0
Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

Modeling and Analysis of Tier 4 Locomotives Operating in a High-Altitude Tunnel

[+] Author and Article Information
Kevin S. McElhaney

GE Transportation,
2901 East Lake Road,
Erie, PA 16531
e-mail: kevin.mcelhaney@ge.com

Robert Mischler

GE Transportation,
2901 East Lake Road,
Erie, PA 16531
e-mail: rob.mischler@ge.com

Contributed by the IC Engine Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received June 19, 2018; final manuscript received July 12, 2018; published online December 10, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(5), 052801 (Dec 10, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1261; doi: 10.1115/1.4041037 History: Received June 19, 2018; Revised July 12, 2018

Tunnels represent one of the most severe operating conditions for diesel engines in diesel-electric locomotive applications, specifically for nonventilated tunnels located at high elevation. High ambient air temperatures are observed in these tunnels due to heat rejected from the locomotive engines through the exhaust and engine cooling and lubrication systems. Engine protection algorithms cause the maximum allowable engine horsepower to be reduced due to these conditions leading to a reduction in train speed and occasionally train stall. A first law based model was developed to simulate the performance of a train pulled by GE diesel-electric locomotives equipped with medium speed diesel engines in a high altitude and nonventilated tunnel. The model was compared against and calibrated to actual tunnel operation data of EPA Tier 2 compliant locomotives. The model was then used to study the impact of engine design changes required for EPA Tier 4 compliant locomotives, specifically the introduction of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), on engine, locomotive, and train performance in the tunnel. Simulations were completed to evaluate engine control strategies targeting same or better train performance than the EPA Tier 2 compliant locomotive baseline case. Simulation results show that the introduction of EGR reduces train performance in the tunnel by increasing the required reduction in engine horsepower, but is slightly offset by improved performance from other engine design changes. The targeted engine and train performance could be obtained by disabling EGR during tunnel operation.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

McDonald, J. , Nelson, B. , Olson, B. , Iden, M. , Fritz, S. , and Honc, R. , 2008, “ Locomotive Exhaust Temperatures During High Altitude Tunnel Operation in Donner Pass,” ASME Paper No. ICES2008-1625.
Mischler, R. , and Flynn, P. , 2013, “ Diesel Engine Development for Low Emissions at GE Transportation,” CIMAC World Congress on Combustion Engine, Shanghai, China, May 13–17, CIMAC Paper No. 239.
Mischler, R. , and Dowell, J. , 2016, “ EPA Tier 4 and Imo Tier 3 Development and Field Experience at GE,” Helsinki, Finland, June 6–10, CIMAC World Congress on Combustion Engine, CIMAC Paper No. 309.
Hay, W. , 1982, Railroad Engineering, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of a diesel-electric locomotive

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Diagram of simulated train

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Coolant and lube oil simplified control volume

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Control volume of ambient air around locomotive in tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Control volume of ambient air around freight cars between locomotive consists in tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Free body diagram of train forces affecting speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Average effective grade of track

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of actual and calculated train speed for baseline case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contribution of individual components to total train resistance for modeled train

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

High-level schematic of matlab simulink model for train speed simulation in the Norden tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of modeled and actual ambient air temperature in the tunnel for DP4 locomotive

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of modeled and actual total train horsepower for baseline case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of modeled and actual train speed for baseline case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of modeled train speed with Tier 2 and 4 fluid volumes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Impact of increased fluid heat capacity on train speed and time in tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of modeled train speed with Tier 2 and 4 heat transfer rates from cooling system to ambient air

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of modeled train speed between Tier 2 baseline and Tier 2 with EGR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of modeled train speed between Tier 2 baseline and Tier 4 with “EGR on”

Tables

Errata

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