Environmental Technology Verification
Test Report of Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, Version 2, Filter + Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
Prepared by Southwest Research Institute RTI International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification Statement
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: APPLICATION: MOBILE DIESEL ENGINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE DIESEL ENGINES IN HIGHWAY USE BY DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYSTS AND DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTERS PCRT2® 1000, VERSION 2, FILTER + DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC 380 LAPP ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355 (610) 254-5373 (610) 971-3116 http://www.jmusa.com joshia@jmusa.com
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: WEB SITE: E-MAIL:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. The ETV Program seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies. The ETV Program works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and other interested parties; and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible. The Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center), one of six centers under the ETV Program, is operated by RTI International 1 in cooperation with EPA’s National Risk Management Research
1
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
i
Environmental Technology Verification Statement
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Laboratory. The APCT Center has evaluated the performance of an emission control system consisting of a flowthrough partial filter combined with a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC).
ETV TEST DESCRIPTION
All tests were performed in accordance with the Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, PM Filters, and Engine Modification Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines and the Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey for the PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System. These documents are written in accordance with the applicable generic verification protocol and include requirements for quality management and QA, procedures for product selection and auditing of the test laboratories, and the test reporting format. The mobile diesel engine air pollution control technology was tested August 2008 at Southwest Research Institute. The performance verified was the percentage of emissions reduction achieved by the technology for particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO) relative to the performance of the same baseline engine without the technology in place. Operating conditions were documented, and ancillary performance measurements were also made. A summary description of the ETV test is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary Description of the ETV Test
Test type Engine family Engine make–model year Service class Engine rated power Engine displacement Technology Technology description Test cycle or mode description Test fuel description Critical measurements Ancillary measurements Highway Transient Federal Test Procedure (FTP) YCEXH0661MAH Cummins – 2000 ISM350 ESP Highway, heavy-duty diesel engine 350 hp at 1800 rpm 10.8 L, inline six cylinder Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 Flow-through partial filter combined with a DOC One cold-start and multiple hot-start tests according to FTP test for baseline engine, degreened, and aged systems Ultra–low-sulfur diesel fuel with 15 ppm sulfur maximum PM, NOx, HC, and CO CO2, NO, NO2 (by calculation), soluble organic fraction of PM, exhaust backpressure, exhaust temperature, and fuel consumption
hp = horsepower, rpm = revolutions per minute, CO2 = carbon dioxide, NO = nitric oxide, NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
VERIFIED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system is a partial continuously regenerating technology (PCRT) system that consists of a flow-through partial filter combined with a DOC. The system is designed for low temperature exhaust resulting from intermittent loads from medium and heavy heavy-duty diesel on-highway non-urban bus engines. This verification statement describes the performance of the tested technology on the diesel engine and fuels identified in Table 1, and applies only to the use of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system on highway engines fueled by ultra–low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) (15 ppm or less) fuel.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system achieved the reduction in tailpipe emissions shown in Table 2
ii
Environmental Technology Verification Statement compared to baseline operation without the system. Table 2. Verified Emissions Reductions
Device Type Degreened Aged
a b
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Fuel ULSD ULSD
Mean Emissions Reduction (%) HC CO PM NOx 55 0.99 96 74 43 −0.24 92 68
95% Confidence Limits on the Emissions Reduction (%) PM NOx HC CO 37 to 73 -a -b 73–75 26 to 61 -a 86–97 66–69
The emissions reduction could not be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence. The emissions reduction could not be quantified or distinguished from 100% with 95% confidence.
The APCT Center quality manager has reviewed the test results and quality control data and has concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol and test/QA plan have been attained. APCT Center QA staff have conducted technical assessments of the test laboratory procedures and of the data handling. These assessments confirm that the ETV tests were conducted in accordance with the EPA-approved test/QA plan. This verification statement verifies the emissions characteristics of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system for the stated application. Extrapolation outside that range should be done with caution and an understanding of the scientific principles that control the performance of the technology. This verification focuses on emissions. Potential technology users may obtain other types of performance information from the manufacturer. In accordance with the generic verification protocol, this verification statement is valid, commencing on the date below, indefinitely for application of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system within the range of applicability of the statement. signed by Sally Gutierrez 03/20/09 Sally Gutierrez Date Director National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development United States Environmental Protection Agency signed by Jenia Tufts Jenia Tufts Director APCT Center RTI International 03/13/09 Date
NOTICE: ETV verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and RTI make no express or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.
iii
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Johnson Matthey Plc
PCRT2® 1000, Version 2
Flow-Through Partial Filter and
Metal Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
Prepared by
RTI International
Southwest Research Institute
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR831911-01-1
EPA Project Officer:
Michael Kosusko
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
March 2009
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Notice
This document was prepared by RTI International (RTI) and its subcontractor, Southwest Research Institute, with partial funding from Cooperative Agreement No. CR831911-01-1 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The document has been submitted to RTI’s and EPA’s peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
ii
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Foreword
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is designed to accelerate the development and commercialization of new or improved technologies through third-party verification and reporting of performance. The goal of the ETV Program is to verify the performance of commercially ready environmental technologies through the evaluation of objective and quality-assured data in order to provide potential purchasers and permitters an independent, credible assessment of the technology they are buying or permitting. The Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center) is part of EPA’s ETV Program and is operated as a partnership between RTI International (RTI) and EPA. The APCT Center verifies the performance of commercially ready air pollution control technologies. Verification tests use approved protocols, and verified performance is reported in verification statements signed by EPA and RTI officials. RTI contracts with Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) to perform verification tests on engine emission control technologies. Retrofit air pollution control devices used to control emissions from mobile diesel engines are among the technologies evaluated by the APCT Center. The APCT Center developed (and EPA approved) the Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines to provide guidance on the verification testing of specific products that are designed to control emissions from diesel engines. The following report reviews the performance of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system, comprising a flow-through partial filter and diesel oxidation catalyst. ETV testing of this technology was conducted in August 2008 at SwRI. All testing was performed in accordance with an approved test/QA plan that implements the requirements of the generic verification protocol at the test laboratory.
iii
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Availability of Report
Copies of this verification report are available from the following: RTI International Engineering and Technology Unit P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (E343-02) 109 T. W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/vt-apc.html#msd (pdf format) http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/
iv
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Table of Contents
Section Page
Notice............................................................................................................................................................ ii
Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................iii
Availability of Report .................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vi
Acronyms/Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ vii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ ix
1.0 2.0 3.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
Product Description............................................................................................................................. 2
Test Documentation ............................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Engine Fuel Description............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures .................................................................... 5
3.3 Deviations from the Test/QA Plan ............................................................................................ 6
3.4 Documented Test Conditions.................................................................................................... 7
Summary and Discussion of Emissions Results ............................................................................... 12
4.1 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................... 15
References......................................................................................................................................... 16
4.0 5.0
v
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
List of Figures
Figure
®
Page
Figure 1. The PCRT2 1000, v.2 system installed for emissions tests. ....................................................... 2
Figure 2. Identification labels for 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine and its electronic control module. ........ 4
Figure 3. Schematic of emissions sampling system at SwRI........................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Torque map of 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine using ULSD fuel. ............................................... 7
Figure 5. Inlet temperature profile of degreened PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system. ............................................. 9
Figure 6. Inlet temperature profile of aged PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system......................................................... 9
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1. Engine Identification Information................................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications ................................................................................... 5
Table 3. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2000 Cummins ISM350 .................................. 6
Table 4. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature............................... 8
Table 5. Particulate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction from Each Test .................................... 10
Table 6. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance).............................................................. 11
Table 7. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions ................................................................................. 11
Table 8. Emissions Data ............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 9. Composite Weighted Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) ..................................................... 13
Table 10. Composite Weighted Emissions Rates (Metric Units)................................................................ 14
Table 11. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units)........................................................ 14
Table 12. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units) .................................................................... 14
Table 13. Summary of Verification Test Emissions Reductions ................................................................ 15
vi
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Acronyms/Abbreviations
ºC ºF APCT Center ASTM bhp bhp-hr BSFC CFR cm CO CO2 DOC DPF EPA ETV g g/hp-hr HC hp in. in. Hg kg/kWh kPa kW degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center American Society for Testing and Materials brake horsepower brake horsepower-hour brake-specific fuel consumption Code of Federal Regulations centimeter(s) carbon monoxide carbon dioxide diesel oxidation catalyst diesel particulate filter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency environmental technology verification gram(s) grams per horsepower-hour hydrocarbon(s) horsepower inch(es) inch(es) mercury kilograms per kilowatt-hour kilopascals kilowatt(s)
vii
Environmental Technology Verification Report kWh L lb lb-ft NO NO2 NOx PM ppm QA QC rpm RTI SOF SwRI ULSD kilowatt hour(s) liter(s) pound(s) pound foot (feet) nitric oxide nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxides particulate matter parts per million quality assurance quality control revolutions per minute RTI International soluble organic fraction Southwest Research Institute ultra–low-sulfur diesel
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
viii
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JM PCRT2 1000 v2
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the verification activities. In particular, we would like to thank Michael Kosusko, project officer, and Paul Groff, quality manager, both of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance and participation of all Johnson Matthey personnel who supported the test effort. For more information on the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system, contact the following: Mr. Ajay Joshi Johnson Matthey Plc 380 Lapp Road Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: (610) 254-5373 Fax: (610) 971-3116 Email: joshia@jmusa.com Web site: http://www.jmusa.com For more information on verification testing of mobile sources air pollution control devices, contact the following: Ms. Jenia Tufts RTI International P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 Telephone: (919) 485-2698 Email: jtufts@rti.org ETV Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv/
ix
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report reviews the performance of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system, comprising a flow-through partial filter and a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) submitted for testing by Johnson Matthey Plc. Environmental technology verification (ETV) testing of this technology was conducted during a series of tests in August 2008 by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), under contract with the Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center). The APCT Center is operated by RTI International (RTI) * in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ETV program. The objective of the APCT Center and the ETV program is to verify, with high-quality data, the performance of air pollution control technologies, including those designed to control air emissions from diesel engines. With the assistance of a technical panel of experts assembled for the purpose, RTI has established the APCT Center program area specifically to evaluate the performance of diesel exhaust catalysts, particulate filters, and engine modification control technologies for mobile diesel engines. Based on the activities of this technical panel, the Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines1 was developed. This protocol was chosen as the best guide to verify the immediate performance effects of the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system. To determine these effects, emissions results from a heavy-duty highway diesel engine were compared to emissions results obtained operating the same engine with the same fuel, but with the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 technology installed. The specific test/quality assurance (QA) plan addendum for the ETV test of the technology submitted by Johnson Matthey was developed and approved in April 2008.2 The goal of the test was to measure the emissions control performance of the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system and its emissions reduction relative to an uncontrolled engine. A description of the technology is presented in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 documents the procedures and methods used for the test and the conditions under which the test was conducted. The results of the test are summarized and discussed in Section 4.0, and references are presented in Section 5.0. This report contains only summary data and the verification statement. Complete documentation of the test results is provided in a separate test report3 and audit of data quality report.4 These reports include the raw test data from product testing and supplemental testing, equipment calibration results, and QA and quality control (QC) activities and results. Complete documentation of QA/QC activities and results, raw test data, and equipment calibration results are retained in SwRI’s files for 7 years. The verification statement applies only to the use of the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system on highway engines. It is applicable to engines fueled only by ultra–low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) (15 ppm or less) fuel.
*
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
1
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
2.0
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system, shown installed in Figure 1, is a partial continuously regenerating technology (PCRT) system that consists of a flow-through partial filter combined with a DOC. Exhaust gases are routed through the oxidation catalyst and then processed through a particulate matter (PM) filter to achieve emissions reductions. The system is designed for low temperature exhaust resulting from intermittent loads from medium and heavy heavy-duty diesel on-highway non-urban bus engines. This verification statement describes the performance of the tested technology on the diesel engine and fuels identified in Table 1, and applies only to the use of the Johnson Matthey PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system on highway engines fueled by ultra–low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) (15 ppm or less) fuel. Johnson Matthey provided a new PCRT2® 1000, v.2 unit that had never been used before. The DOC had serial number C269057, and the filter had serial number PFT0138. The unit had a February 2006 date of manufacture. The unit was preconditioned in accordance with the requirements in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2706(a)(4) for a total of 28 hours. Johnson Matthey provided an “aged” PCRT2® 1000, v.2 unit that had seen 1,503 hours of service on a 1988 Caterpillar 3208T engine installed in a 1989 Expeditor truck. This unit had a June 2006 date of manufacture, the DOC had serial number C6110188-8, and the filter had serial number PFT0079.
Figure 1. The PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system installed for emissions tests.
2
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
3.0
TEST DOCUMENTATION
The ETV testing took place during August 2008 at SwRI under contract to the APCT Center. Testing was performed in accordance with the following: Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines1 Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines5 Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey for the PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System.2 The applicant reviewed the generic verification protocol and had an opportunity to review the test/QA plan prior to testing. The ETV testing was performed on a six-cylinder, 10.8 L, 2000 model year Cummins ISM350 highway heavy heavy-duty diesel engine (SN: 35010881) borrowed from EPA. The nameplate rating of this model engine is 260 kW [350 brake horsepower (bhp)] in “prime” power service at 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm). The test engine had about 215 hours of operation accumulated on it before arriving at SwRI. Table 1 provides the engine identification details, and Figure 2 shows the identification plates from the engine and its electronic control module.
Table 1. Engine Identification Information
Engine serial number Date of manufacture Make Model year Model Engine displacement and configuration Service class EPA engine family identification Certification standards (g/hp-hr) Rated power (nameplate) Rated torque (nameplate) Certified emission control system Aspiration Fuel system HC = hydrocarbons, hp = horsepower 35010881 June 2000 Cummins 2000 ISM350 ESP 10.8 L, inline six cylinder Highway heavy heavy-duty diesel engine YCEXH0661MAH HC 1.30/CO 15.50/NOx 4.00/PM 0.100 350 hp at 1800 rpm 1350 lb-ft at 1200 rpm Typical exhaust Turbo charged Electronically controlled fuel injection
3
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Figure 2. Identification labels for 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine and its electronic control module.
3.1
Engine Fuel Description
All emissions testing was conducted with ULSD fuel meeting the 40 CFR 86.1313-2007 specification for emissions certified fuel.6 Selected fuel properties from the supplier’s analyses are summarized in Table 2. All testing was conducted using fuel from a single batch, identified as EM-6539-F.
4
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Table 2. Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications
Item Cetane number Cetane index Distillation range: Initial boiling point, ºC (ºF) 10% Point, ºC (ºF) 50% Point, ºC (ºF) 90% Point, ºC (ºF) End point, ºC (ºF) Gravity (American Petroleum Institute) Specific gravity Total sulfur, ppm Hydrocarbon composition: Aromatics (minimum), % Olefins, saturates % Flash point (minimum), ºC (ºF) Viscosity, centistokes at 40ºC
a b c d e f
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Specificationa ASTM D613 D976 D86 D86 D86 D86 D86 D287 D4052 D2622 D5186 D5186 D93 D445 Type 2D 40–50 40–50 171–204 (340–400) 204–238 (400–460) 243–282 (470–540) 293–332 (560–630) 321–366 (610–690) 32–37 0.865–0.840 7–15 27 NAf 54 (130) 2.0–3.2
6
Test Fuel EM-6539-F 43.9 n/a
b
176 (348) 219 (427) 267 (513) 317 (603) 347 (657) 33.7 8d 30.3 69.7e 66 (151) 2.9
e c
0.857c
40 CFR 86.1313-2007(b)(2) for the year 2007 and beyond for heavy-duty diesel engines n/a=not applicable Measured per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D4052 Measured per ASTM D5453; this method is an acceptable substitute for ASTM D2622 Measured per ASTM D1319 Remainder of the hydrocarbons
3.2
Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures
The ETV tests consisted of baseline uncontrolled tests and tests with the control technology installed. Engine operation and emissions sampling adhered to techniques developed by EPA in 40 CFR, Part 86, Subpart N.7 Emissions were measured over triplicate runs of the highway transient test cycle for the baseline, degreened diesel particulate filter (DPF), and aged DPF exhaust configurations. The 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine was operated in an engine dynamometer test cell, with exhaust sampled using full-flow dilution constant volume sampling techniques to measure regulated emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and PM, plus nitric oxide (NO). The nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels are expressed as the difference between measured NOx and NO levels for each run. In addition to results presented in this report, raw data were gathered at the rate of one series of measurements per second over each test to record the engine speed, torque value, concentration of selected emissions, exhaust temperature, and various pressures. Figure 3 depicts the sampling system and related components. The system is designed to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 86.7
5
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
NOx Analyzer HC Analyzer
Mixing Orifice 10 Diameters
NO Analyzer
Positive Displacement Pump (PDP)
Filter Pack Dilution Air Exhaust Pipe
Sample Zone
Heat Exchanger
CO, CO2, HC, and NOx Background Bag
CO, CO2 Sample Bag Sample PM Gas Meter Pump Bag Sample Gas Analyzer Engine Sample Line Heated Line 90mm PM Filters
Figure 3. Schematic of emissions sampling system at SwRI.
The verification protocol requires that the emissions from engines used for verification testing must not exceed 110% of the certification standards for that engine category.8 For 1998–2003 nonurban bus engines, the certification standards are defined in EPA’s on-highway engine family box OH-10.8 Furthermore, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality assumes 5% reduction in PM emissions due to the use of ULSD fuel. Therefore, the criteria established to indicate that the test engine was acceptable and that the verification testing could proceed were that the baseline emissions from the engine using ULSD fuel could not exceed 110% of OH-10 (1.1 x OH-10) for HC, CO, and NOx, and also could not exceed 110% of [(OH-10)-5%], or (1.045 x OH-10) for PM. Table 3 presents the required emissions performance of the test engine, as well as the certification standards and baseline results for comparison.
Table 3. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2000 Cummins ISM350
HC g/kWh OH-10 Acceptance criteria Baseline results
a
CO g/hp-hr 1.30
a
NOX g/hp-hr 15.50
a
PM g/kWh 0.130 0.140 0.116 g/hp-hr 0.100 a 0.105 0.087 4.00
a
g/kWh 20.79 22.86 1.414
g/kWh 5.36 5.90 5.41
g/hp-hr 4.40 4.03
1.74 1.92 0.39
1.43 0.29
17.05 1.055
Certification standards for EPA highway engine family box OH-10 for 1998–2003 nonurban bus engines
3.3
Deviations from the Test/QA Plan
There were no deviations from the test/QA plan.
6
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
3.4
Documented Test Conditions
Engine Performance Figure 4 shows torque map information measured on the 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine using the ULSD fuel.
Torque 1600 1400 1200 Torque (lb-ft) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Engine Speed (rpm) Power 400 350 300 Power (hp) 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000
Figure 4. Torque map of 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine using ULSD fuel.
Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Exhaust Temperature The engine backpressure for the 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine was set in accordance with the engine manufacturer’s specifications of 2.4” Hg for the baseline configuration. The backpressure was adjusted to the same specification after installation of the degreened and aged devices. Maximum exhaust backpressure levels for transient Federal Test Procedure tests on the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 systems are given in Table 4. The degreened and aged PCRT2® 1000, v.2 systems significantly increased exhaust backpressure over the transient test cycle, exceeding the manufacturer’s maximum specification of 3” Hg. Higher exhaust backpressure levels were noted from the engine power validation data. Temperature measurements were made in the exhaust system of the Cummins engine at the inlet and outlet of the DOC within 1 in. (2.54 cm) of the flange openings. Average inlet and outlet temperatures over the transient test cycle, shown in Table 4, were 483ºF (251ºC) and 552ºF (289ºC), respectively.
7
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Table 4. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature
Average Test Number Test Type Test Date Maximum Exhaust Backpressurea kPa BASE-C1 BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 08/07/08 08/07/08 08/07/08 08/07/08 Average
®
Average DOC Exhaust Temperature ºC ºF ºF
DOC Inlet Temperature ºC
in. Hg 2.42 2.49 2.50 2.50 2.48 4.24 4.34 4.41 4.43 4.36 5.01 5.13 5.20 5.24 5.15
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.4 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.0 14.8 17.0 17.4 17.6 17.7 17.4
Not measured (no device in place) 238.6 250.4 250.7 251.7 247.9 243.8 255.7 256.4 256.8 253.2 461.5 482.6 483.3 485.1 478.1 470.9 492.3 493.4 494.2 487.7 265.8 292.4 293.4 294.9 286.6 271.9 296.9 298.2 298.8 291.5 510.5 558.3 560.2 562.8 548.0 521.4 566.5 568.7 569.8 556.6
Degreened PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0138-C1 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 08/08/08 08/08/08 08/08/08 08/08/08 Average 0079-C2 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6
a
® Aged PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start
08/14/08 08/14/08 08/14/08 08/14/08 Average
Exhaust backpressure set with exhaust stack damper for baseline tests
8
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Figure 5 shows the inlet temperature over time for the degreened device, and Figure 6 shows the inlet temperature over time for the aged device. In both figures, the hot-start profile is the average of the three hot-start tests.
450
Cold Start 400
Hot Start (avg. of 3) 350
Inlet Temperature (°C) 300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (seconds)
Figure 5. Inlet temperature profile of degreened PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system.
500
450
400
Inlet Temperature (°C) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (seconds) Cold Start Hot Start (avg. of 3)
Figure 6. Inlet temperature profile of aged PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system.
9
Environmental Technology Verification Report Soluble Organic Fraction
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
On each test, the particulate material was tested for soluble organic fraction (SOF). Table 5 reports the results.
Table 5. Particulate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction from Each Test
Test Number Test Type PM g 1.83 2.02 2.03 2.33 % SOF 34.0 30.0 28.0 24.0
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine BASE-C1 BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start
®
Degreened PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0138-C1 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3
®
Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start
0.793 0.881 0.956 1.01
15.0 15.0 12.0 2.00
Aged PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0079-C2 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 1.05 1.15 1.22 1.21 9.00 4.00 0.00 3.00
Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption The fuel consumption was not measured directly during the engine testing. Rather, a calculated “carbon balance” fuel consumption rate was determined based on the measured exhaust flow rate and the carbon content [i.e., the CO and the carbon dioxide (CO2)] in the exhaust gas analysis. The weighted brakespecific fuel consumption (BSFC) calculations are similar to the weighted emissions calculations explained in Section 4.0. Table 6 shows the weighted BSFC calculations. Table 7 summarizes the results of these calculations and compares the fuel consumption during the baseline runs with that measured during the tests with the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 units installed.
10
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Table 6. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance)
Test Number Test Type Test Date BSFC lb/bhp-hr BASE-C1 BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 Mean 0138-C1 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3 Mean
®
Weighted BSFC kg/kWh 0.246 0.238 0.237 0.237 0.394 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.239 0.238 0.238 0.239 lb/bhp-hr kg/kWh
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 8/7/2008 8/7/2008 8/7/2008 8/7/2008 0.405 0.392 0.390 0.389
® Degreened PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start
8/8/2008 8/8/2008 8/8/2008 8/8/2008
0.409 0.394 0.391 0.392
0.249 0.240 0.238 0.238 0.396 0.394 0.394 0.395 0.241 0.240 0.240 0.240
Aged PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0079-C2 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6 Mean Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 8/14/2008 8/14/2008 8/14/2008 8/14/2008 0.410 0.398 0.396 0.399 0.249 0.242 0.241 0.243 0.400 0.398 0.400 0.399 0.243 0.242 0.243 0.243
Table 7. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions
Device type Degreened Aged
a
Fuel ULSD ULSD
% Reduction −0.60 −1.7
95% Confidence Limits -a -a
The fuel consumption reduction cannot be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.
11
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
4.0
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF EMISSIONS RESULTS
Table 8 reports the emissions from the tests that were conducted: baseline, with a degreened PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system installed and with an aged PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system installed. The concentration measurements were converted to units of total grams per test for all species. The “bhp from work” (i.e., the integrated measured power during each test period) values are also shown in these tables.
Table 8. Emissions Data
Test Number Test Type PM g % SOF NOX NO g NO2a NO2/ NOx % HC g CO CO2 kg Work kWh (bhp-hr) 17.8 (23.9) 17.9 (24.0) 17.9 (24.0) 17.9 (24.0) 17.7 (23.7) 17.9 (23.9) 17.8 (23.9) 17.8 (23.9) 17.6 (23.6) 17.8 (23.9) 17.8 (23.9) 17.8 (23.9)
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine BASE-C1 BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 1.83 2.02 2.03 2.33 34.0 30.0 28.0 24.0 109 95.4 94.8 94.2 94.4 82.2 81.5 80.8 15.0 13.2 13.2 13.4 13.7 13.9 14.0 14.2 5.81 6.99 7.16 7.37 29.8 24.7 24.4 24.7 13.9 13.5 13.5 13.4
Degreened PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0138-C1 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3 Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start 0.793 0.881 0.956 1.01 15.0 15.0 12.0 2.00 110 93.4 92.6 92.8 60.7 45.5 45.4 45.8 49.4 47.9 47.2 47.0 44.9 51.3 51.0 50.6 0.467 0.414 0.166 0.267 9.97 5.62 6.48 5.63 14.0 13.6 13.5 13.5
Aged PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0079-C2 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6
a
Cold Start Hot Start Hot Start Hot Start
1.05 1.15 1.22 1.21
9.00 4.00 0.00 3.00
107 95.0 94.6 94.5
72.5 60.5 59.9 60.1
34.6 34.6 34.6 34.4
32.3 36.4 36.6 36.4
0.764 0.589 0.520 0.549
11.4 7.65 7.58 7.68
14.0 13.7 13.6 13.8
NO2 calculated as NOx−NO
12
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
For each pollutant/hot-start test combination, the transient composite-weighted emissions per work brake horsepower-hour (bhp-hr) were then calculated following the fractional calculation for highway engines as follows:
(ECOMP )m
Where
1 • ECOLD + = 7 1 •WCOLD + 7
ECOMP = m= ECOLD = EHOT = WCOLD = WHOT =
6 • (EHOT ) m 7 6 • (WHOT ) m 7
(1)
composite emissions rate, g/bhp-hr one, two, or three hot-start tests cold-start mass emissions level, g hot-start mass emissions level, g cold-start bhp-hr hot-start bhp-hr
These composite-weighted emissions rates are shown in Table 9 and Table 10 and were used to calculate the mean and standard deviations for the baseline and controlled emissions rates. These data were in turn used to calculate mean emissions reductions and 95% confidence limits. These calculations are based on the generic verification protocol1 and test/QA plan.2
Table 9. Composite Weighted Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units)
Test Number Exhaust PM NOX g/bhp-hr 0.0832 0.0834 0.0940
®
NO
NO2a
NO2/NOX %
HC
CO g/bhp-hr
CO2
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6
a
4.06 4.03 4.01 4.01 3.99 3.99 4.06 4.04 4.03
3.50 3.47 3.45 1.99 1.99 2.01 2.61 2.59 2.59
0.561 0.561 0.567 2.01 1.99 1.98 1.45 1.45 1.44
13.8 13.9 14.1 50.2 50.0 49.7 35.7 35.9 35.7
0.284 0.290 0.298 0.0176 0.00876 0.0124 0.0258 0.0233 0.0243
1.06 1.05 1.06 0.261 0.292 0.262 0.343 0.341 0.344
565 564 562 571 568 569 577 573 577
Degreened PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0.0363 0.0391 0.0409 0.0478 0.0500 0.0496
Aged PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
NO2 calculated as NOx−NO
13
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Table 10. Composite Weighted Emissions Rates (Metric Units)
Test Number Exhaust PM NOX g/kWh 0.112 0.112 0.126
®
NO
NO2a
NO2/NOX %
HC
CO g/kWh
CO2
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine BASE-H1 BASE-H2 BASE-H3 0138-H1 0138-H2 0138-H3 0079-H4 0079-H5 0079-H6
a
5.44 5.40 5.38 5.38 5.35 5.35 5.44 5.42 5.40
4.694 4.653 4.627 2.669 2.669 2.695 3.500 3.473 3.473
0.752 0.752 0.760 2.70 2.67 2.66 1.94 1.94 1.93
13.8 13.9 14.1 50.2 50.0 49.7 35.7 35.9 35.7
0.381 0.389 0.400 0.0236 0.0117 0.0166 0.0346 0.0312 0.0326
1.42 1.41 1.42 0.350 0.392 0.351 0.460 0.457 0.461
758 756 754 766 762 763 774 768 774
Degreened PCRT2 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine 0.0487 0.0524 0.0548 0.0641 0.0671 0.0665
Aged PCRT2® 1000, V.2 System with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
NO2 calculated as NOx−NO
The mean composite weighted emissions rates from Table 11 and Table 12 are the key values for the verification test.. The first line shows the baseline engine results; the emissions in all categories are below the Table 3 threshold.
Table 11. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units)
Mean Composite Weighted Emissions Value Device type Baseline Degreened Aged Fuel ULSD ULSD ULSD PM 0.0868 0.0388 0.0491 NOx 4.03 3.99 4.04 HC g/bhp-hr 0.290 0.0129 0.0244 1.05 0.272 0.343 564 569 576 CO CO2
Table 12. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units)
Mean Composite Weighted Emissions Value Device type Baseline Degreened Aged Fuel ULSD ULSD ULSD PM 0.116 0.0520 0.0659 NOx 5.41 5.36 5.42 HC g/kWh 0.390 0.0173 0.0328 1.41 0.364 0.459 756 763 772 CO CO2
14
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Table 13 summarizes the emissions reductions that were achieved by the use of the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system. These are the “verified emissions reductions” reported in Table 2 of the ETV Joint Verification Statement.
Table 13. Summary of Verification Test Emissions Reductions
Device Type Degreened Aged
a b
Fuel PM ULSD ULSD 55 43
Mean Emissions Reduction (%) NOx 0.99 −0.24 HC 96 92 CO 74 68
95% Confidence Limits on the Emissions Reduction (%) PM 37–73 26–61 NOx -a a
HC -b 86–97
CO 73–75 66–69
The emissions reduction could not be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence. The emissions reduction could not be quantified or distinguished from 100% with 95% confidence.
4.1
Quality Assurance
The ETV of the PCRT2® 1000, v.2 system with ULSD fuel for heavy-duty highway diesel engines was performed in accordance with the approved test/QA plan and the test-specific addendum.2 An audit of data quality included the review of equipment, procedures, record keeping, data validation, analysis, and reporting. Preliminary, in-process, and final inspections, and a review of 10% of the data, showed that the requirements stipulated in the test/QA plan5 were achieved. The SwRI, APCT Center, and EPA quality managers reviewed the test results and the QC data and concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol were attained. EPA and RTI QA staff conducted audits of SwRI’s technical and quality systems in April 2002 and found no deficiencies that would adversely impact the quality of results at that time. The equipment was appropriate for the verification testing, and it was operating satisfactorily.
15
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
5.0
REFERENCES
1. RTI International. 2002. Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, January. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/05_vp_devrev.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009). 2. RTI International. 2008. Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey for the PCRT2 1000 System. Research Triangle Park, NC, August 9. 3. Southwest Research Institute. 2008. Environmental Technology Verification of PCRT2 1000. Final Report. San Antonio, TX, November. 4. Southwest Research Institute. 2008. Audit of Data Quality for Environmental Technology Verification of PCRT2 1000. San Antonio, TX, November. 5. RTI International. 2002. Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, April. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/05_tp_diesel.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009). 6. 40 CFR 86.1313-2007 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Fuel Specifications), Table N07-2. Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/pdf/40cfr86.1313-2007.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009). 7. 40 CFR, Part 86 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines), Subpart N. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/420b98002.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009). 8. RTI International. 2003. Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reductions from Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Nonroad, and Stationary Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, September. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/05_vp_emissions.pdf (accessed January 7, 2009).
16