SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-33
August, 2005
Verification Report
EnviroFuels
Diesel Fuel Catalyzer
Fuel Additive
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Under a Cooperative Agreement With
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-3 3
August, 2005
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
A U.S. EPA Sponsored Environmental Technology Verification ( ETr ) Organization
Verification Report
EnviroFuels
Diesel Fuel Catalyzer
Fuel Additive
Prepared By:
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
PO Box 13825
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
Telephone: 919/806-3456
Envirofuels, L.P.
NY DEC Bureau of Mobile Sources and Technology Development
Southern Research Institute Quality Assurance
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
^ indicates comments are integrated
-------
(this page intentionally left blank)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2. DIESEL FUEL CATALYZER 1-2
1.3. TEST FACILITIES 1-2
1.4. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW 1-5
1.5. MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT 1-5
-6
-7
-7
1.5.1. AR10 Main Generator Current and Voltage
1.5.2. Fuel Supply and Return Flow Meters and Fuel Temperature Sensors.
1.5.3. DOES2 and Instrumental Analyzers
1.5.4. LPSS Particulate Sampling System
1.5.5. Opacity Meter and Auxiliary Measurement Equipment
-9
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS 2-1
2.1. ENGINE BHP 2-3
2.2. BRAKE-SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION 2-6
2.2.1. Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate 2-9
2.2.2. Fuel Meter Results 2-10
2.3. LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS 2-12
2.4. TPM RESULTS AND ADDITIONAL PARTICULATE ANALYSES 2-15
2.4.1. Particulate Analyses Results 2-16
3.0 DATA QUALITY 3-1
3.1. RECONCILIATION OF DQOS AND DQIS 3-2
3.2. AUDITS 3-5
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY ENVIROFUELS, LP 4-1
4.1. TPM DETERMINATIONS 4-1
4.2. BASELINE FUEL CONSUMPTION MEASUREMENT FOR NOTCHES 7
AND 8 4-2
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A Post-Test LPSS Correlations A-l
APPENDIX B Test Run Results B-l
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure -1 EMD Model GP40-3 Locomotive and Test Equipment 1-3
Figure -2 Envirofuels Tote, Dosing Pump, and Skid 1-4
Figure -3 Measurement Equipment Locations 1-6
Figure -4 Supply Flowmeter 1-7
Figure -5 Return Flowmeter 1-7
Figure -6 DOES2 Sampling and Dilution Apparatus 1-8
Figure -7 Locomotive Particulate Sampling System 1-9
Figure 2-1 AR 10 Generator Performance 2-5
Figure 2-2 Baseline Run-specific BSFC 2-7
-------
Figure 2-3 Treated Fuel Run-specific BSFC 2-7
Figure 2-4 Fuel Consumption verses Brake Horsepower 2-8
Figure 2-5 Method 2 Traverse Locations 2-9
Figure 2-6 Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate as a Function of >/AP at Point 3c 2-10
Figure 2-7 Effects of Fuel Meter Calibration Error 2-11
Figure 2-8 Mean 3-second Peak Opacity 2-13
Figure 2-9 Mean 30-second Peak Opacity 2-14
Figure 2-10 Mean Steady-state Opacity 2-14
Figure 2-11 Baseline Particulate Filter, SEM Image at 300x 2-17
Figure 2-12 Treated Fuel Particulate Filter, SEM Image at 300x 2-17
Figure 2-13 Baseline XPS Results 2-18
Figure 2-14 Treated Fuel XPS Results 2-18
Figure 4-1 Baseline Percent Change from Previous Notch 4-2
Figure A-l LPSS Dilution Tunnel Flow verses Reported TPM Emissions A-2
Figure A-2 DOES2 Dilution Tunnel Flow verses Reported CO2 Emissions A-3
Figure A-3 LPSS Correlation Data A-6
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1 BSFC and Brake-specific Emission Rate Change, Per Notch Values 2-1
Table 2-2 BSFC and Brake-specific Emission Rate Changes as a Percentage of
Baseline 2-2
Table 2-3 Duty Cycle-weighted BSFC and Emission Rate Change 2-2
Table 2-4 CO Emission Rate Change at Idle 2-2
Table 2-5 Compensated Brake Horsepower at Engine 2-3
Table 2-6 Mean Exhaust Gas and Engine Intake Air Temperature 2-5
Table 2-7 Mean Fuel Consumption and Engine RPM Per Notch Values 2-6
Table 2-8 Mean BSFC Per Notch Values, gal/bhp-h 2-6
Table 2-9 Mean Duty Cycle-weighted BSFC, gal/bhp-h 2-8
Table 2-10 Mean Baseline Emissions, grams per minute (g/min) 2-12
Table 2-11 Mean Treated Fuel Emissions, g/min 2-12
Table 2-12 Mean Baseline Brake-specific Emissions, g/bhp-h 2-12
Table 2-13 Mean Treated Fuel Brake-specific Emissions, g/bhp-h 2-12
Table 2-14 Mean Line-haul Duty Cycle-weighted Emissions, g/bhp-h 2-13
Table 2-15. Mean Switch Duty Cycle-weighted Emissions, g/bhp-h 2-13
Table 2-16 Mean 3-second Peak Opacity 2-14
Table 2-17 Mean 30-second Peak Opacity 2-15
Table 2-18 Mean Steady-state Opacity 2-15
Table 2-19 Gravimetric Analysis and Sampling Data 2-16
Table 2-20 XPS Elemental Concentrations, Corrected for Si and F 2-19
Table 3-1 Instrument Accuracy 3-2
Table 3-2 Calibrations 3-3
Table 3-3 QA/QC Check Results 3-4
Table 3-4 Performance Evaluation Audit Results 3-5
Table 3-5 Mean CO2 Concentrations 3-6
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
U.S. EPA
David Kirchgessner
Robert Wright
Southern Research Institute
Stephen Piccot
Tim Hansen
Robert G. Richards
Richard Adamson
EnviroFuels
Mark Lay
Genesee & Wyoming, St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad
Mario Brault
Jeff Eichel
David Powell
Environment Canada ETC
Fred Hendren
Greg Rideout
Acknowledgments
This verification could not have happened without the extensive management, financial, and technical
support provided by Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. and the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad. Their most
important contribution to the effort was the dedication of a locomotive to be tested. This required a one-
week removal of the locomotive from revenue service for each of the baseline and treated fuel test
periods. The tests also required maintenance mechanic time and coordination with the railroad's busy
schedule. The GHG Center would especially like to thank Carl Belke of Genesee & Wyoming, George
King II, Jeff Eichel, and Craig Rush of St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad for their generous help.
in
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
A amperes
blip brake horsepower
BSFC brake-specific fuel consumption
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DQO data quality objective
DQI data quality indicator
ETC Environment Canada Environmental Technology Centre
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FTP federal test procedure
g/bhp-h grams per brake horsepower hour
g/h grams per hour
g/min grams per minute
gal/bhp-h gallons per brake horsepower hour
GHG Center Southern Research Institute Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
gph gallons per hour
kW kilowatt
mA milliamperes
NOX nitrogen oxides
ppmv parts per million by volume
QA/QC quality assurance / quality control
QMP Quality Management Plan
sn-i sample standard deviation
SLA St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SO4 sulfates
THC total unburned hydrocarbons
TPM total particulate matter
V volts
A delta (differential or change in a value)
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development operates the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program to facilitate the deployment of innovative
technologies. The program's goal is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance
and use of these technologies. Primary ETV activities are independent performance verification and
information dissemination. Congress established ETV in response to the belief that many viable
environmental technologies exist that are not being used for the lack of credible third-party performance
data. With performance data developed under this program, technology buyers, financiers, and permitters
will be better equipped to make informed decisions regarding new technology purchases and use.
The Greenhouse Gas Technology Center (GHG Center) is one of several ETV organizations. EPA's ETV
partner, Southern Research Institute, manages the GHG Center. The GHG Center conducts independent
verification of promising GHG mitigation and monitoring technologies. It develops Verification Test and
Quality Assurance Plans (test plans), conducts field tests, collects and interprets field and other data,
obtains independent peer-review input, reports findings, and publicizes verifications through numerous
outreach efforts. The GHG Center conducts verifications according to the externally reviewed test plans
and recognized quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) protocols.
Volunteer stakeholder groups guide the GHG Center's ETV activities. These stakeholders advise on
appropriate technologies for testing, help disseminate results, and review test plans and reports. National
and international environmental policy, technology, and regulatory experts participate in the GHG
Center's Executive Stakeholder Group. The group includes industry trade organizations, environmental
technology finance groups, governmental organizations, and other interested parties. Industry-specific
stakeholders provide testing strategy guidance within their expertise and peer-review key documents
prepared by the GHG Center.
GHG Center stakeholders are particularly interested in transportation technologies with the potential to
increase fuel economy and reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. The Department of Energy
reports that transportation carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were 32 percent of the total from all sectors
during 2002 [1]. Railroad locomotives represent a significant fraction of the total. In 2002, railroads used
approximately 7.5 percent of all diesel fuel in the transportation sector. In that year, railroad diesel fuel
consumption was about 9.49 x 107 barrels crude oil equivalent, or 3.98 x 109 gallons [2]. Even
incremental fuel efficiency or emission rate improvements would have a significant beneficial impact on
nationwide air quality and railroad economics. Each 1 percent diesel fuel consumption reduction would
reduce CO2 emissions and fuel costs approximately 1 percent.
EnviroFuels, L.P. manufactures a diesel fuel additive and markets it to heavy-duty vehicle, off-road diesel
engine, and railroad locomotive operators as the Diesel Fuel Catalyzer (catalyzer). The catalyzer's
various embodiments are either patented or subject to patents pending. The catalyzer is a suitable
verification candidate considering its potential environmental benefits and ETV stakeholder interest.
Based on in-house testing on heavy-duty diesel vehicles, EnviroFuels claims that proper use of the
catalyzer can reduce:
• fuel consumption (and corresponding CO2 emissions) by 5 percent
• nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by 12 to 18 percent
• unburned total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions up to 30 percent.
1-1
-------
The GHG Center verified fuel consumption and pollutant emission changes attributable to the catalyzer
during baseline and treated-fuel tests of an EMD GP-40-3 line-haul locomotive.
Baseline testing occurred during late August, 2004 at the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad (SLA)
switchyard in Auburn, ME while the locomotive was operating on a controlled lot of normal diesel fuel.
Railroad maintenance personnel then treated the locomotive's fuel with the EnviroFuels catalyzer
according to the manufacturer's instructions for a nine week break-in period. The test team returned and
tested the locomotive's performance while operating on the treated fuel in late October, 2004.
The Test and Quality Assurance Plan—EnviroFuels Diesel Fuel Catalyzer Fuel Additive [3] (test plan)
was the guiding document for the test campaign. It is available from the GHG Center Internet site at
www.sri-rtp.com or the ETV Program site at www.epa.gov/etv. The test plan describes the verification's
rationale, experimental design, testing procedures, data quality, and QA/QC goals. The vendor, peer-
reviewers, testing contractors, the host facility, and the EPA Quality Assurance Team reviewed the test
plan and the GHG Center revised it to address their comments prior to beginning the field work. The test
plan meets the GHG Center's Quality Management Plan (QMP) requirements and also satisfies ETV
QMP requirements.
The remainder of Section 1.0 describes the EnviroFuels catalyzer technology, the test locomotive, and
provides an overview of the performance verification test campaign.
1.2. DIESEL FUEL CATALYZER
EnviroFuels literature states that the key to the catalyzer's performance is a compound that triggers
chemical reactions which create inorganic polymer complexes of phosphorus and nitrogen on the surface
of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The formulators add the proprietary compound to refined mineral oil
which, in turn, users administer to standard #2 diesel fuel.
The complexes, according to EnviroFuels statements, smooth and passivate the metal surface, improve
reflectivity (or emissivity), and reduce oxygen reactivity. EnviroFuels states that the reduced oxygen
reactivity reduces NOX formation while the improved emissivity enhances combustion through reduced
radiative losses from the flame front. This, combined with improved lubricity, reduces fuel consumption.
EnviroFuels' research indicates that at least six to eight weeks of regular service are required from the
initial fuel treatment for the performance improvements to be fully realized in locomotive service. During
this break-in period, EnviroFuels recommends a dosing rate of 640:1 in most locomotive applications.
After that, the fuel must be treated at the normal 1280:1 ratio on an ongoing basis to maintain the effects.
1.3. TEST FACILITIES
The St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad, a division of Genesee and Wyoming, Inc., provided the test
locomotive, resistive load bank, plant facilities, coordination with the test fuel supplier, and technical,
mechanical, and managerial support.
1-2
-------
The locomotive was built in 1980 and remanufactured to Title 40 CFR 92 Tier 0 standards in 2003. Its
powerplant is an EMD 645 E3 two-cycle diesel engine rated at 3000 brake horsepower (bhp). Figure 1-1
shows the locomotive, the emissions test duct and equipment enclosure, the resistive load bank, the yard's
main fuel tank, and other site features.
Opacity Monitor
and Enclosure
Figure 1-1. EMD Model GP-40-3 Locomotive
and Test Equipment
The locomotive serves as the lead unit in a "mother - daughter" pair. The daughter is unpowered and its
primary function is to spread the locomotive's tractive effort over more driving wheels. Some pertinent
information is as follows:
Locomotive
Horsepower
Length, over couplers
Width, over grab irons
Height, to top of cooling
fan guards
Approximate dry weight...
3000 bhp
59' 2"
10' 3 1/8"
15' 4 7/16"
256,000 Ib
Main generator
Model.
Companion alternator Model
Auxiliary generator Voltage..
Rating....
ARID
D14
74VDC
10 kW
Engine Model 645E3
Cylinders 16
Bore x stroke 9 1/16" x 10"
Nominal idle
speed 315 RPM
Nominal full speed 900 RPM
Operating 2-cycle, turbocharged,
Principle unit injector
Family 3GETK0645MFA
Air compressor Cylinders 3
Air compressor Capacity (900 RPM) 254ft3/min
1-3
-------
SLA maintenance personnel connected the main generator directly to the resistive load bank which
provided the electrical load. The test contractor, Environment Canada's Emissions Technology Centre
(ETC) installed the test duct onto the locomotive's exhaust duct and located the opacity monitor adjacent
to the test duct. Heated umbilicals conveyed the exhaust gas samples from the test duct probes to the
emissions test equipment enclosure at ground level.
During all tests, SLA maintenance personnel connected the locomotive's air system to the shop air supply
to prevent the air compressor from cycling unpredictably. All DC circuit breakers, except for the
emergency shutdown and engine operating systems, were opened. This provided a constant, low-level
load at the auxiliary generator. These provisions and the test team's direct measurements of the power
supplied to the cooling fans (which were the only loads on the companion alternator) minimized the
effects of changing parasitic loads on the test run results.
EnviroFuels provided the fuel catalyzer in a tote placed on a skid which incorporated its own secondary
containment. A positive-displacement dosing pump was part of the skid. SLA personnel enabled it
following the baseline tests. The yard's main fuel tank pump power supply controlled the dosing pump,
which injected the catalyzer at the manufacturer's specified rate into the main fuel hose and nozzle
assembly. This allowed a controlled amount of additive to be mixed in the fuel hose as SLA personnel
refueled the locomotive over the break-in period and during the treated fuel tests. Figure 1-2 illustrates
the catalyzer tote, skid, and dosing pump.
Figure 1-2. EnviroFuels Tote, Dosing Pump, and Skid
EnviroFuels Fuel Catalyzer
Dosing Pump
in Secured
Main Fuel
Pump and
Hose Reel
Shed
Skid with secondary containment
1-4
-------
1.4. PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION OVERVIEW
The EnviroFuels Diesel Fuel Catalyzer performance verification parameters are brake horsepower-
specific fuel economy, pollutant, and GHG emission changes associated with catalyzer use in the test
locomotive. Section 2.0 of this report provides detailed test results on a "per notch" basis and as a
weighted average using line-haul and switch service weightings. Reported parameters are:
• brake-specific fuel consumption rates, BSFQ, for baseline and treated fuel, and the
change, ABSFCj, for each notch j, gallons per brake horsepower hour (gal/bhp-h)
• line-haul and switch duty-cycle weighted brake-specific fuel consumption rates,
BSFCoc, and the change, ABSFCDC, gal/bhp-h
• brake-specific mass emission rates, E1J5 for baseline and treated fuel, and the change,
AEjj, for each pollutant or GHG species i at each notch j, grams per brake horsepower
hour, g/bhp-h
• line-haul duty-cycle weighted brake-specific mass emission rates, ElDC, and the
change, AElDC for each emitted pollutant or GHG species i, g/bhp-h
Emissions measured during the tests were:
• CO2, volume%
• Carbon monoxide (CO), parts per million by volume (ppmv)
• NOX, ppmv
• total non-methane hydrocarbons, ppmv
• methane, ppmv
• total hydrocarbons (THC), ppmv
• total particulate matter (TPM), ppmv
• smoke opacity, %
The primary locomotive parameters of concern were:
• main generator (AR10) voltage
• main generator current
• engine fuel consumption, gallons per hour (gph)
• cooling fan power consumption, kilowatts (kW)
1.5. MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
Figure 1-3 is a summary schematic of the measurement equipment locations.
1-5
-------
Generator and
Air Compartment
QAR10 current
©AR10 voltage
©Supply fuel gph
©Return fuel gph
©Supply fuel temperature
©Return fuel temperature
±2) Engine intake air temperature
©Fixed pitot delta P
©Fixed pitot stack temperature
© Cooling fan kW
§ Ambient barometric pressure
Ambient relative humidity
Ambient temperature
Figure 1-3. Measurement Equipment Locations
1.5.1. AR10 Main Generator Current and Voltage
The AR10 main generator electrical control cabinet contains the external resistive load bank connection
bus bar. The field team leader installed the current and voltage sensors directly on the bus bar.
The Flex-Core CTL-502S/4KY106/CTA215N current sensor span was 0 - 4000 amperes (A). The July 9,
2004 calibration certificate showed that the 95% confidence interval for achieved accuracy was ± 0.046%
of reading.
The Flex-Core VT8-014E voltage sensor span was 0 - 1000 volts (V). The July 9, 2004 calibration
certificate showed that average calibration accuracy was ± 0.055% of reading.
1-6
-------
Both sensors output a 4 - 20 milliamp (mA) signal to the ION 7600 datalogger whose March 18, 2004
calibration certificate indicates a ± 0.3% full scale port conversion accuracy. This is ± 0.06 mA, or ±
1.5% at a 4 mA input level.
1.5.2. Fuel Supply and Return Flow Meters and Fuel Temperature Sensors
The field team leader installed a Flow Technologies, Inc. FuelCom model FC05 flow meter into the
engine's supply pipeline just downstream of the electric fuel circulation pump. He installed the return
flowmeter downstream of the return fuel manifold, just upstream of the fuel tank return fitting. Figures 1-
4 and 1-5 show the flow meter installations.
Supply Line from
Belly Tank
Fuel Meter
Supply Line
to Engine
Air Eliminator (removed
for tests)
Restrictor Valve I
and Gage
Figure 1-4. Supply Flowmeter
Figure 1-5. Return Flowmeter
The return flowmeter installation incorporated an air eliminator, restrictor valve, and pressure gauge as
provisions to minimize air bubbles at the return flowmeter. The return fuel flow, as checked at the three-
way valve, proved to be free of bubbles and the air eliminator later failed in service prior to the baseline
tests, so it was removed.
External type K thermocouples, taped to the steel portion of the fuel pipelines and wrapped with
insulation, served as fuel temperature sensors. The field team leader logged fuel temperatures at each
notch with a Fluke model 52 thermocouple meter. Analysts used the average fuel temperature for engine
horsepower fuel temperature compensation.
1.5.3. DOES2 and Instrumental Analyzers
Figure 1-6 shows the Dynamic Offroad Emissions Sampling System (DOES2) as installed in the field.
The DOES2 is a partial-flow portable dilution sampling system for gaseous emissions. ETC developed
the system as a modification of standard FTP methods (primarily 40 CFR 86 and 40 CFR 92) specifically
designed for field testing of in-use vehicles. The DOES2 provides a dilute, conditioned sample to a
portable instrumental analyzer bench. The analyzer bench is not in view in Figure 1-6. The test plan
provides a DOES2 system schematic, a description, and discusses its relationship to 40 CFR 92
locomotive FTP test equipment specifications.
1-7
-------
Figure 1-6. DOES2 Sampling and Dilution Apparatus
The analyzer bench contained the gaseous emissions analyzers, sample and calibration gas manifolds, and
the necessary controls and sample pumps. California Analytical Instruments, Inc. manufactured the THC
analyzer; others were by Horiba Instruments, Inc.
Figure 1-6 also shows the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfate (SO4) teflon filter holder. The DOES2 moved
a controlled volume of diluted stack gas through the filters for later laboratory analysis. Testers
conducted SO2 and SO4 sampling for information only.
1.5.4. Locomotive Particulate Sampling System
Figure 1-7 shows the locomotive particulate sampling system (LPSS). Like the DOES2, it is a partial-
flow dilution apparatus, but it passes a larger aliquot of dilute exhaust gas directly through the gravimetric
TPM filters. ETC developed the LPSS as a modification of 40 CFR 92 test methods specifically for field
TPM emissions determinations from larger vehicles. The test plan provides a system schematic, a
description, and discusses the relationship between the LPSS and locomotive FTP test equipment
specifications.
1-8
-------
LPSS System
Exhaust Duct
Figure 1-7. Locomotive Particulate Sampling System
1.5.5. Opacity Meter and Auxiliary Measurement Equipment
The Bosch - RT100A opacity meter extracted a partial exhaust sample from a probe installed in the test
duct. The meter's sample pump conveyed the exhaust sample through a short length (about 3 feet) of
teflon tubing through the opacity measurement cell. Testers shut the sampling pump off immediately
following each 6-minute test period, which prevented fouling and reduced maintenance requirements.
Test personnel performed pre- and post-test stack gas volumetric flow rate traverses with a Type S pitot
tube and thermocouple. They then installed the pitot at a fixed location and recorded stack temperature
and velocity at that point throughout all test runs. Section 2.2.1 describes the stack gas volumetric flow
rate determination as derived from this data set.
Testers installed a type K thermocouple in the engine's intake air plenum which was connected to a spare
DOES2 temperature measurement channel. Analysts used the recorded air temperature during each test
run and notch for engine horsepower air temperature compensation. ETC personnel also recorded
ambient barometric pressure, relative humidity, and temperature as determined by a Visala model HM141
handheld instrument.
The field team leader recorded cooling fan real power consumption during each test run and notch as
measured by an Extech model HVAC Trms Clamp Meter. The meter's accuracy for real power
measurements was ±5.0 percent.
1-9
-------
1-10
-------
2.0 VERIFICATION RESULTS
Although test personnel did measure fuel consumption directly as required by the locomotive FTP [4] and
the test plan, significant calibration, accuracy, and operations problems with the fuel meters rendered the
data invalid. This represented a significant departure from the FTP and test plan requirements. See
Section 2.2.2 for a detailed discussion.
The test results, however, are valid for the baseline / treated fuel comparisons. The "carbon balance
method," presented at §86.1382-94 in the diesel heavy-duty engine FTP [5], is the basis for all brake
horsepower-specific results presented here. This method requires exhaust gas volumetric flow
determinations with a constant volume sampling (CVS) system. The results reported here employed the
40 CFR 60 Appendix A Method 2 traverses and stationary pitot monitoring specified in the test plan's
Table 3-3 instead of a CVS system. Section 3.1 of this report discusses the accuracy differences between
the CVS system and the Method 2 techniques.
The results reported here represent the brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and emission rate
changes seen during the test locomotive's operations under field conditions at the host facility. These
results may differ from those at other locomotives, test methods, or host facilities. BSFC and brake-
specific gaseous emissions showed statistically significant improvements at the majority of the operating
notches. Line-haul duty cycle-weighted BSFC and gaseous emissions (except for NOX, which was not
statistically significant) also improved. Switch duty cycle-weighted BSFC and all gaseous emissions
showed statistically significant improvements. TPM emissions, however, increased during the treated
fuel tests.
The following tables present the changes between the baseline and treated fuel BSFC as gallons per brake
horsepower hour (gal/bhp-h) and for brake-specific emissions as grams per brake horsepower hour
(g/bhp-h). Positive numbers indicate a BSFC improvement or emission rate increase. Negative numbers
indicate an emission rate decrease. For example, notch 2 BSFC improved by 0.009 ± 0.003 gal/bhp-h,
CO emissions decreased by 0.20 ± 0.07 g/bhp-h, and TPM increased by 0.09 ± 0.04 g/bhp-h.
Uncertainty values are the 95 percent confidence interval about the mean results for six baseline and six
treated fuel test runs. Student's T test, evaluated at 95 percent certainty, provided the estimate of
statistical significance.
Table 2-1. BSFC and Brake-Specific Emission Rate Change, Per Notch Values
Notch
BSFC,
gal/bhp-h
CO,
g/bhp-h
CO2,
g/bhp-h
NOX,
g/bhp-h
THC,
g/bhp-h
TPMa,
g/bhp-h
1
*
-0.34
+ 0.17
*
*
-0.11
+ 0.04
0.07
+0.06
2
0.009
+ 0.003
-0.20
+ 0.07
-80
+ 20
-1.0
+ 0.9
-0.09
+ 0.07
0.09
+0.04
3
0.010
+ 0.004
-0.36
+ 0.08
-90
+ 30
-1.5
+ 0.8
*
0.11
+0.04
4
0.009
+ 0.003
-1.00
+ 0.19
-70
+ 30
-0.9
+ 0.5
-0.06
+ 0.03
0.11
+0.04
5
0.005
+ 0.003
-1.3
+ 0.6
-40
+ 30
*
-0.03
+ 0.02
0.13
+0.04
6
0.010
+ 0.007
-1.2
+ 0.8
-90
+ 60
*
-0.06
+ 0.02
0.18
+0.07
1
0.004
+ 0.003
-1.2
+ 0.7
-30
+ 30
*
-0.05
+ 0.02
0.28
+0.07
8
*
-0.51
+ 0.08
*
*
-0.03
+ 0.02
0.30
+0.07
* Not statistically significant
aTPM results represent increased emissions as compared to baseline tests.
2-1
-------
Table 2-2. BSFC and Brake-Specific Emission Rate Change, Per Notch Percentage of Baseline
Notch
BSFC
CO
C02
NOX
THC
TPMa
1
*
-33
+ 17%
*
*
-32
+ 12%
40
+40%
2
-13
+ 4%
-31
+ 11%
-13
+ 4%
-9
+ 7%
-30
+ 30%
60
+30%
3
- 15
+ 6%
-36
+ 9%
- 15
+ 6%
- 14
+ 8%
*
42
+17%
4
-13
+ 4%
-50
+ 10%
-13
+ 5%
-8
+ 5%
-27
+ 12%
42
+16%
5
-8
+ 5%
-40
+ 20%
-8
+ 5%
*
- 13
+ 10%
50
+18%
6
-15
+ 11%
-30
+ 20%
-15
+ 11%
*
-22
+ 9%
70
+30%
1
-1
+ 5%
-50
+ 30%
-6
+ 5%
*
-22
+ 10%
140
+30%
8
*
-50
+ 8%
*
*
- 17
+ 12%
770
+40%
* Not statistically significant
aTPM results represent increased emissions as compared to baseline tests.
Duty cycle-weighted emissions in Table 2-3 result from weighting factors applied to the emissions and
bhp produced during each notch. Title 40 CFR 92.132 provides the line-haul and switch duty weighting
factors and the test plan included them for reference.
Table 2-3. Duty Cycle- Weighted BSFC and Emission Rate Change
Line-haul Duty Cycle
Parameter
Delta
Percentage
of baseline
BSFC,
gal/bhp-h
0.003
+ 0.002
5
+ 4%
CO, g/bhp-h
-0.75
+ 0.14
-44
+ 8%
CO2, g/bhp-h
-30
+ 20
-5
+ 4%
NOX, g/bhp-h
*
*
THC, g/bhp-h
-0.06
+ 0.03
-22
+ 12%
TPMa, g/bhp-h
0.23
+0.08
100
+40%
Switch Duty Cycle
Delta
Percentage
of baseline
0.008
+ 0.003
10
+ 4%
-0.9
+ 0.3
-39
+ 12%
-70
+ 30
- 10
+ 4%
-1.2
+ 0.9
-9
+ 7%
-0.12
+ 0.8
-27
+ 18%
0.12
+0.04
46
+18%
* Not statistically significant
aTPM results represent increased emissions as compared to baseline tests. TPM emissions remained below the Tier 0 standards
(0.60 and 0.72 g/bhp-h for line-haul and switch duty cycles, respectively) for all baseline and treated fuel test runs.
The test campaign did not quantify engine bhp at the low and high idle notches, so this report does not
include those brake horsepower-specific results. Table 2-4 shows the changes in CO emissions for the
idle notches. Other emissions changes were not statistically significant for the idle notches.
Table 2-4. CO Emission Rate Change at Idle
Delta, g/bhp-h
Percentage of
baseline
Low Idle
-100
+ 50
-34
+ 16%
High Idle
-110
+ 40
-37
+ 14%
In general, smoke emissions improved over the baseline with statistically significant changes occurring
for notches 3 through 7, depending on the averaging algorithm. For example, baseline opacities ranged
between approximately 25 and 30 percent for notches 5 and 6 and treated fuel opacity ranged between
approximately 10 and 17 percent for those notches. Section 2.3 presents the results as charts.
2-2
-------
The GHG Center's field team leader and ETC personnel installed all measurement equipment prior to the
test campaign. SLA also conducted the locomotive's normal 92-day Federal Railroad Administration
safety inspection. SLA and EnviroFuels coordinated setup of the fuel catalyzer skid and acquisition of
test support equipment (generator, manlift, etc.). SLA emptied the locomotive's belly tank and had it
cleaned prior to filling it with fuel from a controlled lot. Irving Oil, the fuel supplier, controlled the fuel
source by providing all the railroad's fuel from a single bulk tank located in Portland, ME throughout the
baseline, break-in, and treated fuel test periods. Irving Oil certified that all fuel delivered to SLA's
Auburn facility came from this controlled lot.
Testing began on August 16, 2004, with Title 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 2 stack gas velocity
traverses and cyclonic flow angle measurements while the locomotive was operating at each notch, under
load. The test crew then completed six valid test runs on August 20, 2004.
At the completion of the baseline tests, SLA personnel administered the EnviroFuels fuel catalyzer to the
fuel remaining in the locomotive's belly tank and enabled the dosing pump.
The break-in period, which incorporated all the locomotive's normal over-the-road operations, extended
from August 21 through October 23, 2004. The locomotive consumed approximately 35,000 gallons of
treated fuel during this period and required no maintenance or repair other than daily inspections. SLA
personnel logged the dosing pump's counter at the end of each refueling and forwarded the results to the
GHG Center. At EnviroFuels' recommendation, SLA changed the dosing ratio from approximately 640:1
to approximately 1280:1 on October 10. This allowed the locomotive to burn approximately 6700 gallons
of fuel at the latter ratio prior to the treated fuel test runs.
Treated fuel test runs began on October 24, 2004, after ETC had set up their equipment on October 23.
The tests series was the same as that for the baseline runs: a series of Method 2 traverses at each notch
under load, followed by six valid test runs, finishing with a final series of Method 2 traverses on October
28, 2004.
A locomotive warmup cycle preceded each test run. The warmup cycle consisted of operating the
locomotive under load for 3 minutes at each notch (6 minutes at notch 8), starting at low idle. The
operator then returned to low idle over 1 minute. Each test run then commenced within 15 minutes. Test
runs began at low idle, cycling through each of the notches in turn. The locomotive operated at each
notch for 20 minutes (15 minutes at notch 8), with particulate sampling during the first 6 minutes. Testers
obtained gaseous emissions, opacity, and cooling fan power consumption data during the 4th through 6th
minute for the idle notches, the 6th minute for notches 1 through 7, and the 15th minute for notch 8. The
locomotive's physical and electrical configuration prevented gathering data during the dynamic braking
mode.
2.1. ENGINE BHP
Table 2-5 presents the compensated gross engine brake horsepower for the baseline and treated fuel tests.
Table 2-5. Compensated Brake Horsepower at Engine
Notch
Baseline mean bhp
Sample standard deviation (s^)
Treated fuel mean bhp
Sn-l
1
288
4
293
9
2
502
4
540
20
3
866
5
920
20
4
1157
6
1226
15
5
1555
11
1645
19
6
2100
200
2320
40
7
2675
17
2870
20
8
2962
14
2905
5
2-3
-------
The locomotive produced more power during the treated fuel tests, except at notch 8. It was difficult to
discern performance changes between notches 7 and 8 for the treated fuel tests, except that the engine
seemed to run more smoothly at notch 8. The relationship between the AR10 generator power demand
and the engine's governor caused speed variations (or "hunting") at notches 6 and 7 throughout all the
tests. This was especially evident at notch 6 during the baseline tests, as shown by the sample standard
deviation in Table 2-5.
The test plan equation for brake horsepower used 0.715 for the generator efficiency and 0.7457 kW per
bhp. This is incorrect. The locomotive manufacturer states that 0.715 is the combined value for the
ARlO's efficiency and the kW to bhp conversion factor. The correct equation for engine bhp is:
Eqn.2-1
4
0.715
Where:
= mean mechanical power for mode j, bhp
kWARio = mean main generator power output, kW
(note that kWARio is VARio ' AAR10 / 1000)
0.715 = combined AR10 electrical efficiency and kW to horsepower conversion
The test plan also included constant default load values for the mechanical accessory horsepower, such as
the main air blower, traction motor blower, unloaded air compressor, and unloaded auxiliary DC
generator. These loads cannot be constant at each notch because the engine speed varied from about 254
to 914 revolutions per minute between low idle and notch 8. Use of a single default value for the
unloaded air compressor, for example, is not realistic. These parasitic loads did not vary between the
baseline and treated fuel tests, so the verification results were not affected by them. Analysts therefore
did not allow for them in the results. The reader should note, however, that locomotive emissions test
results often include mechanical accessory horsepower default values for regulatory purposes (see 40
CFR92.2).
The results have been compensated with factors provided by the manufacturer, per industry practice, to
31.8 °API gravity, 68 °F engine intake air temperature, and 29.85 "Hg absolute atmospheric pressure.
Figure 2-1 shows the AR10 voltage and current traces for a typical individual test run.
2-4
-------
4000.0
3500.0
3000.0
2500.0
E 2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
Baseline Run 3 Current
Baseline Run 3 Voltage
900
- 800
- 700
- 600
- 500
- 400
- 300
- 200
-- 100
Figure 2-1. AR10 Generator Performance
It was sometimes possible to stop the engine's hunting during notches 6 and 7 by applying manual force
to the governor control bar at certain points in the hunting cycle. Figure 2-1 shows this effect at notch 7.
Note, however, that the performance results quoted here do not include time periods during which the
engine's operation was manually forced.
Cooling fan power consumption ranged between approximately 10 and 120 horsepower (depending on
the notch setting) for the baseline tests. The fans consumed between 0 and approximately 90 horsepower
during the treated fuel tests.
For reference, Table 2-6 shows the mean exhaust gas temperatures as measured at point number 3c in the
temporary test duct (see Figure 2-5) and mean engine intake air temperatures.
Table 2-6. Mean Exhaust Gas and Engine Intake Air Temperatures
Notch
Baseline exhaust, °F
Sn-l, °F
Engine intake air, °F
Sn-l, °F
Treated ehaust, °F
Sn-l, °F
Engine intake air, °F
Sn-l, °F
Lo Idle
223
8
76
6
239
32
49
8
Hi Idle
201
2
76
5
172
7
49
8
1
297
3
77
5
230
26
49
7
2
388
12
77
9
315
35
50
6
3
489
10
77
2
424
32
52
6
4
581
8
78
2
511
28
52
6
5
669
4
77
2
599
29
55
7
6
732
6
76
2
655
96
58
6
7
718
4
77
3
667
92
60
6
8
720
6
77
4
671
91
60
4
2-5
-------
2.2. BRAKE-SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION
The FTP procedures for calculating fuel consumption correlate the exhaust gas carbon content with the
actual exhaust gas volumetric flow in standard cubic feet per minute, the carbon available in the fuel, and
the fuel's density, to yield the engine's fuel consumption rate in gph. This is known as the carbon balance
method.
The DOES2 analyzers provided the THC, CO, and CO2 carbon content (Section 2.3.1). The following
subsection discusses acquisition of the volumetric flow rate data. The test fuel met all 40 CFR 92.113
specifications except that fuel density was 31.8 °API instead of 32 °API as specified by the CFR. ETC
used 86.5 mass percent carbon and 13.8 mass percent hydrogen based on #2 diesel fuel analyses
performed in 2003 for a New York City project. For reference, §86.1342-94 (d) (1) (ii) (C) cites the
average carbon to hydrogen ratio as 1:00 : 1.80, or approximately 86.96 and 13.00 mass percent carbon
and hydrogen, respectively. The GHG Center considers the fuel density and fuel carbon values to be
identical between the baseline and treated fuel tests because the supplier lifted all fuel from the same
storage tank during the test campaign.
The fuel consumption rate, divided by the compensated bhp (Section 2.1), yields the BSFC. The
following tables provide the test results. This report cites the carbon balance method rather than the
directly-measured fuel consumption results for the reasons noted in Section 2.2.2.
Note that the tables omit BSFC for the idle notches because the AR10 generator was producing negligible
power and the engine's frictional and parasitic loads were not quantified. This means that a BSFC
calculation would be meaningless for those individual notches.
Table 2-7. Mean Fuel Consumption and Engine RPM Per Notch Values
Notch
Baseline gph
Sn-l
Engine RPM
Treated Fuel gph
Vl
Engine RPM
Lo Idle
4.4
0.8
254
4.9
0.2
254
Hi Idle
5.3
0.4
320
5.3
0.3
319
1
21
1.6
300
19.9
1.2
317
2
34.5
0.9
384
32.0
1.5
388
3
60
3
492
54.4
1.6
498
4
77
3
568
71
2
573
5
99
2
651
96
4
655
6
144
8
732
132
7
733
7
154
6
828
155
8
830
8
154
6
912
154
7
914
Table 2-8. Mean BSFC Per Notch Values, gal/bhp-h
Notch
Baseline
Sn-l
Treated Fuel
Sn-l
1
0.075
0.006
0.068
0.004
2
0.0688
0.0019
0.060
0.002
3
0.070
0.004
0.0593
0.0017
4
0.067
0.002
0.058
0.002
5
0.064
0.002
0.058
0.003
6
0.067
0.007
0.057
0.004
7
0.0577
0.0018
0.054
0.003
8
0.0521
0.0018
0.053
0.002
Figures 2-2 and 2-3 illustrate the per-notch BSFC for each test run.
2-6
-------
0.080
0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.080
0.070
0.060
0.050 --
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
-•-Run 1 BSFC
-•-Run 2 BSFC
A Run 3 BSFC
-*-Run4BSFC
-as-Run 5 BSFC
-•-Run 6 BSFC
Notch 1 Notch 2 Notch 3 Notch 4 Notch 5 Notch 6 Notch 7 Notch 8
Figure 2-2. Baseline Run-Specific BSFC
Notch 1 Notch 2 Notch 3 Notch 4
Notch 5
Notch 6 Notch 7
Notch 8
Figure 2-3. Treated Fuel Run-Specific BSFC
2-7
-------
Table 2-9 provides the duty cycle-weighted BSFC.
Table 2-9. Mean Duty Cycle-weighted BSFC, gal/bhp-h
Baseline
Sn-l
Treated Fuel
Sn-l
Line-Haul
0.0600
0.0011
0.057
0.002
Switch
0.076
0.002
0.068
0.002
Table 2-9 incorporates data from 6 runs for the baseline fuel and 5 runs from the treated fuel. The treated
fuel results omit data from Run 4. Instrumental analyzer problems occurred during notch 1 of this run so
the duty cycle-weighted BSFC calculation is invalid.
Figure 2-4 shows the relationship between fuel consumption and total compensated bhp for both fuel
conditions. The figure highlights possibly anomalous results for the baseline tests because it appears that
mean bhp increased from notch 7 to notch 8 while fuel consumption remained approximately the same.
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
100
120
140
160
180
Figure 2-4. Fuel Consumption verses Brake Horsepower
The error bars, however, indicate that fuel consumption could also have either increased or decreased
between notches 7 and 8. Isolated results like these should be interpreted with caution. For example,
several thunderstorms moved through the area during some baseline test runs. Even though all test
parameters remained within valid limits, this could have affected baseline variability. SLA personnel
noted that the locomotive's control algorithms had been customized for the mother / daughter application,
and this may have affected performance. Quantification of the effects of any of these influences is
impossible without further testing.
2-8
-------
2.2.1. Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Test personnel performed complete Method 2 traverses with a type S pitot and type K thermocouple at
each notch:
• immediately before the first baseline test run
• immediately before the first treated fuel test run
• immediately following the last treated fuel test run
The standard locomotive warmup cycle (Section 2.0) preceded each traverse and the elapsed time for each
notch was approximately the same as for a regular test run. Testers allowed the engine to equilibrate for
at least 6 minutes at each notch to ensure stable operating conditions before starting the traverse. The
traverses included differential pressure (AP) and temperature measurements at 24 regularly-spaced points
(4 locations at each of 6 test ports) across the test duct. Figure 2-5 illustrates the pitot measurement
locations. They then installed the pitot at a fixed location which best represented the flow (designated
"3c") and recorded AP and temperature readings during each test run.
46 in
-Sample Collection
/^Pitot Measurement
42 in 12.125
2 center channels slightly larger
Figure 2-5. Method 2 Traverse Locations
2-9
-------
Volumetric flow is proportional to the mean of the square root of the pitot AP. Figure 2-6 shows the
volumetric flow data from the traverses as a function of the square root of AP at point 3c. The correlation
coefficient (R2) of 0.9966 indicates that the square root of AP at point 3c is a good predictor of total stack
gas flow. The 95 percent confidence interval for flow, as predicted from a AP reading at 3c at every
notch, is approximately 2.2 percent.
12000.0 -i
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
y = 43
58.6x + 9£4.8
= 0.9966
0.5
1 1.5
Sqrt DeltaP
2.5
Figure 2-6. Exhaust Gas Volumetric Flow Rate as a Function of vAP at Point 3c
2.2.2. Fuel Meter Results
The fuel meters did not perform as anticipated. Their response changed unpredictably during the August
21 through October 23, 2004 break-in period. This was particularly evident while the locomotive was
idling. At idle, the maximum amount of fuel (approximately 380 gph) passed through both meters with a
small amount being drawn off by the engine. The meters reported net idle fuel consumption as varying
randomly between 17.5 gph and -16.4 gph over the break-in period. This indicates that the idle and low
notch data from these meters are invalid and the results at the higher notches have large unquantified
inaccuracies, over and above calibration and random sampling error.
The manufacturer's sales literature stated that accuracy on the net fuel consumption would be ± 1.0
percent. Actual absolute compounded accuracy for the meters alone, as documented by the pre-test
calibration certificates, was ± 0.80 gph. The fuel meters alone would have met the ±1.0 percent
specification only at net fuel consumption rates greater than 80 gph, or at notch 5 and above for the test
locomotive. Overall absolute compounded accuracy (including the datalogger's port accuracy), as
documented by the fuel meters' pre- and post-test calibrations was ± 2.04 gph for the baseline tests and ±
2.99 gph for the treated fuel. Compounded absolute accuracy of the net fuel consumption was 3.62 gph,
not including sampling error.
2-10
-------
GHG Center analysts undertook an extensive review of the pre- and post-test fuel meter calibrations to
see if the calibration changes could be corrected, but this proved to be impossible. For example, the as-
reported post-test calibrations showed significant changes in the return fuel meter, both in overall
accuracy and the trend (or slope) at each calibration point. The changes profoundly affected the treated
fuel test results. Also, between the end of the test runs and the calibration exercise, test personnel:
• dismounted both meters from the locomotive
• shipped them to the GHG Center
• performed bench-top evaluations
• shipped the meters to the calibration facility
Calibration facility operators then passed an unknown quantity of clean calibration fluid through the
meters. All of this means that the calibration changes during the actual tests are completely unknown at
all notches and could have been much larger (or smaller).
Figure 2-7 illustrates how the meters' documented accuracy affected the net fuel consumption results.
The BSFC change would have to be larger than the random sampling error compounded with the two
meters' calibration error to show statistical significance. This amounts to about 17.0 percent at notch 2 or
4.0 percent at notch 7 and means that it was impossible to quantify small changes in net fuel consumption
with the fuel meters.
0.065
0.055
0.045
0.04
0.035
Baseline Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption
Baseline Compounded Calibration and Random Error
Treated Fuel Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption
Treated Fuel Compounded Calibration and Random Error
4 5
Notch
Figure 2-7. Effects of Fuel Meter Calibration Error
The manufacturer calibrated the fuel meter digital outputs at multiple fuel flows and temperatures. The
calibration, however, does not document the correspondence of the calibration flow rates with the meters'
analog outputs. This means that the analog outputs, as recorded by the GHG Center's datalogger, cannot
be shown to have a traceable link to the multipoint calibration procedure.
GHG Center analysts therefore invalidated the fuel meter data and used the carbon balance method to
calculate fuel consumption.
2-11
-------
2.3. LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS
The following tables present the emissions test results.
Table 2-10. Mean Baseline Emissions, grams per minute (g/min)
Pollutant
CO
Sn-l
C02
Sn-l
NOX
Sn-l
THC
Sn-l
TPM
Sn-l
Lo
Idle
4.9
0.6
630
110
17.0
1.6
1.3
0.3
0.20
0.07
Hi
Idle
5.9
0.6
760
60
19
3
1.6
0.2
0.26
0.07
Notch 1
4.9
0.7
3100
200
64
6
1.6
0.1
0.77
0.12
Notch 2
5.4
0.4
5030
130
98
5
2.3
0.6
1.3
0.2
Notch 3
14.3
0.8
8800
500
150
10
3.9
1.8
3.7
0.4
Notch 4
38
4
11200
400
185
7
4.3
0.3
5.0
0.6
Notch 5
82
17
14300
300
226
9
5.2
0.3
6.6
0.8
Notch 6
130
20
20800
1200
380
20
9.2
0.6
8.7
1.4
Notch 7
100
30
22400
800
440
40
10.8
0.6
8.5
1.1
Notch 8
49.0
1.8
22500
800
460
30
10.6
0.8
8.7
1.3
Table 2-11. Mean Treated Fuel Emissions, g/min
Pollutant
CO
Sn-l
CO2
Sn-l
NOX
Sn-l
THC
Sn-l
TPM
Sn-l
Lo
Idle
3.3
0.5
710
30
16.2
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.29
0.15
Hi
Idle
4.1
0.3
770
40
17.2
0.9
1.3
0.3
0.31
0.10
Notch 1
3.4
0.2
2900
180
63
4
1.11
0.11
1.1
0.3
Notch 2
4.0
0.4
4700
200
95
10
1.6
0.3
2.2
0.3
Notch 3
9.6
1.2
7900
200
136
7
2.24
0.15
5.5
0.6
Notch 4
20
2
10400
300
177
8
3.3
0.4
7.5
0.7
Notch 5
52
5
13900
600
231
8
4.8
0.5
10.5
1.1
Notch 6
93
17
19200
1000
377
16
7.7
0.7
16
2
Notch 7
54
13
22500
1100
460
14
9.1
1.1
22
3
Notch 8
24
4
22500
1000
449
14
8.6
1.1
23
3
Table 2-12. Mean Baseline Brake-Specific Emissions, g/bhp-h
Pollutant
CO
Sn-l
C02
Sn-l
NOX
Sn-l
THC
Sn-l
TPM
Sn-l
Notch 1
1.02
0.16
650
50
13.3
1.4
0.34
0.03
0.16
0.02
Notch 2
0.65
0.06
601
17
11.8
0.8
0.28
0.07
0.15
0.03
Notch 3
0.99
0.06
610
30
10.4
0.7
0.27
0.13
0.24
0.03
Notch 4
1.99
0.19
580
20
9.6
0.4
0.222
0.018
0.26
0.03
Notch 5
3.2
0.7
551
13
8.7
0.4
0.200
0.011
0.26
0.03
Notch 6
3.6
0.8
580
60
10.6
1.0
1.257
0.012
0.25
0.05
Notch 7
2.3
0.7
502
17
9.8
0.9
0.243
0.011
0.19
0.02
Notch 8
0.99
0.04
455
16
9.3
0.5
0.214
0.015
0.18
0.03
Table 2-13. Mean Treated Fuel Brake-Specific Emissions, g/bh
Pollutant
CO
Sn-l
C02
sn-l
NOX
Sn-l
THC
Sn-l
TPM
Sn-l
Notch 1
0.69
0.07
590
30
11.8
0.6
0.23
0.03
0.24
0.05
Notch 2
0.45
0.06
524
19
10.7
0.7
0.18
0.03
0.23
0.03
Notch 3
0.63
0.07
519
15
8.9
0.3
0.147
0.013
0.36
0.03
Notch 4
0.99
0.10
507
21
8.7
0.3
0.16
0.02
0.37
0.03
Notch 5
1.9
0.2
500
30
8.4
0.4
0.17
0.02
0.38
0.04
Notch 6
2.4
0.5
500
30
9.8
0.5
0.20
0.02
0.42
0.06
p-h
Notch 7
1.1
0.3
470
20
9.6
0.3
0.19
0.02
0.47
0.06
Notch 8
0.49
0.08
460
20
9.3
0.3
0.18
0.02
0.47
0.07
2-12
-------
Table 2-14. Mean Line-haul Duty Cycle-Weighted Emissions, g/bhp-h
Emission
Baseline
Vi
Treated
Sn-l
CO
1.71
0.08
0.96
0.13
C02
520
10
497
18
NOX
10.2
0.5
9.7
0.3
THC
0.27
0.02
0.21
0.03
TPM
0.22
0.02
0.45
0.06
Table 2-15 Mean Switch Duty Cycle-Weighted Emissions, g/bhp-h
Emission
Baseline
Sn-l
Treated
sn-i
CO
2.4
0.3
1.45
0.12
C02
660
20
600
20
NOX
12.6
0.8
11.4
0.4
THC
0.42
0.06
0.31
0.06
TPM
0.259
0.012
0.38
0.04
Tables 2-13 and 2-14 incorporate analyzer data from 6 runs for the baseline fuel and 5 runs from the
treated fuel. The treated fuel results omit notch 1 data from Run 4 because of instrumental analyzer
problems. The tables incorporate TPM data from 4 baseline and 5 treated fuel runs, respectively. Test
operators mis-handled filters for baseline run 3, high idle; run 6, notch 1 and notch 2; and treated fuel run
2, notch 1 and notch 2. This means that the duty cycle-weighted results for these runs are not valid.
Figures 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10 show the mean 3-second peak, 30-second peak, and steady state opacity or
smoke emissions. Opacity is the amount of ambient light which is blocked by the exhaust plume.
35-
Low Idle Idle
Notch 1 Notch 2
Notch 3 Notch 4 Notch 5 Notch 6
Notch 7 Notch 8
Figure 2-8. Mean 3-second Peak Opacity
2-13
-------
Low Idle Idle Notch 1 Notch 2 Notch 3 Notch 4 Notch 5 Notch 6 Notch 7 Notch 8
Figure 2-9. Mean 30-second Peak Opacity
Low Idle Idle Notch 1 Notch 2 Notch 3 Notch 4 Notch 5 Notch 6 Notch 7 Notch 3
Figure 2-10. Mean Steady-State Opacity
Tables 2-15 through 2-17 provide the opacity numerical results.
Table 2-16. Mean 3-second Peak Opacity
Notch
Baseline%
sn-l
Treated%
sn-l
Lo Idle
4
4
4
2
Hi Idle
4
2
4
2
1
10
3
8.8
1.4
2
14
3
11.9
1.7
3
19
3
13.6
1.1
4
25
4
15.4
1.6
5
29
6
16
2
6
29
6
18
2
7
20
7
11
3
8
11
4
7.5
1.5
2-14
-------
Table 2-17. Mean 30-second Peak Opacity
Notch
Baseline%
Sn-l
Treated%
Sn-l
Lo Idle
3
4
4
2
Hi Idle
3
2
3
2
1
8
2
7.2
1.3
2
9
2
7.5
.9
3
16
3
11.7
1.1
4
22
4
13.5
1.5
5
25
5
14
2
6
26
5
13.5
1.0
7
15
4
8.4
1.6
8
6
3
3.9
1.4
Table 2-18. Mean Steady-State Opacity
Notch
Baseline%
sn-l
Treated%
sn-l
Lo Idle
4
5
4
2
Hi Idle
4
2
3
3
1
7
2
6.0
1.8
2
8
2
7.2
1.0
3
15
3
11.0
1.1
4
21
4
13.5
1.5
5
25
5
14
2
6
22
5
10
2
7
11
3
5.9
0.8
8
4
3
3.5
1.8
Mean SO2 emissions at notch 8 were 0.48 and 0.72 g/bhp-h for the baseline and treated fuel, respectively.
The difference was statistically significant, but is based on a limited number of samples. Analysts
provided results for three of the baseline runs and two of the treated fuel runs. The increase amounted to
0.24 ±0.19 g/bhp-h.
Mean SO4 (sulfate) emissions were 0.007 and 0.009 g/bhp-h for the baseline and treated fuel,
respectively, based on three analyses each. The difference was not statistically significant. This report
includes these SO2 and SO4 results for information only. The SO2 increase reported here may merit
further analysis because it was highly unlikely that fuel sulfur or other properties changed. As explained
above, the supplier lifted all fuel from the same lot during the test campaign. Also, Envirofuels has stated
that the catalyzer contains no sulfur compounds, so it is difficult to account for the apparent SO2
emissions increases.
2.4. TPM RESULTS AND ADDITIONAL PARTICULATE ANALYSES
The verification test results show increased TPM emissions while the locomotive was operating on the
treated fuel as compared to baseline emissions. Duty cycle-weighted emissions, however, were
significantly less than the Tier 0 standards for both fuel conditions. The results are considered valid, but
they were unexpected based on the decreased gaseous pollutant, smoke (opacity) emissions, and non-ETV
tests performed at other venues.
In an effort to understand the significant TPM emissions increases while observing reductions in all other
emissions, the GHG Center and ETC investigated LPSS performance, dilution ratios, and the possible
effects of sampling conditions on TPM as related to opacity. Appendix A provides the discussion.
EnviroFuels and the GHG Center hypothesized that knowledge of the particulate composition or
morphology may help explain whether the reported increase was real, a sampling artifact, or suggest its
causes. Elemental verses organic carbon data and other elemental analyses (especially for iron and
phosphorus) may also be useful. The GHG Center, therefore, undertook additional analyses of the
particulate caught on the TPM filters. These analyses took place about 4 months after the test campaign.
Southern personnel selected notch 5 primary filters from both fuel conditions for analysis. The selected
filters most closely represented the overall mean results for THC and TPM. Analytical methods were:
• scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM /
EDS) with magnifications of lOOx, 300x, and lOOOx (by Rocky Mountain
Laboratories, Golden, CO)
• X-ray photoelectron spectrometry (XPS, by Rocky Mountain Laboratories)
2-15
-------
SW-846 Method 8270 organic extraction and gas chromatography with
selective detector (Method 8270 by Enthalpy Analytical, Inc., Durham, NC)
mass
SEM / EDS provided a qualitative assessment of the particle morphology combined with a list of the
elements present on the filter (except for H, He, Li, and Be). XPS supplied quantitative elemental data
(except for H and He) while Method 8270 yielded an assessment of elemental verses organic carbon.
Results of all the post-test investigations into the cause of the increased TPM emissions were
inconclusive.
2.4.1. Particulate Analyses Results
SEM micrographs showed that the particulate loading on the filters was higher for the baseline tests.
Table 2-19 presents the relevant filter and test run data for the TPM filters discussed here. Note that only
the primary filters were analyzed; the laboratories have archived the backup filters.
Table 2-19. Gravimetric Analyses and Sampling Data
SEM/
EDS;
XPS
Method
8270
Filter ID
082057A
102747B
081827A
102637B
Description
Baseline run
5, notch 5
Treated run
4, notch 5
Baseline run
2, notch 5
Treated run
2, notch 5
TPM
Mass,
mg
4.837
3.915
5.878
3.276
Dilution
Tunnel
Flow, 1/m
448.4
369.6
485.3
360.9
Dilution
Air Flow,
1/m
300.2
303.3
300.0
302.8
Exhaust
Sample
Flow, 1/m
148.2
66.3
185.1
58.1
Dilution
Ratio
3.02
5.58
2.62
6.21
Sample Flow
Rate (at
Filter), 1/m
60.1
54.0
60.0
52.8
Table 2-19 shows that the locomotive particulate sampling system dilution ratios varied between the
baseline and treated fuels. This is why reported TPM g/h emissions were higher for the treated fuel than
for the baseline, even though less particulate mass was caught on the treated fuel filters. The varying
volumetric flow rate through the system also led to different sample residence times, ranging between
approximately 1.3 and 1.7 s for the baseline and treated fuel, respectively.
Figures 2-11 and 2-12 show the SEM micrographs for the baseline and treated fuel filters. There are no
apparent morphological differences, other than that the higher TPM mass on the baseline filter provides
more extensive coverage of the filter media.
2-16
-------
Figure 2-11. Baseline Particulate Filter, SEM Image at 300X
Figure 2-12. Treated Fuel Particulate Filter, SEM Image at 300X
2-17
-------
The XPS data included peaks for C, N, O, F, Na, Si, S, and Ca. Fe and P were absent. Figures 2-13 and
2-14 provide the spectrograms and present the data.
E70-2176 082057A "Notch 5" Baseline
Name Pos. FWHM Area At%
C1s 2844 2.654 31256.9 86.4
N1s 4014 3.157 335.0
01s 532.4 3.492
F1s 6924 5.499
Si2p 105.4 6.028
S2p 169.4 2.987
Ca2p 348.4 2.477
.
600
Binding Energy (ev)
Figure 2-13. Baseline XPS Results
» 111''
90.
80.
60^
uj sn
Q. Du-
O
40.
30.
20_
10.
DE70-41 102747B "Notch 5" Treated Fuel
Li-
Name Pos. FWHM Area At%
C1s 284.7 2.687 24290.4 646
N1S 401.7 2.908 653.3 10
01s 531.7 3.281 8905.2 8.4
F1s 6897 2984 312672 231
Na 1s 1071.7 3.427 508.5 0.2
Si 2p 1037 2.934 742.4 1.7
S2p 168.7 2.987 714.9 0.8
Ca2p 347.7 2.801 219.1 01
1
I
•^ ^ U
z ° yv\M
_ -*— -vV— -^ '" \
— \
c
\ 1 ^~*~^— -*-/\
a
C
1
d „ -
z ^ i-<-l
0
« <1'ffi S5 C^
600
finding Energy (eV)
Figure 2-14. Treated Fuel XPS Results
2-18
-------
The TPM filter medium was Teflon-bonded borosilicate glass ("Emfab", Pall Corporation). This is the
most likely cause of the Si and F indications in the XPS spectrograms. The higher TPM coverage in the
baseline filter likely screened the underlying filter fibers, which would lead to the smaller F signal shown
in Figure 2-13. Table 2-20 shows the relative C, N, O, Na, S, and Ca concentrations after correcting for
Si and F.
Table 2-20. XPS Elemental Concentrations, Corrected for Si and F
Baseline
atom%
Treated
atom%
Baseline
weight%
Treated
weight%
C
92
86
90
81
N
<1
1
<1
1
0
6
11
8
14
Na
--
<1
—
<1
S
<1
1
~ 1
£3 1
3
Ca
<1
<1
<1
<1
The elevated S and O in the treated fuel particulate (Table 2-20) could represent increased sulfate
deposited on the filter, but not enough to account for the overall TPM increase reported.
Method 8270 showed little change in extractable organic matter between the two fuel conditions on the
primary filters. The backup filters were not analyzed. Total hydrocarbons were 0.018 and 0.015 mg,
which represented 3.1 and 4.6 percent of the total particulate catch, for the baseline and treated fuel
respectively. This implies that, when analyzed, most of the TPM on the primary filters was pure carbon.
It is unknown, however, whether deposited organic compounds may have volatilized during the period
(about 4 months) between sampling and the 8270 analysis. In one study [6], for example, analysts
immediately stored particulate filters in a freezer, handled, and analyzed them under yellow light to
reduce volatilization and oxidation. This was not done for the verification tests, although all filters were
refrigerated after the gravimetric analyses. The proportion of organics deposited on the primary filter, as
compared to the backup filters (which were not analyzed) may also have varied. Recent work [7] has
shown that this proportion can vary due to filter media selection.
2-19
-------
2-20
-------
3.0 DATA QUALITY
The GHG Center selects methodologies and instruments for all ETV verifications to ensure a stated level
of data quality in the final results. The test plan described these data quality objectives (DQOs). The test
plan also listed contributing measurements, their accuracy requirements, QA/QC checks, and other data
quality indicators (DQIs) that, if met, would ensure achievement of the DQOs.
Section 2.5 of the test plan and 2.0 of this report discussed the differences between the Title 40 CFR 92
Subpart B FTP and the field activities. The differences are significant but they have no impact on these
baseline - to - treated fuel comparisons because test personnel used identical methods and equipment for
each test series. Test activities met all the requirements listed in the test plan, with the exception of the
FuelCom fuel meter performance (See Section 2.2.2). This invalidated the direct fuel consumption
measurements required by the test plan. Also, substitution of the Method 2 traverses and carbon balance
method for the fuel meters departed from the Locomotive FTP. This portion of the field tests therefore did
not meet the test plan's DQO that all field activities would conform to the FTP requirements for
locomotive emissions determinations except as noted. See the discussion following Table 3-1 for the
relevant citations.
The test plan also proposed implicit DQOs that the data show statistical significance, variance similarity,
and that the 95 percent confidence interval be refined as much as possible up to a maximum of 6 test runs.
Early in the test campaign, the field team leader determined that 6 test runs for each fuel condition would
be required to meet these goals, and he scheduled field activities accordingly. The results presented in
Section 2.1 showed achievement of statistical significance for all parameters except for:
Parameter
BSFC
Brake-specific CO2
Brake-specific NOX
Brake-specific THC
Notch
1,8
1,8
1, 5, 6, 7,
3
Variance similarity could not be shown for the following cases:
Parameter Notch
BSFC 3
Brake-specific CO 5, 7
Brake-specific NOX 3, 7
Brake-specific THC 3
Brake-specific TPM 7, 8
In these instances, analysts applied Satterthwaite's approximation [8] to calculate a revised T distribution
value. They then compared Ttest to the revised T distribution value to determine statistical significance
and to calculate the confidence interval.
The following activities and procedures supported the achievement of this verification's objectives:
• on-site QA/QC checks to reconcile the achieved DQIs with the DQOs
• audit of data quality
• on-site performance evaluation audit
• on-site technical systems audit
3-1
-------
The following subsections describe reconciliation of the DQIs with the DQOs, the QA/QC checks, and
audits.
3.1. RECONCILIATION OF DQOS AND DQIS
A fundamental component of all ETV verifications is the reconciliation of the collected data and their
DQIs with the DQOs. For this verification, assessment of the qualitative DQO consists of evaluation of
whether the stated methods were followed, if the measurement instruments met the proper specifications,
and if the QA/QC checks and calibrations described in the test plan yielded satisfactory results.
Achievement of these DQIs implies that the DQOs were met. The following tables show the DQI data for
the test campaign. The achieved instrument accuracies provided in Table 3-1 are primarily the result of
multipoint laboratory calibrations performed on the individual instrument.
Table 3-1. Instrument Accuracy
Measurement
Variable
Main traction
generator voltage
Main traction
generator current
Fuel flow rate*
Exhaust gas flow rate
via Method 2
DOES2 main flowrate
DOES2 dilution air
flowrate
DOES2 analyzer
sample flowrate
LPSS main flowrate
LPSS dilution air
flowrate
Temperature LPSS
main
Diff. pressure,
LPSS/DOES
Ambient temperature
Ambient pressure
Humidity, ambient
CO
Observed
Operating
Range
0 - 840 V
0 - 2470 A
220 - 380 gph
2400 - 10700
scfm
50 - 60 1pm
40 - 55 1pm
3-4 1pm
350 - 450 1pm
298 - 305 1pm
110-140°F
not used
35-85°F
14.4- 14.8psia
20 - 100% RH
0 - 50 ppmv:
< 50 ppmvc
0 - 300 ppmv:
< 300 ppmvc
Instrument
Range
0 - 1000 V
0 - 4000 A
50 - 500 gph
n/a
0 - 100 1pm
0 - 100 1pm
0-5 1pm, each
10 1pm, total
0 - 8500 1pm
0 - 500 1pm
32 - 392 °F
0- 10"H2O
39 - 212 °F
0-15 psia
0 - 100% RH
0-50 ppmv,
Lo Idle to
Notch 4;
0 - 300 ppmv,
Notch 5 to
Notch 8
Specification
+ 0.25% FS
+ 1.0% of point
+ 1.0% of point
for differential
flow rates
+ 5.5% [9]
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 0.9°F
+ 0.5% FS
+ 0.2% FS
+ 0.25% FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0% of point
Results
+ 0.056% of point
(sensor only),
+ 0.84% total"
+ 0.048% of point
(sensor only),
+ 1.10% total"
Baseline: + 0.52% to +
5.64% of point
Treated: + 1.53% to +
15.0% of point
< + 5.5%
Baseline: + 0.86%
Treated: + 0.25%
Baseline: + 0.72%
Treated: + 0.28%
Baseline: + 0.93%
Treated: + 0.62%
+ 1.0%FS
+ 1.0%FS
+ 0.1°F
not used
+ 0.13%FS
+ 0.01%FS
+ 0.5%FS
0-50 ppmv:
Baseline: +0.21%
Treated: + 0.24%
0 - 300 ppmv:
Baseline: +0.1 5%
Treated: + 0.25%
How Verified /
Determined
Factory
calibration
Factory
calibration
Factory /
laboratory
calibration
Factory /
laboratory
calibration
Factory
calibration
Factory /
laboratory
calibration
Factory
calibration
Factory,
laboratory, field
calibration and
drift checks
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. Instrument Accuracy
Measurement
Variable
C02
NOX
THC
PM Mass
Opacity
Observed
Operating
Range
<0-3.0%c
0-100 ppmv:
< 100 ppmvc
0 - 300 ppmv:
< 300 ppmvc
< 30 ppmvc
0-6 mg
0 - 30%
Instrument
Range
0 - 3.0%
0-100 ppmv,
Lo Idle to
Notch 1;
0 - 300 ppmv,
Notch 2 to
Notch 8
0-30 ppmv
0 - 2000 mg
0 - 100%
Specification
+ 1.0% of point
+ 1.0% of point
+ 1.0% of point
+ 20ug
precision (std.
deviation)
+ 1.0%
Results
Baseline: + 0.22%
Treated: + 0.22%
0-100 ppmv:
Baseline: +0.1 5%
Treated: + 0.24%
0 - 300 ppmv:
Baseline: +0.15%
Treated: + 0.25%
Baseline: +0.18%
Treated: + 0.26%
+ 5.7 ug std. deviation
+ 0.7%
How Verified /
Determined
Factory,
laboratory, field
calibration and
drift checks
Factory,
laboratory, field
calibration and
drift checks
Factory,
laboratory, field
calibration and
drift checks
Daily calibration
Standard filters
Includes both sensor error and datalogger analog / digital conversion error
*The fuel meters did not perform satisfactorily. See Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.
cAnalyzer operating ranges as observed while sampling diluted exhaust emissions
The test results for fuel consumption are based on Method 2 velocity traverses and the carbon balance
method. 40 CFR 92.114(3)(1) allows this through references to Title 40 CFR 86, Subpart N [5]. The
Method 2 traverses showed a sampling variability of approximately ±2.2 percent as discussed in Section
2.2.2. Table 3-1 reports overall Method 2 accuracy as better than 5.5% because the achieved accuracy of
each individual measurement exceeded the method requirements [9]. This compares favorably with the
measurement methods specified in §86.1319(4). For example, the 40 CFR 86 flow metering element
accuracy specification is ± 5.0 percent alone, not including barometric pressure, temperature, or other
instrument accuracies. This means that the Method 2 traverses, with accuracies similar to the 40 CFR 86
methods, are a reasonable substitute for the direct fuel consumption measurements. Specifications and
accuracies for all other instruments, such as the gaseous analyzers, were either identical to or significantly
exceeded those required for the 40 CFR 86 methods.
Table 3-2. Calibrations
System or
Parameter
Main traction
generator voltage
Main traction
generator current
DOES2 main
flowrate
DOES2 dilution air
flowrate
DOES2 analyzer
sample flowrate
LPSS main flowrate
LPSS dilution air
flowrate
Temperature LPSS
main
Description/ Procedure
NIST-traceable calibration
with as-found data
NIST-traceable calibration
with as-found data
Calibration against Gilibrator
standard bubble flow meter or
Drycal piston-type calibrator
Calibration against Meriam
laminar flow element
Calibration against Gold seal
mass flow controller
Calibration against Omega
temperature calibrator
Date
Performed
07/09/2004
07/09/2004
Baseline:
07/19/2004
Treated:
10/19/2004
Baseline:
08/04/2004
Treated:
10/19/2004
10/21/2004
Date
Required
Within 18
months of test
Immediately
prior to travel
OK?
V
V
V
V
V
V
3-3
-------
Table 3-2. Calibrations
System or
Parameter
Diff. Pressure,
LPSS/DOES
Temperature,
ambient
Pressure, ambient
(BP)
Humidity, ambient
CO
CO2
NOX
THC
CO
CO
C02
NOX
PM mass
smoke
Description/ Procedure
Calibration against Druck
pressure calibrator
Calibrated against laboratory
standard
Calibration against Druck
pressure calibrator
Calibrated against laboratory
standard
Gas divider calibration with
protocol calibration gases at
1 1 points evenly spaced
throughout span (including
zero)
CO2 interference check
Water interference check
Water interference check
Converter efficiency check
Balance calibrated by control
weights
calibration withNIST
traceable ND filters at 0, 10,
20, 40% opacity
Date
Performed
not used
02/23/2004
10/19/2004
02/23/2004
Baseline:
07/07/2004
Treated:
10/18/2004
Baseline:
07/27/2004
Treated:
09/22/2004
Baseline:
07/08/2004
Treated:
10/18/2004
Baseline:
07/07/2004
Treated:
10/18/2004
Baseline:
07/07/2004
Treated:
09/22/2004
Daily
08/17/2004
Date
Required
Annually
Immediately
prior to travel
Annually
Every 4 weeks
or before
analyzer leaves
for field
Monthly
Daily
within 6
months of test
OK?
n/a
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Table 3-3 QA/QC Check Results
System or
Parameter
Main traction
generator
voltage
Main traction
generator power
Test duct
cyclonic flow
Exhaust gas
flow rate
DOES2 leak
checks
DOES2 flowrate
check
LPSS leak
checks
QA/QC Check
Meter reasonableness check vs.
digital voltmeter (DVM)
Reasonableness: voltage and
current within manufacturer's
specifications
Method 1 cyclonic flow
determination
Exhaust gas delta P monitoring
with stationary pilot at
representative sampling location
Tunnel is capped and drawn
from by main pump
piston-type calibrator
comparison
Tunnel is capped and drawn
from by sample pump
When Performed/
Frequency
Performed prior to
and during test
series
Prior to first test run
Throughout all test
runs
Performed daily
prior to test
Performed prior to
testing
Performed daily
prior to test
Achieved
All within + 0.9%
ofFS
All logged data
within «+ 4.3% of
onboard digital
control"
mean = 5.1°
cyclonic flow
Maximum error
relative to the
mean delta P was
+ 4.4%
<0.5 1pm
<1.0%FS
< 6.9 1pm
Allowable Result
V values within + 2.0%
ofFS
Power within 10% of
nominal for notch
< 20° cyclonic flow
Within + 15% of the
mean Method 2 delta P
at that traverse point for
each notch
< 1 1pm
+ 1.0% ofFS or + 2.0%
of point
< 10 1pm
3-4
-------
Table 3-3 QA/QC Check Results
System or
Parameter
LPSS flowrate
check
Temperature
LPSS main
LPSS / DOES2
moisture
condensation
Tunnel blank
Ambient
Pollutant Levels
Analyzer zero
and span drift
check
QA/QC Check
Each flow device is removed
from the system and compared
to a calibrated laminar flow
element
Each temperature probe is
removed and calibrated against a
temperature calibrator.
Inspection of filter holders for
moisture
Run simulation test sequence
Disconnect from exhaust probe
and run test trace also serves as
warm up run.
Analyzer is zeroed and spanned
before each reading using on site
calibration gases
When Performed/
Frequency
Performed prior to
travel
Performed prior to
travel
Immediately
following each test
run at each mode
One blank taken per
day
One sample per test
series
Each test run
Achieved
<1.0%FS
+ 0.6°C
No moisture
observed
Blank included in
filter analysis;
exceeded 5.0%
Reasonable
ambient levels
<2.0%FS
Allowable Result
+ 1.0%ofFSor + 2.0%
of point
+ 1.7°C
No visible moisture on
the internal surface of
any fitting, housing, or
filter
Include blank in filter
analysis if > 5.0% of
sample weight
Reasonable ambient
levels
Post-test zero or span
drift shall not exceed +
2.0% FS
"Locomotive had been re-engineered for mother / daughter service. Nominal data was not available.
3.2. AUDITS
The GHG Center's QA manager performed the audit of data quality by randomly selecting at least 10
percent of the data, implementing an independent analysis, and comparing the results to those cited in this
report. The QA manager then drafted a report which describes the audit and submitted it directly to the
GHG Center director. In general, the audit results were satisfactory.
Robert S. Wright of the EPA Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division and John R. Albritton of the
Research Triangle Institute's Center for Energy Technology performed an on-site technical systems audit
during the treated fuel test series. This audit's objective was to independently verify that the equipment,
procedures, and calibrations were as specified in the test plan. The audit results were satisfactory.
The field team leader conducted a performance evaluation audit of the DOES2 and gaseous emissions
analyzers by introducing an audit gas with a known concentration of CO2 in air to the DOES2 sample
train, both at the test duct (which challenged the whole system) and while bypassing the heated umbilical.
The system operator knew only that the concentration would be between 0.5 and 4.0 percent CO2 in air.
Table 3-4 provides the results.
Table 3-4. Performance Evaluation Audit
Date
08/19/2004
10/26/2004
Analyzer
Response
2.10%C02
% difference"
-16.0
System
Response
2.10%CO2
1.97%C02
% difference"
-16.0
-21.2
"Audit gas concentration was 2.50% CO2 in air
The individual audits represent a single challenge at one concentration, so no statistical inferences may be
drawn, but the audit results indicate that the system may have responded with a negative offset during
both the baseline and treated fuel tests. The offsets are of similar magnitudes and it can be noted that the
3-5
-------
difference between the two audits (0.13% CO2) is less than the standard deviation of CO2 concentration
for most notches. Some examples are as follows:
Table 3-5. Mean CO2 Concentrations
Baseline
Notch
1
3
5
7
C02%
1.93
3.34
4.37
4.35
Sn-1%
0.08
0.13
0.09
0.16
Treated
C02%
1.84
3.26
4.26
4.18
Sn-1%
0.10
0.12
0.22
0.22
This means that possible system response differences between the baseline and treated fuels were, in
general, similar to or hidden within the observed sample variation. This did not impact the ability to
perform the baseline / treated fuel comparisons.
3-6
-------
4.0 TECHNICAL AND PERFORMANCE DATA SUPPLIED BY ENVIROFUELS, LP
EnviroFuels, L.P. submitted the contents of this section. They are reproduced in their entirety except for
minor changes intended to preserve editorial consistency (formatting, section numbering, etc.). In
accordance to ETV program goals, this section provides an opportunity for Envirofuels, LP to respond to
the verification results and to provide additional comments, in-house data, anecdotes, or other
information regarding the Diesel Fuel Catalyzer, its applications, or effects not addressed elsewhere in
this report. The GHG Center did not peer review the vendor's submittal and has not independently
verified the statements made in this section. The information presented in this section does not affect the
overall verification results.
4.1. TPM DETERMINATIONS
EnviroFuels, L.P. has doubts about the validity of the TPM data reported in this verification
because of questions about the LPSS calibrations. This conclusion is based upon the following
observations:
1. In several hundred laboratory and field tests of the catalyzer, no case has been
observed in which the particulate increased concomitant with a decrease in CO and THC
emissions. Such a result would be inconsistent with the chemistry underlying the
mechanism of catalyzer effectiveness.
2. The opacity measurements, made directly through exhaust stack gas sampling, are
consistent with expected TPM decreases which would accompany lower CO and THC
treated fuel emissions. The single scattering albedo for black carbon (soot) particles is
about 0.5 [10], so substantial amounts of absorption and scattering by soot particles
occur. With reference to the opacity measurements, then, it is difficult to conceive of
additional particles which would lower the opacity; negative absorption (emission of light)
is a physical improbability in this case and negative scattering is without physical
meaning.
3. Filters from the ETV testing have been subjected to several tests that have failed to
detect additional components of the particulate. SEM / EDS and XPS analyses at Rocky
Mountain Laboratories revealed only increased particulate, most of which is soot, on the
Notch 5 baseline filters. Less soot occurs on the Notch 5 treated filters, and little
difference exists between the other components in the baseline and treated cases. The
S content in both cases, for example, is about 0.1 atom% (uncorrected for filter material).
Enthalpy, Inc., extracted filter samples from the baseline and treated fuel experiments
and subjected the extracts to GC/MS analysis. Those analyses revealed very low
percentages of hydrocarbons which similar experiments over the years have shown to
be typical components of soot particles from the combustion of carbonaceous fuels [11,
12]. Thus, we have been able to find no evidence for components of the particulate
emitted by the catalyzer-treated fuel that are not present in that emitted by the baseline
fuel.
The solution to this dilemma may lie in the determination of TPM with the LPSS. The two
different LPSS operators selected significantly different sample dilution ratios for the baseline
and treated fuel tests. The reported TPM emissions should not vary with different dilution ratios,
4-1
-------
assuming the same actual emission rates. EnviroFuels questions this assumption because of
the apparent correlation between the TPM and dilution ratios as discussed in Appendix A. Wall
effects and sedimentation, functions of aerosol mass density, number density and flow rate,
were almost certainly different in the two cases.
Although later laboratory work appears to show no correlation effects (see Appendix A), field
conditions varied widely by comparison. Different engine type, size, ambient conditions, and
exhaust gas temperatures all may have induced changes in the field-reported TPM emission
rates which would not have been observed in the laboratory.
4.2. BASELINE FUEL CONSUMPTION MEASUREMENT FOR NOTCHES 7 AND 8
The EMD engine for the EnviroFuels, L.P. ETV test used mechanical fuel injection. Fuel
injection into the cylinders of the engine is a direct function of the RPM of the engine and a
mechanically adjusted injector rack setting for each individual fuel injector. The injectors inject
approximately the same amount of fuel with each stroke unless the injector rack length is
shortened by the electro-hydraulic control system of the engine's governor to reduce the power
output of the engine. The governor receives electrical control signals from the locomotive's main
generator output control system and controls the rack setting as required to produce the
requested power. The governor also balances the rack settings against the electrical system's
power limiting parameters and the engine's mechanical limitations.
The engine power output is a direct result of the amount of fuel injected. During baseline testing
the engine showed the correlation among the increase in fuel, RPM change and power output
change for notches 1 to 7 shown in Figure 4-1. The power increase and RPM increase between
notch 7 and notch 8 with no related fuel consumption increase is inconsistent with the operation
of this type of EMD engine and cannot be explained.
70.0%
Notch Setting
Figure 4-1. Baseline Percent Change from Previous Notch
4-2
-------
This inconsistency—more power without an increase in fuel consumption under the same
conditions—occurred in each of the six baseline runs. Keeping in mind that the engine operated
in each notch for at least 6 minutes, the data show that on the same day, typically under the
same weather conditions, using the same fuel, the engine's power output increased by ten
percent with no change in fuel consumption. It is not possible to explain this change with the
data available.
If the notch 8 efficiency was, in fact, the same as notch 7 efficiency, then the reported fuel
economy improvement for notch 8 would be approximately 7 percent instead of 0 percent.
Similarly, fuel efficiency for the Line Haul Duty Cycle would be approximately 9 percent instead
of 5 percent.
4-3
-------
4-4
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
[1] Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002, Energy Information Administration,
Washington, DC. 2003
[2] Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 24, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
2004
[3] Test and Quality Assurance Plan—EnviroFuels Diesel Fuel Catalyzer Fuel Additive, SRI/USEPA-
GHG-QAP-33, August, 2004
[4] Title 40 CFR 92—Control of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Locomotive Engines,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Adopted at Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 73, April
16, 1998
[5] Title 40 CFR 86, Subpart N—Emission Regulations for New Otto-Cycle and Diesel Heavy-Duty
Engines; Gaseous and Paniculate Exhaust Test Procedures, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. Adopted at 62 FR 47135, 5 September 1997
[6] On-Road Emissions of Paniculate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Black Carbon from
Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles, A. H. Miguel, T. W. Kirchstetter, R. A. Harley, S. V. Hering,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp 450 - 455. 1998
[7] PM Measurement Artifact: Organic Vapor Deposition on Different Filter Media, R. E. Chase, G. J.
Duszkiewicz, J. F. O. Richert, D. Lewis, M. M. Marcq, N. Xu, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper
No. 2004-01-0967, presented at the SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI. 2004
[8] Statistics Concepts and Applications, D. R. Anderson, E. J. Sweeney, T. A. Williams. West
Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. 1986
[9] Significance of Errors in Stack Sampling Measurements, R. T. Shigehara, W. F. Todd, W. S. Smith,
National Air Pollution Control Administration. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association, St. Louis, MO. 1970
[10] Black Carbon in The Environment, E. D. Goldberg, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. 1985, pp
134-136
[11] The Structure ofHexane soot II: Extraction Studies, Akhter, M.S., Chughtai, A.R., Smith, D.M.,
AppliedSpectroscopy, Vol. 39, 154-167, 1985.
[12] Effects of Air/fuel Combustion Ratio on the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Content of
Carbonaceous Soots from Selected Fuels, Jones, C.C., Chughtai, A.R., Murugaverl, B., Smith, D.M.,
Carbon, Vol. 42, 2471-2484, 2004
5-1
-------
-------
Appendix A
Post-Test LPSS Correlations
-------
Introduction
The TPM results in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 showed increased emissions even though all gaseous and visible
emissions (smoke opacity) decreased significantly. The results are valid and the increases are reported as
real. This is because "mass tends to be conserved during the dilution and sampling process" [Al], but
consideration of the factors that could have affected the results is useful.
TPM as Related to Opacity
The increased TPM emissions at lower opacity is of interest. Opacity at higher levels can have a known
relationship to particulate emissions if the particle size distribution is known accurately [A2]. The
relationship breaks down quickly at low opacity levels [A3], such as those seen during the test campaign,
and if the size distribution changes. Fuel sulfur content [A4], sampling conditions such as residence
times combined with ultimate dilution ratios [A5, A6, A7], sulfur saturation ratios experienced in the
sampling system [A6], and other factors all have synergistic effects on particle size distribution and
number. These changes may have affected light scattering and the resultant smoke visibility [Al].
Exhaust gas temperatures, for example, were lower during the treated fuel tests (see Table 2-6), which
could have had unknown effects on the collected TPM.
Exhaust Gas and Engine Intake Air Temperature Changes
Many factors, other than use of the fuel catalyzer, could have contributed to the increased TPM
emissions. For example, Table 2-6 showed that the exhaust gas and engine intake air temperatures were
lower for the treated fuel tests. It is possible that the temperature changes could have affected the
particulate emissions, such as by changing condensation behavior. The quantitative effects, however, are
unknown.
LPSS Operations
LPSS operations may have introduced sampling artifacts even though the equipment met the DQIs listed
in Tables 3-1 through 3-3. Table 2-19 showed that operators used different dilution ratios for the baseline
and treated fuel tests. Figure A-l shows that the LPSS response appears to have changed at different
dilution ratios, especially in the higher operating notches. This effect became more pronounced at higher
TPM emission rates and lower tunnel flow rates, as shown by the changing slopes of the trend lines.
Al
-------
30
25
20
I
c
i
0)
Q.
(/)
re
O
10
•
•
R2=0.4426x
7
/
/
/• •
/
*
R2 = 0.852AX
X
R2= 0.7023 •
v^
•"
R2 = 0.1863
izi
R2 = o:
«^-*^^
«r>^ *R^O
R"
* Y *
X
R2 =
+ ^ T
^624-^
.B87S-
= 0.0249
X X
0.5455
•If.
325
375
475
425
Liters per Minute
Figure A-l. LPSS Dilution Tunnel Flow verses Reported TPM Emissions
The correlations shown in Figure A-l, however, do not necessarily prove that the changing sample
dilution ratios actually caused the reported TPM to change. For example, TPM as reported by the LPSS
also appears to be correlated to changing exhaust gas and inlet air temperatures. While the changing
LPSS response shown here is not sufficient to invalidate the TPM data, the GHG Center or ETC cannot
definitively state whether these are sampling artifacts, effects of engine operations changes, due to other
factors, or truly representative of the particulate emissions. Note that ETC performed post-test laboratory
comparisons between the LPSS and a constant volume sampling system. The results, quoted below,
indicate little correlation between dilution ratios and reported TPM.
As a comparison, gaseous emission rates as reported by the DOES2 appear to have little dependence on
the dilution tunnel flow. Figure A-2 shows the DOES2 system response for CO2.
A2
-------
20000 -
0] 15000 -
c
i
°-
5
O 10000 -
5000 -
.
_f
>4i^
_^^
_^^
R^TZTC-
R2 = 085^1
====^
KX
H-
5^ ^
J16985-
« Baseline Notch 8
• Treated Notch 8
Baseline Notch 5
XTreated Notch 5
X Baseline Notch 3
• Treated Notch 3
+ Baseline Notch 1
-Treated Notch 1
58
60
62
68
70
72
64 66
Liters per Minute
Figure A-2. DOES2 Dilution Tunnel Flow verses Reported CO2 Emissions
ETC performed a series of correlation studies in response to these concerns. The following memorandum
presents the results of the study.
A3
-------
Date: 10.05.2005
Emissions Research and Measurement Division
Environment Canada
Environmental Technology Centre
335 River Road
Ottawa Ontario Canada
K1A OH3
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
Southern Research Institute
Attention: Bob Richards
Subject: Correlation and Validation of the Locomotive Particulate Sampling System
(LPSS) Technology
Dear Sir:
The Emissions Research and Measurement Division's (ERMD) LPSS has recently completed a follow-up
cross correlation study comparing the test system used for particulate collection during the locomotive
field testing, known as the LPSS, and the ERMD's Heavy Duty Engine Emissions Test Cell #1 (HD cell)
which is used to conduct diesel emissions research and technology verifications. This testing was
conducted on May 6th 2005.
The LPSS was designed to collect diluted exhaust samples in order to measure total particulate matter
(TPM). The HD cell employs constant volume sampling (CVS) which conforms to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Title 40 Part 86. The LPSS was tested in an "as found" condition meaning that no
calibration settings were altered or verified prior to testing. A leak check was performed prior to the
commencement of testing to replicate field procedures. This letter summarizes the observations and
results that were obtained from this validation work.
Heavy Duty Cell Correlation
A Mack AI 300A engine running on an ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel was used to generate the
exhaust emissions for the correlation between the heavy-duty test cell equipment and the LPSS. The
engine was tested using a steady state mode with an engine set point of 900rpm and 50% throttle. Double
Emfab 70mm filters were used to collect the TPM and these filters were allowed to stabilize in a humidity
and temperature controlled room before and after testing. The engine air intake was measured using a
2500 scfm Laminar Flow Element (LFE) in order to calculate the mass emission rate.
Due to the large amount of exhaust the LPSS draws, testing for the LPSS and HD cell does not occur
simultaneously so as not to affect the HD cell results used for comparison. Sample collection took place
in the following order: HD cell #1, LPSS #1-7, HD cell #2 and #3. Since this study was initiated in order
to compare the mass emission rates at different tunnel flow set points, three tests were completed using
the same tunnel flow rate as used in the 'Treated' test series during the field testing, followed by three
repeats using the same tunnel flow rates as seen in the 'Baseline' testing portion of the field project. A
seventh test was performed in order to gather data on a mid range setting in the event that any trends did
appear. The following tables present the results of testing.
A4
-------
May 6th, 2005 testing
LPSS Steady State Test Results
Test run ID
LPSS 1ST #1
LPSS 1ST #2
LPSS 1ST #3
LPSS 1ST #4
LPSS 1ST #5
LPSS 1ST #6
LPSS 1ST #7
Average
Stdev
cov
LPSS
Tunnel flow
set point
(scfm)
13.0
13.0
13.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
14.7
Measured
LPSS
Tunnel flow
(slpm)
369.72
368.77
369.26
467.67
464.99
464.61
420.98
Measured
LPSS
Exhaust
flow
(slpm)
68.01
67.10
67.55
161.38
158.28
157.03
119.22
Engine Air
Intake
Flow
(scfm)
190.80
189.40
190.77
191.31
191.31
193.65
192.14
Test
Duration
(sees)
480.00
363.00
360.00
360.00
360.00
360.00
359.00
Mass
emission
rate
g/bhp-hr
0.1422
0.1295
0.1269
0.1307
0.1264
0.1284
0.1206
0.1292
0.0066
5.1%
March 9th. 2004 testing
HD Cell Steady State Test results
Test run ID
HD cell #1
HD cell #1
HD cell #1
Average
%
difference
from LPSS
Total flow
through CVS
(SCF)
28198
13970
13967
Test
Duration
(sees)
600
300
300
Mass emission
rate g/bhp-hr
0.1223
0.1311
0.1308
0.1281
0.86%
Note that the% difference = (LPSS- HD cell)/HD cell
Leak Check
Prior to correlation testing a leak check was conducted on the LPSS system including the heated line.
The leak check was conducted under a vacuum and showed a leak in the range of 0.41 to 0.25 1pm. This
leak check passes the standard set out in the Locomotive test plan.
Recommendations and Observations
1. The mass emission rates stated above do not include a correction for tunnel background. A
tunnel blank was taken for the LPSS, however the number exceeded all tunnel blanks seen in the
field by three times and therefore it was not considered representative of the sampling conditions
seen in the field. It is theorized that the tunnel blank was compromised by the set up procedures
and the leak check of the LPSS. During the set-up double filters were not installed thereby
allowing particulate to collect on the filter holder. The filter holder was cleaned prior to LPSS
A5
-------
TST # 1. Also, no tunnel background was taken for the HD cell and it would not be appropriate to
correct one sample for tunnel background and not the other.
2. The LPSS correlated to the Heavy Duty Test cell to within less then a 1% difference when
looking at the average mass emission rates of the two test systems.
3. Since the main goal of the correlation testing was to verify whether the tunnel flow rate through
the LPSS artificially affects the mass emission rate, it is important to note that when comparing
the flow rates at the 13.0 and 17.0 set points, with the corresponding mass emission rates - no
trends evolved as seen in the following chart. An ANOVA test was performed and confirmed
that there was no statistically significant difference between the mass emission rates at the two set
points.
Total Tunnel Flow vs. g/bhp-hr
0.1450
^ 0.1400
»_
£
Q.
.Q
™ 0.1350
13
O
0.1300
I
LLJ
0.1250
0.1200
1st test of
comparison
study
350.00 370.00 390.00 410.00 430.00
Tunnel Flow SCFM
450.00
470.00
490.00
Figure A-3. LPSS Correlation Data
If you require more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jillian Hendren,
ERMD
Environment Canada
c.c.
Fred Hendren, Chief ERMD
Greg Rideout, Head Toxic Emissions Research & Field Studies, ERMD
Chris Beregszaszy, Project Engineer, Heavy Duty test cell
A6
-------
Appendix A References
[Al] Engines and Nanoparticles: A Review, D. B. Kittleson, Ph.D., Journal of Aerosol Sciences, Vol.
29, No. 5/6, pp. 575-588. 1998
[A2] Plume Opacity and Paniculate Mass Concentration, Pilat, M. J., Ensor, D. S., Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 4, pp. 163-173. 1970
[A3] Plume Opacity Related to Particle Mass Concentration and Size Distribution, Thielke, J. F., Pilat,
M. J., Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 2349-2447. 1978
[A4] Diesel Fuel Effects on Locomotive Exhaust Emissions, S. G. Fritz, P.E., T. Brasil, P.E.,
International Council on Combustion
congress, Hamburg, Germany. 2001
International Council on Combustion Engines (CIMAC), Paper No. 7A-05, presented at the 23rd CIMAC
[A5] Evolution of Particle Number Distribution Near Roadways—Part I: Analysis of Aerosol Dynamics
and its Implications for Engine Emission Measurement, K. M. Zhang, A. S. Wexler, Atmospheric
Environment, No. 38, pp 6643 - 6653. 2004
[A6] Review of Diesel Paniculate Matter Sampling Methods—Final Report, D. B. Kittleson, Ph.D., M.
Arnold, W. F. Watts, Jr., Ph.D, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 1999
[A7] Paniculate Mass Measurements of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Exhaust Using 2007 CVS PM
Sampling Parallel to QCM and TEOM—Final Report, I. A. Khalek, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI. 2003
A7
-------
Appendix B
Test Run Results
-------
Table B-l. Baseline Fuel Consumption (carbon balance method), gph
Run / Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Lo Idle
4.10
4.36
5.15
4.52
5.01
3.02
4.36
0.77
Hi Idle
4.88
5.13
5.84
5.33
5.77
4.82
5.30
0.44
1
19.48
20.39
22.46
20.98
23.95
21.29
21.43
1.58
2
34.73
33.35
35.73
34.85
33.59
34.70
34.49
0.88
3
59.64
57.01
56.41
64.31
62.78
62.13
60.38
3.22
4
73.19
75.00
78.68
77.43
77.46
80.43
77.03
2.59
5
97.72
97.13
97.08
102.24
97.41
100.46
98.67
2.16
6
144.48
128.30
145.27
148.75
152.75
142.84
143.73
8.34
7
150.91
147.41
159.59
153.81
162.07
152.11
154.32
5.52
8
162.36
154.51
156.75
154.76
153.00
144.60
154.33
5.78
Table B-2. Treated Fuel Consumption (carbon balance method), gph
Run / Notch
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Lo Idle
4.63
4.85
4.68
5.00
5.23
5.03
4.90
0.23
Hi Idle
5.01
5.45
4.97
5.25
5.66
5.44
5.30
0.27
1
18.55
20.68
18.61
N/A
20.27
21.22
19.87
1.22
2
29.75
32.46
31.24
31.86
32.49
34.38
32.03
1.54
3
52.13
53.04
54.49
54.56
55.68
56.40
54.38
1.59
4
70.60
69.30
73.81
72.75
72.51
67.96
71.16
2.25
5
94.50
92.04
98.56
100.94
97.44
91.17
95.77
3.84
6
125.26
125.00
138.74
141.38
136.33
128.47
132.53
7.17
7
143.57
155.92
157.71
163.67
159.43
147.10
154.57
7.68
8
142.44
152.31
159.82
162.13
154.03
153.52
154.04
6.88
Table B-3. Baseline bhp
Run / Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
1
290.7
292.4
288.7
282.1
285.5
286.6
287.7
3.7
2
504.3
503.4
503.9
499.8
504.5
494.4
501.7
4.0
3
874.7
868.3
866.7
865.2
863.9
858.7
866.3
5.3
4
1165.6
1162.0
1157.2
1151.7
1150.2
1157.9
1157.4
5.9
5
1568.2
1551.5
1559.0
1557.3
1551.9
1536.1
1554.0
10.6
6
2387.2
1974.3
2299.3
2322.1
1949.0
1958.9
2148.5
207.8
7
2686.8
2654.1
2698.5
2667.4
2682.3
2661.9
2675.2
16.8
8
2971.9
2970.2
2973.1
2964.3
2938.2
2951.3
2961.5
13.9
Bl
-------
Table B-4. Treated bhp
Run / Notch
1
2
o
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
1
297.6
298.3
280.8
294.4
284.0
304.3
293.2
9.0
2
531.1
529.4
524.0
526.6
522.8
577.6
535.2
21.0
3
913.8
916.3
902.6
905.8
903.6
962.5
917.4
22.8
4
1229.0
1224.2
1214.6
1217.8
1218.0
1254.6
1226.4
14.8
5
1664.1
1649.2
1623.3
1630.4
1636.2
1669.0
1645.4
18.6
6
2339.0
2341.8
2270.8
2278.7
2333.7
2354.2
2319.7
35.6
7
2889.4
2877.6
2822.6
2882.3
2877.7
2869.2
2869.8
24.1
8
2909.0
2902.1
2912.6
2904.0
2901.7
2901.1
2905.1
4.6
Table B-5. Baseline CO g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Lo Idle
3.6833
5.2487
5.1983
5.0392
5.2148
5.2216
4.9343
0.617392
Hi Idle
4.7589
5.5454
6.2430
6.0248
6.4966
6.3419
5.9018
0.649988
1
3.5669
4.7024
4.9505
5.1139
5.5656
5.4401
4.8899
0.720904
2
4.8299
5.1756
5.4637
5.2686
5.5574
6.1580
5.4089
0.446195
3
13.8269
14.1493
13.2343
14.5596
14.2929
15.5453
14.2680
0.773856
4
33.6921
40.5721
35.5568
38.5811
38.0594
43.7638
38.3709
3.574372
5
51.0595
78.3031
96.7614
92.0241
81.3535
91.9923
81.9156
16.67084
6
116.6610
110.0549
129.6962
122.2616
164.7529
117.4745
126.8169
19.69553
7
135.9270
125.0941
75.1477
131.4441
78.3384
73.7032
103.2758
30.40787
8
48.7499
47.1276
51.2079
48.1980
51.1965
47.4468
48.9878
1.806821
Table B-6. Treated CO g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Lo Idle
4.2791
2.9453
3.2772
2.9767
3.1058
3.0177
3.2670
0.5099628
Hi Idle
4.4962
3.8042
3.8533
4.3920
3.8850
3.9548
4.0643
0.300078
1
3.4194
3.0084
3.6239
—
3.4814
3.1600
3.3386
0.249643
2
3.3822
3.7385
4.1359
4.7185
4.0745
3.8463
3.9826
0.449899
3
8.3766
8.1492
9.9807
10.2752
9.6127
11.4523
9.6411
1.234798
4
17.9507
18.7042
22.4876
22.6223
20.2513
19.1631
20.1965
1.973586
5
49.9118
49.8591
57.3790
59.2268
51.6940
45.1399
52.2018
5.234801
6
76.9784
86.8480
116.5676
112.5722
82.8139
81.4676
92.8746
17.144693
7
39.2637
53.5400
75.8448
58.8581
52.7315
41.7008
53.6565
13.19347
8
17.4043
22.8939
27.4145
27.9258
24.6798
21.1760
23.5824
3.979641
B2
-------
Table B-7. Baseline CO2 g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
589.91
624.58
740.32
647.96
721.56
430.98
625.88
111.372
Hildle
700.77
722.77
838.43
764.45
828.59
690.63
757.61
64.105
1
2837.84
2968.35
3270.43
3054.82
3488.05
3100.02
3119.92
230.368
2
5063.71
4857.69
5207.93
5078.92
4897.19
5057.62
5027.17
129.021
3
8686.95
8304.13
8217.08
9355.64
9148.02
9051.08
8793.82
467.147
4
10634.24
10889.92
11434.16
11246.40
11253.84
11677.90
11189.41
375.189
5
14191.49
14062.89
14024.48
14786.20
14099.30
14528.50
14282.14
306.881
6
20911.82
18559.33
21005.17
21525.32
22046.87
20673.11
20786.94
1197.586
7
21818.06
21323.99
23179.52
22248.56
23539.76
22092.45
22367.06
838.351
8
23628.23
22482.71
22803.38
22519.25
22257.26
21039.57
22455.07
842.054
Table B-8. Treated CO2 g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
o
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
665.64
700.86
675.99
722.48
755.90
728.31
708.20
34.018
Hildle
719.25
807.19
716.69
756.53
817.20
786.78
767.27
43.466
1
2703.02
3015.80
2711.22
—
2954.74
3094.46
2895.85
179.287
2
4337.98
4734.76
4556.08
4644.63
4738.98
5017.46
4671.65
225.177
o
J
7602.14
7735.14
7944.08
7953.80
8118.21
8222.91
7929.38
231.277
4
10283.03
10092.16
10746.60
10590.92
10559.64
9899.31
10361.94
326.349
5
13722.95
13363.56
14304.83
14648.39
14151.28
13248.05
13906.51
553.355
6
18169.20
18116.75
20075.83
20467.60
19779.93
18636.06
19207.56
1026.048
7
20904.99
22680.87
22908.92
23806.95
23198.02
21419.53
22486.55
1105.048
8
20776.47
22202.88
23292.69
23634.06
22455.21
22390.62
22458.66
997.698
Table B-9. Baseline NOx g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
14.165
16.568
18.370
17.112
18.707
16.799
16.953
1.6160
Hildle
13.625
19.040
19.864
20.004
19.809
19.881
18.704
2.5121
1
53.652
59.342
66.538
64.244
70.694
66.919
63.565
6.1235
2
93.655
90.811
102.611
97.897
96.804
104.227
97.668
5.1259
3
137.097
143.971
142.838
160.618
157.498
159.057
150.180
10.0493
4
176.822
179.990
181.156
190.084
185.876
195.031
184.827
6.8386
5
215.371
219.196
222.406
237.298
222.753
236.452
225.579
9.1494
6
379.667
340.091
375.733
414.008
373.248
391.229
378.996
24.2206
7
395.722
394.655
466.166
426.255
486.428
462.435
438.610
38.8267
8
458.255
446.234
454.432
514.568
450.324
445.007
461.470
26.4827
B3
-------
Table B-10. Treated NOx g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
15.262
15.583
15.817
17.204
17.190
16.409
16.244
0.8280
Hildle
15.625
17.070
17.118
17.997
18.074
17.312
17.199
0.8848
1
54.108
59.814
54.460
—
57.616
62.647
62.576
3.6176
2
90.139
91.974
89.105
94.349
91.510
115.154
95.372
9.8538
3
132.127
135.388
139.988
131.202
130.413
149.787
136.484
7.4051
4
168.476
169.013
178.664
177.832
176.999
190.364
176.891
7.9805
5
222.850
224.555
233.974
243.482
233.204
225.746
230.635
7.8009
6
367.297
352.938
369.272
389.670
393.657
388.712
376.924
16.1740
7
444.469
459.500
444.145
477.454
470.761
465.269
460.266
13.7157
8
429.372
437.856
450.800
461.138
447.914
468.620
449.284
14.4614
Table B-ll. Baseline THC g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
.2062
.4721
.5520
.5156
.0045
0.8870
1.2729
0.283501
Hildle
.5255
.6567
.9256
.8395
.5704
.3099
1.6379
0.222954
1
1.5489
1.5481
1.8339
1.6666
1.6203
1.4146
1.6054
0.140776
2
2.2743
3.3546
2.5044
2.4962
1.5487
1.8445
2.3371
0.625572
3
3.4425
3.0660
3.2651
7.5950
2.9783
2.8440
3.8651
1.839476
4
4.4934
4.1375
4.5536
4.6910
3.7965
4.0305
4.2838
0.348011
5
5.1786
5.0873
5.5659
5.5371
4.8631
4.9261
5.1930
0.299661
6
9.3959
8.6909
9.7531
9.8553
8.8179
8.5805
9.1823
0.558704
7
10.7570
10.4446
11.7961
10.9244
10.9227
10.1843
10.8382
0.551578
8
11.0834
10.7893
11.3099
10.5140
10.6174
9.0942
10.5680
0.780065
Table B-12. Treated THC g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
1.5523
1.1962
0.9160
1.0807
1.0355
0.6626
1.0739
0.296453
Hildle
.7537
.4218
.2533
.3962
.1564
0.8423
1.3040
0.304003
1
1.1909
1.1395
1.0892
—
1.2075
0.9249
1.1104
0.113574
2
1.9441
1.7648
1.5603
1.8203
1.5540
1.1770
1.6367
0.271536
3
2.1984
2.3754
2.2673
2.3170
2.3357
1.9647
2.2431
0.14942
4
3.6081
3.6795
3.4340
3.2890
3.2874
2.4415
3.2899
0.445811
5
4.8961
4.9269
4.9373
5.3224
4.7254
3.7850
4.7655
0.518782
6
7.5692
7.6627
8.4216
8.5260
7.5571
6.4722
7.7015
0.741513
7
7.8794
10.1692
9.7386
9.8726
9.5527
7.4780
9.1151
1.137721
8
7.2715
9.6396
9.9794
8.6835
8.7907
7.4071
8.6286
1.114432
B4
-------
Table B-13. Baseline TPM g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
0.22354
0.20090
0.16834
0.17574
0.33802
0.11788
0.20407
0.074617
Hildle
0.29247
0.30205
0.27061
0.30339
0.12798
0.25930
0.074572
1
0.81087
0.86890
0.57652
0.84171
0.77358
—
0.77431
0.11613
2
1.45507
1.47894
0.94248
1.32253
1.22327
—
1.28446
0.217413
o
J
3.67758
3.77941
2.86055
3.67139
3.71691
4.19927
3.65085
0.435285
4
5.06325
5.71156
4.23285
5.43872
5.22991
4.22765
4.98399
0.62276
5
6.87389
7.40327
5.82316
7.14004
6.94766
5.55494
6.62383
0.751662
6
7.91973
10.74562
6.81528
9.84217
8.81205
8.03041
8.69421
1.422028
7
8.90640
9.90038
8.07628
9.09528
8.33556
6.66067
8.49576
1.101835
8
9.20165
10.97464
8.07667
7.81088
8.70294
7.40686
8.69561
1.28661
Table B-14. Treated TPM, g/m
Run/Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
Std Dev
Loldle
0.2382
0.2424
0.2955
0.5564
0.1135
0.2728
0.2865
0.1464942
Hildle
0.2896
0.3689
0.2616
0.4551
0.3214
0.1510
0.3080
0.102664
1
1.5535
1.0970
0.8340
1.3450
1.0306
0.9840
1.1407
0.262583
2
2.1041
—
1.6803
2.4339
2.1552
2.5031
2.1753
0.325892
3
4.7730
—
5.0635
5.5492
5.8125
6.3120
5.5020
0.607955
4
6.3857
7.3891
7.2658
8.0061
7.7994
8.2087
7.5091
0.656709
5
8.3957
10.6331
10.1478
11.0248
11.2015
11.5060
10.4848
1.126778
6
13.9702
15.0642
14.4036
18.9022
17.4596
18.2054
16.3342
2.1114216
7
18.3239
21.8134
19.4659
23.4480
25.0533
25.8815
22.3310
3.0265
8
18.6820
20.6544
20.6783
23.7695
26.3077
27.0281
22.8533
3.381343
B5
-------
Table B-15. Peak Opacity
Baseline
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
4.01
3.99
9.86
14.46
18.76
25.34
28.98
28.98
19.98
10.78
Std Dev
4.46
2.34
2.75
3.11
3.42
4.24
5.98
6.14
6.89
3.97
Treated
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
4.42
3.81
8.84
11.87
13.59
15.45
15.98
17.88
11.04
7.52
Std Dev
2.43
1.83
1.35
1.73
1.11
1.56
2.14
1.96
2.67
1.46
Table B-16. 30-Second Peak Opacity
Baseline
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
3.48
3.04
7.99
8.76
15.55
21.91
25.48
25.73
14.62
5.65
Std Dev
4.40
2.48
2.26
2.30
3.00
3.88
5.16
5.38
4.36
3.48
Treated
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
4.18
2.58
7.20
7.54
11.68
13.52
14.15
13.47
8.39
3.86
Std Dev
2.33
2.17
1.34
0.91
1.14
1.50
2.03
1.00
1.63
1.38
B6
-------
Table B-17. Steady-State Opacity
Baseline
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
3.78
3.75
7.11
8.32
14.66
21.38
24.61
22.22
11.10
4.39
Std Dev
4.57
2.32
2.31
2.43
2.79
3.50
5.07
5.16
2.72
3.46
Treated
Notch
Lo Idle
Hi Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mean
4.31
2.75
6.05
7.16
11.02
13.52
14.22
10.48
5.88
3.53
Std Dev
2.40
2.67
1.77
0.96
1.09
1.53
2.34
2.11
0.84
1.77
Table B-18. Baseline RPM
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Averages
Std Dev
Loldle
254
254
253
254
253
254
0.49
Idle
321
320
320
319
319
320
0.75
1
304
302
303
297
296
300
3.26
2
384
383
383
383
382
386
384
1.26
3
492
489
491
492
495
493
492
1.83
4
565
569
569
566
567
569
568
1.61
5
653
651
651
651
650
651
651
0.90
6
729
730
732
737
731
731
732
2.56
7
828
825
830
829
829
829
828
1.60
8
910
910
914
911
913
912
1.62
B7
-------
Table B-19. Treated RPM
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Averages
Std Dev
Loldle
254
254
253
253
253
254
254
0.55
Idle
320
318
318
319
317
320
319
1.21
1
319
318
317
316
316
316
317
1.26
2
389
388
388
387
387
387
388
0.82
3
499
498
498
499
498
496
498
1.10
4
573
574
574
573
573
573
573
0.52
5
656
655
656
652
653
655
655
1.64
6
733
733
732
733
733
732
733
0.52
7
830
830
—
830
831
830
830
0.45
8
913
913
915
914
915
916
914
1.21
Table B-20. Baseline Main Generator Voltage, V
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
2.9
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.2
2.7
Idle
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.7
Averages
Std Dev
1
263.3
259.2
262.3
258.7
260.4
257.4
260.2
2.2
2
343.2
342.3
343.2
341.4
343.0
339.8
342.2
1.3
3
454.1
452.0
452.3
451.5
451.0
450.0
451.8
1.4
4
525.2
520.2
524.1
522.2
521.4
520.1
522.2
2.1
5
606.0
607.5
604.8
603.9
603.2
605.5
605.2
1.6
6
754.1
681.4
739.6
743.4
677.1
679.7
712.6
36.7
7
797.6
794.3
803.4
796.4
796.4
796.4
797.4
3.1
8
840.3
841.0
840.7
840.5
839.3
839.7
840.3
0.7
Table B-21. Baseline Main Generator Current, A
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
6.0
8.5
6.9
8.5
7.2
7.2
Idle
8.5
11.0
9.6
11.0
9.7
9.7
Averages
Std Dev
1
804.0
792.1
801.3
791.0
796.0
786.4
795.1
6.6
2
1046.1
1041.6
1045.2
1040.3
1045.3
1034.5
1042.2
4.4
3
1375.7
1366.8
1367.3
1366.8
1365.4
1360.9
1367.1
4.8
4
1583.6
1566.4
1574.7
1573.2
1571.0
1566.4
1572.5
6.4
5
1818.8
1819.7
1811.6
1811.0
1807.1
1814.3
1813.7
4.8
6
2235.9
2030.2
2192.7
2205.7
2024.7
2025.1
2119.0
102.2
7
2358.4
2339.6
2367.3
2349.8
2339.3
2346.5
2350.2
11.0
8
2467.4
2468.9
2467.0
2469.7
2447.4
2464.1
2464.1
8.4
B8
-------
Table B-22. Treated Main Generator Voltage, V
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
1.9
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.4
Idle
2.7
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.7
3.4
Averages
Std Dev
1
266.5
266.9
259.0
265.2
261.0
270.4
264.8
4.2
2
351.0
350.5
348.8
349.9
349.2
367.6
352.8
7.3
3
463.8
464.5
461.0
462.4
462.2
476.5
465.1
5.7
4
539.5
539.1
536.8
537.5
538.5
546.7
539.7
3.6
5
625.8
623.8
622.7
624.8
626.5
633.9
626.2
4.0
6
753.1
748.4
741.4
743.1
747.4
756.5
748.3
5.7
7
833.1
833.4
822.6
835.0
834.4
831.7
831.7
4.6
8
835.4
836.4
837.8
836.4
836.3
834.7
836.1
1.1
Table B-23. Treated Main Generator Current, A
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
2.8
4.6
5.0
3.7
5.0
4.2
Idle
5.1
7.2
7.2
6.0
7.2
6.1
Averages
Std Dev
1
817.8
819.3
792.4
809.4
796.1
826.8
810.3
13.6
2
1074.4
1073.1
1065.0
1064.5
1062.6
1120.7
1076.7
22.1
3
1409.5
1412.3
1398.2
1398.4
1398.1
1446.4
1410.5
18.7
4
1633.3
1630.5
1621.0
1620.5
1622.2
1651.9
1629.9
12.0
5
1885.4
1875.6
1870.4
1873.4
1877.5
1899.3
1880.2
10.6
6
2241.7
2224.8
2205.0
2206.4
2222.0
2251.9
2225.3
18.7
7
2463.6
2460.0
2430.4
2456.2
2457.1
2460.0
2454.6
12.1
8
2469.0
2466.1
2466.2
2462.4
2461.0
2467.8
2465.4
3.1
Table B-24. Baseline Fan Hp
Run/
Notch
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
Averages
Std Dev
1
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
2.9
4.4
2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.0
11.0
11.1
11.1
0.1
3
16.0
16.2
16.2
15.9
15.8
16.4
16.1
0.2
4
21.5
39.3
21.3
20.6
20.9
38.9
27.1
9.3
5
51.6
27.7
51.8
52.5
51.7
27.2
43.8
12.6
6
66.5
68.5
67.2
66.3
62.8
68.8
66.7
2.2
7
95.4
95.4
81.1
94.3
119.4
96.5
97.0
12.4
8
113.4
110.9
112.9
110.6
112.7
111.9
112.1
1.1
B9
-------
Table B-25. Treated Fan Hp
Run/
notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Averages
Std Dev
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
2
16.4
16.7
16.1
17.9
16.1
16.9
16.7
0.7
3
21.4
21.8
20.9
22.8
21.1
21.3
21.5
0.7
4
25.3
25.1
24.7
26.4
24.9
24.7
25.2
0.7
5
53.3
53.8
29.0
29.0
28.8
28.8
37.1
12.7
6
32.3
68.4
32.0
34.8
62.4
31.2
43.5
17.1
7
79.5
75.1
85.0
76.4
75.3
78.7
78.3
3.7
8
87.0
82.8
84.2
88.5
89.3
87.8
86.6
2.6
Table B-26. Baseline Exhaust Temperatures, °C
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
103
106
104
105
102
114
Idle
94
94
92
94
92
95
Averages
Std Dev
1
150
148
145
148
145
146
147
1.8
2
194
198
196
196
211
191
198
6.8
3
253
260
253
246
258
114
231
57.2
4
299
311
302
305
306
309
305
4.5
5
355
351
355
355
354
351
354
2.1
6
384
393
390
388
391
387
389
3.3
7
382
328
383
381
383
377
372
21.7
8
384
383
385
378
383
378
382
3.2
Table B-27. Treated Exhaust Temperatures, °C
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
84
113
134
128
121
111
Idle
84
74
78
79
78
75
Averages
Std Dev
1
139
102
103
103
105
106
110
14.2
2
196
147
143
151
147
158
157
19.7
3
253
209
206
213
210
214
218
17.8
4
297
256
256
262
260
264
266
15.6
5
347
311
306
313
308
304
315
16.2
6
458
326
331
333
328
320
349
53.2
7
458
331
334
339
332
326
353
51.3
8
458
336
337
338
334
328
355
50.4
BIO
-------
Table B-28. Baseline Intake Air Temperatures, °C
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
19.7
29.6
21.5
26.1
25.6
24.9
Idle
20.5
28.7
21.8
26.0
25.5
24.4
Averages
Std Dev
1
22.2
28.8
22.1
26.1
25.8
24.0
24.8
2.57
2
23.3
28.5
22.9
24.6
25.5
23.7
24.8
2.07
3
24.1
27.2
24.2
24.6
25.8
24.2
25.0
1.26
4
24.8
26.5
25.3
25.4
27.2
23.2
25.4
1.39
5
24.9
26.9
25.0
24.6
25.3
22.5
24.9
1.41
6
25.2
26.4
25.1
24.1
25.0
22.4
24.7
1.34
7
26.4
25.8
25.3
24.0
25.0
22.1
24.8
1.55
8
27.4
25.4
26.8
23.6
24.7
22.0
25.0
2.02
Table B-29. Treated Intake Air Temperatures, °C
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
9.2
6.6
14.1
10.8
14.2
2.2
Idle
8.8
6.4
14.3
11.1
12.5
2.2
Averages
Std Dev
1
8.8
7.0
13.9
11.2
12.7
4.1
9.6
3.68
2
8.9
7.4
14.0
12.0
12.0
4.4
9.8
3.54
3
9.7
9.7
15.5
12.5
12.3
5.8
10.9
3.31
4
9.7
10.0
15.8
13.3
11.9
7.0
11.3
3.07
5
10.6
10.0
17.9
16.3
13.0
8.2
12.7
3.80
6
12.7
11.7
18.3
17.5
15.3
9.8
14.2
3.39
7
17.2
14.0
18.2
19.0
14.6
10.3
15.6
3.25
8
16.8
14.5
18.1
16.4
14.0
12.3
15.4
2.13
Table B-30. Baseline Ambient Pressure, (mmHg)
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
757.7
746.4
754.9
747.2
748.1
747.9
Idle
757.5
746.4
754.8
747.0
747.5
748.2
Averages
Std Dev
1
756.8
746.4
754.4
747.0
747.5
748.5
750.1
4.37
2
755.0
746.3
753.6
747.2
747.1
749.1
749.7
3.70
3
752.4
746.0
751.6
747.2
747.0
749.3
748.9
2.64
4
748.8
745.9
749.7
746.5
747.0
749.6
747.9
1.65
5
747.3
746.6
749.6
746.1
747.3
750.1
747.8
1.62
6
747.2
747.0
749.0
746.1
747.8
750.8
748.0
1.69
7
747.2
744.8
749.0
746.8
747.9
751.3
747.8
2.19
8
746.3
741.6
748.3
746.6
747.8
751.5
747.0
3.24
Bll
-------
Table B-31. Treated Ambient Pressure, (mmHg)
Run/
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
6
Loldle
749.2
757.6
748.6
757.3
756.1
764.6
Idle
748.8
757.1
748.6
756.3
755.5
764.6
Averages
Std Dev
1
749.6
756.3
748.8
755.3
755.7
764.0
755.0
5.49
2
749.6
755.3
749.9
754.6
755.5
763.8
754.8
5.15
3
750.3
754.0
751.5
754.4
755.1
763.0
754.7
4.45
4
750.1
753.0
751.7
754.8
754.9
762.8
754.6
4.44
5
750.5
752.6
751.7
755.3
754.9
763.0
754.7
4.48
6
750.7
752.8
751.7
755.7
754.6
762.8
754.7
4.36
7
750.1
752.6
750.9
755.1
754.4
762.1
754.2
4.32
8
750.3
751.9
750.7
755.5
754.4
761.7
754.1
4.26
B12
------- |