 1,85 1,88 1,91 1,91 ave (mass) PM g 0,21 0,22 0,31 0,31 min (mass) PM g 0,09 0,09 0,26 0,26 max (mass) PM g 0,31 0,38 0,34 0,35 90%Perc (mass) PM g 0,27 0,29 0,33 0,33 EU Limit (mass) PM g 0,87 0,87 0,87 0,87 Conformity Factor PM - 0,31 0,33 0,37 0,38

28 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 28 of 51 Table 17 Work Window test results machine Stage IV/L220H Work Window test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 Ref Work kwh 34,9 34,9 34,9 34,9 EU Power Threshold % min ave Power % 26,03 25,54 24,57 24,15 max ave Power % 38,64 38,64 36,56 36,56 Points Total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 88,4 97,27 91,61 97,17 Work Window Total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % Average CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d Min CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d Max CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d 90% CO g/kwh n.d n.d n.d n.d EU Limit CO g/kwh 3,5 3,5 3,5 3,5 Conformity Factor CO Average THC g/kwh 0 0, Min THC g/kwh Max THC g/kwh 0,01 0,04 0,02 0,02 90% THC g/kwh 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 EU Limit THC g/kwh 0,19 0,19 0,19 0,19 Conformity Factor THC - 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 Average NOx g/kwh 0,09 0,1 0,06 0,08 Min NOx g/kwh 0,05 0,05 0,03 0,03 Max NOx g/kwh 0,54 1,12 0,58 1,08 90% NOx g/kwh 0,12 0,12 0,07 0,08 EU Limit NOx g/kwh 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 Conformity Factor NOx - 0,31 0,31 0,19 0,21 Average PM g/kwh 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Min PM g/kwh 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Max PM g/kwh 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 90% PM g/kwh 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 EU Limit PM g/kwh 0,025 0,025 0,025 0,025 Conformity Factor PM - 0,15 0,15 0,14 0,14

29 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 29 of 51 Table 18 CO 2 mass test results machine Stage IV/L220H CO 2 mass test results Evaluation method 1 Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation method 2 Evaluation method 1 Evaluation method 2 CO 2 reference mass g EU Max CO 2 Win Duration s CO 2 Win Min Duration s CO 2 Win Max Duration s Points total Data Coverage No Data Coverage Perc % 88,4 97,27 91,61 97,17 CO 2 Windows total Valid Window No Valid Window Perc % ave (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d min (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d max (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d 90%Perc (mass) CO g n.d n.d n.d n.d EU Limit (mass) CO g 122,15 122,15 122,15 122,15 Conformity Factor CO ave (mass) THC g 0,16 0,17 0,16 0,17 min (mass) THC g 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 max (mass) THC g 1,15 1,15 0,74 0,82 90%Perc (mass) THC g 0,22 0,22 0,19 0,19 EU Limit (mass) THC g 6,63 6,63 6,63 6,63 Conformity Factor THC - 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 ave (mass) NOx g 3,05 3,44 2,1 2,68 min (mass) NOx g 1,68 1,66 1,04 1,04 max (mass) NOx g 18,3 37,91 19,53 36,97 90%Perc (mass) NOx g 4,15 4,2 2,51 2,82 EU Limit (mass) NOx g 14,0 14,0 14,0 14,0 Conformity Factor NOx - 0,30 0,30 0,18 0,20 ave (mass) PM g 0,1 0,1 0,11 0,11 min (mass) PM g 0,07 0,06 0,09 0,08 max (mass) PM g 0,13 0,13 0,12 0,12 90%Perc (mass) PM g 0,12 0,12 0,11 0,11 EU Limit (mass) PM g 0,87 0,87 0,87 0,87 Conformity Factor PM - 0,14 0,14 0,13 0,13

30 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 30 of 51 In Table 19 the Conformity Factors calculated from work-based windows in accordance to the proposal for In-Service Conformity for NRMM (i.e. Evaluation method 1 from the previous pages) are presented together to enable comparison of the machines. The Conformity Factors for the machines are calculated based on the legislated emission limits for the respective machine. In Stage IIIA the emission standard was based only on the stationary test cycle NRSC, and there are no limits for the transient cycle. For comparison, the emission limits for the NRSC cycle have been used for calculation of Conformity Factors for the L220F machine. Table 19 Vehicle Conformity Factor work-based windows Stage IIIA/L220F* Stage IIIB/L220G Stage IV/L220H Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2 Conformity Factor CO 0,34 0, Conformity Factor THC n/a n/a 0,15 0,08 0,03 0,03 Conformity Factor NOx n/a n/a 2,21 2,28 0,31 0,19 Conformity Factor THC+NOx 1,81 1,69 n/a n/a n/a n/a Conformity Factor PM 0,48 0,5 0,35 0,45 0,15 0,14 *Emission limits based on stationary cycle NRSC As presented in Table 8 the proposed Conformity Factors for the regulated emissions are not allowed to exceed 2 for NRMM. The machines are within the acceptable Conformity Factors, with the exception of NOx emissions from the L220G machine. According to the CO2-based window method the Conformity Factor are below 2 for the L220G, see Table 16. The difference between the work-based and the CO2-based methods are discussed in [2] where it was found that these approaches are nearly equivalent from a technical perspective. One explanation for discrepancies might be that the work/co2 mass ratio varies slightly as a function of the engine operating conditions.

31 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 31 of 51 Evaluation of NRMM exclusions In this section the evaluation of NRMM data are discussed more thoroughly. According to the officially proposed method, the conformity factor should be calculated by using the 90% cumulative percentile of the respective emission component. In this calculation there is also a 20% power threshold applied, where the average power has to exceed 20% for the work window to be considered as valid. In Table 20 different evaluation combinations are presented, where Evaluation method 1 represents the official NRMM-method. In Table 21 - Table 23 the results for the different machines are presented. In Figure 21 - Figure 25 the effects on NOx emissions from respective machine, due to different methods for evaluation, can be compared. The effect of the removal of non-working events can be studied by comparing Evaluation method 1 and 2. Method 2 and 3 compares the effect of removing the windows with the highest values. The 20% power threshold is not applied in method 4; whereas in method 5 there are no removal of high values nor removal in regards to the power threshold. It is however important to remember that the effect of removal of non-working events are depending on the driving cycle. For the wheel loaders tested in this project, the machines were tested at high loads with very short periods of idling. The procedure to remove non-working events are further explained in Appendix 5. Table 20 Evaluation combinations Evaluation method 100 percentile 90 percentile 20% power threshold 0% power threshold Non working events (yes/no) 1 x x yes 2 x x no 3 x x no 4 x x no 5 x x no Table 21 Effect of evaluation combinations for Stage IIIA/L220F Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation combination: Stage IIIA/ L220F CO [g/kwh] 1,2 1,2 1,31 1,2 1,31 1,46 1,46 1,53 1,46 1,53 THC [g/kwh] 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,15 0,13 0,13 0,14 0,13 0,14 NOx [g/kwh] 7,07 7,07 7,36 7,07 7,36 6,63 6,63 6,88 6,63 6,88 PM [g/kwh] 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,11 0,1 0,11

32 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 32 of 51 For the L220F machine (Stage IIIA) there are some differences depending on the method to evaluate the data, as can be seen in Table 21. The effects on NOx emissions are presented in Figure 21. The wheel loader was tested during highly transient conditions, with high load and very short periods of idling. The effects of removal of non-working events, as applied to Evaluation method 1, has no effect on the results. The most significant effect can be seen when removing the windows with the highest values (compare method 2 and 3). No differences can be observed when changing the power threshold but as discussed earlier the machine was tested at high loads overall. NOx, work based window evaluation, L220F g/kwh Test 1 Test 2 1, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold Figure 21 Comparison of NOx emissions for Stage IIIA/L220F different evaluation methods The different evaluation methods also affects the Conformity Factors, see Figure 22, to some extent. The CF values for NOx+THC does however not exceed the proposed limit of 2 for any of the evaluations for the Stage IIIA/L220F machine.

33 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 33 of 51 NOx+THC, Conformity Factors, L220F g/kwh , 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold Test 1 Test 2 Figure 22 Conformity factors for NOx+THC for Stage IIIA/L220F different evaluation methods Table 22 Effect of evaluation combinations for L220G Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation combination: Stage IIIB/ L220G CO [g/kwh] n.d n.d 0,02 n.d 0,02 n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d THC [g/kwh] 0,03 0,03 0,07 0,03 0,07 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 NOx [g/kwh] 4,41 4,5 4,75 4,5 4,75 4,56 4,56 4,72 4,56 4,72 PM [g/kwh] 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 In Table 22 the effects of evaluation methods for the L220G machine (Stage IIIB) can be studied. The differences are illustrated by NOx emissions in Figure 23. In Test 1 there is a small difference between method 1 and 2, which means that non-working events have been removed. Apart from this the same comments as for the L220F machine can be applied, where the main differences can be found when removing windows with the highest values.

34 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 34 of 51 NOx, work based window evaluation, L220G g/kwh , 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 4.3 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold 4.2 Test 1 Test 2 Figure 23 Comparison of NOx emissions for Stage IIIB/L220G different evaluation methods The effect on Conformity Factors due to different evaluation methods for NOx emissions from the Stage IIIB/L220G machine are presented in Figure 24. The proposed limit of 2 are exceeded for all evaluations but to a larger extent for the evaluations where the values with the highest are included method 3 and 5.

35 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 35 of 51 NOx, Conformity Factors, L220G g/kwh , 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold Test 1 Test 2 Figure 24 Conformity factors for NOx for Stage IIIB/L220G different evaluation methods Table 23 Effect of evaluation combinations for L220H Test 1 Test 2 Evaluation combination: Stage IV/ L220H CO [g/kwh] n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d n.d THC [g/kwh] 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0, ,01 0 0,01 NOx [g/kwh] 0,12 0,12 0,73 0,12 0,73 0,07 0,08 0,58 0,08 0,58 PM [g/kwh] For the L220H machine (Stage IV), the effects due to evaluation method are presented in Table 23. The emission levels for CO, THC and PM are very low. In Figure 25 the NOx emissions are compared, with the main differences observed when adding the windows with the highest values.

36 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 36 of 51 NOx, work based window evaluation, L220H g/kwh Test 1 Test 2 1, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold Figure 25 Comparison of NOx emissions for Stage IV/L220H different evaluation methods The effect on Conformity Factors due to evaluation method for NOx emissions from the Stage IV/L220H machine are presented in Figure 26. The difference between CF when 90 percentile vs 100 percentile are used are extensive, although the proposed limit of 2 are not exceeded for any of the evaluations.

37 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 37 of 51 NOx, Conformity Factors, L220H g/kwh Test 1 Test 2 1, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold, NWE 2, 90 percentile, 20% Power threshold 3, 100 percentile, 20% Power threshold 4, 90 percentile, 0% Power threshold 5, 100 percentile, 0% Power threshold Figure 26 Conformity factors for NOx for Stage IV/L220H different evaluation methods The same pattern could be observed when looking at all three machines, with a significant difference between removal vs inclusion of the windows with the highest values. The differences in % are however much more distinguished the latter the emission stage with differences of approximately 3-4% for the L220F up to more than 100% for the L220H machine.

38 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 38 of 51 Conclusions The exhaust emissions from the non-road mobile machinery sector contributes to substantial amounts of components affecting both health and environment. The machines are often used many hours per day, and can be used both in urban and more rural areas. Almost all NRMM machines are diesel fuelled, and the emissions of NOx and PM are often high. A machine can often have a long lifetime, and are not replaced by newer models earlier than needed. The emission standards have however been developed to reduce the emission levels of regulated exhaust components extensively. In this study three machines of different emission standards Stage IIIA, Stage IIIB and Stage IV have been tested. The results showed reductions for all regulated components for the machines with the latter emission standards. The most significant reductions could be observed for NOx and PM. The exhaust aftertreatment on the tested machines have followed the development of tougher emission limits for the latter standards. The Stage IIIB and Stage IV machines were equipped with DPFs, and the PM emissions were reduced extensively. One important comment could be that the Stage IIIA machine had expired its expected lifetime; and the Stage IV machine was new when the PEMS testing started, and we have not been able to study any ageing effects on the exhaust aftertreatment systems. The CO 2 emissions have however not been reduced with the latter emission standards. When comparing the CO 2 emissions from the Stage IIIA machine with the latter standards, the Stage IIIB machine emitted almost 20% more CO 2, and the Stage IV machine approximately 6% more CO 2. CO 2 emissions are not yet regulated, but since CO 2 affects the climate there is an interest of reducing these emissions. Reducing the fuel consumption for non-road machines is also in the interest of the machine users. The test results were presented both as whole test and according to the proposal for In-Service Conformity for NRMM in EU. In the proposal there are exclusions of data, primarily developed to handle long idling periods. The effect of these different exclusions have also been investigated. The wheel loaders were tested during daily use, with very short periods of idling and quite high average power. In this case, the exclusions had very limited effects. The greatest effects could however be observed with the removal of the 90% cumulative percentile, which also reflects the actual levels of exhausts emitted to the atmosphere.

39 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 39 of 51 Bibliography [1] "Draft Proposal - In-Service Conformity Procedure for Nonroad Mobile Machinery," [Online]. Available: PEMS.docx&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=1tmyU9ePC6fhywPzp4GoCQ&ved=0CBMQFjA A&usg=AFQjCNFePeJHFlGUmp1OZwBFXtA91G6gDw. [Accessed 17 Nov 2010]. [2] P. Bonnel, J. Kubelt and A. Provenza, "Heavy-duty Engines Conformity Testing Based on PEMS - Lessons Learned from the European Pilot Program," JRC, [3] P. Bonnel, A. Perujo, A. Provenza and P. Mendoza Villafuerte, "Non Road Engines Conformity testing based on PEMS - Lessons Learned from the European Pilot Program," JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, 2013.

40 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 40 of 51 Appendix 1: Analyzer calibration

41 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 41 of 51

42 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 42 of 51

43 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 43 of 51

44 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 44 of 51

45 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 45 of 51 Appendix 2: EFM calibration

46 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 46 of 51 Appendix 3: Gas bottles Gasförråd Led Ledning Komponent Koncentration Enhet flasknr: GF2 Lager PEMS C3H8 (Prop) ppm /04/ /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS Mixgas 0.00 % /04/ /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS H2/He % /05/ /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS NO ppm /05/ /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS H2/He % /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS H 2/He % /05/ /05/10 1 HH GF2 Lager PEMS H2/He % /05/ /05/10 1 HH Giltighet: Inkopplad Urkopplad datum Kontroll tol.% Sig.

47 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Appendix 4: Photos from test site Figure 27 Test location Skanska gravel-pit in Eskilstuna Figure 28 Test location Skanska gravel-pit in Eskilstuna Page 47 of 51

48 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 48 of 51 Figure 29 Test site Figure 30 One of the crushers at the test site

49 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 49 of 51 Figure 31 Material from the crusher were distributed by the wheel loaders

50 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 50 of 51 Appendix 5: NRMM non-working events Exclusions used for EU NRMM evaluation according to directive 97/68/EC and later amendments: Test data will be excluded if the following is not met: Min. Ambient Pressure: the atmospheric pressure must be greater than or equal to 82.5 kpa. Ambient Temperature: the ambient temperature must be equal to or above 7 C and less than or equal to the temperature determined by (at the specified atmospheric pressure): T= *(101.3-P)+311 Where: T is the calculated ambient air temperature ( K) P is the atmospheric pressure (kpa) Min. Coolant Temp: the engine coolant temperature must be above 70 C or the coolant temperature is stabilized within +/ 2K over a period of 5 minutes whichever comes first but no later than 20 minutes after engine start. Exclusions used for EU NRMM evaluation according to Draft Proposal; In-service conformity procedure for non-road mobile machinery: Background: To overcome the problem with the effect of idling upon brake-specific emissions, the concept of working and non-working engines have been introduced. [3] NRMM Non-working events Exhaust Temp.: D0, D1, D2, D3 are the durations used to define the working and non-working events: Table 24 Parameter Value D0 2 minutes D1 2 minutes D2 10 minutes D3 4 minutes

51 Test report: Wheel loader L220F, L220G, L220H Page 51 of 51 D0 defines the minimum duration of working events; For all non-working events, the first D1 minutes of the event are valid; D2 defines short (<D2 min) and long non-working (>D2 min) events; For long non-working events, the take-off phase following the idling event may also be excluded until the exhaust gas temperature reaches 250 C. If the exhaust gas temperature does not reach 250 C within D3 minutes, the data analysis shall restart. The Machine Work marking algorithm is comprised of 4 steps, Step 1: Detection, data splitting into working and non-working events: Detection of working and non-working data points, using a power criterion: if the engine power is lower than <10% the machine enters into non-working situation. The duration of the non-working events is calculated and the non-working events shorter than D0 minutes is considered as working events. Finally, the duration of all the events is calculated. Step 2: Merging of short working events into non-working Working events shorter than D0 are merged with surrounding nonworking events longer than D1. This step deals with the situation of long events interrupted for a very short duration (accidentally or to move the machine). Step 3: Exclusion of post non-working (take off) data To account for the thermal effects of the extended idling, D3 minutes can be excluded after long nonworking events ("Take off emissions"). Step 4: Inclusion of post-working data To keep some 'hot idling' within the MAWs calculations, D1 minutes of non-working data is added at the end of working events.