Environmental Technology Verification
Test Report of Mobile Source Selective Catalytic
Reduction
Johnson Matthey
SCCRT®, Version 1, Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology
with a Catalyzed Continuously Regenerating Trap
Prepared by
Southwest Research Institute and RTI International
HRTI
IN ERNATIONAL
TM
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SEFA
ET/
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
KRTI
INTERNATIONAL
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
E-MAIL:
MOBILE DIESEL ENGINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE DIESEL ENGINES
IN HIGHWAY USE BY SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
AND A CATALYZED CONTINUOUSLY REGENERATING TRAP
SCCRT®, VERSION 1, SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
WITH A CATALYZED CONTINUOUSLY REGENERATING
TRAP
JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC
380 LAPP ROAD
MALVERN, PA 19355
PHONE: (610)254-5373
FAX: (610)971-3116
http://www.jmusa.com
joshia@jmusa.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies
through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective
technologies. The ETV Program seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data
on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, financing, permitting, purchase,
and use of environmental technologies.
The ETV Program works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder
groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and other interested parties; and with
the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of
innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-
reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance (QA)
-------
protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are
defensible.
The Air Pollution Control Technology Center (APCT Center), which is one of six centers under the ETV
Program, is operated by RTI International* (RTI) in cooperation with EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. The APCT Center has evaluated the performance of an emission control system
consisting of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology with a catalyzed continuously regenerating
trap (CCRT).
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION
All tests were performed in accordance with the Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Selective
Catalytic Reduction Technologies for Highway, Nonroad and Stationary Use Diesel Engines and the Test-
Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey for the SCCRT®, v. 1
System. These documents are written in accordance with the applicable generic verification protocol and
include requirements for quality management and QA; procedures for product selection and auditing of
the test laboratories; and the test reporting format.
The mobile diesel engine air pollution control technology was tested in February 2011 at Southwest
Research Institute. The performance verified was the percentage of emissions reduction achieved by the
technology for particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide
(CO) relative to the performance of the same baseline engine without the technology in place. Operating
conditions were documented, and ancillary performance measurements also were made. A summary
description of the ETV test is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the Environmental Technology Verification Test
Test type
Engine family
Engine make-model year
Service class
Engine rated power
Engine displacement
Technology
Technology description
Test cycle or mode
description
Test fuel description
Critical measurements
Ancillary measurements
Highway Transient Federal Test Procedure
6CEXH0661MAV
Cummins - 2006 ISM 330
Highway, heavy-duty diesel engine
330 hpat 1800 rpm
10.8 L, inline six cylinder
Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.1
SCR combined with a CCRT
One cold-start and multiple hot-start tests according to FTP
SET for baseline engine, degreened, and aged systems
and one
Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel with 15 ppm sulfur maximum
PM, NOX, HC, and CO
CO2, NO, NO2(by calculation), NH3, soluble organic fraction of PM,
exhaust backpressure, exhaust temperature, and fuel consumption
Note: CO2 = carbon dioxide, FTP = Federal Test Procedure, hp = horsepower, NO = nitric oxide, NO2
nitrogen dioxide, NH3 = ammonia, ppm = parts per million, rpm = revolutions per minute, SET =
Supplemental Emission Test.
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
-------
Beginning of table description. Table 1 is titled Summary of the Environmental Technology Verification
Test. The table lists the type of test conducted, the critical and ancillary measurements taken, the
characteristics of the test engine, and the technology undergoing verification testing. End of table
description.
VERIFIED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.l technology is a urea-based SCR system combined with a CCRT filter
designed for on-highway light, medium, and heavy heavy-duty diesel, urban and non-urban bus, exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR)- or non-EGR-equipped engines for use with commercial ultra-low-sulfur diesel
fuel (ULSD) conforming to 40 Code of Federal Regulations 86.1313-2007.
This verification statement describes the performance of the tested technology on the diesel engine and
fuels identified in Table 1 and applies only to the use of the Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v. 1 system on
highway engines fueled by ULSD (15 parts per million [ppm] or less) fuel.
The monitoring and notification system that was functionally tested and used with this technology
includes sensors for urea level and leakage detection and a mechanism to interrupt engine restart in the
event of an empty urea tank.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.l system achieved the reduction in tailpipe emissions shown in Table 2
compared to baseline operation without the system installed on the test engine. In Table 2, "degreened"
refers to a system with 25-124 hours of accumulated run time while "aged" refers to a system with over
1000 hours of accumulated run time. Additionally, the functional test results indicated proper operation of
the monitoring and warning system.
Table 2. Verified Emissions Reductions
Mean Emissions Reduction (%)
System Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
PM
94
92
NOX
76
73
HC
94
92
CO
89
87
95% Confidence Limits on the Emissions Reduction (%)
System Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
PM
91 to 98
89 to 95
NOX
75 to 77
72 to 74
HC
80toa
77toa
CO
69toa
66toa
a The upper limit of the emissions reduction could not be distinguished from 100% with
95% confidence.
Beginning of table description. Table 2 is titled Verified Emissions Reductions. The table
describes the verified emissions reduction percentages for the degreened and aged
systems for particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide.
95% confidence limits forthese reductions are also listed. End of table description.
The APCT Center quality manager has reviewed the test results and quality control (QC) data and has
concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol and test/QA plan have
been attained. APCT Center QA staff have conducted technical assessments of the test laboratory
-------
procedures and of the data handling. These assessments confirm that the ETV tests were conducted in
accordance with the EPA-approved test/QA plan.
This verification statement verifies the emissions characteristics of the Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.l
system for the stated application. Extrapolation outside that range should be done with caution and an
understanding of the scientific principles that control the performance of the technology. This verification
focuses on emissions. Potential technology users may obtain other types of performance information from
the manufacturer.
In accordance with the generic verification protocol, this verification statement is valid, commencing on
the date below, indefinitely for application of the Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v. 1 system within the range
of applicability of the statement.
Signed by Sally Gutierrez, Director Date: 8/22/2011
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Signed by Jason Hill, Director Date: 8/8/2011
Air Pollution Control Center
RTI International
NOTICE: ETV verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and RTI make no express or
implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.
IV
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Mobile Source Selective Catalytic Reduction
Johnson Matthey
SCCRT®, Version 1
Selective Catalytic Reduction System with a
Catalyzed Continuously Regenerating Trap
Prepared by
RTI International
Southwest Research Institute
EPA Cooperative Agreement Nos. CR83191101-4 and CR83416901-0
EPA Project Officer:
Michael Kosusko
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
July 2011
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Notice
This document was prepared by RTI International (RTI) and its subcontractor, Southwest Research
Institute, with partial funding from Cooperative Agreement Nos. CR83191101-4 and CR83416901-0 with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The document has been submitted to RTFs and EPA's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication. Mention of corporation names,
trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Foreword
Established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program is designed to accelerate the development and commercialization of new or
improved technologies through third-party verification and reporting of performance. The goal of the
ETV Program is to verify the performance of commercially ready environmental technologies through the
evaluation of objective and quality-assured data to provide potential purchasers and permitters with an
independent, credible assessment of the technology they are buying or permitting.
The Air Pollution Control Technology Center (APCT Center) is part of EPA's ETV Program and is
operated as a partnership between RTI International (RTI) and EPA. The APCT Center verifies the
performance of commercially ready air pollution control technologies. Verification tests use approved
protocols, and verified performance is reported in verification statements signed by EPA and RTI
officials. RTI contracts with Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) to perform verification tests on engine
emissions control technologies.
Retrofit air pollution control systems used to control emissions from mobile diesel engines are among the
technologies evaluated by the APCT Center. The APCT Center has developed (and EPA has approved)
the Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reductions From Selective Catalytic
Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Nonroad, and Stationary Use Diesel Engines to provide
guidance on the verification testing of specific products that are designed to control emissions from diesel
engines.
The following report reviews the performance of the Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.l system, comprising
selective catalytic reduction technology and a continuously regenerating trap. ETV testing of this
technology was conducted in March 2010 at SwRI. After the test, Johnson Matthey PLC personnel
realized that an obsolete component was inadvertently included in the devices supplied to SwRI for
testing. Johnson Matthey PLC chose to repeat the verification testing in February 2011 with the correct
component. All testing was performed in accordance with an approved test/quality assurance plan that
implements the requirements of the generic verification protocol at the test laboratory. This report
describes both the March 2010 test and the February 2011 test.
in
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Availability of Report
Copies of this verification report are available from the following:
• RTI International
Discovery & Analytical Sciences
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (E343-02)
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
This verification report is also available on the following EPA Web sites:
• http://www.epa.gov/etv/vt-apc .html#msscr (pdf format)
• http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/
IV
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Availability of Report iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acronyms/Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgments ix
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Product Description 2
2.1 Test Systems for March 2010 2
2.2 Test Systems for February 2011 3
3.0 Test Documentation 4
3.1 Engine Description 5
3.2 Engine Fuel Description 6
3.3 Functional Tests 7
3.4 Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures 11
3.5 Deviations from the Test/QA Plan 13
3.6 Documented Test Conditions 16
4.0 Summary and Discussion of Emissions Results 26
4.1 Quality Assurance 40
5.0 References 42
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JMSCCRT, v.l
Figures
Figure 1. The degreened SCCRT®, v. 1 system installed for emissions tests in March 2010 2
Figure 2. The aged SCCRT®, v.l system installed for emissions tests in March 2010 3
Figure 3. The degreened SCCRT®, v. 1 system installed for emissions tests in February 2011 4
Figure 4. Identification label for 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine 6
Figure 5. Schematic of emissions sampling system at SwRI 12
Figure 6. Photograph of the loose fastener found in the aged CRT catalyst after the March 2010
emissions tests 14
Figure 7. Photograph of the aged CRT catalyst erosion caused by the loose fastener 14
Figure 8. Photograph of the aged CRT filter face 15
Figure 9. Torque map of 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine using ULSD fuel during March 2010 16
Figure 10. Torque map of 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine using ULSD fuel during February
2011 17
Figure 11. Inlet temperature profile of degreened SCCRT®, v.l system during March 2010 20
Figure 12. Inlet temperature profile of aged SCCRT®, v. 1 system during March 2010 20
Figure 13. Inlet temperature profile of degreened SCCRT®, v. 1 system during February 2011 21
Figure 14. Inlet temperature profile of aged SCCRT®, v. 1 system during February 2011 21
Tables
Table 1. Engine Identification Information 5
Table 2. Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications 6
Table 3. Results from Functional Tests of the Aged SCCRT®, v.l 8
Table 4. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2006 Cummins ISM 330 12
Table 5. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature during
the March 2010 Test Event 18
Table 6. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature during
the February 2011 Test Event 19
Table 7. Particulate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction from Each Test during
March 2010 22
Table 8. Particulate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction from Each Test during
February 2011 23
Table 9. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance) during March 2010 24
Table 10. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance) during February 2011 25
Table 11. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions 26
Table 12. Highway FTP Emissions Data during March 2010 27
Table 13. Highway FTP Emissions Data during February 2011 28
Table 14. Multimode SET Results during March 2010 29
Table 15. Multimode SET Results during February 2011 31
Table 16. Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during March 2010 34
Table 17. Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during March 2010 35
Table 18. Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during February 2011 36
Table 19. Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during February 2011 37
Table 20. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units) 38
Table 21. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units) 39
Table 22. Summary of Verification Test Emissions Reductions 40
VI
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JMSCCRT, v.l
Acronyms/Abbreviations
2-D Type 2 diesel fuel
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
APCT Center Air Pollution Control Technology Center
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
bhp-hr brake horsepower-hour
BSFC brake-specific fuel consumption
CCRT catalyzed continuously regenerating trap
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRT continuously regenerating trap
DOC diesel oxidation catalyst
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV environmental technology verification
ft-lb foot-pound of torque
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
FTP Federal Test Procedure
g gram(s)
g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour
g/hp-hr grams per horsepower-hour
g/kWhr grams per kilowatt-hour
HC hydrocarbon(s)
HDDE heavy-duty diesel engine
hp horsepower
Hz hertz
ID identification
in. Hg inch(es) mercury
kg kilograms
kg/kWhr kilograms per kilowatt hour
kPa kilopascals
vn
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
JMSCCRT, v.l
kWhr
L
Ib/bhp-hr
NH3
NMHC
NO
NO2
NOX
OTAQ
PM
ppm
QA
QC
rpm
RTI
SCR
SET
SOF
SwRI
ULSD
kilowatt hour
liter(s)
pounds per brake horsepower-hour
ammonia
non-methane hydrocarbons
nitric oxide
nitrogen dioxide
nitrogen oxides
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
particulate matter
parts per million
quality assurance
quality control
revolutions per minute
RTI International
selective catalytic reduction
Supplemental Emission Test
soluble organic fraction
Southwest Research Institute
ultra-low-sulfur diesel
Vlll
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the verification
activities. In particular, we would like to thank Mr. Michael Kosusko, Project Officer, and Mr. Robert
Wright, Quality Manager, both of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC. We would also like to acknowledge
the assistance and participation of all Johnson Matthey PLC personnel who supported the test effort.
For more information on the Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v. 1 system, contact the following:
• Mr. Ajay Joshi
Johnson Matthey PLC
380 Lapp Road
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 254-5373
Fax:(610)971-3116
E-mail: joshia@jmusa.com
Web site: http://www.jmusa.com
For more information on verification testing of mobile sources air pollution control and selective catalytic
reduction devices, contact the following:
• Mr. Jason Hill
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Phone: (919) 541-7443
E-mail: apctvc@rti.org
ETV Program Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
1.0 Introduction
This Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) report reviews the performance of the Johnson
Matthey SCCRT®, v. 1 system, comprising selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology and a catalyzed
continuously regenerating trap (CCRT), submitted for testing by Johnson Matthey PLC. ETV testing of
this technology was conducted during a series of tests in March 2010 and February 2011 by Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI), under contract with the Air Pollution Control Technology Center (APCT
Center). After the March 2010 test, Johnson Matthey PLC personnel realized that an obsolete component
was inadvertently included in the devices supplied to SwRI for testing. In order for the verification test
results to reflect the performance of the current design, Johnson Matthey PLC chose to repeat the
verification test in February 2011 with the correct component. This verification report describes both the
March 2010 test and the February 2011 test. However, to reflect the performance of the current
component design, the associated verification statement only describes the February 2011 test results.
The APCT Center is operated by RTI International* (RTI) in partnership with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) ETV Program. The objective of the APCT Center and the ETV Program is
to verify, with high-quality data, the performance of air pollution control technologies, including those
designed to control emissions from diesel engines. With the assistance of a technical panel of experts
assembled for the purpose, RTI has established the APCT Center program area specifically to evaluate the
performance of diesel exhaust catalysts, particulate filters, SCR systems, fuels additives, and engine
modification control technologies for mobile diesel engines. Based on the activities of this technical
panel, the Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reductions from Selective
Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Non-Road, and Stationary Use Diesel Enginesl
was developed. This protocol was chosen as the best guide to verify the performance effects of the
SCCRT®, v. 1 system observable immediately after installation, as opposed to cumulative effects over a
sustained period of operation. To determine these effects, emissions results from a heavy-duty highway
diesel engine were compared to emissions results obtained operating the same engine with the same fuel,
but with the SCCRT®, v.l technology installed. The specific Test/Quality Assurance (QA) Plan
addendum for the ETV test of the technology submitted by Johnson Matthey PLC was developed and
approved in June 20092 for the March 2010 test event and revised in November 20103 for the February
2011 test event. The goal of the tests was to measure the emissions control performance of the SCCRT®,
v.l system and its emissions reduction relative to an uncontrolled engine.
Section 2.0 of this report describes the technology. Section 3.0 documents the procedures and methods
used for the tests and the conditions under which the tests were conducted. Section 4.0 summarizes and
discusses the results of the tests. Section 5.0 presents the references used to compile this ETV report.
This report contains only summary data and the verification statement. Complete documentation of the
test results is provided in separate test reports4'5 and internal audit of data quality reports.6'7 These reports
include the raw test data from product testing and supplemental testing, equipment calibration results, and
QA and quality control (QC) activities and results. Complete documentation of QA and QC activities and
results, raw test data, and equipment calibration results are retained in SwRI's files for 7 years.
The verification statement applies only to the use of the SCCRT®, v. 1 system on highway engines. This
statement is applicable to engines fueled only by ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) (15 parts per million
[ppm] or less) fuel.
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
2.0 Product Description
The Johnson Matthey SCCRT®, v.l system combines SCR technology with a CCRT and is designed for
light, medium, and heavy heavy-duty diesel on-highway urban bus and non-urban bus exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR)- and non-EGR-equipped engines for use with commercial ULSD and conforming to
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 86.1313-2007.
2.1 Test Systems for March 2010
For the March 2010 test event, Johnson Matthey PLC provided a new SCCRT®, v. 1 unit that had never
been used before. The components of the SCCRT had the following serial numbers: 2315609R01 for the
continuously regenerating trap (CRT) catalyst, 3309309R011 for the CRT filter, DP28707 and DP28708
for the SCR catalysts, 11476012X43 for the ammonia slip catalyst, and 966344950000245 for the urea
injection pump. The unit was preconditioned ("degreened") by SwRI, in accordance with the
requirements in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2706(a)(4). The degreened SCCRT®,
v.l system is shown installed in Figure 1 in accordance with Johnson Matthey's installation manual.
Figure 1. The degreened SCCRT®, v.1 system installed for emissions tests in March 2010.
Johnson Matthey PLC provided an "aged" SCCRT®, v. 1 unit that had seen over 1,000 hours of service on
a 2005 C13 engine installed in a Class-8 delivery tractor operated on an accelerated 1,000-hour durability
trial. The components of the SCCRT had the following serial numbers: 272512 for the CRT catalyst,
273871 for the CRT filter, JF0134 and JF0137 for the SCR catalysts, 11476012X42 forthe ammonia slip
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
catalyst, and 966344950000161 for the urea injection pump. The aged SCCRT®, v.l system is shown
installed in Figure 2 in a manner consistent with the installation on the engine during the durability trial.
Figure 2. The aged SCCRT®, v.1 system installed for emissions tests in March 2010.
2.2 Test Systems for February 2011
For the February 2011 test event, Johnson Matthey PLC provided a new SCCRT®, v. 1 unit that had never
been used before. The components of the SCCRT had the following serial numbers: 2303510R034 for the
CRT catalyst, 3309309R014 for the CRT filter, 2318409R003 and 2318409R017 forthe SCR catalysts,
2318409R104 forthe ammonia slip catalyst, and 966344950000292 forthe urea injection pump. The unit
was preconditioned by SwRI in accordance with the requirements in Title 13, California Code of
Regulations, Section 2706(a)(4). The degreened SCCRT®, v.l system is shown installed in Figure 3 in a
manner consistent with the aged system's installation on the engine during the durability trial.
The February 2011 system differed physically from the March 2010 system in that the exhaust gas
thermocouple had been changed and relocated in the new production design. These parts originally were
redesigned prior to the March 2010 test, but the redesigned parts mistakenly were not included when the
degreened and aged systems were sent to SwRI for testing. The new system provided for the February
2011 test event had the redesigned thermocouple and housing in place.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Figure 3. The degreened SCCRT®, v.1 system installed for emissions tests
in February 2011.
The aged system was the same system that was tested in March 2010. Thermocouples were relocated to
be consistent with the operation of the degreened device. Rather than using the thermocouple installation
points on the original CRT inlet and SCR inlet heads supplied with the aged system, a %" port was
welded into the inlet pipe of the CRT inlet and SCR inlet heads, and the aged fittings and thermocouples
were installed in these locations.
3.0 Test Documentation
The ETV testing took place during March 2010 and February 2011 at SwRI under contract to the APCT
Center. Testing was performed in accordance with the following:
• Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reductions From Selective
Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Non-Road, and Stationary Use Diesel
Engines1
• Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies
for Highway, Non-Road, and Stationary Use Diesel Engines8
Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey for the SCCRT®, v. 1
System.2'3
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
The applicant reviewed the generic verification protocol and had an opportunity to review the Test/QA
Plan prior to testing.
3.1 Engine Description
For both the March 2010 and February 2011 test events, ETV verification testing was performed on a
2006 Cummins ISM 330 in-line, 6-cylinder, direct injected, turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engine
(HDDE), serial number 35080469, provided by Johnson Matthey. The 10.8-liter (L) engine had a nominal
rated power of 330 horsepower (hp) at 1800 revolutions per minute (rpm), and a rated torque of 1,150
foot-pound (ft-lb). The EPA engine family identification (ID) was 6CEXH0661MAV. This engine was
originally built in June 2003 as a 370 hp engine and was rebuilt at Cummins' Jamestown Engine Plant in
October 2006 as an ISM 330. Engine fuel injection management was electronically controlled. The engine
included a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), which was used during baseline testing but removed for
installation of the SCCRT. The test fuel was an ULSD that met specifications in 40 CFR 86.1313-2007.9
Table 1 provides the engine ID details, and Figure 4 shows the ID plate from the engine.
Table 1. Engine Identification Information
Engine serial number
Date of manufacture
Make
Model year
Model
Engine displacement and configuration
Service class
EPA engine family identification
Certification standards (g/hp-hr)
Rated power (nameplate)
Rated torque (nameplate)
Certified emission control system
Aspiration
Fuel system
35080469
October 2006
Cummins
2006
ISM 330
10.8 L, inline six cylinder
Highway heavy-duty diesel engine
6CEXH0661 MAV (Engine Family Box OH-1 3)
NOX + NMHC = 2.5, CO = 15.5, PM = 0.1
330 hpat 1800 rpm
11 50 ft-lb at 1200 rpm
Engine Modification Electronic Control Direct
Injection, Turbocharged Charged Air Cooling, DOC
Turbo with Air-to-Air Aftercooling
Electronic Direct
Note: CO = carbon monoxide, g/hp-hr = grams per horsepower-hour, NMHC = non-methane
hydrocarbons, NOX = nitrogen oxides, PM = particulate matter.
Beginning of table description. Table 1 is titled Engine Identification Information. The table lists the test
engine's characteristics including engine serial number; date of manufacture; make, model, and model
year; engine displacement and configuration; service class; performance characteristics; and standard
emissions control, aspiration, and fuel systems. End of table description.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Figure 4. Identification label for 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine.
3.2 Engine Fuel Description
All emissions testing was conducted with ULSD fuel meeting the 40 CFR 86.1313-2007 specification for
emissions certified fuel.9 Selected fuel properties from the supplier's analyses are summarized in Table 2.
All testing during March 2010 was conducted using fuel from a single batch, identified as EM-6556-F,
while all testing during February 2011 was conducted using fuel from a different batch, identified as EM-
6417-F.
Table 2. Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications
Item
Cetane number
Cetane index
Distillation range:
Initial boiling point, °C (°F)
1 0% point, °C(°F)
50% point, °C (°F)
90% point, °C (°F)
End point, °C (°F)
Gravity (American
Petroleum Institute)
Total sulfur, ppm
Hydrocarbon composition:
Aromatics (minimum), %
Olefins, saturates %
Flash point (minimum), °C
(°F)
Viscosity, centistokes at
40°C
CFR
Specification3
ASTM
D613
D976
—
D86
D86
D86
D86
D86
D287
D2622
D5186
D5186
D93
D445
CFR Specification3
Type 2-D
40-50
40-50
—
171.1-204.4(340-400)
204.4-237.8 (400-460)
243.3-282.2 (470-540)
293.3-332.2 (560-630)
321.1-365.6(610-690)
32-37
7-15
27
d
54.4(130)
2.0-3.2
Test Fuel
(March 2010)
Diesel 2007
ULS Fuel
46
45.3
—
180(356)
207 (404)
253 (487)
307 (584)
347 (656)
35.8b
11,0*
29.3e
70.7e
64(148)
2.2
Test Fuel
(February
2011) Diesel
2007 ULS
Fuel
43
46.7
—
177(351)
208 (406)
252 (486)
303 (577)
343 (650)
36.7b
10.2C
28.6e
71 .4e
66(151)
2.4
Note: °C = degrees Celsius, °F = degrees Fahrenheit, 2-D = Type 2 diesel fuel, ASTM = American
Society for Testing and Materials, CFR = Code of Federal Regulations, ULS = ultra-low sulfur.
a 40 CFR 86.1313(b)(2) for heavy-duty diesel engines.6
b Measured per ASTM D4052.
c Measured per ASTM D5453; this method is an acceptable substitute for ASTM D2622.
d Remainder of the hydrocarbons.
e Measured per ASTM D1319.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Beginning of table description. Table 2 is titled Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications. The table lists
the fuel specifications enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations and the actual values for the fuels
used during the March 2010 and February 2011 tests. The listed specifications include the cetane
number, cetane index, distillation range, gravity, total sulfur content, hydrocarbon composition, flash point,
and viscosity. The fuels used for both test events met all the specifications. End of table description.
3.3 Functional Tests
Functional tests were performed on the aged SCCRT. Results from the functional tests are given in Table
3. The table shows the tasks that were performed to force a diagnostic code for a specific monitoring
system, the timing for systems diagnostic warning and alarm indications (lights), and passing criteria for
systems diagnostic events. Table 3 also includes the observed diagnostic indication events and diagnostic
codes monitored on the Mapper software provided by Johnson Matthey.
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 3. Results from Functional Tests of the Aged SCCRT®, v.1
UREA TANK LEVEL SENSOR INDICATORS
TASK
Fill tank so level
sensor lite is on steady
Start, run engine,
>250=C SCR inlet
Continue to run engine
Shut oilengine
Fill urea tank
TIMD'EVENTS
urea goes below
sensor level
system determines
empty tank on
co sump Bon
wait 60 sec
wait 60 sec
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
sensor Sight off, UREA
LOW light within 1
min
UREA LOW light ss
on, ALARM light is
on
engine starter circuit
should be defeated
engine starter circuit
should be enabled,
ALARM and UREA
LOW Sights oft"
PASS CRITERIA
When urea sensor
ight is steady off, the
UREA LOW'will
ituminatc within 1
minute
When urea tank is
empty, the urea low
ight ts lit a.nd
ALARM light wil!
iiuminate
Engine should not stall
(replaced with Sight to
show if starter ss
enabled)
Engine should start, al!
diagnostic lights
should not be lit
OBSERVED
EVENTS
As urea sensor light
aimed off, the UREA
LOW light illuminated
within one minute
UREA LOW light was
1st for 3 hours and 4
minutes when
ALARM light
illumintatcd
Shut offenigneand
waited 60 seconds,
stall enable light was
still illuminated
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code 5*44:
urea empty alarm
SCR diagnose: stop
alarm
UREA SUPPLY LEAK DETECTION
TASK
Engine off, shut off
urea tank supply valve,
disconnect tube from
tank to pump
Stan engine, run idle
Continue to let pump
pnme
Shut offengine
Reconnect tube to
pump
Clear code on Mapper
Restart engine
TIME/EVENTS
allow pump to prime
15-20 min
allow pump to pnme
1 -5 min
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
ACTUAL PUMP
STATE = Ready, redo
test or WARNING
Sight on within 20 nun
ALARM light on
within 5 min
WARNING and
ALARM lights off
PASS CRITERIA
WARNING Sight
iiumsnated within 20
minutes
.ALARM Sight
illuminated within 5
minutes
Al! diagnostic lights
should not be lit
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARNING light
illuminated at 15
minutes
ALARM light
illuminated at 1 added
minute
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code *=36:
air urea flow
SCR error code *36
and *50: dosing failure
alarm
SCR error codes reset
SCR error codes: no
error
AIR LEAK TO PUMP
TASK
Engine oft", disconnect
air to pump
Start engine
Continue to run engine
Shut oil" engine
Reconnect air to pump
Ciear code on Mapper
Restart engine
TIMEEVENTS
run 1 5-20 min
am 1-5 min
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
WARNING light on
within 20 min
ALARM light on
within 5 rnin
WARNING and
ALARM lights off
PASS CRITERIA
WARNING Sight
iiuminated within 20
minutes
ALARM light
iluminatcd within 5
ranutes
.All diagnostic lights
should not be 1st
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARNING light
illuminated at 1 5
minutes
ALARM light
illuminated at added 1
minute
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code ^36:
air'urea flow
SCR error code *36
and -50: dosing failure
alarm
SCR error codes reset
SCR error codes: no
error
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 3. Results from Functional Tests of the Aged SCCRT®, v.1 (continued)
LEAK BETWEEN PUMP AND INJECTION NOZZLE
TASK
Engme off. disconnect
tube to nozzle
Start engine
Continue to run engine
Shut off engine
Reconnect tube to
nozzle
Clear code on Mapper
Restart engine
TIME-EVENTS
allow pump to prime
run I ~5 nun
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
ACTUAL PUMP
STATE = Ready, then
WARNING light on
within 10 min
ALARM light on
within 5 min
WARNING and
ALARM lights off
PASS CRITERIA
\Vhen pump is at
Ready status,
WARNING light
ilummatcd within 10
ninutes
.ALARM light
nominated within 5
minutes
All diagnostic lights
should not be lit
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARNING light
illuminated at 3
minutes
ALARM light
illuminated at added I
minute
No diagnostic Sights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code *4 1 :
low nozzle press
SCR error code s4l
and *5 1 : low nozzle
press alarm
SCR error codes reset
SCR error codes: no
error
SENSOR MALFUNCTION MONITORING
TASK
Remove electrical
connector from
exhaust pressure
sensor
Stan engine
Continue to run engine
Shut off engine
Replace electrical
connector
Ciear code on Mapper
Restart engine
RE move electrical
connector from urea
level sensor
Start engine
Continue to run
engine,>250=CSCR
inlet
Shut off engine
Replace electrical
connector
Check urea ievei. refill
if necessary
Restart engine, make
sure startercireuit is
enabled
TIME/EVENTS
run I hr
run 65 niin
an at idle 5 min
use at least 2f.rti>of
tank volume of urea
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
WARNING light on
within I hr
ALARM light on
within 65 mm
WARNING and
ALARM lites off
UREA LOW light on
within 5 mm
ALARM light on
WARNING and
ALARM lights off
PASS CRITERIA
WARNING light
ikiniinated within 60
minutes
.ALARM Sight
ilummated within 65
minutes
Ail diagnostic lights
should not be lit
UREA LOW tight will
iluntinate within 5
minutes of stan up
When 20% of urea
lank is used, ALARM
sght will illuminate
A!i diagnostic tights
should not be lit, and
engine should start
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARN ING light
iSiumsnated at 34
minutes
ALARM light
dluntinated at added I
tour 5 minutes
No diagnostic Sights
UREA LOW light
illuminated
immediately
UREA LOW light was
lit for 3 hours and 10
minutes when
ALARM light
ilununtated
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code ?* 1 8:
exh press sensor error
SCR error codes' IS
and »46: sensor failure
alarm
SCR error codes reset
SCR error codes: no
error
SCR error code: no
eiTor
SCR error code s44:
urea empty alarm
SCR error code: no
error
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 3. Results from Functional Tests of the Aged SCCRT®, v.1 (continued)
INJECTION NOZZLE CLOGGING MONITOR
TASK
Install clogged nozzle
provided by JM
Stan and run engine
Continue to run engine
Continue to run engine
Continue to run engine
Continue to run engine
Shut off engine
Replace injection
nozzle
Clear code on Mapper
Restart engine
TIME/EVENTS
system will attempt to
purge nozzle 1 0 times
alter 5 min pause
system wi;i attempt to
purge 1 0 times
after 5 min pause
system wiH attempt to
purge 1 0 times
alter 5 nun pause
system wiU attempt to
purge 10 times
after 5 min pause
system will attempt to
purge 10 times
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
WARNING light on
after 1 0 purge attempts
no change
no change
no change
ALARM light on
WARNING AND
ALARM lights off
PASS CRITERIA
When purge occurs iO
times, WARNING
Sght will illuminate
Purge attempts
separated by 5 minute
doing off period
Purge attempts
separated by 5 minute
dosing off period
Purge attempts
separated by 5 minute
dosing oft" period
After 5th purge
attempt, dosing is off
and ALARM light will
iiurmnate
.Ail diagnostic Sights
should not be lit
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARNING Sight
illuminated at I I
minutes
ALARM light
ii[uni3nate.d at added 3
minutes
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error codes »38:
nozzle purge count
and *20: nozzle press
sensor
SCR error codes ^20,
#34: dosing unit and
-50: dosing failure
alarm
SCR error codes: no
error
ELECTRICAL FAILURES
TASK
Remove large
electrical connector
from pump
Start engine
Continue to run engine
Shut off engine
Re pi ace electrical
connector
Clear eode on Mapper
Restart engine
Remove ECU fuse
Replace ECU fuse
TIME/EVENTS
am I -2 min
am I -2 min
VIEW
DIAGNOSTIC
LIGHTS
WARNING light on
within I -2 min
ALARM lighten in I-
2 min
WARNING AND
ALARM lights off
UREA LOW,
WARNING, and
ALARM lights on
all lights off
PASS CRITERIA
WARNING light will
Iluminate within I -2
minutes
.ALARM light will
Iluminate within I -2
mi notes
A! I diagnostic lights
should not be lit
All diagnostic tights
ii animated
All diagnostic lights
should not be lit
OBSERVED
EVENTS
WARNING light
illuminated at I
minute
ALARM light
iuuminated at added I
minute
No diagnostic lights
Ail lights illuminated
No diagnostic lights
MAPPER CODES
SCR error code s34:
dosing unit
SCR error code =50:
dosing failure alarm
SCR error codes: no
error
cannot Sog-in Mapper
10
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
3.4 Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures
The ETV tests consisted of baseline "uncontrolled" tests of the engine with the stock DOC and tests with
the control technology installed in place of the DOC. Engine operation and emissions sampling adhered to
techniques developed by EPA in 40 CFR, Part 86, Subpart N.10 Emissions were measured over a single
cold-start and triplicate hot-start runs of the highway transient test cycle and a single run of the
Supplemental Emission Test (SET) for the baseline, degreened SCCRT, and aged SCCRT exhaust
configurations.
The 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine was operated in an engine dynamometer test cell, with exhaust
sampled using full-flow dilution constant volume sampling techniques to measure regulated emissions of
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM), along
with carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions were determined as
the difference between NOX and NO emissions. Gaseous emission levels were corrected for dilution air
ambient (background) levels. Emissions of HC, CO, CO2, NOX, and NO were measured using a Horiba
MEXA-7200 DEGR analyzer bench. The NO analyzer did not have a NO2/NO converter. Engine baseline
transient tests during the February 2011 test event included measurement of methane to determine non-
methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions. Due to an oversight, methane was not measured separately
during the March 2010 test event, but was measured correctly during the 2011 test event. A sample pump
drew dilute exhaust from the sample zone and filled a Tedlar polyvinyl fluoride sample bag. The bag
sample was analyzed for methane using a gas chromatograph - flame ionization detector according to 40
CFR Part 86, section 1311-94 and SAE Jl 151. PM emissions were determined from the net weight gain
of a single Pallflex TX40 Teflon coated borosilicate microfiber filter.
Soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the PM emissions was determined from the particulate-laden filter from
emission tests. The SOF was extracted using toluene/ethanol solvent and a Soxhlet apparatus. To
determine the mass of SOF, the filter set was reweighed after the extraction process. The weight
difference between loaded and extracted conditions of the filters represented the mass of SOF.
Ammonia slip from the SCCRT system was measured directly from the exhaust stack downstream of the
SCCRT using extractive Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The FTIR measurements were
conducted according to EPA CTM-038 and 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A, Method 320, with the
exception that measurement is based on a continuous sampling and analysis giving results at a 1 hertz
(Hz) rate. This method was performed instead of the techniques given in CTM-038, where the FTIR cell
is evacuated and filled with sample gas or the cell is purged with 10 cell volumes of sample before the
analysis of one composite sample gas.
In addition to results presented in this report, raw data were gathered at the rate of one series of
measurements per second over each test to record the engine speed, torque value, concentration of
selected emissions, exhaust temperature, and various pressures. Figure 5 depicts the sampling system and
related components. The system is designed to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 86.10
11
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Dilution
Air
srtive Displacement
PbTO (POP)
CO, CO2.HC, andNOx
Background Bag
Hsal E^cranger
Horiba
MEXA 7200
ihC, CO. CO2. l\0x)
Mass Flow Controller
Roots Meter
Pump
Bag Sample
Gas Analyzer
Sample Line
Heated Line
90mm PM Filters
Figure 5. Schematic of emissions sampling system at SwRI.
The verification protocol requires that the emissions from engines used for verification testing must not
exceed 110% of the certification standards for that engine category.1 For MY 2004-2006 Non-Urban Bus
+ MY 2002-2003 Non-Urban Bus "Consent Decree Pull-Ahead" Engines, these certification standards
are defined in EPA's on-highway engine family box OH-13. Furthermore, the Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ) assumes 5% reduction in PM emissions due to the use of ULSD fuel.
The criteria established to indicate the test engine was acceptable and that verification testing could
proceed were that the baseline emissions from the engine using ULSD fuel cannot exceed 110% of OH-
13 (1.1 x OH-13) for HC, CO, and NOX, and also cannot exceed 110% of [(OH-13)-5%], or (1.045 x OH-
13) for PM. Certification standards for OH-13 are NOX + NMHC 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour
(g/bhp-hr), CO 15.5 g/bhp-hr, and PM 0.1 g/bhp-hr. The adjusted levels the test engine must not
exceed are NOX + NMHC 2.8 g/bhp-hr, CO 17.1 g/bhp-hr, and PM 0.1 g/bhp-hr.
Table 4 presents the required emissions performance of the test engine, as well as the certification
standards and baseline results for comparison.
Table 4. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2006 Cummins ISM 330
OH-13a
Acceptance criteria
Baseline results (March 2010)
Baseline results (February
2011)
N0x +
NMHC
g/kWhr
3.4
3.7
2.96b
2.96
N0x +
NMHC
g/bhp-hr
2.5
2.8
2.21b
2.20
CO
g/kWhr
20.8
22.9
0.381
0.215
CO
g/bhp-hr
15.5
17.1
0.284
0.160
PM
g/kWhr
0.1
0.1
0.047
0.045
PM
g/bhp-hr
0.1
0.1
0.035
0.033
12
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Note: g/bhp-hr = grams per brake horsepower-hour, g/kWhr = grams per kilowatt-hour.
a Certification standards for EPA highway engine family box OH-13 for 2004-2006 Non-Urban Bus + MY
2002-2003 Non-Urban Bus "Consent Decree Pull-Ahead" Engines.
b Methane was not measured during the March 2010 test event; total HC is displayed instead of NMHC.
Beginning of table description. Table 4 is titled Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2006
Cummins ISM 330. The table lists the certified emissions rates for engine category OH-13, to which the
Cummins ISM 330 test engine belongs; the allowable acceptance criteria for maximum emissions for this
category; and the actual results for the Cummins ISM 330 used during the March 2010 and February
2011 test events. The pollutants listed are nitrogen oxides plus non-methane hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, and particulate matter, with units given in both grams per kilowatt hour and grams per brake
horsepower-hour. For both test events, the baseline engine met the acceptance criteria. End of table
description.
3.5 Deviations from the Test/QA Plan
After the emissions tests on the aged SCCRT system during the March 2010 test event, it was noted by
SwRI test personnel that a piece of debris was loose inside the CRT stage. A fastener was found in the
gap between the CRT catalyst and filter substrates. Photographs of the fastener and erosion to the catalyst
substrate face are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. No damage was found on the filter
substrate, as shown in Figure 8; therefore, the test results were not considered invalidated by this issue.
13
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Figure 6. Photograph of the loose fastener found in the aged CRT catalyst
after the March 2010 emissions tests.
Figure 7. Photograph of the aged CRT catalyst erosion caused by the loose fastener.
14
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Figure 8. Photograph of the aged CRT filter face.
A number of issues arose during the February 2011 test event, which resulted in non-compliant data and
re-tests of certain test runs:
• An engine baseline test sequence on February 14 was stopped after the first hot-start test due to
excessive (>2% of full scale) drift in the post-test span check of the NO analyzer. The drift
problem was repaired by SwRI personnel, and the baseline test run was repeated the next day.
• After the baseline test sequence was completed on February 15, it was determined that the cold-
start and second hot-start test runs experienced a breakdown of the PM sampling integrity. The
PM filter showed evidence of dilute exhaust gas escaping around the filter edge. The SET PM
filter did not have the sampling breakdown, so that test run was valid. However, the cold-start and
three hot-start transient baseline tests were repeated on February 16.
• During the first hot-start test of the degreened SCCRT on February 18, there was a failure of the
power supply for the FTIR analyzer. A fourth hot-start test was conducted to make up for the lost
data from the first hot-start run. Repeating the hot-start portion of a highway transient Federal
Test Procedure (FTP) is allowed by 40 CFR 1336-84.n If any test equipment malfunctions during
the hot-start, the cycle is completed and the engine is shut down for a 20-minute soak. If the
malfunction is corrected before the soak period ends, the hot-start tests may be re-run. Because of
this re-run, the valid hot-start runs one through three correspond to SwRI run numbers 0469-901-
H2, 0469-903-H3, and 0469-905-H4, respectively.
• The aged SCCRT test sequence was completed on February 23, but the SET failed to achieve PM
sample proportionality. According to 40 CFR 1360-2007,12 single-filter PM sampling over the
SET modes must account for the weighting factors by proportioning sample mass flow during
each mode. The SET was repeated on February 24, and it had acceptable proportionality.
15
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
3.6 Documented Test Conditions
Engine Performance
Figure 9 shows torque map information measured on the 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine using the
ULSD fuel during the March 2010 test event. Figure 10 shows the same information as measured during
the February 2011 test event. There were no significant differences in the torque maps between the two
test events.
•(ft-lb)
•(bhp)
600
1100 1600
Engine Speed (rpm)
2100
Figure 9. Torque map of 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine using ULSD fuel
during March 2010.
16
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
(ft-lb) ----- (bhp)
1600
1400
600
1100 1600
Engine Speed (rpm)
2100
Figure 10. Torque map of 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine using ULSD fuel
during February 2011.
Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Exhaust Temperature
The engine backpressure for the 2006 Cummins ISM 330 engine was set in accordance with the engine
manufacturer's specifications for the baseline configuration. The backpressure was adjusted to the same
specification after installation of the degreened and aged devices. Maximum exhaust backpressure levels
for transient FTP tests on the SCCRT®, v. 1 systems are given in Table 5 for the March 2010 test event
and Table 6 for the February 2011 test event. The degreened and aged SCCRT®, v. 1 systems significantly
increased exhaust backpressure over the transient test cycle. Higher exhaust backpressure levels were
noted from the engine power validation data.
Temperature measurements were made in the exhaust system of the Cummins engine at the inlet and
outlet of the SCCRT within 1 in. (2.54 cm) of the flange openings. Average inlet and outlet temperatures
over the transient test cycle, shown in Table 5, were 440 °F (227 °C) and 437 °F (225 °C), respectively,
during the March 2010 test. For the February 2011 test event, the average inlet and outlet temperatures,
shown in Table 6, were 435 °F (224 °C) and 408 °F (209 °C), respectively.
17
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 5. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature
during the March 2010 Test Event
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine3
Test
Number
0469-925-C1
0469-927-H1
0469-929-H2
0469-931 -H3
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
03/01/10
03/01/10
03/01/10
03/01/10
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(kPa)
9.01
8.94
9.04
9.04
9.01
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(in. Hg)
2.66
2.64
2.67
2.67
2.66
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
209.42
222.73
222.52
222.17
219.21
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
408.96
432.92
432.54
431.91
426.58
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
206.85
235.49
236.07
235.77
228.55
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
404.33
455.87
456.93
456.38
443.38
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Number
0469-956-C1
0469-958-H1
0469-960-H2
0469-962-H3
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
03/03/10
03/03/10
03/03/10
03/03/10
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(kPa)
12.2
12.4
12.7
12.8
12.5
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(in. Hg)
3.61
3.67
3.74
3.79
3.70
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
218.27
231.63
230.27
229.39
227.39
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
424.89
448.94
446.49
444.90
441.30
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
197.25
253.67
254.53
254.40
239.96
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
387.06
488.60
490.15
489.92
463.93
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Number
0469-983-C1
0469-985-H1
0469-987-H2
0469-989-H3
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
03/05/10
03/05/10
03/05/10
03/05/10
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
kPa
12.1
12.2
12.2
12.3
12.2
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
in. Hg
3.56
3.60
3.61
3.64
3.60
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
216.98
228.92
228.21
228.94
225.76
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
422.57
444.06
442.77
444.09
438.37
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
170.78
220.87
223.09
223.49
209.56
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
339.41
429.57
433.57
434.29
409.21
Note: in. Hg = inches mercury, kPa = kilopascals.
3 Baseline tests used the stock DOC; the stock DOC was not used with the SCCRT.
Beginning of table description. Table 5 is titled Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device
Inlet/Outlet Temperature during the March 2010 Test Event. The table lists the maximum exhaust
backpressure, average device inlet temperature, and average device exhaust temperature for each
individual cold-start and hot-start test run for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are
given in both metric and U.S. common units. End of table description.
18
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 6. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device Inlet/Outlet Temperature
during the February 2011 Test Event
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine"
Test
Number
0469-876-C1
0469-878-H1
0469-880-H2
0469-883-H3
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
02/16/11
02/16/11
02/16/11
02/16/11
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(kPa)
9.04
8.94
9.01
9.08
9.02
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(in. Hg)
2.67
2.64
2.66
2.68
2.66
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
214.00
227.12
227.07
227.52
223.93
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
417.20
440.82
440.73
441 .53
435.07
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
209.56
239.20
239.88
240.22
232.22
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
409.22
462.56
463.79
464.39
449.99
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Number
0469-897-C1
0469-90 1-H2
0469-903-H3
0469-905-H4
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
02/18/11
02/18/11
02/18/11
02/18/11
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(kPa)
13.9
14.0
14.1
14.1
14.0
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(in. Hg)
4.09
4.12
4.15
4.17
4.13
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
220.36
227.02
227.07
227.00
225.36
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
428.64
440.64
440.72
440.59
437.65
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
171.35
227.74
227.72
227.78
213.65
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
340.43
441.93
441.89
442.01
416.56
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Number
0469-91 7-C1
0469-91 9-H1
0469-92 1-H2
0469-923-H3
—
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
02/23/11
02/23/11
02/23/11
02/23/11
Average
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(kPa)
13.0
13.2
13.3
13.5
13.2
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
(in. Hg)
3.83
3.89
3.94
3.99
3.91
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°C)
216.63
224.33
224.55
224.90
222.61
Average
Device
Inlet
Temp. (°F)
421.94
435.80
436.20
436.82
432.69
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°C)
168.03
214.07
216.80
218.12
204.26
Average
Device
Exhaust
Temp. (°F)
334.46
417.32
422.24
424.62
399.66
Note: in. Hg = inches mercury, kPa = kilopascals.
a Baseline tests used the stock DOC; the stock DOC was not used with the SCCRT.
Beginning of table description. Table 6 is titled Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Average Device
Inlet/Outlet Temperature during the February 2011 Test Event. The table lists the maximum exhaust
backpressure, average device inlet temperature, and average device exhaust temperature for each
individual cold-start and hot-start test run for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are
given in both metric and U.S. common units. End of table description.
For March 2010, Figure 11 shows the inlet temperature over time for the degreened device, and Figure
12 shows the inlet temperature over time for the aged device. These temperatures were measured by a
19
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
thermocouple supplied by SwRI. The corresponding February 2011 data are shown in Figure 13 and
Figure 14. In all four figures, the hot-start profile is the average of the three hot-start tests.
Cold Start
Hot Start (avg. of 3)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (seconds)
800 900 1000 1100 1200
Figure 11. Inlet temperature profile of degreened SCCRT®, v.1 system during March 2010.
400
350 H
Cold Start
Hot Start (avg. of 3)
100 200 300 400
500 600 700
Time (seconds)
800 900 1000 1100 1200
Figure 12. Inlet temperature profile of aged SCCRT®, v.1 system during March 2010.
20
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
400
350 -
P 300 -
¥
3 250
Co Id Start
Hot Start (avg. of 3)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (seconds)
800
900
1000 1100 1200
Figure 13. Inlet temperature profile of degreened SCCRT®, v.1 system
during February 2011.
400
o
350 -
300
-CoId Start
-HotStart (avg. of 3)
I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (seconds)
800
900
1000 1100
1200
Figure 14. Inlet temperature profile of aged SCCRT®, v.1 system during February 2011.
Soluble Organic Fraction
On each test, the participate material was tested for SOF. Table 7 reports the results for March 2010, and
Table 8 reports the results for February 2011. Due to very low PM accumulations with the SCCRT
systems, accurate SOF results could not be obtained for the degreened or aged devices.
21
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 7. Participate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction
from Each Test during March 2010
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-925-C1
0469-927-H1
0469-929-H2
0469-931 -H3
0469-045-ESC
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
1.06
0.855
0.785
0.773
1.36
PM % SOF
12.2
8.0
15.1
13.9
13.4
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-956-C1
0469-958-H1
0469-960-H2
0469-962-H3
0469-972-ESC
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
0.0739
0.0452
0.0574
0.0440
0.0610
PM % SOF
a
a
a
a
a
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-983-C1
0469-985-H1
0469-987-H2
0469-989-H3
0469-041 -ESC
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
0.0613
0.0316
0.0318
0.0461
0.0651
PM % SOF
a
a
a
a
a
3 SOF analysis was completed, but the PM sample's accumulation was too low to
give accurate results.
Beginning of table description. Table 7 is titled Particulate Characterization—Soluble
Organic Fraction from Each Test during March 2010. The table lists the mass of
particulate matter emissions in grams and the percent soluble organic fraction from
each individual cold-start, hot-start, and SET for the baseline, degreened, and aged
systems. End of table description.
22
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 8. Participate Characterization—Soluble Organic Fraction
from Each Test during February 2011
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-876-C1
0469-878-H1
0469-880-H2
0469-883-H3
0469-870-ESC1
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
0.908
0.785
0.807
0.781
1.22
PM % SOF
12.7
6.4
13.2
14.6
13.3
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-897-C1
0469-901 -H2
0469-903-H3
0469-905-H4
0469-907-ESC1
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
0.0720
0.0357
0.0482
0.0489
0.0351
PM % SOF
a
a
a
a
a
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-91 7-C1
0469-91 9-H1
0469-921 -H2
0469-923-H3
0469-933-ESC1
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
SET
PM grams
0.0651
0.0712
0.0618
0.0705
0.0331
PM % SOF
a
a
a
a
a
3 SOF analysis was completed, but the PM sample's accumulation was too low to
give accurate results.
Beginning of table description. Table 8 is titled Particulate Characterization—Soluble
Organic Fraction from Each Test during February 2011. The table lists the mass of
particulate matter emissions in grams and the percent soluble organic fraction from
each individual cold-start, hot-start, and SET for the baseline, degreened, and aged
systems. End of table description.
Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption
The fuel consumption was not measured directly during the engine testing. Rather, a calculated "carbon-
balance" fuel consumption rate was determined based on the measured exhaust flow rate and the carbon
content [i.e., the CO and the CO2] in the exhaust gas analysis. The weighted brake-specific fuel
consumption (BSFC) calculations are similar to the weighted emissions calculations explained in Section
4.0. Table 9 shows the weighted BSFC calculations for the March 2010 test event, while Table 10 shows
those calculations for February 2011. Table 11 summarizes the results of these calculations and compares
the fuel consumption during the baseline runs with that measured during the tests with the SCCRT®, v. 1
units installed. The SCCRT systems did not have a substantial effect on fuel consumption.
23
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 9. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance) during March 2010
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-925-C1
0469-927-H1
0469-929-H2
0469-931 -H3
Mean
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
3/1/2010
3/1/2010
3/1/2010
3/1/2010
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.430
0.413
0.415
0.415
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.261
0.251
0.252
0.252
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
—
0.416
0.417
0.417
0.417
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
—
0.253
0.253
0.254
0.253
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-958-H1
0469-960-H2
0469-962-H3
Mean
Test Type
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
3/3/2010
3/3/2010
3/3/2010
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.420
0.418
0.414
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.255
0.254
0.252
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.422
0.421
0.417
0.420
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.257
0.256
0.254
0.255
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-985-H1
0469-987-H2
0469-989-H3
Mean
Test Type
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
3/5/2010
3/5/2010
3/5/2010
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.410
0.408
0.409
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.249
0.248
0.249
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.412
0.410
0.411
0.411
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.251
0.249
0.250
0.250
Note: Ib/bhp-hr = pounds per brake horsepower-hour, kg/kWhr = kilograms per kilowatt hour.
Beginning of table description. Table 9 is titled Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance)
during March 2010. The table lists the calculated results for brake-specific fuel consumption for each
individual cold-start and hot-start test for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. The mean
weighted brake-specific fuel consumption is also listed for each system. Results are shown in both U.S.
common and metric units. End of table description.
24
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 10. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance) during February 2011
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-876-C1
0469-878-H1
0469-880-H2
0469-883-H3
Mean
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
2/16/2011
2/16/2011
2/16/2011
2/16/2011
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.428
0.415
0.415
0.414
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.260
0.252
0.252
0.252
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
—
0.417
0.417
0.416
0.416
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
—
0.253
0.254
0.253
0.253
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-897-C1
0469-901 -H2
0469-903-H3
0469-905-H4
Mean
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
2/18/2011
2/18/2011
2/18/2011
2/18/2011
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.431
0.415
0.416
0.417
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.262
0.252
0.253
0.254
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
—
0.417
0.419
0.419
0.418
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
—
0.253
0.255
0.255
0.254
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-91 7-C1
0469-91 9-H1
0469-921 -H2
0469-923-H3
Mean
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
—
Test Date
2/23/201 1
2/23/201 1
2/23/201 1
2/23/201 1
—
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
0.421
0.408
0.411
0.410
—
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
0.256
0.248
0.250
0.249
—
Weighted
BSFC
(Ib/bhp-hr)
—
0.409
0.412
0.412
0.411
Weighted
BSFC
(kg/kWhr)
—
0.249
0.251
0.250
0.250
Note: Ib/bhp-hr = pounds per brake horsepower-hour, kg/kWhr = kilograms per kilowatt hour.
Beginning of table description. Table 10 is titled Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance)
during February 2011. The table lists the calculated results for brake-specific fuel consumption for each
individual cold-start and hot-start test for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. The mean
weighted brake-specific fuel consumption is also listed for each system. Results are shown in both U.S.
common and metric units. End of table description.
25
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 11. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions
March 2010
Device Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
% Reduction
-0.85
1.3
95% Confidence
Limits
a
0.71 to 2.0
February 2011
Device Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
% Reduction
-0.41
1.3
95% Confidence
Limits
a
0.25 to 2.3
3 The fuel consumption reduction cannot be distinguished from zero with
95% confidence.
Beginning of table description. Table 11 is titled Summary of Fuel
Consumption Reductions. The table lists the percent fuel reduction with
ULSD fuel for the degreened and aged systems during the March 2010 and
February 2011 test events. 95% confidence limits for the percent reductions
are also provided. End of table description.
4.0 Summary and Discussion of Emissions Results
Table 12 (March 2010) and Table 13 (February 2011) report the emissions from the highway transient
FTP tests that were conducted: baseline; with a degreened SCCRT®, v. 1 system installed; and with an
aged SCCRT®, v.l system installed. The concentration measurements were converted to units of total
grams per test for most species, with CO2 [kilograms (kg)] and ammonia (NH3) (ppm) as the exceptions.
The work values in units of kilowatt hour (kWhr) and brake horsepower-hour (bhp-hr) are also shown in
these tables. The NH3 levels are an average of the raw exhaust measurements using FTIR. Since the
detection limit of NH3 is 2 ppm, ammonia slip levels less than 2 ppm are considered as detected, but not
accurately quantified. Additionally, the PM samples from the highway FTP tests with the SCCRT
systems had accumulations too low for accurate SOF analysis.
26
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 12. Highway FTP Emissions Data during March 2010
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-925-C1
0469-927-H1
0469-929-H2
0469-931 -H3
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
1.06
0.855
0.785
0.773
PM (%
SOF)
12.2
8.00
15.1
13.9
NOx (g)
55.7
48.9
48.8
49.6
N0(g)
54.0
48.0
47.9
48.7
NCV
(g)
1.67
0.879
0.819
0.872
N02/N0x
(%)
2.99
1.80
1.68
1.76
HC(g)
1.69
1.54
1.57
1.62
C0(g)
13.6
6.69
6.39
6.63
C02
(kg)
14.2
13.7
13.8
13.8
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.1 (22.9)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.1)
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-956-C1
0469-958-H1
0469-960-H2
0469-962-H3
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
0.0739
0.0452
0.0574
0.0440
PM (%
SOF)
b
b
b
b
NOx(g)
37.0
20.9
21.2
20.6
N0(g)
20.6
8.47
8.57
8.50
NCV
(g)
16.4
12.4
12.6
12.1
N02/NOX
(%)
44.3
59.4
59.6
58.7
HC(g)
0.0700
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
3.01
0.166
0.000
0.259
C02
(kg)
14.4
14.0
13.9
13.8
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.1 (22.9)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.0)
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-983-C1
0469-985-H1
0469-987-H2
0469-989-H3
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
0.0613
0.0316
0.0318
0.0461
PM (%
SOF)
b
b
b
b
NOx (g)
38.3
23.1
21.4
22.7
N0(g)
22.4
8.62
7.56
8.32
N02a
(g)
16.0
14.5
13.9
14.3
N02/NOX
(%)
41.7
62.7
64.7
63.2
HC(g)
0.120
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
4.07
0.175
0.000
0.000
C02
(kg)
13.9
13.6
13.6
13.6
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.1 (22.9)
17.1 (23.0)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.1)
Note: g = grams.
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
b SOF analysis was completed, but the PM sample's accumulation was too low to give accurate results.
Beginning of table description. Table 12 is titled Highway FTP Emissions Data during March 2010. The
table provides the pollutant emissions results from the individual cold-start and hot-start test runs for the
baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: PM in grams and the PM
% soluble organic fraction; NOx, NO, and NO2 in grams; NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; HC in grams;
CO in grams; CO2 in kilograms; NH3 in parts per million; and work in both kilowatt hours and break
horsepower-hours. End of table description.
27
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 13. Highway FTP Emissions Data during February 2011
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-876-C1
0469-878-H1
0469-880-H2
0469-883-H3
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
0.908
0.785
0.807
0.781
PM (%
SOF)
12.7
6.4
13.2
14.6
NOx(g)
56.6
49.2
49.7
49.2
N0(g)
54.4
47.3
47.7
47.3
NCV
(g)
2.25
1.94
1.98
1.92
N02/N0x
(%)
3.97
3.94
3.99
3.91
HC(g)
1.33
1.23
1.34
1.41
C0(g)
9.43
3.29
3.08
3.89
C02
(kg)
14.2
13.8
13.8
13.8
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.1)
17.2(23.1)
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-897-C1
0469-901 -H2
0469-903-H3
0469-905-H4
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
0.0720
0.0357
0.0482
0.0489
PM (%
SOF)
b
b
b
b
NOx (g)
28.5
10.9
10.6
10.1
N0(g)
19.5
5.78
5.69
5.30
NCV
(g)
9.04
5.12
4.94
4.80
N02/NOX
(%)
31.7
47.0
46.5
47.5
HC(g)
0.0940
0.0530
0.123
0.0770
C0(g)
3.02
0.000
0.000
0.000
C02
(kg)
14.3
13.8
13.9
13.9
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.1 (23.0)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.1)
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test Number
0469-91 7-C1
0469-91 9-H1
0469-921 -H2
0469-923-H3
Test Type
Cold-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
Hot-Start
PM(g)
0.0651
0.0712
0.0618
0.0705
PM (%
SOF)
b
b
b
b
NOx(g)
29.0
12.7
11.2
10.6
N0(g)
20.1
5.89
5.09
4.20
N02a
(g)
8.87
6.84
6.09
6.42
N02/NOX
(%)
30.6
53.7
54.5
60.5
HC(g)
0.131
0.116
0.0870
0.143
C0(g)
4.05
0.000
0.000
0.000
C02
(kg)
13.9
13.5
13.7
13.7
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work kWhr
(bhp-hr)
17.1 (23.0)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.0)
17.2(23.1)
Note: g = grams.
a NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
b SOF analysis was completed, but the PM sample's accumulation was too low to give accurate results.
Beginning of table description. Table 13 is titled Highway FTP Emissions Data during February 2011. The
table provides the pollutant emissions results from the individual cold-start and hot-start test runs for the
baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: PM in grams and the PM
% soluble organic fraction; NOx, NO, and NO2 in grams; NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; HC in grams;
CO in grams; CO2 in kilograms; NH3 in parts per million; and work in both kilowatt hours and break
horsepower-hours. End of table description.
28
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 14 (March 2010) and Table 15 (February 2011) report the emissions from the SET tests that were
conducted: baseline; with a degreened SCCRT®, v. 1 system installed; and with an aged SCCRT®, v. 1
system installed.
Table 14. Multimode SET Results during March 2010
Test Number: 0469-045-ESC (Baseline)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
NOx(g)
0.743
11.2
7.96
11.8
3.70
4.91
2.11
18.3
5.78
15.2
3.58
7.66
4.91
N0(g)
0.271
10.4
7.55
11.5
3.32
4.58
1.79
17.5
5.44
14.3
3.51
7.53
4.81
Ncv(g)
0.471
0.788
0.415
0.331
0.381
0.325
0.318
0.880
0.336
0.867
0.0683
0.130
0.103
HC(g)
0.000
0.0406
0.0693
0.0880
0.00556
0.0129
0.000
0.0794
0.0392
0.0945
0.0680
0.0841
0.0753
C0(g)
0.000
0.168
0.109
0.195
0.0264
0.0708
0.0084
0.308
0.0611
0.376
0.070
0.130
0.086
C02 (kg)
0.168
3.44
2.65
3.79
1.04
1.56
0.560
4.36
1.55
4.03
0.853
1.94
1.38
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.0902(0.121)
4.65 (6.24)
3.43 (4.60)
5.19(6.96)
1.44(1.93)
2.18(2.93)
0.708(0.95)
6.37 (8.54)
1.71 (2.29)
5.47 (7.34)
0.850(1.14)
2.53 (3.39)
1.68(2.25)
Test Number: 0469-972-ESC (Degreened)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
0.0610
NOx(g)
0.054
3.33
2.69
5.25
1.25
2.11
0.768
10.7
2.12
10.0
1.38
3.30
2.03
N0(g)
0.000
1.84
1.22
2.40
0.479
1.06
0.313
6.97
0.970
6.64
0.606
1.23
0.601
NCV(g)
0.0543
1.49
1.46
2.84
0.771
1.05
0.454
3.72
1.15
3.40
0.777
2.07
1.43
HC(g)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000988
0.00276
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
0.000
0.0512
0.0279
0.0790
0.0182
0.0322
0.00988
0.126
0.0419
0.0737
0.0140
0.0422
0.0196
C02 (kg)
0.186
3.45
2.74
3.91
1.08
1.59
0.592
4.35
1.60
4.06
0.887
1.98
1.41
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.0746(0.100)
4.57(6.13)
3.47 (4.66)
5.27 (7.07)
1.46(1.96)
2.18(2.93)
0.730 (0.98)
6.29 (8.43)
1.74(2.34)
5.48 (7.35)
0.850(1.14)
2.55 (3.42)
1.69(2.27)
29
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 14. Multimode SET Results during March 2010 (continued)
Test Number: 0469-041-ESC (Aged)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
0.0651
NOx(g)
0.288
1.06
1.65
2.29
0.595
0.630
0.501
3.91
2.60
4.40
1.79
1.97
1.66
N0(g)
0.167
0.689
0.793
0.991
0.241
0.322
0.219
2.59
1.23
2.88
0.697
0.584
0.441
Ncv(g)
0.121
0.373
0.854
1.30
0.354
0.308
0.282
1.32
1.36
1.53
1.09
1.38
1.21
HC(g)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
0.000
0.0356
0.0223
0.0334
0.0112
0.0153
0.0000
0.0601
0.0111
0.0757
0.0292
0.0600
0.0544
C02 (kg)
0.192
3.34
2.69
3.78
1.05
1.56
0.583
4.22
1.58
3.91
0.865
1.94
1.38
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.0805(0.108)
4.53 (6.08)
3.46 (4.64)
5.21 (6.99)
1.45(1.95)
2.18(2.92)
0.724(0.97)
6.24 (8.37)
1.72(2.30)
5.41 (7.25)
0.835(1.12)
2.55 (3.42)
1.69(2.26)
Note: g = grams.
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Beginning of table description. Table 14 is titled Multimode SET Results during March 2010. The table
provides the pollutant emissions results from the thirteen individual test modes of the supplemental
emissions test for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: PM,
NOx, NO, NO2, HC, and CO in grams; CO2 in kilograms; NH3 in parts per million; and work in both
kilowatt hours and break horsepower-hours. End of table description.
30
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 15. Multimode SET Results during February 2011
Test Number: 0469-870-ESC1 (Baseline)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
NOx(g)
0.831
10.1
8.07
12.5
3.91
4.52
2.11
17.2
5.66
16.7
3.55
7.80
4.93
N0(g)
0.434
9.31
7.48
11.8
3.46
4.14
1.77
16.2
5.18
15.5
3.33
7.45
4.68
NCV (g)
0.397
0.834
0.588
0.695
0.454
0.381
0.331
1.06
0.475
1.18
0.220
0.347
0.253
HC(g)
0.000835
0.0513
0.0847
0.116
0.0218
0.0249
0.0102
0.103
0.0692
0.119
0.0689
0.0882
0.0771
C0(g)
0.000
0.125
0.000
0.0556
0.000
0.0333
0.000
0.208
0.000
0.314
0.000
0.0738
0.0390
C02 (kg)
0.118
3.48
2.67
3.81
1.05
1.59
0.573
4.34
1.52
4.07
0.815
1.94
1.39
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.0218(0.0292)
4.76 (6.38)
3.55 (4.76)
5.28 (7.08)
1.49(2.00)
2.24 (3.00)
0.746(1.00)
6.37 (8.54)
1.77(2.38)
5.56 (7.46)
0.865(1.16)
2.59 (3.47)
1.73(2.32)
Test Number: 0469-907-ESC1 (Degreened)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
0.0351
NOx(g)
0.125
0.311
1.01
0.607
0.223
0.434
0.498
2.11
1.12
2.11
0.650
0.540
0.600
N0(g)
0.0250
0.173
0.562
0.303
0.110
0.259
0.238
1.51
0.576
1.50
0.337
0.188
0.245
NCV (g)
0.100
0.138
0.448
0.303
0.113
0.174
0.259
0.601
0.548
0.615
0.312
0.351
0.354
HC(g)
0.0158
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
0.000
0.0133
0.0529
0.0585
0.0265
0.0279
0.000
0.0576
0.0111
0.0468
0.00279
0.0279
0.0237
C02 (kg)
0.126
3.42
2.68
3.80
1.06
1.57
0.578
4.26
1.57
4.00
0.854
1.94
1.39
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.0062 (0.0083)
4.67 (6.26)
3.52 (4.72)
5.29 (7.09)
1.48(1.99)
2.23 (2.99)
0.738 (0.99)
6.30 (8.45)
1.76(2.36)
5.50 (7.38)
0.858(1.15)
2.58 (3.46)
1.72(2.30)
31
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 15. Multimode SET Results during February 2011 (continued)
Test Number: 0469-933-ESC1 (Aged)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Target %
(idle)
100
50
75
50
75
25
100
25
100
25
75
50
Weight
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
PM(g)
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
0.0331
NOx(g)
0.0834
0.902
1.41
1.87
0.480
0.674
0.452
2.85
1.84
3.45
1.48
1.38
1.25
N0(g)
0.000
0.608
0.696
0.913
0.208
0.404
0.188
1.99
0.857
2.33
0.661
0.534
0.442
NCV (g)
0.0834
0.294
0.710
0.960
0.272
0.269
0.264
0.859
0.983
1.12
0.814
0.848
0.803
HC(g)
0.00626
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0209
0.0137
0.00251
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C0(g)
0.000
0.00223
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
C02 (kg)
0.206
3.41
2.69
3.79
1.07
1.60
0.590
4.24
1.57
3.96
0.851
1.92
1.39
NH3
(ppm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Work
kWhr
(bhp-hr)
0.1860(0.2500)
4.66 (6.25)
3.53 (4.74)
5.29 (7.09)
1.49(2.00)
2.24 (3.00)
0.753(1.01)
6.29 (8.43)
1.76(2.36)
5.49 (7.36)
0.865(1.16)
2.57 (3.45)
1.73(2.32)
Note: g = grams.
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Beginning of table description. Table 15 is titled Multimode SET Results during February 2011. The table
provides the pollutant emissions results from the thirteen individual test modes of the supplemental
emissions test for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following:
PM, NOx, NO, NO2, HC, and CO in grams; CO2 in kilograms; NH3 in parts per million; and work in both
kilowatt hours and break horsepower-hours. End of table description.
For each pollutant/hot-start test combination, the transient composite emissions per work brake
horsepower-hour (bhp-hr) were then calculated following the fractional calculation for highway engines
as follows:
where
ECOMP
m
ECOLD
EHOT
WHOT
— • ECOLD -\ • (EHOT)
2 7
1 TT7 6
— • WCOLD ~\ •
7 7
= composite emissions rate, g/bhp-hr
= one, two, or three hot-start tests
= cold-start mass emissions level, g
= hot-start mass emissions level, g
= cold-start bhp-hr
= hot-start bhp-hr
(Eq. 1)
32
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
A weighted emissions rate for each pollutant in the SET test was calculated as follows:
k
r^ \~* r r^
r — > / • n
^SET ~ Z-iJ j ^MODEj
j=l (Eq. 2)
where ESET = weighted emissions rate for the SET test
ft = mode weighting factor from 40 CFR 86.1360-200712 for/ mode
EMODEJ = pollutant emissions rate during/ mode
k = total number of modes for intended application12
The composite emissions rates from the highway transient FTP are then combined with the weighted
emissions rate from the SET test to result in a combined emission rate as follows:
Et= 0.85. (ECOMP\+ 0.15. ESET
for i = 1 to n tests required at the test point (n = 3 for this verification).
33
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
These combined emissions rates are shown in Table 16 and Table 17 for the March 2010 test event and
in Table 18 and Table 19 for the February 2011 test event and were used to calculate the mean and
standard deviations for the baseline and controlled emissions rates. These data were, in turn, used to
calculate mean emissions reductions and 95% confidence limits. These calculations are based on the
generic verification protocol1 and test/QA plan addenda.2'3
Table 16. Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during March 2010
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0368
0.0347
0.0342
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
2.14
2.14
2.16
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
2.09
2.09
2.11
N02a
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0532
0.0514
0.0530
N02/NOX
(%)
2.51
2.43
2.48
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0594
0.0608
0.0620
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.288
0.279
0.286
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
593
595
596
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00200
0.00239
0.00197
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
0.993
1.00
0.985
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.451
0.455
0.453
N02*
(g/bhp-hr)
0.542
0.550
0.532
N02/NOX
(%)
54.5
54.6
53.9
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.000369
0.000369
0.000369
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0228
0.0175
0.0257
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
604
602
598
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00153
0.00153
0.00198
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
1.01
0.952
0.991
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.428
0.394
0.418
N02a
(g/bhp-hr)
0.580
0.558
0.573
N02/N0x
(%)
56.8
57.9
57.1
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.000634
0.000633
0.000633
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0283
0.0227
0.0227
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
589
587
588
a NO2 calculated as NOX-NO.
Beginning of table description. Table 16 is titled Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during
March 2010. The table provides the combined emissions rates for each individual hot-start test of the
baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: exhaust PM, NOx, NO,
and NO2 in grams per brake horsepower-hour; the NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; and HC, CO, and
CO2 in grams per brake horsepower-hour. End of table description.
34
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 17. Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during March 2010
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.0493
0.0465
0.0459
NOx
(g/kWhr)
2.87
2.87
2.90
NO
(g/kWhr)
2.803
2.803
2.830
N02*
(g/kWhr)
0.0713
0.0689
0.0711
N02/NOX
(%)
2.51
2.43
2.48
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.0797
0.0815
0.0831
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.386
0.374
0.384
C02
(g/kWhr)
795
798
799
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.00268
0.00321
0.00264
NOx
(g/kWhr)
1.33
1.34
1.32
NO
(g/kWhr)
0.605
0.610
0.607
N02a
(g/kWhr)
0.727
0.738
0.713
N02/NOX
(%)
54.5
54.6
53.9
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.000495
0.000495
0.000495
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.0306
0.0235
0.0345
C02
(g/kWhr)
810
807
802
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.00205
0.00205
0.00266
NOx
(g/kWhr)
1.35
1.28
1.33
NO
(g/kWhr)
0.574
0.528
0.561
N02*
(g/kWhr)
0.778
0.748
0.768
N02/N0x
(%)
56.8
57.9
57.1
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.000850
0.000849
0.000849
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.0380
0.0304
0.0304
C02
(g/kWhr)
790
787
789
Note: g/kWhr = grams per kilowatt-hour.
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Beginning of table description. Table 17 is titled Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during March
2010. The table provides the combined emissions rates for each individual hot-start test of the baseline,
degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: exhaust PM, NOx, NO, and NO2 in
grams per kilowatt hour; the NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; and HC, CO, and CO2 in grams per kilowatt
hour. End of table description.
35
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 18. Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during February 2011
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0332
0.0339
0.0331
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
2.15
2.16
2.15
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
2.05
2.07
2.05
N02a
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0948
0.0961
0.0943
N02/NOX
(%)
4.46
4.50
4.44
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0483
0.0517
0.0542
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.156
0.149
0.175
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
593
594
592
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00162
0.00201
0.00203
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
0.527
0.518
0.501
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.304
0.301
0.289
N02a
(g/bhp-hr)
0.223
0.217
0.213
N02/NOX
(%)
42.3
41.9
42.3
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00217
0.00439
0.00293
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0170
0.0170
0.0170
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
595
597
597
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00270
0.00240
0.00267
NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
0.611
0.561
0.543
NO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.323
0.297
0.269
N02a
(g/bhp-hr)
0.289
0.265
0.275
N02/NOX
(%)
47.1
47.0
50.3
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
0.00436
0.00344
0.00521
CO
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0214
0.0213
0.0213
C02
(g/bhp-hr)
585
588
588
NO2 calculated as NOX-NO.
Beginning of table description. Table 18 is titled Combined Emissions Rates (U.S. Common Units) during
February 2011. The table provides the combined emissions rates for each individual hot-start test of the
baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: exhaust PM, NOx, NO,
and NO2 in grams per brake horsepower-hour; the NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; and HC, CO, and
CO2 in grams per brake horsepower-hour. End of table description.
36
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 19. Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during February 2011
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.0445
0.0455
0.0444
NOx
(g/kWhr)
2.88
2.90
2.88
NO
(g/kWhr)
2.749
2.776
2.749
N02a
(g/kWhr)
0.127
0.129
0.126
N02/NOX
(%)
4.46
4.50
4.44
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.0648
0.0693
0.0727
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.209
0.200
0.235
C02
(g/kWhr)
795
797
794
Degreened SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.00217
0.00270
0.00272
NOx
(g/kWhr)
0.707
0.695
0.672
NO
(g/kWhr)
0.408
0.404
0.388
N02a
(g/kWhr)
0.299
0.291
0.286
N02/NOX
(%)
42.3
41.9
42.3
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.00291
0.00589
0.00393
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.0228
0.0228
0.0228
C02
(g/kWhr)
798
801
801
Aged SCCRT with ULSD Fuel on a 2006 Cummins ISM 330 Test Engine
Test
Hot-Start #1
Hot-Start #2
Hot-Start #3
Exhaust
PM
(g/kWhr)
0.00362
0.00322
0.00358
NOx
(g/kWhr)
0.819
0.752
0.728
NO
(g/kWhr)
0.433
0.398
0.361
N02a
(g/kWhr)
0.388
0.355
0.369
N02/NOX
(%)
47.1
47.0
50.3
HC
(g/kWhr)
0.00585
0.00461
0.00699
CO
(g/kWhr)
0.0287
0.0286
0.0286
C02
(g/kWhr)
784
789
789
Note: g/kWhr = grams per kilowatt-hour.
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Beginning of table description. Table 19 is titled Combined Emissions Rates (Metric Units) during
February 2011. The table provides the combined emissions rates for each individual hot-start test of the
baseline, degreened, and aged systems. Results are provided for the following: exhaust PM, NOx, NO,
and NO2 in grams per kilowatt hour; the NO2/NOx ratio as a percentage; and HC, CO, and CO2 in grams
per kilowatt hour. End of table description.
37
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
The mean combined emission rates for both test events presented below in Table 20 and Table 21 are the
key values for the verification test. The first line shows the baseline engine results; the emissions in all
categories are below the Table 4 threshold.
Table 20. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units)
March 2010
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Combined
Emission Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0352
0.00212
0.00168
NOx Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
2.15
0.994
0.984
NO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
2.09
0.453
0.413
NCV Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0525
0.541
0.570
HC Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0607
0.000369
0.000633
CO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.284
0.0220
0.0246
C02 Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
595
601
588
February 2011
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Combined
Emission Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0334
0.00189
0.00259
NOx Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
2.15
0.516
0.572
NO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
2.06
0.298
0.296
N02a Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0951
0.218
0.276
HC Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.0514
0.00316
0.00434
CO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
0.160
0.0170
0.0213
C02 Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/bhp-hr)
593
596
587
NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Beginning of table description. Table 20 is titled Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units).
The table lists the mean combined emission rates for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems during
both the March 2010 and February 2011 test events. Results are provided for PM, NOx, NO, NO2, HC,
CO, and CO2 in grams per brake horsepower-hour. End of table description.
38
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 21. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units)
March 2010
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Combined
Emission Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.0472
0.00285
0.00225
NOX Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
2.88
1.33
1.32
NO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
2.81
0.608
0.554
NCV Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.0704
0.726
0.765
HC Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate (g/kWhr)
0.0814
0.000495
0.000849
CO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.381
0.0295
0.0330
C02 Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate (g/kWhr)
797
806
789
February 2011
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Combined
Emission Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.0448
0.00253
0.00347
NOX Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
2.89
0.691
0.767
NO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
2.76
0.400
0.397
N02a Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.128
0.292
0.370
HC Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate (g/kWhr)
0.0689
0.00424
0.00582
CO Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate
(g/kWhr)
0.215
0.0227
0.0286
C02 Mean
Combined
Emission
Rate (g/kWhr)
796
800
788
3 NO2 calculated as NOX-NO
Note: g/kWhr = grams per kilowatt-hour.
Beginning of table description. Table 21 is titled Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units). The
table lists the mean combined emission rates for the baseline, degreened, and aged systems during both
the March 2010 and February 2011 test events. Results are provided for PM, NOx, NO, NO2, HC, CO,
and CO2 in grams per kilowatt hour. End of table description.
The combined emission rates were also used to calculate the average incremental increase in NO2
according to the formula specified by the California Code of Regulations: 13
% Increase = 100%xO. 5 x[(NO2' -NO2b} + (NO2f -NO2b]\l NOb
(Eq. 4)
Where the superscripts J, b, and /represent the initial test (degreened device), final test (aged device), and
baseline test, respectively. For the March 2010 test, the average incremental increase in NO2 was 23.4%,
while this value was 7.0% for the February 2011 test. The large incremental increase from the 2010 test
can be accounted for by improper SCCRT operation to the obsolete thermocouple and housing design.
Table 22 summarizes the emissions reductions that were achieved by the use of the SCCRT®, v.l system.
The February 2011 results are the "verified emissions reductions" reported in Table 2 of the ETV Joint
Verification Statement.
39
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Table 22. Summary of Verification Test Emissions Reductions
March 2010
System Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
94
95
NOx Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
54
54
HC Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
99
99
CO Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
92
91
PM 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
84toa
86toa
NOx 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
52 to 55
53 to 56
HC 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
94toa
94toa
CO 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
88 to 96
87 to 95
February 2011
System Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
PM Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
94
92
NOx Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
76
73
HC Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
94
92
CO Mean
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
89
87
PM 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
91 to 98
89 to 95
NOx 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
75 to 77
72 to 74
HC 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
80toa
77toa
CO 95%
Confidence
Limits on
the
Emissions
Reduction
(%)
69toa
66toa
a The upper limit of the emissions reduction could not be distinguished from 100% with 95% confidence.
Beginning of table description. Table 22 is titled Summary of Verification Test Emissions Reductions. The
table describes the emissions reduction percentages from the verification tests of the degreened and
aged systems during both March 2010 and February 2011. Results are presented for particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. 95% confidence limits for these reductions are also
listed. End of table description.
In summary, the SCCRT systems reduced HC, CO, PM, and NOX emissions. In comparing the aged to
degreened results, the 95% confidence limits for the percent reduction of PM, HC, and CO overlapped
each other, while a very slight degradation in NOx reduction performance was measured for the aged
system relative to the degreened system. The effect of the obsolete thermocouple and housing from the
March 2010 test is apparent in the poorer NOX reduction and higher incremental increase in NO2 relative
to the February 2011 test. Ammonia slip levels, measured in the exhaust downstream of the SCCRT, were
less than 2 ppm for each emissions test. With the SCCRT system in place, the soluble organic fraction of
the PM emissions was too low to quantify. The SCCRT systems did not have a significant effect on fuel
consumption or CO2 emissions.
4.1 Quality Assurance
The ETV of the SCCRT®, v.l system with ULSD fuel for heavy-duty highway diesel engines was
performed in accordance with the approved test/QA plan and the test-specific addendum.2'3 An internal
audit of data quality conducted by SwRI personnel6'7 included the review of equipment, procedures,
record keeping, data validation, analysis, and reporting. Preliminary, in-process, and final inspections, and
a review of 10% of the data, showed that the requirements stipulated in the test/QA plan8 were achieved.
The SwRI, APCT Center, and EPA quality managers reviewed the test results and the QC data and
concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol were attained. RTI
QA staff conducted an audit of SwRI's technical systems in March 2010 and found no deficiencies that
40
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
would adversely impact the quality of results at that time. The equipment was appropriate for the
verification testing, and it was operating satisfactorily.
41
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
5.0 References
1. RTI International. 2003. Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions
Reductions from Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Non-Road,
and Stationary Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, September. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/05_vp_emissions.pdf (accessed April 19, 2011).
2. RTI International. 2008. Test-Specific Addendum to ETV SCR Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey
for the SCCRT v.l System. Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2009 (revised July 2009).
3. RTI International. 2008. Test-Specific Addendum to ETV SCR Test/QA Plan for Johnson Matthey
for the SCCRT v.l System. Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2009 (revised November 2010).
4. Southwest Research Institute. 2010. Environmental Technology Verification: SCCRT Technology
(Repeat Program). Final Report. San Antonio, TX, April.
5. Southwest Research Institute. 2011. Environmental Technology Verification: SCCRT Technology
(Repeat Program). Final Report. San Antonio, TX, March.
6. Southwest Research Institute. 2010. Audit of Data Quality for Environmental Technology
Verification of SCCRT Technology. San Antonio, TX, April.
7. Southwest Research Institute. 2011. Audit of Data Quality for Environmental Technology
Verification of SCCRT Technology. San Antonio, TX, April.
8. RTI International. 2006. Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Selective Catalytic
Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Nonroad, and Stationary Use Diesel Engines.
Research Triangle Park, NC, April. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv07039.pdf
(accessed April 19, 2011).
9. 40 CFR, Part 86.1313-2007 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-
Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Fuel Specifications), Table N07-2. Available at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=73cf95a92e6738b2e5dab5c2172074ef&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:19.0.1.1
.1.8.1.20&idno=40 (accessed April 19, 2011).
10. 40 CFR, Part 86 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-Use
Highway Vehicles and Engines), Subpart N. Available at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=73cf95a92e6738b2e5dab5c2172074ef;rgn=div6;view=text;node=40%3A19.0.1.1.
1.8;idno=40;cc=ecfr (accessed April 19, 2011).
11. 40 CFR, Part 86.1336-84 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-
Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Engine Starting, Restarting, and Shutdown). Available at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=7d03eOb031a563dd9be43d7ff91bOdb6&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:19.0.1.
1.1.8.1.4l&idno=40 (accessed May 2, 2011).
12. 40 CFR, Part 86.1360-2007 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-
Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Supplemental Emission Test, Test Cycle and Procedures).
Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=73cf95a92e6738b2e5dab5c2172074ef&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:19.0.1.1
.1.8.1.55&idno=40 (accessed April 19,2011).
13. Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 14, Section 2706 (Motor Vehicles:
Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies to
42
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report JM SCCRT, v.l
Control Emissions from Diesel Engines - Other Requirements). Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/procedure_march201 l.pdf (accessed April 19, 2011).
43
------- |