0
Internal Combustion Engines

Exhaust Emissions Characterization of a Turbocharged 2-Stroke Tier 0+ Locomotive Engine: NOx , Particulate Matter and Soluble Organic Fraction Composition

[+] Author and Article Information
Stanislav V. Bohac1

 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109sbohac@umich.edu

Eric Feiler, Ian Bradbury

Peaker Services, Inc., Brighton, MI 48116

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 134(7), 072804 (May 23, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006006 History: Received November 02, 2011; Revised November 18, 2011; Published May 23, 2012; Online May 23, 2012

This study presents a detailed exhaust emission characterization of a 2-Stroke turbocharged line haul locomotive diesel engine fitted with an early-development Tier 0 + emissions kit. The objective of this work is to use emissions characterization to gain insight into engine operation and mechanisms of pollutant formation for this family of engine, and identify areas of potential future engine emissions improvement. Results show that at the notches tested (notches 3–8) the largest contributor to particulate matter (PM)mass is insolubles (mostly elemental carbon), but that the soluble component of PM, comprising 14–32% of PM, is also significant. Gas chromatography (GC) analysis of the soluble portion shows that it is composed of 55–77% oil-like C22 –C30+ hydrocarbons, with the remainder being fuel-like C9 –C21 hydrocarbons. The emissions characterization suggests that advancing combustion timing should be effective in reducing PM mass by reducing the insoluble portion (elemental carbon) of PM at all notches. NOx will likely increase, but the current level of NOx is sufficiently below Tier 0+ limits to allow a moderate increase. Reducing engine oil consumption should also reduce PM mass at all notches, although to a smaller degree than measures that reduce the insoluble portion of PM.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

PM sampling flow diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cylinder pressure at notches 3 and 8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Brake specific fuel consumption versus notch position

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Brake specific NOx emissions versus notch position

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Brake specific PM emissions versus notch position

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Repeatability of GC-FID analysis of SOF composition at notch 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Fuel composition by carbon number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Oil composition by carbon number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

SOF composition at notch 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SOF composition at notch 5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

SOF composition at notch 8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

SOF composition, grouped by fuel-like and oil-like HC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

PM composition versus notch position

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In