Environmental Technology Verification
Test Report of Mobile Source Emission
Control Devices
Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst and Closed Crankcase Ventilation
System
Prepared by
Southwest Research Institute RTI International
HRTI
INTERNATIONAL
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
&EPA
ETV EW ET
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
oEPA
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ET/
HRTI
INTERNATIONAL
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: MOBILE DIESEL ENGINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
FAX:
WEB SITE:
E-MAIL:
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE DIESEL ENGINES IN
HIGHWAY USE BY DIESEL OXIDATION CATALYST (DOC) AND
CLOSED CRANKCASE VENTILATION (CCV) SYSTEM
201350N DOC PLUS COALESCER BREATHER CV5061200 AND
CRANKCASE DEPRESSION REGULATOR (CDR) VALVE 395587500
CUMMINS EMISSION SOLUTIONS & CUMMINS FILTRATION
1801 US HIGHWAY 51/138
STOUGHTON,WI 53589
(608) 873-4200
(608) 873-1550
http://www.cummins.com
fleetmaster(a)cummins.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 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. ETV 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.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups,
which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and other interested parties; and with the
full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of
innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing
peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
(QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results
are defensible.
The Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center), one of six centers under
the ETV Program, is operated by RTI International (RTI), in cooperation with EPA's National Risk
-------
Management Research Laboratory. The APCT Center has evaluated the performance of an emissions
control system consisting of a precious metal diesel oxidation catalyst and diesel particulate filter for
highway diesel engines.
ETV TEST DESCRIPTION
All tests were performed in accordance with the Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel
Exhaust Catalysts, PM Filters, and Engine Modification Technologies for Highway andNonroad Use
Diesel Engines and the Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Cummins
Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration for the 201350N DOC + Coalescer Breather CV5061200.
These documents are written in accordance with the applicable generic verification protocol and
include requirements for quality management, QA, procedures for product selection, auditing of the
test laboratories, and test reporting format.
The mobile diesel engine air pollution control technology was tested January 10-12, 2007, at
Southwest Research Institute. The performance verified was the percentage emission reduction
achieved by the technology for particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons (HC),
and carbon monoxide (CO) relative to the performance of the same baseline engine without the
technology in place. Operating conditions were documented and ancillary performance
measurements were also made. A summary description of the ETV test is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary Description of the ETV Test
Test type
Engine family
Engine make-model year
Service class
Engine rated power
Engine displacement
Technology
Technology description
Test cycle or mode
description
Test fuel description
Critical measurements
Ancillary measurements
Highway Transient Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
YCEXH0661MAH
Cummins - 2000 ISM 350 ESP
Highway, heavy heavy-duty diesel engine
350 hp at 21 00 rpm
10.8 L, inline six-cylinder
201350N DOC plus coalescer breather CV5061200 and crankcase
depression regulator (CDR) valve 395587500
Diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and closed crankcase ventilation (CCV)
One cold-start and multiple hot-start tests according to FTP test for baseline
engine, degreened and aged systems.
Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel with 15 ppm sulfur maximum
PM, NOX, HC, and CO
CO2, NO, NO2 (by calculation), soluble organic fraction (SOF) of PM, exhaust
backpressure, exhaust temperature, and fuel consumption
VERIFIED TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration's 2013SON precious metal diesel oxidation
catalyst (DOC) and closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) system, consists of the DOC plus the
coalescer breather CV5061200 and crankcase depression regulator (CDR) valve 395587500. 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 2013 SON DOC plus coalescer breather
-------
CV5061200 and CDR valve 395587500 on highway engines fueled only by ULSD (15 ppm or less)
fuel.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The 201350N DOC plus coalescer breather CV5061200and CDR valve 395587500 achieved the
reduction in tailpipe emissions shown in Table 2 compared to baseline operation without the
DOC+CCV system.
Table 2. Verified Emissions Reductions
Device
type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
Mean
Emissions Reduction (%)
PM
31
30
NOX
2.8
0.68
HC
80
68
CO
71
60
95% Confidence Limits
on the Emissions Reduction (%)
PM
27 to 34
26 to 34
NOX
2.0 to 3.7
a
HC
75 to 86
62 to 73
CO
70 to 73
59 to 61
The emission reduction cannot be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.
The APCT Center QA officer has reviewed the test results and quality control data and has concluded
that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol and test/QA plan have been
attained. EPA and APCT Center QA staff have conducted technical assessments of the test
laboratory 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 2013 SON DOC plus coalescer
breather CV5061200 and CDR valve 395587500 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 201350N DOC plus coalescer breather
CV5061200 and CDR valve 395587500 within the range of applicability of the statement.
Original signed by S. Gutierrez
7/16/07 Original signed by A. R. Trenholm
Sally Gutierrez Date
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
7/3/07
Andrew R. Trenholm
Director
Air Pollution Control Technology
Verification Center
Date
in
-------
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
Mobile Source Emission Control Devices
Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration
Closed Crankcase Ventilation System
(201350N Precious Metal Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Plus
Coalescer Breather CV5061200 and Crankcase
Depression Regulator Valve 395587500)
Prepared by
RTI International
Southwest Research Institute
EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR831911 -01 -1
EPA Project Manager:
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
June 2007
-------
Notice
This document was prepared by RTI International (RTI) and its subcontractor, Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI), with partial funding from Cooperative Agreement No. CR83191101-1
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.
11
-------
Foreword
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is designed to accelerate the development and
commercialization of new or improved technologies through third-party verification and
reporting of performance. The goal of the ETV Program is to verify the performance of
commercially ready environmental technologies through the evaluation of objective and quality-
assured data in order to provide potential purchasers and permitters an independent, credible
assessment of the technology they are buying or permitting.
The Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center) is part of the EPA's
ETV Program, and is operated as a partnership between RTI International (RTI) and EPA. The
APCT Center verifies the performance of commercially ready air pollution control technologies.
Verification tests use approved protocols, and verified performance is reported in verification
statements signed by EPA and RTI officials. RTI contracts with Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI) to perform verification tests on engine emission control technologies.
Retrofit air pollution control devices used to control emissions from mobile diesel engines are
among the technologies evaluated by the APCT Center. The APCT Center developed (and EPA
approved) the Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters,
and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway andNonroad 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 Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins
Filtration closed crankcase ventilation system, consisting of the Cummins coalescer breather
CV5061200 and crankcase depression regulator (CDR) valve 395587500, and Cummins
2013 SON precious metal diesel oxidation catalyst. ETV testing of this technology was conducted
in January 10-12, 2007, at SwRI. All testing was performed in accordance with an approved
test/QA plan that implements the requirements of the generic verification protocol at the test
laboratory.
in
-------
Availability of Report
Copies of this verification report are available from:
• RTI International
Engineering and Technology Unit
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (E343-02)
109 T. W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/verification-index.html (pdf format)
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Availability of Report iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vi
Acronyms/Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgments ix
Section 1.0 Introduction 1
Section 2.0 Product Description 2
Section 3.0 Test Documentation 4
3.1 Engine Description 4
3.2 Engine Fuel Description 4
3.3 Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures 6
3.4 Deviations from the Test/QA Plan 8
3.5 Documented Test Conditions 8
Section 4.0 Summary and Discussion of Emission Results 13
Section 5.0 References 17
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1. Engine shown in emissions test cell with Cummins DOC+CCV installed on engine. ...3
Figure 2. Closed crankcase ventilation system components 3
Figure 3. Identification labels for 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine and its electronic control
module 5
Figure 4. Schematic of emissions sampling system at SwRI 7
Figure 5. Torque map of 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine using ULSD fuel 8
Figure 6. Inlet Temperature Profile of Degreened DOC+CCV 10
Figure?. Inlet Temperature Profile of Aged DOC+CCV 10
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1. Engine Identification Information 5
Table 2. Selected Fuel Properties and Specifications 6
Table 3. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2000 Cummins ISM350 8
Table 4. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and DOC Inlet/Exhaust Temperature 9
Table 5. Particulate Characterization - Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF) from Each Test 11
Table 6. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance) 12
Table 7. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions 12
Table 8. Emissions Data 13
Table 9. Composite Weighted Emission Rates (U.S. Common Units) 14
Table 10. Composite Weighted Emission Rates (Metric Units) 15
Table 11. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units) 15
Table 12. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units) 15
Table 13. Summary of Verification Test Emission Reductions 16
VI
-------
APCT Center
ASTM
bhp
bhp-hr
BSFC
C-B
CCV
CDR
CFR
cm
CO
C02
Cummins
CVS
DOC
EPA
ETV
PEL
ft
FTP
g
HC
HD
hp
in.
kW
kWh
L
Ib
Ib-ft
m
Acronyms/Abbreviations
Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center
American Society for Testing and Materials
brake horsepower
brake horsepower-hour
brake-specific fuel consumption
carbon balance
closed crankcase ventilation
crankcase depression regulator
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter(s)
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration
constant volume sampler
diesel oxidation catalyst
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
environmental technology verification
family emission limits
foot (feet)
Federal Test Procedure
gram(s)
hydrocarbon(s)
heavy duty
horsepower
inch(es)
kilowatt(s)
kilowatt hour(s)
liter(s)
pound(s)
pound foot (feet)
meter(s)
vn
-------
mm millimeter(s)
N newton(s)
N-m newton-meter
NO nitric oxide
NC>2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Pa pascal(s)
PDF positive displacement pump
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million by volume
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
rpm revolutions per minute
RTI RTI International
SOF soluble organic fraction of the particulate matter
SOP standard operating procedure
SwRI Southwest Research Institute
ULSD ultra-low sulfur diesel
Vlll
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the
verification activities. In particular, we would like to thank Michael Kosusko, project manager,
and Paul Groff, quality assurance manager, both of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC. We
would also like to acknowledge the assistance and participation of all Cummins Emission
Solutions & Cummins Filtration personnel who supported the test effort.
For more information on the Cummins 201350N DOC plus coalescer breather CV5061200 and
CDR valve 395587500, contact:
Mr. Scott P. Heckel
Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration
1801 US Highway 51/138
Stoughton,WI 53589
Telephone: (608) 877-3801
Fax: (608)873-1550
Email: fleetmaster@cummins.com
Web site: http://www.cummins.com
For more information on verification testing of mobile sources air pollution control devices,
contact:
Ms. Jenni Elion
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Telephone: (919) 541-6253
Email: jme@rti.org
ETV Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv/
IX
-------
Section 1.0
Introduction
This report reviews the performance of the 2013 SON precious metal diesel oxidation catalyst
(DOC) and closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) system, consisting of the Cummins coalescer
breather CV5061200 and crankcase depression regulator (CDR) valve 395587500, submitted for
testing by Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration (Cummins). Environmental
technology verification (ETV) testing of this technology was conducted January 10-12, 2007,
during a series of tests by Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), under contract with the Air
Pollution Control Technology Verification Center (APCT Center). The APCT Center is
operated by RTI International (RTI)^ in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) ETV program. The objective of the APCT Center and the ETV program is to
verify, with high-quality data, the performance of air pollution control technologies, including
those designed to control air emissions from diesel engines. With the assistance of a technical
panel of experts assembled for the purpose, RTI has established the APCT Center program area
specifically to evaluate the performance of diesel exhaust catalysts, particulate filters, and engine
modification control technologies for mobile diesel engines. Based on the activities of this
technical panel, the Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Paniculate
Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway andNonroad Use Diesel
Engines1 was developed. This protocol was chosen as the best guide to verify the immediate
performance effects of the Cummins DOC+CCV technology. 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 DOC+CCV technology
installed. The specific test/quality assurance (QA) plan addendum for the ETV test of the
technology submitted by Cummins was developed and approved in November 2006.2 The goal
of the test was to measure the emissions control performance of the DOC+CCV technology and
its emissions reduction relative to an uncontrolled engine.
A description of the Cummins DOC+CCV technology is presented in Section 2. Section 3
documents the procedures and methods used for the test and the conditions under which the test
was conducted. The results of the test are summarized and discussed in Section 4, and references
are presented in Section 5.
This report contains only summary data and the verification statement. Complete documentation
of the test results is provided in a separate test report3 and audit of data quality report.4 These
reports include the raw test data from product testing and supplemental testing, equipment
calibration results, and QA and quality control (QC) activities and results. Complete
documentation of QA/QC activities and results, raw test data, and equipment calibration results
are retained in SwRI's files for 7 years.
This verification report describes the performance of the tested technology on the diesel engine
identified in Table 1, and applies only to the use of the 2013 SON DOC plus coalescer breather
CV5061200 and CDR valve 395587500 on highway engines fueled only by ULSD (15 ppm or
less) fuel.
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
-------
Section 2.0
Product Description
The Cummins DOC+CCV system, shown in Figure 1, consists of a DOC and coalescing filter.
Emissions were quantified with separate degreened and aged DOC+CCV system components.
Each DOC+CCV system included a DOC, Cummins Part No. 2013SON, manufactured by
Johnson Matthey Inc., and a set of coalescing components to re-route the engine's crankcase
ventilation. Installation of the CCV hardware prevents crankcase effluents from reaching the
atmosphere. Prior to closing the crankcase, baseline tests quantified the engine's crankcase
mass-rate particulate emissions or "blowby" in accordance with SwRI procedure 07-0435. The
coalescing hardware is designed to capture blow-by mist, and route any gaseous remainder into
the turbocharger air intake pipe. Two identical CCV coalescing filter housings and filter
elements were provided as degreened and aged units, with one crankcase depression regulator
(CDR) valve used in all DOC+CCV work. The components intended for degreening arrived
clean and new. In contrast, the aged filter element and housing were notably seasoned with oil
and arrived in a sealed plastic bag. Figure 2 shows the main components of the CCV system, the
CDR valve (Part: 395587500) and filter housing (Part: CV5061200), with the coalescing filter
element shown exposed for the photograph.
Cummins provided a new DOC to be degreened at SwRI prior to verification. This DOC's label
showed serial number 306, EPA Sample 6, July 2006. The 25-hour degreening process included
five repetitions of the two-step sequence consisting of 0.5 hours at the engine's no-load, low idle
condition, followed by 4.5 hours at the declared peak torque speed, with a partial load applied to
achieve a minimum DOC inlet temperature of 450 °C.
Cummins also provided an "aged" DOC unit that had seen 2700 hours of service on a 2003
Cummins ISM 330 ESP engine, installed on a Class 8 truck operated within a 200 mile radius of
Oconomowoc, WI. The "aged" DOC was labeled with serial number 115, EPA Sample 7, April
2005.
The degreened and aged DOC units were identically sized, 45-inch long, cylindrical-shaped
canisters, designed as mufflers weighing nominally 60 pounds. They had a 5-inch diameter
flange at each opening, and the 11-inch DOC brick was located near the canister's midpoint. For
evaluating emissions, each DOC in turn was mounted 150 inches downstream of the
turbocharger, replacing the baseline exhaust spool-pipe.
-------
Figure 1. Engine shown in emissions test cell with Cummins
DOC+CCV installed on engine.
Figure 2. Closed crankcase ventilation system components.
-------
Section 3.0
Test Documentation
The ETV testing took place during January 2007 at SwRI under contract to the APCT Center.
Testing was performed in accordance with:
• Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine
Modification Control Technologies for Highway andNonroad Use Diesel Engines1
• Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel Exhaust Catalysts, Paniculate Filters,
and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway andNonroad Use Diesel
Engines6
• Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for Cummins Emission Solutions
& Cummins Filtration for the 201350NDOC + Coalescer Breather CV5061200 and CDR
Valve 3958 7002
The applicant reviewed the generic verification protocol and had an opportunity to review the
test/QA plan prior to testing.
3.1 Engine Description
The ETV testing was performed on a six-cylinder, 10.8 liter, 2000 model year Cummins ISMS50
highway heavy heavy-duty diesel engine (SN: 35010881) borrowed from EPA. The nameplate
rating of this model engine is 260 kW (350 bhp) in "prime" power service at 2100 rpm. The test
engine had about 215 hours of operation accumulated on it before arriving at SwRI.
Table 1 provides the engine identification details and Figure 3 shows the identification plates
from the engine and its electronic control module.
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.7 Selected fuel properties from the supplier's analyses
are summarized in Table 2. All testing was conducted using fuel from a single batch, identified
as EM-5989-F.
-------
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 (calculated from nameplate power)
Certified emission control system
Aspiration
Fuel system
35010881
June 2000
Cummins
2000
ISM 350 ESP
10.8 L, inline six-cylinder
Highway heavy heavy-duty diesel engine
YCEXH0661MAH
HC 1 .30/CO 1 5.50/NOX 4.00/PM 0.1 00
350 hp at 21 00 rpm
1350lb-ftat1200rpm
Typical exhaust
Turbo-charged
Electronically controlled fuel injection
;35010881
YCEXH0661MAH
53S. ISM 350ESP
,06/00
60O-800
Sy£# 350/40
T-gMfr-ua J 350/7 451
ISM350
,
iFw. -OT4
-025 LASH
2608
Ittt, ir U,5A
P/N 3681405
S/N 26028770
0/C 06272000
ESN 35010881
J/C L20533 06-2000OSC
tov
Figure 3. Identification labels for 2000 Cummins ISM350
engine and its electronic control module.
-------
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)
Specific gravity
Total sulfur, ppm
Hydrocarbon composition:
Aromatics (minimum), %
Paraffins, naphthenes, and olefins, %
Flash point (minimum), °C (°F)
Viscosity, centistokes at 40 °C
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Specification3
ASTM
D613
D976
D86
D86
D86
D86
D86
D287
-
D2622
D5186
D5186
D93
D445
Type 2D
40-50
40-50
171-204(340-400)
204-238 (400-460)
243-282 (470-540)
293-332 (560-630)
321-366(610-690)
32-37
-
7-15
27
f
54 (1 30)
2.0-3.2
Test Fuel
EM-5989-F
44.4
n/ab
192(377)
214(417)
260 (500)
31 1 (592)
337 (638)
35.2C
0.849C
10d
29.5e
70.5e
77(170)
2.5
a 40 CFR 86.1313-2007(b)(2) for the year 2007 and beyond for heavy-duty diesel engines.
b n/a=not applicable
c Measured per ASTM D4052.
d Measured per ASTM D5453; this method is an acceptable substitute for ASTM D2622.
e Measured per ASTM D1319.
f Remainder of the hydrocarbons.
3.3 Summary of Emissions Measurement Procedures
The ETV tests consisted of baseline uncontrolled tests and tests with the control technology
installed. Engine operation and emissions sampling adhered to techniques developed by EPA in
40 CFR, Part 86, Subpart N.8 Emissions were measured over multiple runs of the highway
transient test cycle for the baseline, degreened DOC+CCV, and aged DOC+CCV exhaust
configurations.
The statement of work called for one cold-start test and three hot-start tests for the baseline,
degreened, and aged conditions. When running the first hot start test of the baseline engine, the
NOX values were slightly depressed, suggesting a possible sensor problem that would invalidate
the test. With the engine still in the test cell, SwRI chose to run a fourth hot-start test. After
reviewing the data, there was no evidence of a sensor problem. All four hot-start tests were
valid, and data from all four were used in calculating the emissions reductions. A fourth hot-start
test was added to the degreened and aged conditions to keep the data sets uniform.
When the engine was configured in an open-loop configuration, the crankcase effluent was
routed through a sample filter to allow the collection of the total crankcase particulate. When the
engine was configured in a closed-loop configuration, the crankcase effluent was routed through
-------
the coalescer filter before being directed into the intake of the engine. Baseline emissions
included both open crankcase and tailpipe emissions. Control technology tests were conducted
with a closed crankcase.
The Cummins ISMS50 engine was operated in an engine dynamometer test cell, with exhaust
sampled using full-flow dilution constant volume sampling (CVS) techniques to measure
regulated emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
particulate matter (PM), plus nitric oxide (NO). The nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels are expressed
as the difference between measured NOX and NO levels for each run. In addition to results
presented in this report, raw data were gathered at the rate of one series of measurements per
second over each test to record the engine speed, torque value, concentration of selected
emissions, exhaust temperature, and various pressures. Figure 4 depicts the sampling system and
related components. The system is designed to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part
86.8
NOX
Analyzer
HC
Analyzer
Positive Displacement
Pump (POP)
Dilution
Air
CO, CO2, HC, and NO;
Background Bag
Gas Meter
Pump [
Bag Sample
Gas Analyzer [
Sample Line
Heated Line +H
90-mm PM Filters
.
(D)
Figure 4. 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.9 For 1998-2003
non-urban bus engines, the certification standards are defined in EPA's on-highway engine
family box OH-109. Furthermore, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)
assumes 5% reduction in PM emissions due to the use of ULSD fuel.
Therefore, the criteria established to indicate that the test engine was acceptable and that the
verification testing could proceed were that the baseline emissions from the engine using ULSD
fuel could not exceed 110% of OH-10 (1.1 x OH-10) for HC, CO, and NOX, and also could not
-------
exceed 110% of [(OH-10)-5%], or (1.045 x OH-10) for PM. Table 3 presents the required
emission performance of the test engine, as well as the certification standards and baseline
results for comparison. Open crankcase emissions are included when calculating emissions
reductions, but are not included when evaluating whether the engine meets the certification
standards for verification testing to proceed.
Table 3. Test Engine Baseline Emissions Requirement for 2000 Cummins ISM350
OH-10
Acceptance criteria
Baseline results
HC
g/kWh
1.74
1.92
0.34
g/hp-hr
1.30a
1.43
0.26
CO
g/kWh
20.79
22.86
1.06
g/hp-hr
15.503
17.05
0.79
NOX
g/kWh
5.36
5.90
5.18
g/hp-hr
4.00 a
4.40
3.86
PM
g/kWh
0.130
0.140
0.090
g/hp-hr
0.1003
0.105
0.069
Certification standards for EPA highway engine family box OH-10 for 1998-2003 non-urban bus engines.
3.4 Deviations from the Test/QA Plan
There were no deviations from the test/QA plan. A minimum of three tests was specified in the
test-specific addendum, but the applicant has the option of conducting additional tests to narrow
the 95% confidence interval. As long as the data from all valid tests are used in calculating the
emissions, the addition of a fourth hot-start test is not considered a deviation.
3.5 Documented Test Conditions
Engine Performance
Figure 5 shows torque map information measured on the 2000 Cummins ISMS50 engine using
the ULSD fuel.
Ib-ft - - -hp
300
250
100
50
1000 1200 1400
Engine Speed, rpm
Figure 5. Torque map of 2000 Cummins ISM350 engine using ULSD fuel.
-------
Engine Exhaust Backpressure and Exhaust Temperature
The engine backpressure for the 2000 Cummins ISMS50 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 backpressure observed during testing, reported in Table 4, did not exceed the
manufacturer's specifications.
Temperature measurements were made in the exhaust system of the Cummins engine at the inlet
and outlet of the DOC within 1 inch (2.54 cm) of the flange openings. Average inlet and outlet
temperatures over the transient test cycle, shown in Table 4, were 427 °F (220 °C) and 444 °F
(229 °C), respectively. Figure 6 shows the inlet temperature over time for the degreened device
and Figure 7 shows the inlet temperature over time for the aged device. In both figures, the hot-
start profile is the average of the four hot-start tests.
Table 4. Engine Exhaust Backpressure and DOC Inlet/Exhaust Temperature
Test Number
Test
Type
Test Date
Maximum
Exhaust
Backpressure
kPa
in. Hg
Average
DOC Inlet
Temperature
°C
°F
Average
DOC Exhaust
Temperature
°C
°F
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
B-881-C3
B-881-H1
B-881-H2
B-881-H3
B-881-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
01/10/07
01/10/07
01/10/07
01/10/07
01/10/07
Average
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Not measured (no device in place)
Degreened DOC+CCVwith ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-6-C1
JM-6-H1
JM-6-H2
JM-6-H3
JM-6-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
01/11/07
01/11/07
01/11/07
01/11/07
01/11/07
Average
10.2
10.2
10.5
10.5
10.2
10.2
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
212.1
220.7
221.8
222.6
221.9
219.8
413.8
429.2
431.3
432.7
431.5
427.7
214.9
231.9
233.6
234.0
233.3
229.5
418.9
449.4
452.5
453.2
451.9
445.2
Aged DOC+CCV with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-7-C1
JM-7-H1
JM-7-H2
JM-7-H3
JM-7-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
01/12/07
01/12/07
01/12/07
01/12/07
01/12/07
Average
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.5
10.5
10.2
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.0
211.8
222.4
221.8
220.7
221.3
219.6
413.3
432.3
431.2
429.3
430.3
427.3
214.2
231.8
231.2
230.8
231.4
227.9
417.5
449.3
448.2
447.5
448.5
442.2
-------
Cold Start
HotStart(avg.of4)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (seconds)
Figure 6. Inlet temperature profile of degreened DOC+CCV
o
Cold Start
Hot Start (avg. of 4)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (seconds)
Figure 7. Inlet temperature profile of aged DOC+CCV
10
-------
Soluble Organic Fraction
On each test, the particulate matter was tested for soluble organic fraction (SOF). Table 5
reports the results.
Table 5. Particulate Characterization - Soluble Organic Fraction (SOF) from Each Test
Test Description
Baseline
(Without DOC+CCV)
With Degreened
DOC+CCV
With Aged
DOC+CCV
Test Number
B-881-C3
B-881-H1
B-881-H2
B-881-H3
B-881-H4
JM-6-C1
JM-6-H1
JM-6-H2
JM-6-H3
JM-6-H4
JM-7-C1
JM-7-H1
JM-7-H2
JM-7-H3
JM-7-H4
PM, g/hp-hr
1.69
1.89
1.98
1.97
1.98
1.22
1.29
1.37
1.36
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.35
1.33
1.33
SOF, % of PM
39.6
30.2
27.3
29.6
33.0
20.3
20.1
19.6
17.0
16.5
16.4
13.3
16.1
13.5
16.3
11
-------
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
The fuel consumption was not measured directly during the engine testing. Rather, a calculated
"carbon-balance" (C-B) fuel consumption rate was determined based on the measured exhaust
flow rate and the carbon content (i.e., the CO and the CC^) in the exhaust gas analysis. The
weighted BSFC calculations are similar to the weighted emissions calculations explained in
Section 4.0. Table 6 shows the weighted BSFC calculations. Table 7 summarizes the results of
these calculations and compares the fuel consumption during the baseline runs with that
measured during the tests with the DOC+CCV units installed.
Table 6. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (by Carbon Balance)
Test Number
Test
Type
Test Date
BSFC
Ib/bhp-hr kg/kWh
Weighted BSFC
Ib/bhp-hr kg/kWh
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
B-881-C3
B-881-H1
Cold Start
Hot Start
1/10/2007
1/10/2007
0.375
0.360
0.228
0.219
0.362
0.220
B-881-H2
Hot Start
1/10/2007
0.358
0.218
0.361
0.219
B-881-H3
Hot Start
1/10/2007
0.358
0.218
0.360
0.219
B-881-H4
Hot Start
1/10/2007
0.358
0.218
0.360
0.219
Mean
0.361
0.219
Degreened DOC+CCV with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-6-C1
JM-6-H1
Cold Start
Hot Start
1/11/2007
1/11/2007
0.372
0.354
0.226
0.215
0.356
0.217
JM-6-H2
Hot Start
1/11/2007
0.353
0.215
0.356
0.216
JM-6-H3
Hot Start
1/11/2007
0.355
0.216
0.357
0.217
JM-6-H4
Hot Start
1/11/2007
0.354
0.215
0.356
Mean
0.356
Aged DOC+CCV with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-7-C1
JM-7-H1
Cold Start
Hot Start
1/12/2007
1/12/2007
0.369
0.356
0.224
0.216
0.358
0.217
0.217
0.218
JM-7-H2
Hot Start
1/12/2007
0.354
0.215
0.356
0.216
JM-7-H3
Hot Start
1/12/2007
0.354
0.215
0.356
0.217
JM-7-H4
Hot Start 1/12/2007
0.354
0.215
0.356
0.216
Mean
0.356
0.217
Table 7. Summary of Fuel Consumption Reductions
Device Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
% Reduction
1.2
1.2
95% Confidence Limits
0.71 to 1.7
0.63 to 1.8
12
-------
Section 4.0
Summary and Discussion of Emission Results
Table 8 reports the emissions from the tests that were conducted: baseline, with a degreened
DOC+CCV installed, and with an aged DOC+CCV installed. The concentration measurements
were converted to units of total grams per test for all species. The "bhp from work" (the
integrated measured power during each test period) values are also shown in these tables.
Table 8. Emissions Data
Test
Number
Test
Type
Blow-by
PM
Exhaust
PM
NOX
NO
NO2a
g
NO2/NOX
%
HC
g
CO
g
CO2
kg
Work
kWh
(bhp-hr)
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
B-881-C3
B-881-H1
B-881-H2
B-881-H3
B-881-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
0.126
0.209
0.219
0.237
0.233
1.563
1.680
1.759
1.737
1.750
112
92.6
92.6
91.2
92.1
104
84.2
83.9
82.5
83.3
7.79
8.39
8.67
8.65
8.76
6.94
9.06
9.36
9.48
9.51
5.24
6.22
6.49
6.64
6.73
23.8
19.0
18.6
18.9
18.7
13.2
12.8
12.6
12.6
12.6
18.4
(24.6)
18.5
(24.8)
18.4
(24.6)
18.3
(24.6)
18.3
(24.5)
Degreened DOC+CCV with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-6-C1
JM-6-H1
JM-6-H2
JM-6-H3
JM-6-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
b
b
b
b
b
1.224
1.291
1.365
1.363
1.312
106
88.7
88.8
89.2
89.8
86.5
72.8
73.8
74.6
75.7
19.6
15.9
15.0
14.6
14.1
18.5
17.9
16.9
16.3
15.7
1.35
1.20
1.18
1.22
1.26
10.2
4.78
4.63
4.89
4.73
13.0
12.4
12.4
12.5
12.4
18.2
(24.4)
18.2
(24.4)
18.2
(24.5)
18.3
(24.5)
18.2
(24.4)
Aged DOC+CCV with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-7-C1
JM-7-H1
JM-7-H2
JM-7-H3
JM-7-H4
Cold Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
Hot Start
b
b
b
b
b
1.317
1.338
1.347
1.325
1.329
108
90.6
91.0
91.2
91.0
99.2
85.0
85.6
85.8
86.2
8.55
5.60
5.41
5.41
4.88
7.94
6.19
5.94
5.94
5.36
1.88
1.86
2.03
2.23
2.14
5.00
8.24
8.14
8.05
8.27
12.8
12.4
12.4
12.5
12.4
17.8
(24.2)
17.9
(24.3)
17.9
(24.4)
18.0
(24.5)
18.0
(24.4)
NO2 calculated as NOX - NO.
Blow-by PM routed through CCV.
13
-------
For each pollutant/hot-start test combination, the transient composite-weighted emissions per
work (bhp-hr) were then calculated following the fractional calculation for highway engines as
follows:
— • ECOLD -\— • (EHOT)
f \ 7 7
(ECOMP )m = —
— • WCOLD -\— • (WHOT)II
1 1 V '
(Eq. 1)
where ECOMP = composite emissions rate, g/bhp-hr
m = one, two, three, or four hot-start tests
ECOLD = cold-start mass emissions level, g
EHOT = hot-start mass emissions level, g
= cold-start brake horsepower hour, bhp-hr
= hot-start brake horsepower hour, bhp-hr.
These composite-weighted emissions rates are shown in Tables 9 and 10 and were used to
calculate the mean and standard deviations for the baseline and controlled emissions rates. These
data were in turn used to calculate mean emissions reductions and 95% confidence limits. These
calculations are based on the generic verification protocol1 and test/QA plan addendum.2
Table 9. Composite Weighted Emission Rates (U.S. Common Units)
Test Number
Total
PMa
NOX
NO
N02b
g/bhp-hr
NO2/NOX
%
HC
CO
CO2
g/bhp-hr
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
B-881-H1
B-881-H2
B-881-H3
B-881-H4
0.075
0.079
0.079
0.079
3.85
3.87
3.83
3.87
3.52
3.53
3.48
3.52
0.336
0.347
0.347
0.351
8.71
8.95
9.05
9.08
0.246
0.256
0.262
0.266
0.794
0.786
0.798
0.792
519
516
516
516
Degreened DOC+CCVwith ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-6-H1
JM-6-H2
JM-6-H3
JM-6-H4
0.053
0.055
0.055
0.053
3.74
3.73
3.74
3.77
3.06
3.09
3.12
3.16
0.672
0.642
0.625
0.610
18.0
17.2
16.7
16.2
0.050
0.049
0.051
0.052
0.228
0.222
0.231
0.226
512
511
513
512
Aged DOC+CCVwith ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-7-H1
JM-7-H2
JM-7-H3
JM-7-H4
0.055
0.055
0.054
0.054
3.83
3.84
3.83
3.83
3.58
3.60
3.59
3.61
0.248
0.241
0.240
0.222
6.48
6.27
6.26
5.79
0.077
0.083
0.089
0.086
0.320
0.316
0.312
0.320
514
511
512
511
Total PM = Exhaust PM + Blow-by PM
1 NO? calculated as NOX - NO.
14
-------
Table 10. Composite Weighted Emission Rates (Metric Units)
Test Number
Total
PMa
NOX
NO
N02b
g/kWh
N02/NOX
%
HC
CO
C02
g/kWh
Baseline with ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
B-881-H1
B-881-H2
B-881-H3
B-881-H4
0.101
0.106
0.105
0.106
5.16
5.19
5.14
5.19
4.720
4.734
4.667
4.720
0.451
0.465
0.465
0.471
8.71
8.95
9.05
9.08
0.330
0.343
0.351
0.357
1.06
1.05
1.07
1.06
696
692
692
692
Degreened DOC+CCVwith ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-6-H1
JM-6-H2
JM-6-H3
JM-6-H4
0.070
0.074
0.074
0.071
5.02
5.00
5.02
5.06
4.104
4.144
4.184
4.238
0.901
0.861
0.838
0.818
18.0
17.2
16.7
16.2
0.067
0.066
0.068
0.070
0.306
0.298
0.310
0.303
687
685
688
687
Aged DOC+CCVwith ULSD Fuel on a 2000 Cummins ISM350 Engine
JM-7-H1
JM-7-H2
JM-7-H3
JM-7-H4
0.074
0.074
0.073
0.073
5.14
5.15
5.14
5.14
4.801
4.828
4.814
4.841
0.333
0.323
0.322
0.298
6.48
6.27
6.26
5.79
0.103
0.111
0.119
0.116
0.429
0.424
0.418
0.429
689
685
687
685
Total PM = Exhaust PM + Blow-by PM
1 NO? calculated as NOX - NO.
The mean composite weighted emission rates from Tables 11 and 12 are the key values for the
verification test. Table 13 summarizes that information. The first line shows the baseline engine
results; the emissions in all categories are below the Table 3 threshold.
Table 11. Summary of Verification Test Data (U.S. Common Units)
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
Mean Composite Weighted Emission Value
Total PMa
NOX
HC
CO
CO2
g/bhp-hr
0.078
0.054
0.055
3.86
3.75
3.83
0.257
0.0504
0.0836
0.793
0.227
0.317
517
512
512
' Total PM = Exhaust PM + Blow-by PM
Table 12. Summary of Verification Test Data (Metric Units)
Device Type
Baseline
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
Mean Composite Weighted Emission Value
Total PMa
NOX
HC
CO
CO2
g/kWh
0.104
0.072
0.073
5.17
5.02
5.14
0.345
0.0676
0.112
1.06
0.304
0.425
693
687
687
Total PM = Exhaust PM + Blow-by PM
15
-------
Table 13 summarizes the emissions reductions that were achieved by the use of the DOC+CCV.
These are the "verified emissions reductions" reported in Table 2 of the ETV Joint Verification
Statement.
Table 13. Summary of Verification Test Emission Reductions
Device
Type
Degreened
Aged
Fuel
ULSD
ULSD
Mean
Emissions Reduction (%)
PMa
31
30
NOX
2.8
0.68
HC
80
68
CO
71
60
95% Confidence Limits
on the Emissions Reduction (%)
PMa
27 to 34
26 to 34
NOX
2.0 to 3.7
b
HC
75 to 86
62 to 73
CO
70 to 73
59 to 61
' PM = Exhaust PM + Blow-by PM
' The emission reduction cannot be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.
4.1 Quality Assurance
The environmental technology verification of the DOC+CCV with ULSD fuel for heavy-duty
highway diesel engines was performed in accordance with the generic verification protocol1, the
test-specific addendum2, and the approved test/QA plan6. An audit of data quality included the
review of equipment, personnel qualifications, 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 plan were achieved. The SwRI,
APCT Center, and EPA Quality Managers reviewed the test results and the QC data and
concluded that the data quality objectives given in the generic verification protocol were
attained. EPA and RTI QA staff conducted audits of SwRI's technical and quality systems in
April 2002 and found no deficiencies that would adversely impact the quality of results. The
equipment was appropriate for the verification testing, and it was operating satisfactorily.
SwRI's technical staff was well qualified to perform the testing and conducted themselves in a
professional manner.
16
-------
Section 5.0
References
1. RTI International. 2002. Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts,
Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway and
Nonroad Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, January. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vp/05_vp_devrev.pdf
2. RTI International. 2006. Test-Specific Addendum to ETV Mobile Source Test/QA Plan for
Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration for the 201350N DOC + Coalescer
Breather CV5061200 andCDR Valve 3958700. Research Triangle Park, NC, November
15.
3. Southwest Research Institute. 2007. Environmental Technology Verification of Diesel
Oxidation Catalyst Plus Closed Crankcase Ventilation "DOC+CCV" System. Final
Report. San Antonio, TX, February.
4. Southwest Research Institute. 2007. Audit of Data Quality for Environmental Technology
Verification of Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Plus Closed Crankcase Ventilation
"DOC+CCV" System. San Antonio, TX, February.
5. Southwest Research Institute. 2007. Standard Operating Procedure 07-043: Blow-By
Emissions Measurement of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. San Antonio, TX, February.
6. RTI International. 2002. Test/QA Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel Exhaust
Catalysts, Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for Highway
and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, April. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vp/05_tp_diesel.pdf.
7. 40 CFR §86.1313-2007 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and
In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Fuel Specifications), Table N07-2. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm (updated September 6, 2006).
8. 40 CFR, Part 86 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-Use
Highway Vehicles and Engines), Subpart N.
9. RTI International. 2003. Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions
Reductions from Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway,
Nonroad, and Stationary Use Diesel Engines. Research Triangle Park, NC, September.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vp/05_vp_emissions.pdf.
10. 40 CFR §86.091-11 (Protection of Environment: Control of Emissions from New and In-
Use Highway Vehicles and Engines, Emission standards for 1991 and later model year
diesel heavy-duty engines). Available: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm (updated
June 26, 2006).
17
------- |