Evaluation of Emissions and Performance of NJ TRANSIT ...General Motors Electro-Motive Division GP40...

Evaluation of Emissions and Performance of NJ TRANSIT Diesel Locomotives with B20 Biodiesel Blends

Final Report: December 10, 2009

Anthony J. Marchese, Principal Investigator Krishan K. Bhatia, Co-Investigator Robert P. Hesketh, Co-Investigator David McKenna, Graduate Student Department of Mechanical Engineering Rowan University 201 Mullica Hill Rd. Glassboro, NJ 08028-1701

Evaluation of Emissions and Performance of NJ TRANSIT Diesel Locomotives with B20 Biodiesel Blends Final Report: December 10, 2009 Executive Summary This report summarizes the final results of an NJDEP grant to Rowan University, which was established to quantify the exhaust emissions and performance characteristics of 20% soy methyl ester biodiesel blends (B20) in diesel locomotives representative of the NJ TRANSIT commuter fleet. Testing was performed with #2 diesel summer blend, #2 diesel winter blend, ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) summer blend, ULSD winter blend and B20 blends with each of these fuels. Tests were performed on two different diesel locomotive types to determine the differences in performance and emissions between older and newer locomotive engines when operating on biodiesel blends. Specifically, tests were performed on a GP40FH-2 locomotive equipped with an EMD 16-645 engine manufactured from a 1960’s design and a recently manufactured ALSTOM PL42AC locomotive equipped with an EMD 16-710 engine. The tests were performed by operating the diesel engines statically (using a load bank) over the full test matrix of 8 fuels. During each test, brake specific exhaust emissions and fuel consumption were computed for each fuel blend using the Line-Haul Duty Cycle as outlined in the CFR Part 40 Title 92 Federal Test Procedure. The Line-Haul Duty Cycle was slightly modified given our inability to measure engine horsepower at idle conditions. Each fuel/locomotive test combination was performed 3 times to ensure repeatability. To accurately quantify the exhaust emissions, measurements were made using a Sensors SEMTECH-D mobile emissions analyzer to measure CO, CO2, NO, NO2, O2, and total unburned hydrocarbons (HCs), along with a Wager 6500RR Railroad Opacity Meter. Instantaneous fuel consumption was monitored using two AW Company JV-KG positive displacement flow meters, which measure the supply and return fuel flow rate, respectively.

GP40FH-2 Locomotive Results

For the GP40FH-2 locomotive, all B20 blends resulted in comparable horsepower, decreased exhaust opacity and decreased greenhouse gas CO2 emissions with respect to pure petroleum diesel. Using greenhouse gas emission factors for soy biodiesel, the estimated results suggest that NJ TRANSIT would realize an approximately 7% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their older locomotive fleet.

The summer B20 blends exhibited NOx and unburned hydrocarbon (HC) increases of up to 15% and CO decreases of up to 43%. The winter B20 blends contained significant quantities of kerosene in order to meet NJ TRANSIT’s winter cloud point requirement as 0°F max, which is the highest ambient temperature for a fuel to become cloudy. The winter B20 blends exhibited decreases in NOx of up to 10%, along with increased HC of up to 5%. The carbon monoxide emissions varied widely for the winter blends, with B20/#2 winter blend exhibiting a decrease in CO of 13% and B20/ULSD/winter showing increases in CO of 40%. The emissions results for the GP40FH-2 locomotive are summarized in the Table E1. The total mass emissions for each pollutant are calculated based on a weighted average of all notch settings using weighting factors developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data. The HC emissions measurements with B20-Summer blend was not performed because of equipment failure during the tests.

Evaluation of B20 Biodiesel Blends in NJ TRANSIT Locomotives pg. 2

Table E1. Summary of emissions measurements from GP40FH-2 locomotive. Mass emissions are based on a weighted average of all notch settings using weighting factors developed from NJ TRANSIT notch data.

Fuel kg/hr%

change g/hr%

change g/hr%

change g/hr%

change kg/hr%

change#2 Summer 1050.3 --- 13940 ---- 486.4 ---- 2631 ---- 1050.3 ----ULSD-Summer 1004.9 -4.3% 15787 13.2% 524.1 7.8% 1722 -34.6% 1004.9 -4.3%B20-Summer 1029.5 -2.0% 14944 7.2% ---- ---- 2466 -6.3% 980.1 -6.7%ULSD-B20-Summer 1036.5 -1.3% 16023 14.9% 559.6 15.1% 1498 -43.1% 986.7 -6.0%#2 Winter 1012.4 ---- 15453 ---- 540.1 ---- 2382 ---- 1012.4 ----ULSD Winter 973.1 -3.9% 13868 -10.3% 560.0 3.7% 2741 15.0% 973.1 -3.9%B20-Winter 1014.2 0.2% 14576 -5.7% 566.9 5.0% 2091 -12.2% 965.6 -4.6%ULSD-B20-Winter 968.5 -4.3% 13974 -9.6% 564.4 4.5% 3330 39.8% 922.0 -8.9%

CO2 NOx HC COEstimated Soy

Biodiesel Greenhouse CO2

PL42AC Locomotive Results

For the PL42AC locomotive, all B20 blends also resulted in comparable horsepower, decreased exhaust opacity and decreased greenhouse gas CO2 emissions with respect to pure petroleum diesel. Using greenhouse gas emission factors for soy biodiesel, the estimated results suggest that NJ TRANSIT would realize an approximately 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their newer locomotive fleet.

For the PL42AC locomotive, the summer B20 blends exhibited NOx decreases of 15.5%, unburned hydrocarbon (HC) decreases of 6.8 %and CO decreases of 27.3%. The winter B20 blends contained significant quantities of kerosene in order to meet NJ TRANSIT’s winter cloud point requirement of 0°F max as the highest ambient temperature for a fuel to become cloudy. The winter B20 blends exhibited decreases in NOx of up to 17.8% and decreased CO of 50.9%, but showed an increase in HC of up to 29%. The emissions results for the PL42AC locomotive are summarized in the Table E2. The total mass emissions for each pollutant are calculated based on a weighted average of tested notch settings using weighting factors developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data. The CO emissions measurements with ULSD-B20-Winter blend could not be not performed because of equipment failure during the tests. All emissions measurements were carried out with this locomotive at idle, and notches 5-8, because of technical limitations.


Table E2. Summary of emissions measurements from PL42AC locomotive. Mass emissions are based on a weighted average of tested notch settings using weighting factors developed from NJ TRANSIT notch data.

Fuel kg/hr%

change g/hrchang

e g/hr%

change g/hr%

change kg/hr%

changeLSD Summer 2371.9 ---- 27336 ---- 1085.4 ---- 7755 ---- 2371.9 ----LSD-B20-Summer 2046.3 -13.7% 23086 -15.5% 1011.6 -6.8% 5640 -27.3% 1935.8 -18.4%LSD Winter 1637.5 ---- 18351 ---- 558.4 ---- 5620 ---- 1637.5 ----ULSD Winter 1288.7 -21.3% 13877 -24.4% 543.5 -2.7% 3393 -39.6% 1288.7 -21.3%LSD-B20-Winter 1371.7 -16.2% 15086 -17.8% 720.6 29.1% 2760 -50.9% 1297.6 -20.8%ULSD-B20-Winter 1513.9 -7.5% 15764 -14.1% 624.9 11.9% ---- ---- 1259.6 -23.1%

Estimated Soy Biodiesel

Greenhouse CO2

CO2 NOx HC CO


1. Project Personnel The study described herein was performed by a team of faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students at Rowan University. The faculty and graduate students are listed below:

Prof. Anthony J. Marchese*, PI Prof. Krishan Bhatia, co-PI Prof. Roberth Hesketh, co-PI Tim Vaughn, Engineering Technician David McKenna, graduate student David Martinez, graduate student Chris Rowen, graduate student Kyle Fitzpatrick, graduate student

2. Introduction Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that is produced from raw animal or vegetable fats via a chemical reaction with an alcohol (typically methanol). This reaction results in a mixture of methyl esters of varying carbon chain length and this mixture of methyl esters is what is known as biodiesel [1,2]. Biodiesel is generally considered to be a renewable fuel because the carbon present in the vegetable or animal feedstocks originates from carbon dioxide already present in the air. However, it should be noted that a complete life cycle analysis that takes into account the greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural, transport and processing activities shows that biodiesel is not completely carbon neutral [3].

Biodiesel has also been shown to be highly effective in reducing carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from diesel engines [4]. Results have shown, for example, that 100% biodiesel can reduce PM emissions by as much as 50% with respect to petroleum diesel. Reduction in PM emissions is a key benefit and motivation for using biodiesel in public fleets such as buses or locomotives since diesel exhaust has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization and the USEPA, and recent studies have linked diesel PM to heart disease [5].

The NJ TRANSIT diesel locomotive fleet currently consumes 12.3 million gallons of petroleum diesel per year. Because of rising petroleum prices, concerns about disruptions in supply and environmental considerations, NJ TRANSIT was currently evaluating the feasibility of supplementing a substantial component of their total diesel consumption with biodiesel. Since biodiesel is typically blended at 20% with petroleum diesel (such a formulation is designated as B20), a full deployment of B20 by NJ TRANSIT would reduce NJ TRANSIT’s fossil fuel consumption by nearly 2.5 million gallons per year. Such a full scale deployment could potentially have substantial impact on the environment as it has been shown in other literature that biodiesel reduces emissions of PM, CO, HC’s, greenhouse gases (CO2) and sulfur containing compounds.

The purpose of the proposed investigation was to demonstrate the use of biodiesel/ULSD blends in NJ TRANSIT diesel locomotives. The investigation was performed at the NJ TRANSIT Meadows Maintenance Complex and on selected NJ TRANSIT rail lines. At the inception of the study, NJ TRANSIT maintained an inventory * In January 2008, PI Marchese departed from Rowan University to accept a faculty position at Colorado State University. Marchese continued to work on the project on an advisory basis until its completion in January 2009.


of 122 diesel locomotives, the majority of which were line haul locomotives with head end power units. Most of the line haul locomotives are older locomotives based on the General Motors Electro-Motive Division GP40 platform with model types GP40PH, GP40FH and F40PH, which are powered by EMD 645 Series engines. NJ TRANSIT also has recently begun to acquire newer PL42AC line haul locomotives manufactured by ALSTOM, which are powered by EMD 710 series diesel engines. In addition to the line haul locomotives, which are used for passenger service, NJ TRANSIT also maintains 4 SW1500 switcher locomotives used on-site at the Meadows Maintenance Complex in Kearny, NJ and 4 GP40 work train locomotives, which are used for non-passenger rail activities.

A summary of NJ TRANSIT’s current fleet is as follows:

• 109 Line Haul Locomotives with EMD-16-645 engine • 5 Line Haul Locomotives with EMD-16-710 engine • 4 Switcher Locomotives with EMD 567 engine • 4 Work Locomotives with EMD-16-645 engine

The line haul locomotives are also equipped with an additional auxiliary diesel engine called the Head End Power Unit (HEP), which is used to power auxiliary systems needed for passenger rail service. The HEP is typically a 6-cylinder diesel engine (Cummins or Caterpillar) similar to those used in heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles. It should be noted that the HEP engine and the main engine share a common fuel tank so both engines were tested with biodiesel blends. Performance of the HEP engine was less of an issue as these types of engines have been tested extensively with B20.

With the exception of the EMD SW1500 switcher locomotives, all of the diesel locomotives currently operated by NJ TRANSIT are powered by turbocharged EMD-16-645 engines or EMD-16-710. The former engines are used in the older GP40 series locomotives, while the latter are used in the newer PL42AC locomotives. The EMD16-645 engine is manufactured by EMD (formerly the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors. Although the EMD16-645 is available in either turbocharged or roots blower configuration, all of the EMD-16-645 engines operated by NJ TRANSIT are turbocharged. The EMD-16-645 engine is a 2-stroke, 16-cylinder engine. Each cylinder has a displacement 645 in³ with a bore of 9.1 inches and a stroke is 10 inches. The compression ratio is 16 to 1. The EMD16-645-16 is rated at 3000 HP. The EMD-16-710 engine is also a turbocharged, 16-cylinder engine but has a displacement of 719 in3 per cylinder. It has a bore of 9.1 inches and a stroke of 11 inches. It also has a compression ratio of 16 to 1. Table 1 of the Appendix contains detailed specifications of both the 645 and 710 series engines.

2.1 Emissions from Diesel Locomotives

Although a set of minimal emissions standards were put in place in 1997 for new diesel locomotive engines, diesel locomotive engines continue to be significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation's most populated areas. Specifically, they continue to emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), both of which have been shown to contribute to serious health problems [6].

The relative contribution in emissions from diesel locomotive and marine engines is expected to grow due to the expected future growth in the use of these engines. The USEPA has estimated that, without new controls, locomotives and marine diesel engines will contribute 27% of the total NOx emissions and 45% of the total fine diesel particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from all mobile sources combined [6].


Millions of Americans continue to live in areas with unhealthy air quality that may endanger public health and the environment. Exhaust from diesel engines contributes to unhealthy concentrations of fine particles and ozone which are linked to serious problems, including premature death, increased risk of lung cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and other respiratory conditions. In addition, PM, NOx, and ozone adversely affect the environment in various ways including visibility impairment, crop damage, and acid rain.

Although locomotive engines being produced today must meet relatively modest emissions requirements set in 1997, diesel locomotive engines continue to be significant contributors to air pollution in many of our nation’s most populated areas. Specifically, they continue to emit large amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM), both of which have been shown to contribute to serious health problems. In 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, the USEPA finalized a new standard for nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 99 percent.

The majority of diesel locomotives currently in service by NJ TRANSIT are approximately 30 years old and these engines are not covered by the new USEPA standards unless these locomotive engines are rebuilt, which will trigger upgrading to proposed standards. Moreover, attempts to retrofit the older locomotive engines with exhaust after-treatment technology (i.e. particulate filters) would be costly. Therefore, in 2007, a grant was awarded from the NJ DEP to Rowan University to perform an experimental study on exhaust emissions of NJ TRANSIT diesel locomotives operating on biodiesel blends with the following objectives:

• To determine the emissions benefits (i.e. reduced CO, HC’s, soot) of using biodiesel in the NJ TRANSIT locomotive fleet,

• To quantify any emissions drawbacks, such as increased NOx emissions,

• To determine if there are any other potential difficulties in using biodiesel, such as reduced power and/or storage/handling issues.

This report summarizes the activities that have been performed on behalf of this grant during the period from June 2007 to January 2009.

3. Test Plan Tests were performed on two different diesel locomotive engines to determine the differences in performance and emissions between newer and older locomotive engines when operating on biodiesel blends. The GP40FH-2 is an older locomotive built in 1972. It has a 3000 HP Turbocharged EMD 16-645 engine, which is a V-16 configuration with a 645 CID. The PL42AC is a newer locomotive manufactured by ALSTOM in France. NJ TRANSIT began accepting delivery of these locomotives in 2005. These locomotives are powered by a 3650 HP Turbocharged EMD 16-710, which is a V-16 configuration with 710 CID cylinders.

Tests were performed with 8 different fuel blends: • Summer Blend (#2 diesel, 500 ppm sulfur) • Winter Blend (30% kerosene, 70% #2 diesel) • ULSD Summer (<15 ppm sulfur) • ULSD Winter (40% kerosene, 60% ULSD) • B20 –Summer (20% biodiesel, 80% #2 diesel) • B20–Winter (20% biodiesel, 56% kerosene, 24% #2 diesel)


• B20 –ULSD Summer (20% biodiesel, 80% ULSD) • B20–ULSD Winter (20% biodiesel, 56% kerosene 24% ULSD)

Tests were performed by operating both diesel engines statically (using a load box) over the full test matrix of 8 fuels. During the tests, brake specific exhaust emissions and fuel consumption were computed for each fuel blend using the line-haul and switcher duty cycles as outlined in the CFR Part 40 Title 92 Federal Test Procedure. Each locomotive/fuel blend combination was tested 3 times, resulting in a complete static test matrix of 48 tests. The completed test matrix can be viewed in the Appendix in Table 3.

4. Instrumentation and Equipment The locomotive’s gaseous emissions were measured with the Semtech-D mobile emissions analyzer manufactured by Sensors, Inc. An FEM-03 Fuel Monitoring System manufactured by AW Company was used to measure the instantaneous volumetric fuel flow rate. An opacity meter from Wager Company was used to quantify exhaust opacity. An Avtron Load Box at NJ TRANSIT MMC was used to dissipate the electrical power produced by the diesel locomotive alternator during static testing. Instantaneous engine horsepower was calculated by measuring the instantaneous alternator voltage and current. The instantaneous fuel flow rate data, opacity data, load box data and additional temperature data were acquired and stored using an Agilent 34970A data logger and PC notebook.

4.1 Gaseous Emissions Concentrations

A SEMTECH-D portable emissions measurement system by Sensors Inc. was used to measure real-time exhaust emission concentrations for CO, CO2, NO, NO2 and HC as well as ambient temperature and relative humidity. The SEMTECH-D is a portable PC-based data acquisition system capable of measuring emission levels along with several vehicle and engine parameters. The Semtech-D includes the following measurement subsystems:

• heated flame ionization detector (FID) for total hydrocarbon (THC) measurement,

• non-dispersive ultraviolet (NDUV) for nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) measurement,

• non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) for carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement, and

• electrochemical sensor for oxygen (O2) measurement

The Semtech-D also contains a module for wireless communication for remote monitoring using PC or a personal digital assistant (PDA), a global positioning system (GPS), and a weather probe for ambient temperature and humidity measurement. For the locomotive application, a bracket was fabricated to locate and attach the heated sample line and sample probe to the exhaust stack to secure it during tests and ensure it is in the same location for every test. Figure 1 shows the SEMTECH-D in test configuration during a static load box test. A heated sample line is run from the front of the machine to the exhaust stack. A bracket was fabricated to locate and attach the sample probe to the exhaust stack to secure it during tests and ensure it is in the same location for every test conducted.


Figure 1 (a) Static load bank emissions measurements on GP40FH-2 locomotive using SEMTECH-D portable emissions measurement system and (b) opacity meter and SEMTECH-D heated sample line installed on the exhaust stack of the GP40FH-2 locomotive.

4.2 Fuel Mass Flow Rate

To calculate the mass emissions rate of each gaseous species (g/hr) from the measured concentrations in ppm (parts per million), total exhaust flow rate or fuel mass flow rate must be measured. Because of the large size of the exhaust stack, measuring exhaust flow rate is extremely difficult so the decision was made to employ the latter method and measure fuel consumption rate. A complete Fuel Monitoring System from AW Company was used to measure fuel flow rates and fuel consumption. The system uses two JVA-30KG positive displacement flow meters and an FEM-03A2 Flow Transmitter. The FEM-03A2 flow transmitter has both a display for instantaneous readings and analog output (4 to 20 mA) for external data logging. Type K thermocouples were installed directly upstream of the flow meters, which along with density vs. temperature fuel property data will be used to convert volume flow rate into mass flow rate.

The flow meter controllers output a 4-20mA signal to an Agilent 34970A data logger that sends it to a PC where the current signal is converted to a volume flow rate. Measuring the volumetric flow rates, then subtracting the return line flow rate from the supply line flow rate produces the total volumetric fuel consumption rate. The volumetric flow rate is then converted to mass flow rate by multiplying by the fuel density. To account for variation in fuel density with temperature, a thermocouple was placed in the fuel supply line to measure the fuel temperature directly upstream of the supply line flow meter.

For the first set of tests, only the supply line fuel temperature was measured. Moreover, the AW Company Fuel Monitoring System technique of subtracting volume flow rates implicitly assumes that the fuel supply and return temperatures are identical. Accordingly, a second thermocouple was installed into the fuel return line, which enabled the team to account for density changes between the fuel supply and return lines.

4.3 Exhaust Opacity

As shown in Fig. 1(b), the opacity of the locomotive exhaust plume was quantified using a Wager 6500RR Railroad Opacity Meter. The 6500RR is a complete system with a custom mounting frame for locomotive applications, heavy-duty optics to withstand high temperatures and maintain accuracy while spanning longer distances and the ability to send data to an acquisition system, or make instantaneous measurements. The emitter


and detector of the opacity meter are mounted on an aluminum bracket that is bolted to the roof of the locomotive surrounding the exhaust stack. This meter also utilizes a compact control unit that outputs a 0-1V signal to the Agilent 34970A data logger that correlates to 0-100% opacity. The unit is calibrated in the field by adjusting the emitter and detector such that the beam is perfectly aligned. After alignment, calibration points are taken for 0% opacity and 100% opacity, respectively. The latter calibration point corresponds to the detector being completely covered. The opacity readings are corrected to 0% and 100% opacity at each of these calibration points via adjustable potentiometers on the emitter and detector.

4.4 Load Box

Static locomotive testing is performed using an AVTRON Load Box located at the NJ TRANSIT Meadows Maintenance Complex (MMC). The Load Box dissipates the electrical power produced by test locomotive’s main alternator, thereby simulating an actual operating load while the locomotive remains stationary. The magnitude of the electrical power dissipation is quantified by measuring the main alternator voltage and current during static loading. Using Association of the American Railroad correction factors for air temperature, altitude, fuel temperature and fuel specific gravity, the measured voltage and current are used to calculate the horsepower produced by the main traction engine. The alternator voltage and current are calculated from reference voltage and current readings taken from the Morrison Knudsen Corporation W014-MK card located in the cabin of the locomotive by the Agilent 34970A data logger and converted to horsepower using a dedicated PC that is coupled with the data logger. A complete instrumentation list is included in Table 2 of the Appendix.

5. Test Logistics Since the locomotives that were tested are part of the NJ TRANSIT operating fleet, the logistics involved in conducting each test were substantial. Specifically, prior to each test, the specific fuel blend had to be ordered from Sprague Energy and a date for delivery to MMC had to be scheduled. Because there were no holding tanks available for these tests, delivery of the test fuel had to be coordinated with NJ TRANSIT so that the locomotive could be pulled out of service prior to the fuel delivery and the test fuel could be pumped directly into the locomotive fuel tank. Since the locomotive is a revenue generating system, it is typically only available for a window of 3 to 5 days for each test. Because of this narrow window of opportunity, any locomotive mechanical issues or test instrumentation failures result in a high risk of aborting an entire 3-point test sequence and subsequent loss of 1000 gallons of diesel fuel. During the course of the grant, we experienced clogged fuel injectors, heavy rain and several emission analyzer failures (a broken heated sample line and a system leak). In each case, NJ TRANSIT personnel were extremely accommodating and they did everything in their power to hold the locomotive out of service for extended periods of time. By the end of the matrix, the Rowan team, coupled with helpful NJ TRANSIT employees, were able to execute up to 6 tests in a single day, testing two different fuels. Through various correspondence and conference calls, there was a mutual decision to reduce the matrix from the one that was originally proposed. An increase in fuel costs of nearly 100% from the time the grant began, in addition to time constraints from all three involved parties, made it necessary to reduce the matrix to what was deemed as absolutely necessary for the study. Table 3 shows the completed tests of the final matrix.


6. Test Procedure Each static test was conducted according to the test protocol summarized in Table B-124-1 of §92.124 of CFR Title 40, Part 92 for locomotive testing. This table is reproduced in the Appendix as Table 4. The test procedure entails operating the locomotive for a specified period of time in each notch setting, while the power from the main alternator is dissipated at the load box. During each of the test modes, exhaust gas concentrations, exhaust opacity, fuel flow rate, fuel temperature, alternator voltage and alternator current data are acquired and stored at 1 Hz. Data from the first two test modes (Notch 8 and lowest idle) are used to ensure the locomotive is at adequate operating temperature. The locomotive is then operated in each notch (idle to notch 7) for 6 minutes each and finally in notch 8 for 15 minutes. Figure 2 is a plot of instantaneous concentration of NOx, CO and CO2 as measured by the SEMTECH-D for an entire static test sequence for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating on #2 summer blend diesel fuel. Figure 3 is a plot of instantaneous horsepower, fuel flow rate and exhaust temperature for the same test sequence.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Time (s)

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

CO ppmNOxCO2 %

Figure 2. Instantaneous concentration of NOx, CO and CO2 during a static load box test sequence for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating on #2 summer blend diesel fuel.


Figure 3. Instantaneous horsepower, fuel volume flow rate and exhaust temperature during a static load box test sequence for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating on #2 summer diesel fuel.

The SEMTECH-D portable emissions measurement system measures exhaust emission concentrations in parts-per-million (ppm). By performing an overall carbon balance, it is possible to convert each gaseous concentration into a fuel specific mass emission. For example, the equation below shows such a conversion for CO:

COfsg_COg_fuel

⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

CO( )CO2( ) CO( )+ THC( )+

⎡⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎦

MWCOMWfuel

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

⋅=g_COg_fuel

where COfs is the fuel specific emissions of CO, (CO) the concentration of CO in ppm, (CO2) the concentration CO2 in ppm, (THC) the concentration of total unburned hydrocarbons in ppm, MWCO the molecular weight of CO in g/mol and MWfuel the “molecular weight” of the fuel based on its C:H ratio. It should be noted that the MWfuel term is not the average fuel molecular weight, but rather the molecular weight of a CHx, where x is the hydrogen to carbon ratio.

The fuel specific emissions for each measured gaseous species are then converted to a mass emissions rate (g/hr) by multiplying by the measured fuel mass flow rate. As described above, the mass flow rate of the fuel is simply the difference of the volumetric flow rates multiplied by their respective densities as show in the following equation:

mCOghr

⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

ρ S VS⋅ ρ R VR⋅−( )COfs=ghr

. . .


where is the mass emission rate for CO, ρCOm& S the density of supply fuel, ρR the density of return fuel, VS is the volume flow rate of supply fuel, VR is the volume flow rate of return fuel, and COfs is the fuel specific emissions of CO.

6.1 EPA Duty Cycles and Calculation of Overall Brake Specific Emissions (g/BHP-hr)

To calculate break specific emissions (g/BHP-hr), the mass emissions rate is then divided by the Brake Horsepower (BHP) for each notch, which is calculated from the measured alternator current and voltage. Calculation of brake specific emissions is necessary to compare the measured emissions with current and future EPA standards. For direct comparisons with EPA standards, a weighted average of the brake specific emissions measured during each mode in Table 4 is computed.

The EPA defines two separate cycles: the Line-Haul Duty Cycle and the Switcher Duty Cycle. Each of these duty cycles has their own weighting parameters. The weighting parameters for each notch are shown in Table 5 in the Appendix for both EPA cycles. It should be noted that the highest weighting parameters for the Line-Haul Duty Cycle correspond to normal idle and notch 8, respectively. Based on conversations with NJ TRANSIT personnel, as well as actual notch data supplied to us from NJ TRANSIT, the locomotives do spend the overwhelming majority of their operating time in idle and notch 8. Accordingly, the Line-Haul Duty cycle is the more relevant of the two EPA cycles for the purposes of comparing the emissions from biodiesel in NJ TRANSIT locomotives to current and future EPA standards.

In the present study, a Modified Line-Haul Duty Cycle was used, wherein exhaust emissions during idling conditions are not considered (See Table 5). The idle emissions data were not used in the overall duty cycle calculations because the horsepower is not directly measured during idle since the main traction alternator is not engaged. Rather, during idle, the engine horsepower must be estimated based on estimated parasitic loads (cooling fans, etc.). Furthermore, the measured fuel mass flow rate has its highest uncertainty during idling conditions as a result of subtracting supply and return fuel flow rates which are very close in magnitude during idle conditions.

6.2 Estimated Total Annual Mass Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases

After measuring the mass emissions (g/hr) of each gaseous species at each notch for every fuel/locomotive combination, it was possible to estimate the potential impact of B20 biodiesel blends on total annual mass emissions [kg/year] of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for the NJ TRANSIT fleet. These calculations were performed by multiplying the measured mass emissions (g/hr) at each notch by a weighting factor for that notch which was developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data summarized in Table 6 in the appendix. The resulting NJT-weighted mass emissions (g/hr) were then multiplied by an estimated annual operating hours per locomotive and number of locomotives.

7. Test Results: GP40FH-2 As summarized in Table 3, twenty eight full test sequences were conducted on locomotive 4142, model GP40FH-2. During the period of June 18 to June 22, 2007, three tests were conducted on locomotive 4142 with #2 summer blend. During the period of August 2 to August 3, 2007, three tests the first biodiesel blend tests were conducted with B20/#2 summer blend. As discussed below, these tests showed decreased horsepower due to injector clogging and therefore were not counted against


the test matrix. On September 20 and September 21, a second set of B20/#2 summer blend tests were completed successfully. A fourth test was completed during this last period because it was discovered that the fuel flow meter cables were connected improperly during the first few notches of the first test on September 20. During November 8-9, three successful tests were completed using Summer ULSD fuel. On November 30, three Summer ULSD B20 tests were made with the 4142 locomotive. After experiencing a few equipment and locomotive failures, testing resume in March 2008, testing #2 Winter baseline from March 4-6. Three successful Winter B20 runs were completed on April 22. Winter ULSD was tested in three consecutive runs on June 27. The final test with the 4142 locomotive using Winter ULSD B20 was completed on July 30, 2008. A brief summary of the tests conducted to date follows.

The baseline #2 summer tests conducted in June were highly successful. All test instrumentation functioned as anticipated and the locomotive was in excellent running condition. These tests proved that the test protocol and experimental setup described above results in sufficient accuracy and repeatability. NJ TRANSIT replaced all the fuel and oils filters prior to these tests. The measured locomotive horsepower was consistent with NJ TRANSIT expectations and the raw gaseous emissions data and brake specific mass emissions data were consistent with those reported elsewhere [7].

Prior studies have shown that biodiesel has a tendency to act as a detergent and loosen deposits in fuel systems [1]. Accordingly, prior to acquiring emissions data on the first biodiesel blend (B20/#2 summer), locomotive 4142 was first operated statically on the MMC load box for 8 hours on in the idle notch, periodically throttling it up to notch 8 for a few minutes to ensure proper operation. After the 8 hour period, the fuel filters were removed, disassembled and inspected by NJ TRANSIT personnel and showed little or no deposits. New fuel filters were installed and the first set of emissions tests were then conducted with the B20/#2 summer blend. These tests showed a substantial decrease in horsepower with respect to the #2 baseline tests. For example, in notch 8, the average horsepower dropped from 2900 to 2600 horsepower. A 10% decrease in horsepower was unexpected and potentially problematic for future plans to deploy B20 into the NJ TRANSIT locomotive fleet. Based on previous studies (both with locomotives and heavy duty diesel engines), a 0 to 2% decrease in horsepower had been expected since the lower energy content of the oxygenated biodiesel fuel is offset by its higher density, resulting in minimal reduction in delivered power (or, in the case of on-road vehicles, volumetric fuel economy in MPG).

After trouble-shooting this problem, it was hypothesized that the fuel injectors may have been clogged due to the detergent effect of the B20 blend described above. After pulling a random selection of injectors, it was found that they were in fact clogged and they were replaced with new units. The next tests showed an immediate increase in horsepower to levels that were comparable with those of the #2 summer fuel. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient B20/#2 summer fuel left in the tank to complete a full test sequence during the window of opportunity and the tests had to be rescheduled for a later date. The remainder of the B20/#2 summer tests were completed in September. Preliminary results of data analysis comparing the baseline #2 and B20/#2 tests are reported below and tabulated in Table 6 of the Appendix.

7.1 GP40FH-2 Horsepower Results

The data presented herein represents the final calculated and corrected results from the GP40FH-2 test matrix. Figures 4 and 5 are bar graphs comparing the measured horsepower at each notch setting for the summer and winter fuel blends, respectively.


Each bar represents the average of three separate test points. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the horsepower levels in all of the notches were very comparable, showing only slight variations between the summer blends and slightly larger variations with the winter blends, with the lowest power from the ULSD winter fuel. However, the horsepower drop in Winter USLD and Winter ULSD B20 fuel can be partially attributed to the necessity to test year round in order to complete the matrix. As such, both of these winter fuel blends were tested during the summer months. Higher ambient air and fuel feed temperatures and during these test thus had a negative impact on horsepower, and the drop shown in Figure 5 can not be entirely attributed to fuel blend differences alone.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Notch

BH

P (h

orse

pow

er)

Summer #2 Summer B20 ULSD Summer ULSD Summer B20 Figure 4. Measured horsepower for each notch setting during static load box testing for summer fuel blends.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Notch

BH

P (h

orse

pow

er)

Winter #2 Winter B20 ULSD Winter ULSD Winter B20

Figure 5. Measured horsepower for each notch setting during static load box testing for winter fuel blends.


7.2 GP40FH-2 Opacity Results

Figures 6 and 7 are bar graphs showing the exhaust gas opacity for the same test conditions as Figs. 4 and 5. As shown in Fig. 6 the measured opacity levels in most of the notches showed a substantial decrease for the alternative summer blends in comparison with the baseline #2 summer tests. Specifically, the B20/#2 showed reductions of up to 30% with respect to the #2 and over 50% reduction with ULSD/B20 in several of the notches. In notches 2 and 3, the ULSD blends showed slight increases in opacity. Fig. 7 suggests the exhaust opacity for all winter blends are relatively close, and generally lower than the summer blends. Again, the ULSD blends actually exhibited slightly higher opacity than the baseline LSD blends, which was an unexpected result. The opacity results for all the test blends < 1% in the idle notch setting. A previous study with low sulfur diesel fuels on a 2-stroke, roots-blown, diesel locomotive engine showed that PM emissions are relatively unresponsive to fuel type, since PM emissions from 2-stroke roots blown engines are expected to be dominated by lubricating-oil derived components [7]. For the 2-stroke, turbocharged engines tested herein, the PM emissions are expected to have a lower soluble organic fraction than that of the roots blown engine, particularly at the higher notch settings when the turbocharger becomes fully engaged thereby resulting in more complete combustion. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 6, the opacity measurements for the lower notch settings are less sensitive to fuel type than the higher notch settings for the summer blends. Figure 7 shows winter blends for the GP40FH-2 locomotive exhibited increased opacity for the lower sulfur blends in most notches in comparison with the higher sulfur diesel. Typically, for these 2-stroke, turbocharged diesel engines, the CO and opacity max out in notches 5 and 6 and are much lower in notches 7 and 8. This is because, at lower notches an overrunning clutch spins the turbocharger from the engine's own gear train. But when the power is increased, the turbine takes over and spins the compressor faster than the engine's drive, so the overrunning clutch releases and the turbo is fully powered by exhaust. The net result is that the CO and opacity decrease at the high notches because of more complete combustion when the turbo boost pressure is maximum. However, as shown in Figs 7 and 11, the CO and opacity for both the ULSD winter and ULSD-B20-winter appear to have a maximum in notch 7, instead of notch 5 or 6, as was observed for all of the summer blends. Figure 5 shows a drop in horsepower for the ULSD winter and ULSD Winter B20 blends as well, so it is possible that the engine power/speed was not high enough for the turbo to fully engage until Notch 8. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that the ULSD-B20-Winter tests were performed on July 30, 2008 when the ambient temperature was above 80 degrees F, resulting in decreased engine horsepower due to decreased air and fuel density. One of the inherent drawbacks of the test plan was it was necessary to perform testing over the entire calendar year. To meet NJT's specs, we had to formulate a winter blends that met the cloud point requirements. So, tests were performed in the summer with fuels that were very high in kerosene. The test results performed with the GP40FH-2 turbocharged locomotive with summer B20 blends exhibited clear differences in opacity. This result is contrary to another study performed by Fritz and coworkers [8] who reported little difference in opacity with the addition of ULSD in the same roots blown EMD 16-645E engine employed in [7]. Again, the difference between the tests performed in this study and those cited in [7,8] is that the tests performed herein were performed on a turbocharged engine. It should


also be noted that direct PM mass emissions were not measured in the present study, but rather only opacity. While opacity may correlate with total PM mass emissions, this is not necessarily the case.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Notch

Opa

city

(%)

Summer #2 Summer B20 ULSD Summer ULSD Summer B20

Figure 6. Measured opacity for each notch setting during static load box testing for summer fuel blends.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Idle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Notch

Opa

city

(%)


Figure 7. Measured opacity for each notch setting during static load box testing for winter fuel blends.


7.3 GP40FH-2 Brake Specific Emissions Results

Because the EPA Line-Haul Duty Cycle heavily weights the data from the idling conditions, the calculated EPA Line-Haul average for the alternative fuels would be higher than that calculated for #2 summer diesel. It should be noted, however, that the horsepower is not directly measured during normal idle because the main traction alternator is not engaged. Rather, the engine horsepower is estimated based on estimated parasitic loads (cooling fans, etc.). Moreover, the measured fuel mass flow rate has its highest uncertainty during idling conditions as a result of subtracting supply and return fuel flow rates which are very close in magnitude during idle conditions. An uncertainty analysis shows that an uncertainty of ± 40% exists on the fuel mass flow rate measurements during the idle conditions. That uncertainty reduces to 1.3% for Notch 8. When combined with the uncertainty of the estimated horsepower at idle, the total uncertainty in brake specific NOx emission at idle is ± 48%, which reduces dramatically to 3.6% at Notch 8. Accordingly, the team evaluated whether the EPA Line-Haul Duty cycle was the most appropriate cycle for these tests. It is clear that the accuracy of the reported data would increase dramatically if the idle data were not included in the overall calculations. The brake specific emission plots contain error bars to represent the percentage uncertainty in each notch, as well as the total weighted uncertainty for the averaged data.

Figure 8 shows the brake specific NOx emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the summer fuel blends. The figure shows that the individual brake specific NOx emission values were slightly higher for the alternative summer blends at most notches, except for notch 1, which showed significant NOx emissions. Figure 9 shows the brake specific NOx emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the winter fuel blends. The figure suggests that the individual brake specific NOx emission values were comparable for the alternative winter blends at most notches, with the exception of ULSD Winter B20, which showed a slight increase in notch 1. Figure 10 shows the brake specific CO emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the summer fuel blends. The figure shows that the CO emissions for the alternative fuels were higher in notch 1 and substantially lower in the middle notches (5 and 6), showing reductions of over 50% in some cases with the ULSD/B20 blend. Figure 11 shows the brake specific CO emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the winter fuel blends. The figure shows that the CO emissions for the alternative fuels were greater in the higher notches, showing increases as large as 100% over the baseline data with ULSD fuels. ULSD Winter B20 increased CO emissions substantially in notch 1 as well. As noted earlier, the results for a roots blown 2-stroke engine [7] may be different than those observed with a turbocharged engine tested here. As shown in Fig. 10, for the summer blends, dramatic decreases in brake specific CO mass emissions were observed for the ULSD and B20 blends with respect to the baseline. While these results are higher than what might be expected, they are qualitatively consistent with the opacity results.

Figure 12 shows the brake specific HC emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the summer fuel blends. The emissions for the alternative fuels were roughly the same in all notches with the exception of Notch 1, which showed an increase of over 100% with the ULSD/B20 blend. Figure 13 shows the brake specific HC emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the winter fuel blends. The emissions for the alternative fuels were roughly the same in all notches. Figures 14 and 15 show the brake specific CO2 emissions in g/bhp-hr for each notch setting for the summer and winter fuel blends, respectively. The CO2 emissions in all of the notches were comparable, with the


exception of the lower notches with the ULSD/B20 summer blend, which exhibited increases with respect to the baseline #2 fuel.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVG

Notch

NO

x (g/

BH

P-hr

)


Figure 8. Brake specific NOx emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer blend fuels.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVG

Notch

NO

x (g/

BH

P-hr

)


Figure 9. Brake specific NOx emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the winter blend fuels.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVG

Notch

CO

(g/B

HP-

hr)


Figure 10. Brake specific CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer blend fuels.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVG

Notch

CO

(g/B

HP-

hr)


Figure 11. Brake specific CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the winter blend fuels.


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVG

Notch

THC

(g/B

HP-

hr)

Summer #2 ULSD Summer ULSD Summer B20

Figure 12. Brake specific THC emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer blend fuels. (Faults with the THC sensor in the emissions equipment voided the summer B20 data.)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVGNotch

THC

(g/B

HP-

hr)

Winter #2 Winter B20 ULSD Winter ULSDWinter B20

Figure 13. Brake specific THC emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the winter blend fuels.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AV

CO

2(g

/BH

P-hr

)

NotchG

Summer #2 Summer B20 ULSD Summer ULSD Summer B20 Figure 14. Brake specific CO2 emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer blend fuels.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MLH-AVGNotch

CO

2 (g/

BH

P-hr

)


Figure 15. Brake specific CO2 emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the winter blend fuels.

7.4 Estimated Average Total Mass Emissions for GP40FH-2

To estimate the average mass emissions (g/hr) for each gaseous species for the GP40FH-2 locomotive, the measured mass emissions at each notch are multiplied by a


weighting factor for that notch which was developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data as tabulated in Table 6 in the appendix. Figures 16 through 19 show the NJT-weighted average mass emissions rates of NOx, CO, HC and CO2, respectively. The data which is shown graphically in Figs. 16 through 19 is tabulated in the Executive Summary in Table E1. The greenhouse CO2 emissions estimates were made assuming carbon intensity numbers of 94.71 g CO2e/MJ for petroleum diesel and 68.93 g CO2e/MJ for soy biodiesel as proposed by the California Air Resources Board [3].

As shown in Figure 16, the summer blend results predict an increase of 7.2% NOx and 14.9% NOx for B20-summer and ULSD-B20-Summer, with respect to the baseline, respectively. These increases with respect to the baseline are slightly higher than that which would be expected from previous studies on heavy duty diesel engines [3]. However, very little work has been done on large 2-stroke, turbocharged diesel engines such as these. It should also be noted, however, that ULSD alone resulted in an increase in NOx of 13.25%. Indeed, if we compare the ULSD-B20-summer to the ULSD-summer, the presence of the biodiesel resulted in only a 1.5% increase. Such a 1.5% increase is consistent with many previous studies on B20 [4].

In terms of the winter blends, all of the blends tested in the GP40FH-2 resulted in decreases in NOx. Specifically, the ULSD-winter, B20-winter and ULSD-B20-winter resulted in NOx decreases of 10.3%, 5.7% and 9.6% respectively. In contrast to the summer blends, the presence of the ULSD appears to have lowered the NOx. Indeed, a comparison of ULSD-winter to ULSD-B20-winter suggests that the presence of the biodiesel resulted in an increase in NOx of 0.76%, which is also consistent to what might be expected from prior smaller diesel engine studies with B20 [4]. The dramatic differences in the effect of ULSD and B20 on NOx between the summer and winter blends is surprising. It should be noted, however, that all winter blends contained very high percentages of kerosene as necessary to meet NJ TRANSIT’s winter cloud point requirement as 0°F max which is the highest ambient temperature for a fuel to become cloudy The presence of the kerosene might, in fact, be the dominating factor.

Referring back to Figs. 6 and 7, the difference between the summer and winter blends is also evident when examining the opacity results. For the summer blends, the ULSD and biodiesel resulted in substantial decreases in opacity, as expected. However, all of the winter blends (including the baseline #2 winter) resulted in decreased opacity with respect to the summer blends. This result could also be due to the presence of the kerosene.

Figure 17 shows that the ULSD-B20-Summer blend resulted in a 43% percent decrease in CO, whereas the ULSD-B20-Winter blend resulted in increased CO emissions. Figure 18 shows that that the ULSD-B20-Summer blend resulted in a 15% increase in HC emissions, whereas all of the winter blends showed very little variation in HC emission with respect to the baseline. Figure 19 shows the measured CO2 mass emissions in kg/hr, along with the estimated greenhouse CO2 emissions. As shown, all of the B20 blends result in decreased greenhouse CO2 emissions. Specifically, the results suggest that NJ TRANSIT could realize a 7% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their older locomotive fleet.


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

#2Summer

ULSD-Summer

B20-Summer

ULSD-B20-

Summer

#2 Winter ULSDWinter

B20-Winter

ULSD-B20-

Winter

Fuel

NO

x (g/

hr)

Figure 16. Mass emissions rate for NOx emissions (g/hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

#2Summer

ULSD-Summer

B20-Summer

ULSD-B20-

Summer


B20-Winter

ULSD-B20-

Winter

Fuel

CO

(g/h

r)

Figure 17. Mass emissions rate for CO emissions (g/hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

#2 Summer ULSD-Summer

ULSD-B20-Summer


B20-Winter ULSD-B20-Winter

Fuel

THC

(g/h

r)

Figure 18. Mass emissions rate for THC emissions (g/hr) for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

#2Summer

ULSD-Summer

B20-Summer

ULSD-B20-

Summer


B20-Winter

ULSD-B20-

Winter

Fuel

CO

2 (kg

/hr)

Total CO2 Greenhouse CO2 Figure 19. Mass emissions rate for CO2 emissions (kg/hr) and greenhouse CO2 emissions for the GP40FH-2 locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels.


8. Test Results: PL42-AC The second locomotive tested in this study was a PL42-AC model. Locomotive 4014 was allocated for our testing purposes and released for normal revenue service when alternative fuel tests were not scheduled. All tests were performed between September 2008 and January 2009. The procedure and equipment used in the PL42-AC tests were very similar to the GP40FH-2 tests with just a few minor exceptions.

Because the PL42-AC model is computer controlled with electronic fuel injection, it was not possible to tap into the main traction engine’s alternator to read voltage and current. Our horsepower readings were obtained from the PL42-AC’s on-board computer system, recorded from an LCD monitor readout in the cabin. The PL42-AC is also equipped with a self load feature. This was convenient because it allowed tests to be conducted wherever the locomotive could be safely parked, as opposed to the GP40FH-2, which required the use of the load box. One downside of the self load feature is that it was not possible to load the locomotive at throttle notches 1 through 4. Accordingly, the test results for the PL42-AC locomotive only contain brake specific data from notches 5 through 8. And, because loading was only possible in notches 5 through 8, it was not possible to calculate an overall Modified Line-Haul Cycle average.

The Semtech-D analyzer was used in the same manner as it was during the GP40FH-2 tests, recording gaseous emissions concentrations in percentage and ppm. The fuel flow meter control units were reused, in conjunction with larger positive displacement flow meters to accommodate the higher fuel flow and fuel pressure of the larger engine. The opacity meter with fabricated locomotive-specific bracket was also reused on the PL42-AC with minor modification.

Of the eight original fuels planned for testing, one was dropped (Summer ULSD) due to insufficient time in the summer 2009 season to complete that fuel. Furthermore, due to fuel gelling, testing this blend in the winter months was impractical. In addition, during the testing of Summer ULSD-B20 blend, the Semtech-D gaseous analyzer suffered a failure which was not apparent until months later during data analysis. As such, for that fuel, no gaseous emissions are reported. However, horsepower and opacity results for Summer ULSD-B20 are reported.

8.1 PL42AC Horsepower Results

Figure 20 shows the measure horsepower from the tests conducted with the PL42-AC locomotive. These figures were recorded from the readout in the cabin and were subsequently modified using AAR correction factors for ambient temperature, altitude, fuel specific gravity and fuel temperature were applied. The alternative summer blends showed a slight decrease in power, with Summer ULSD B20 decreasing the most at 1.8%. The alternative winter fuels all saw an increase in power over the baseline, with the largest gain being 1.9% from Winter ULSD B20. It should be noted, once again, that the winter blends contained high quantities of kerosene.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

5 6 7 8Notch

HP

Baseline LSD Summer LSD B20 Summer ULSD B20 Summer LSD Winter

LSD B20 Winter ULSD Winter ULSD B20 Winter

Figure 20. Brake Horsepower measurements from PL42-AC locomotive for test fuels.

8.2 PL42AC Opacity Results

Figure 21 shows the measured exhaust opacity for the entire set of PL42-AC tests. The results for baseline summer and Summer LSD B20 were similar in most notches, however, a substantial decrease (over 65%) in some notches was seen with Summer ULSD B20. Winter ULSD B20 opacity was slightly higher than the baseline, while Winter LSD B20 and Winter ULSD showed decreased opacity up to 80% in some cases for the latter fuel. The ULSD B20 Winter showed increased opacity with respect to the ULSD winter, which was unexpected. Please note that no idle data for the ULSD B20 Winter fuel is plotted due to insufficient idle opacity data. Idle data for the other six fuels is included even though for several the opacity levels were nearly zero or below the detection limit of the opacity meter.


Figure 21. Exhaust Opacity measurements from PL42-AC locomotive for test fuels.

8.3 PL42AC Brake Specific Emissions Results

Brake specific emissions were calculated for notches 5 through 8 for the different pollutants. No line-haul average was applied to this data because only having data from four made it difficult to come up with representative weighting factors for the runs. The error bars in brake specific emissions plots indicate the percent uncertainty in the calculation for each notch.

Figure 22 shows the brake specific NOx emissions for the test fuels in the PL42-AC locomotive. Summer LSD B20 showed similar results to the baseline, some notches slightly higher, other slightly lower. The alternative winter fuels showed a decrease in emissions in all cases except for notch 5, where the baseline was slightly lower. The largest decreases, up to 25%, were seen with Winter ULSD.

Figure 23 shows the brake specific CO emissions for the test fuels in the PL42-AC locomotive. Summer LSD B20 showed a slight decrease in emissions except for notch 6. All the alternative winter fuels decreased CO emissions with the largest decrease being 50% from LSD B20.

Figure 24 shows the THC emissions for the PL42-AC locomotive. Summer LSD B20 values were comparable to the baseline. ULSD Winter was very similar to the baseline winter fuel, however, LSD B20 and ULSD B20 were both slightly higher in all the notches.

The reductions in THC and CO illustrated in Figures 23 and 24 due specifically to sulfur content follow similar trends between our high sulfur diesel (2000ppm), LSD (500PPM)


and ULSD (<15ppm) and the 4760 ppm, 3190 ppm, 330 ppm and 50 ppm fuels tested in a previous study [8].

0

2

4

6

8

10

5 6 7 8Notch

g/B

HP-

hr

Baseline LSD Summer LSD B20 Summer LSD WinterLSD B20 Winter ULSD Winter ULSD B20 Winter

Figure 22. Brake specific NOx emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

5 6 7 8Notch

g/B

HP-

hr

Baseline LSD Summer LSD B20 Summer LSD Winter LSD B20 Winter ULSD Winter

Figure 23. Brake specific CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive. (Faults with the NDIR sensor in the emissions equipment voided the winter ULSD B20 data.)


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

5 6 7 8Notch

g/B

HP-

hr


Figure 24. Brake specific THC emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive.

Figure 25 shows the brake specific CO2 emissions for the PL42-AC locomotive. The highest values are seen from the baseline summer fuel, with the Summer LSD B20 showing decreases in all notches. In general the winter fuels resulted in lower values when compared to the summer blends. The most consistent decrease compared to the winter baseline was from the Winter ULSD fuel, showing decreases up to 14%.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

5 6 7 8Notch

g/B

HP-

hr


Figure 25. Brake specific CO2 emissions (g/bhp-hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive.


8.4 Estimated Average Total Mass Emissions for PL42AC

To estimate the average mass emissions (g/hr) for each gaseous species for the PL42AC locomotive, the measured mass emissions at each notch are multiplied by a weighting factor for that notch which was developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data as tabulated in Table 6 in the appendix. Figures 26 through 29 show the NJT-weighted average mass emissions rates of NOx, CO, HC and CO2, respectively. The data which is shown graphically in Figs. 26 through 29 is tabulated in the Executive Summary in Table E2. Figure 29 also includes the estimated greenhouse CO2 emissions assuming biodiesel produced from soybeans.

As shown in Figure 26, the summer B20 blends exhibited NOx decreases of 15.5% and the winter B20 blends exhibited NOx decreases of up to 17.8%. As shown in Figs. 27 and 28, the summer B20 blends resulted in decreases in unburned hydrocarbon (HC) decreases of 6.8 % and CO decreases of 27.3%, whereas the winter B20 blends showed increases in HC of up to 29%.

The observed increases in hydrocarbons with winter biodiesel blends in both locomotives appear to be caused by several factors. The first factor is the unknown effect on HC emissions of the high levels of kerosene in many of the winter fuel blends necessary to meet NJ TRANSIT the cloud point specifications. The B20 winter blends contained as high as 55% kerosene, as compared to 30% kerosene for a typical #2 winter blend. For the older GP40FH2 locomotive, it was found that the higher kerosene levels resulted in decreased horsepower, thereby decreasing the performance of the turbocharger, which resulted in increased CO emissions at the higher notches (See Fig. 11) and slightly increased HC emissions at higher notches (See Fig. 13). Both CO and HC would be indicative of incomplete combustion, which would be consistent with reduced turbocharger performance.

In addition to the effect of reduced power on the turbocharger, the increased levels of kerosene could also affect spray characteristics and combustion chemistry, thereby producing differences in HC emissions. Indeed, the winter B20 blends in the PL42AC locomotive produced increases in HC with respect to the winter baseline (Fig. 24), even though CO decreased substantially for the winter B20 blends. In fact, as shown in Fig 20, the measured horsepower did not decrease for the winter B20 blends in the PL42AC. This suggests that the turbocharger was not the culprit, but rather perhaps one of the effects outlined above. Lastly, it should also be recognized that instrument uncertainty for hydrocarbon measurements are inherently higher than the other gaseous pollutant measurements as performed by the SEMTECH-D because of the very low concentrations of hydrocarbons compared to the other gaseous pollutants. Typical CO and NOx levels for all experiments were on the order of 1000 ppm, whereas the hydrocarbon concentrations were on the order of 50 ppm and sometimes as low as 20 ppm.

Figure 29 shows the measured CO2 mass emissions in kg/hr, along with the estimated greenhouse CO2 emissions. As shown, all of the B20 blends result in decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the results suggest that NJ TRANSIT could realize a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their newer locomotive fleet.


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

LSD Summer LSD-B20-Summer

LSD Winter ULSD Winter LSD-B20-Winter

ULSD-B20-Winter

Fuel

NO

x (g/

hr)

Figure 26. Mass emissions rate for NOx emissions (g/hr) for the PL42AC locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels at notches 5-8.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000



Fuel

CO

(g/h

r)

Figure 27. Mass emissions rate for CO emissions (g/hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels at notches 5-8.


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200



ULSD-B20-Winter

Fuel

THC

(g/h

r)

Figure 28. Mass emissions rate for THC emissions (g/hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels at notches 5-8.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500



ULSD-B20-Winter

Fuel

CO

2 (kg

/hr)

Total CO2 Greenhouse CO2

Figure 29. Mass emissions rate for CO2 and greenhouse CO2 emissions (kg/hr) for the PL42-AC locomotive operating the summer and winter blend fuels at notches 5-8.


9. Conclusions The NJ TRANSIT biodiesel locomotive study was completed according to plan with only a few hurdles along the way. Considering the magnitude of the test plan, the economic realities of increasing fuel prices and an increasing demand for public transportation, the project required extraordinary effort from NJDEP, NJ TRANSIT, Sprague Energy and Rowan University.

Since inception of the grant in March 2007, a test protocol was developed, instrumentation was specified, developed and/or acquired and modifications to the locomotives were completed to install the fuel flow and opacity meters. All of the static tests were completed in accordance with the agreed upon reduced test matrix for both the GP40FH-2 and PL42-AC locomotives. Tests were performed using the Federal Test Procedure outlined in §92.124 of CFR Title 40, Part 92 for locomotive testing and comparisons were made using the Modified Line-Haul Duty Cycle. After applying AAR correction factors and using the Modified Line-Haul Average, the results for the alternative fuels versus the baselines were able to be compared.

The findings of this study suggest that both the GP40FH-2 and PL42-AC can operate on alternative and B20 Summer blends with no unacceptable loss in power production and no increased fuel consumption. The PL42-AC can also successfully operate on the alternative winter fuel blends and actually showed an increase in horsepower. The alternative summer blends resulted in reductions in exhaust opacity of up to 50% with respect to the #2 diesel baseline. The alternative winter blends resulted in little variation in exhaust opacity with respect to the baseline, which exhibited lower opacity than the summer baseline.

For each locomotive/fuel test combination, the potential impact of B20 biodiesel blends on total average mass emissions [g/hr] was estimated for the gaseous criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. These calculations were performed by multiplying the measured mass emissions (g/hr) at each notch by a weighting factor for that notch was tested, which was developed from actual NJ TRANSIT notch data.

For the GP40FH-2 locomotive, all B20 blends resulted in comparable horsepower, decreased exhaust opacity and decreased greenhouse gas CO2 emissions with respect to pure petroleum diesel. Using greenhouse gas emission factors for soy biodiesel, the results suggest that NJ TRANSIT could realize a 7% decrease in estimated greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their older locomotive fleet.

For the GP40FH-2 locomotive, the summer B20 blends exhibited increases in NOx and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) of up to 15% and CO decreases of up to 43%. The winter B20 blends (which contained significant quantities of kerosene in order to meet NJ TRANSIT cloud point requirements) exhibited decreases in NOx of up to 10%, along with increased HC of up to 5%. The CO emissions varied widely for the winter blends, with B20/#2 winter blend exhibiting a decrease in CO of 13% and B20/ ULSD/winter showing increases in CO of 40%.

For the PL42AC locomotive, all B20 blends also resulted in comparable horsepower, decreased exhaust opacity and decreased greenhouse gas CO2 emissions with respect to pure petroleum diesel in the notches tested. Using greenhouse gas emission factors for soy biodiesel, the results suggest that NJ TRANSIT could realize a 20% decrease in estimated greenhouse gas emissions using B20 blends in their newer locomotive fleet.

For the PL42AC locomotive, the summer B20 blends exhibited NOx decreases of 15.5%, unburned hydrocarbon (HC) decreases of 6.8 %and CO decreases of 27.3% in the


notches tested. The winter B20 blends (which contained significant quantities of kerosene in order to meet NJ TRANSIT cloud point requirements) exhibited decreases in NOx of up to 17.8% and decreased CO of 50.9%, but showed an increase in HC of up to 29% in the notched tested.


Appendix A - Tables

Table 1. Engine specifications for the EMD-16-645 and EMD-16-710 diesel locomotive engines.

Specification EMD-16-645FB EMD-16-710GB Type 2 Cycle -- 45° Vee 2 Cycle -- 45° Vee Crankcase and oil pan construction Welded steel Welded steel Cylinder air inlet Ports in cylinder liner Ports in cylinder liner Exhaust Four valves in cylinder head Four valves in cylinder head Piston cooling Oil-direct pressure stream Oil-direct pressure stream Main bearing lubrication Full pressure Full pressure Lube oil pumps Main oil, piston cooling,

scavenging engine driven, positive displacement, helical gear type

Main oil, piston cooling, scavenging engine driven, positive displacement, helical gear type

Fuel supply pump Positive displacement, engine driven

Positive displacement, engine driven

Fuel injectors EMD unit injectors---needle valve

EMD unit injectors---needle valve

Engine starting Air motor Air motor Engine cooling water pumps Engine driven---centrifugal Engine driven---centrifugal Crankpin diameter 6 1/2 inches (165.10 mm) 6 1/2 inches (165.10 mm) Piston pin diameter 3.68 inches (93.47 mm) 3.68 inches (93.47 mm) Rotation facing the flywheel Counterclockwise* Counterclockwise* Number of Cylinders 16 16 Compression Ratio 16:1 16:1 BMEP@900 RPM (psi) 145 155 Number of Main Bearings 10 10 Number of Turbochargers 1 1 Type of Turbocharger Centrifugal Flow Centrifugal Flow Bore 9 1/16 inches 9 1/16 inches Stroke 10 inches 11 inches Displacement per Cylinder 645 in3 710 in3 Piston Speed at 750 RPM 1250 ft/min 1375 ft/min Piston Speed at 900 RPM 1500 ft/min 1650 ft/min


Data Units Instrument Data Acquisition

System CO ppm NDIR SEMTECH-D CO2 ppm NDIR SEMTECH-D HC ppm FID SEMTECH-D NO ppm NDUV SEMTECH-D NO2 ppm NDUV SEMTECH-D Relative Humidity % SEMTECH-D

Exhaust Temperature °F Type K

Thermocouple PC-34970A

Ambient Temperature °F Type K

Thermocouple PC-34970A Load Box Voltage V MK Corp W014-MK PC-34970A Load Box Current A MK Corp W014-MK PC-34970A Fuel Flow Supply GPM AW Flow Meter PC-34970A Fuel Flow Return GPM AW Flow Meter PC-34970A Fuel Temperature Supply °F

Type K Thermocouple PC-34970A

Fuel Temperature Return °F

Type K Thermocouple PC-34970A

Opacity % Wager 6500RR PC-34970A

Table 2. Instrumentation and test equipment.


Table 3. Overall test matrix and tests completed to date.


Table 4. EPA Test Protocol for Load Box Testing

Mode No. Notch Setting Time in NotchWarmup Notch 8 5 ± 1 minuteWarmup Lowest Idle 15 minutes max

1a Low Idle* 6 minutes min1 Normal Idle 6 minutes min2 Dynamic Break* 6 minutes min3 Notch 1 6 minutes min4 Notch 2 6 minutes min5 Notch 3 6 minutes min6 Notch 4 6 minutes min7 Notch 5 6 minutes min8 Notch 6 6 minutes min9 Notch 7 6 minutes min10 Notch 8 15 minutes min

*omit if not so equipped.

Table 5. EPA Line-Haul Cycle, EPA Switch Cycle and modified Line-Haul Cycle weighting factors.

Notch Setting

Test Mode

EPA Line-Haul

Cycle

EPA Switch Cycle

Modified Line-Haul

Cycle

Low Idle* 1a 19% 29.9% 0%

Normal Idle*

1 19% 29.9% 0%

Dynamic Break

2 12.5% 0.0% 0%

Notch 1 3 6.5% 12.4% 13.1%

Notch 2 4 6.5% 12.3% 13.1%

Notch 3 5 5.2% 5.8% 10.5%

Notch 4 6 4.4% 3.6% 8.9%

Notch 5 7 3.8% 3.6% 7.7%

Notch 6 8 3.9% 1.5% 7.9%

Notch 7 9 3.0% 0.2% 6.1%

Notch 8 10 16.2% 0.8% 32.7%

*For locomotives not equipped with multiple idle notches, the line haul and switch cycle weighting factors are 38% and 59.8%, respectively for test mode 1.


Table 6. Throttle notch duty cycle report for NJ TRANSIT 4116 from 1/22/06 to 1/26/06 Notch Setting Total Time in Notch

(hrs) Percentage of Total Time in

Notch Stop 0.00 0.0

Low Idle 0.00 0.0 Normal Idle 34.78 38.8%

Dynamic Break 39.07 43.6% Notch 1 1.65 1.8% Notch 2 2.18 2.4% Notch 3 0.95 1.1% Notch 4 0.89 1.0% Notch 5 0.40 0.4% Notch 6 0.33 0.4% Notch 7 0.15 0.2% Notch 8 9.30 10.4%

Table 7. Preliminary tests results for a B20/#2 Summer test and #2 Summer,

respectively.

Test: Fuel: B20(#2 Summer) Loco: 4142

Notch BHP GPM Fuel Rate BSFC CO2 Opacity (lb/hr) (lb/BHP-hr) ppm % g/hr g/BHP-hr ppm g/hr g/BHP-hr (%) (%)

NI 35 0.09 37.55 1.088 140 0.014 651.66 18.89 211 1052.29 30.50 0.76 01 120 0.14 59.15 0.495 130 0.013 589.49 4.93 344 1670.33 13.98 1.22 02 415 0.35 145.54 0.351 130 0.013 675.57 1.63 581 3233.25 7.80 2.6 13 735 0.61 253.54 0.345 90 0.009 613.72 0.84 748 5461.40 7.44 3.45 24 1135 0.92 383.13 0.338 140 0.014 1176.70 1.04 921 8293.05 7.31 4.22 105 1555 1.27 527.12 0.339 510 0.051 4273.99 2.75 1008 9046.31 5.82 5.78 186 1885 1.58 656.71 0.348 800 0.080 7397.42 3.93 1113 11025.79 5.85 6.5 187 2585 2.11 872.70 0.338 370 0.037 4426.92 1.71 1346 17254.71 6.68 6.72 08 2935 2.37 980.69 0.334 230 0.023 3140.96 1.07 1456 21308.29 7.26 6.63 0

Test: Fuel: #2 Summer Loco: 4142

Notch BHP GPM Fuel Rate BSFC CO2 Opacity (lb/hr) (lb/BHP-hr) ppm % g/hr g/BHP-hr ppm g/hr g/BHP-hr (%) (%)

NI 35 0.07 28.80 0.835 150 0.015 420.06 12.176 164 522.09 15.133 0.76 01 118 0.14 57.60 0.488 110 0.011 632.83 5.363 342 2022.78 17.142 1.27 02 417 0.38 158.39 0.380 150 0.015 746.94 1.793 565 3031.95 7.280 2.79 13 745 0.61 251.98 0.338 130 0.013 914.01 1.228 681 4628.54 6.217 3.76 24 1135 0.94 388.78 0.343 250 0.025 2373.88 2.092 867 6041.97 5.326 5.17 175 1525 1.30 539.97 0.354 760 0.076 6745.57 4.425 943 7670.06 5.031 6.2 306 1835 1.62 669.56 0.365 1050 0.105 9114.21 4.968 1056 9295.33 5.067 6.9 257 2535 2.17 899.95 0.355 300 0.030 3477.35 1.372 1343 15943.53 6.291 6.8 18 2935 2.45 1015.14 0.346 200 0.020 6579.69 2.242 1456 20739.71 7.068 6.84 0

092107_002

062207_002

CO NOx

CO NOx


APPENDIX B Mass Flow Rate Uncertainty Analysis The fuel mass flow rate is calculated by calculating the difference between the supply fuel mass flow rate and the return fuel flow rate. Since the AW flow meter measures volume flow rates, the individual mass flow rates are determined by multiplying the volume flow rates by the fuel density, which is measured in the laboratory using a pyncnometer. Accordingly, the overall equation for the measured fuel mass flow rate is as follows:

(A-1) ( )Rsf

ff QQ

Vmm −=&

where mf is the measured mass of fuel contained in the 25 ml pyncnometer, V the pyncnometer volume, Qs the measured supply volume flow rate and QR the measured return volume flow rate. The sensitivity of the calculated fuel mass flow rate on each of these parameters can be calculated as follows:

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ −=

∂∂

f

Rs

f

f

VQQ

mm&

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ −−=

∂∂

2f

Rs

f

f

VQQ

Vm&

f

f

S

f

Vm

Qm

=∂∂ &

f

f

S

f

Vm

Qm

−=∂∂ &

The overall uncertainty in the mass flow rate calculation can then be calculated as follows:

(A-2)

2

R

f2Q

2

S

f2Q

2

f

f2V

2

f

f2mm Q

mQm

Vm

mm

Rfsff ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛∂∂

σ+⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛∂∂

σ+⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛∂∂

σ+⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛∂∂

σ=σ&&&&

&

where σmf is the uncertainty in the measurement of the fuel mass, σVf the uncertainty in the measurement of the fuel volume, σQs the uncertainty in the measured supply volume flow rate and σQR the uncertainty in the measured return volume flow rate. The following data were used to estimate the uncertainties: σmf = .001 g (accuracy of the balance used to perform the pyncnometer tests σVf = 2.5 ml (accuracy of the pyncnometer volume) σQs = .5% of reading (according to the manufacturer) σQR = .5% of reading (according to the manufacturer)


During idling conditions, the fuel supply and return flow rates are 4 GPM and 3.93 GPM, respectively. The calculated fuel mass flow rate from equation A-1 is found to be 13.39 kg/hr. At these conditions, the overall uncertainty in the mass flow calculation from equation A-2 is calculated to be 5.37 kg/hr. On a percentage basis, this value represents an uncertainty of 40%. Conversely, during Notch 8 conditions, the fuel supply and return flow rates are 4 GPM and 1.55 GPM, respectively. The calculated fuel mass flow rate at these conditions from equation A-1 is found to be 468.8 kg/hr and the overall uncertainty in the mass flow calculation from equation A-2 is calculated to be 6.23 kg/hr. On a percentage basis, this value represents an uncertainty of only 1.3%.


References 1. Van Gerpen, J. (2005). Biodiesel Processing and Production. Fuel Processing Technology, 86, 1097-1107. 2. Graboski, M.S., McCormick, R.L. (1998). Combustion of Fat and Vegetable Oil Derived Fuels in Diesel Engines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 28, pp. 125-164. 3. Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathway for Biodiesel (Esterified Soyoil) from Midwest Soybeans. http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/022709lcfs_biodiesel.pdf 4. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impact on Exhaust Emissions. (2002). EPA420-P-02-001. Oct. 2002 5. Mills, N., Tornqvist, H., Robinson, S., Gonzalez, M., Darnley, K., McNee, W., Boon, N., Donaldson, K., Blomberg, A., Sandstrom, T. and Newby, D. (2005). Diesel Exhaust Inhalation Causes Vascular Dysfunction and Impaired Endogenous Fibrinolysis. Circulation 2005 112: 3930 – 3936. 6. Proposed EPA Regulations <http://www.epa.gov /otaq/ regs/nonroad/ locomotv/frm/42097048.pdf> 7. Fritz, S. G. (2004). Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel in an EMD GP38-2 Locomotive. Subcontractor Report NREL/SR510-33436.

8. Fritz, S. G. (2000). Diesel fuel effects on locomotive exhaust emissions. Southwest Research Institute Project No. 08.02062.


Evaluation of Emissions and Performance of NJ TRANSIT ...General Motors Electro-Motive Division GP40...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Emissions and Performance of NJ TRANSIT ...General Motors Electro-Motive Division GP40...