The Future of NOx Emission Reduction By: Jordan Baker, Melissa Martin, Blane Scanlan, Takugo Amy

Introduction There is a growing need for more efficient and less pollutive means of transferring freight: Stronger and stronger EPA guidelines Growing understanding of the effects on the environment by pollution Health costs associated with airborne pollutants Increasing costs associated with fuel http://blog.victoryenergy.com/ http://www.clipartbest.com

Mission Statement To find an economically feasible method of reducing N0x emissions for the primary reason of meeting EPA tier 4 requirements and maintaining or surpassing current freight capacity. With a focus on a positive financial return within a ten year period http://www.popsci.com/see-beautiful-pictures-ges-new-environmentally-friendly-train

Case Study: Pittsburgh, PA https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pittsburgh_WEO_Night_1.jpg We chose Pittsburgh because of its history with the railroad industry. It produced many of the railways that exist today, and as a result  its railways extend in almost every direction making railroad transportation of materials and people an efficient and profitable industry.

Case Study: Pittsburgh, PA 2nd largest inland port in America 21st largest port in America Largest steel industrial city in America Roughly 34 million tons of cargo processed per year http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx

Case Study: The SD70M-2 SD70M-2SD70M-2SD70M-2SD70M-2 EPA tier 2 compliant and certified Once was commonly used in Pittsburgh before tier 3 compliance was mandatory Features an EMD 710 engine (model 16-710G3C-T2)SD70M-2 V-16 engine 4300-4500 horsepower engine (3.2 MW) 86,850lbs of breaking effort http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/sd70m.jsp

Decision Matrix -Identified customers as being citizens of a specific city -Point Distribution: (Little importance) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, (Most Important) 1) Emissions/Regulatory requirements 5 2) Costs: fuel, infrastructure, etc. 3 3) Freight throughput/capacity 2 4) Public opinion 4 5) On-time delivery 1

Original Ideas Scale: (bad) 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (good) Concept Emissions(x5) Costs (x3) Throughput (x2) Public (x4) On time (x1) Total Decreasing Thickness 6 10 12 5 33 Hybrid Engine 25 52 Steam Model 15 9 2 3 41 Regenerative Braking 16 71 Aftertreatment 20 66 Barges 1 60 Decision: In order to be implemented the concept needed to be a minimum of 60 points.

Objective Reduce smog (Nox) emissions from locomotive engines entering a specific city Emission levels must be lowered in order to meet both the needs of the people in that specific city and to comply with the 2015 EPA Tier 4 locomotive regulations While abiding by EPA regulations a ten year financial return must be visible

EPA Tier 4 regulations Locomotive NOx must reduced from 5.5 (g/hp-hr) to 1.3 (g/hp-hr) Particulate Matter must go from 0.2 (g/hp-hr) to 0.03 (g/hp-hr) https://cms.psu.edu/Fall2/201516FA/201516FAUP___REDSGN100_023/_assoc/77B982A483724DE0884236338DF1A710/GE_Slides.pdf

Systems Diagram (Train) Diesel fuel DC Systems Diagram (Train)

Concept: Regenerative braking As a train comes to a halt regenerative braking will cause the electric motors to act as electric generators, giving the train energy that can be stored for later usage Kinetic energy from the trains initial movement is then converted into electrical energy

Prototype 1: Regenerative Braking Regenerative braking relies entirely on Faraday’s and Lenz’s Law Faraday’s Law states that “Any change in the magnetic flux through a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be induced in the coil.” Through this principle we can determine that if we move a coiled wire through a changing magnetic field it will generate an electrical current. The energy of this current can be harnessed to do work, and as a result, make each gallon of diesel burned yield a greater output. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html http://www.sterlingrail.com/classifieds/classified.php?id=2478

Engine and Motor

Regenerative Braking Our design will replace the DC motors currently used with AC traction motors and add rectifiers and inverters to the train’s electrical system. The stopping force of the locomotive will translate into a change in the magnetic flux of the coiled wire present in the electromagnetic motor. The presence of a changing magnetic field within the motor will lead to an induced current in the coiled wire which will then travel to the battery. Once it reaches the battery, the energy will be stored for later use. One can expect a 10% reduction if fuel consumption. Costs: $72,000 per locomotive, $2,520,000 for the entire fleet

Regenerative Braking and Fuel Consumption E=energy recovered= 4,763,775.35 Joules + 32,439,045.09x Joules u=energy density of diesel= 48,000,000 Joules per Kilogram m=mass of diesel saved= .10 Kg Diesel + .68x Kg Diesel Density of Diesel = .832 Kilograms per liter 1 liter= .264 gallons Gallons of Diesel saved (perfect efficiency)= (.120 + .817x) gallons Efficiency of regen breaks (freight) = 10% Gallons saved (reality)= (0.012+0.0817x) gallons KE= (½)mv2 m=mass of locomotive and x number of cargo filled mineral cars = (42,000 lbs. + 143 tons) = 19056.26 Kg + 129764.07x Kg v=velocity of locomotive=50 miles per hour= 80.5 Kilometers per hour = 80500 meters per hour= 22.36 meters per second 1 ton=2000 lbs 1kg=2.204 lbs 1mile= 1.61 km KE= 4,763,775.35 Joules + 32,439,045.09x Joules http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNDWzFaiDZQ&list=PL3mNee2cpk41AozCJHkhbqBU3y8WhgXkd

Prototype 2: Barges Pittsburgh is the second largest inland port in the United States Some cargo doesn’t need to be transported as quickly as others Minerals can be transported slower than things like mail packages. Barges are cheaper and more environmentally friendly than locomotives. Transporting 1 ton of Cargo, on average: Barges: 514 miles to the gallon, release 0.0053lbs/(ton-mile) of NOx Locomotives: 470 miles to the gallon, release 0.0183 lbs/(ton-mile) of NOx http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/

Systems Diagram (Boats)

Savings Calculations Traveling 500 miles, carrying all of pittsburgh's mineral needs in a day, a barge would lower fuel use and NOx emissions by: Fuel: 1.502 gallons/ton: Thus 546.01 gallons saved and @$2.50 a gallon = $1366.01 saved per day, $498,593 a year. NOx: 6.5 pounds/ton: 390,000lbs NOx saved a day.

Prototype 3 AfterTreatment Cummins aftertreatment Cummins Particulate Filter – uses wall-flow substrates to capture exhaust gas and remove PM or soot particles Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) Dosing Valve – allows a fine mist of Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to be sprayed into the hot exhaust stream Decomposition Reactor – converts DEF to ammonia through hydrolysis Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Catalyst – Significantly reduces NOx to near-zero levels by converting it into harmless nitrogen gas and water vapor (90-100%of total NOx ) Single High Capacity Electronic Control Module (ECM) – a single ECM manages the engine and aftertreatment system for optimum performance and fuel economy http://www.mtu-online.com/fileadmin/fm-dam/mtu-global/technical-info/white-papers/3100691_MTU_General_WhitePaper_SCR_2014.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8clK9qSGlk http://cumminsengines.com/cummins-aftertreatment-system

Prototype 3 (aftertreatment models)

Conclusion: (Final Prototype)

Final Costs: Sell 15 mineral locomotives (3 trains): $1.5 million each = $22.5 million Cost of aftertreatment unit: $100,000 x 35 locomotives = $3.5 million Cost of DEF: $75,834.57 per year Cost of Construction per barge: $225,000 x (40 barges)= $9 million Cost of Implementing regenerative braking = $2,520,000 Savings to using barges = $498,593 per year Savings due to regenerative braking = 10% reduction in fuel use = $5,824,468.08 Total (initial): [($22,500,000) - ($3,500,000 + $9,000,000 + $2,520,000)] = $7,480,000 Total over 10 years: [$7,480,000 - ($75,834.57 * 10) + ($498,593 * 10) + ($5,824,468 * 10)] = $69,952,264.3 http://www.caria.org/barges_tugboats.html

So did our locomotives meet Tier 4? Yes we did! NOx went from 5.5 g/hp-hr to 0.525 g/hp-hr (Tier 4 requires 1.3 g/hp-hr) Particulate Matter went from 0.2 g/hp-hr to 0.018 g/hp-hr (Tier 4 requires 0.03 g/hp-hr)

Conclusion Tier 4 guidelines met and exceeded Amount of freight capacity did not change Minerals will travel slower, but in the end will still meet demand 15 Mineral Locomotives cut 40 barges implemented Initial profit of $9.748 Million Returns (over 10 years) are over $70 Million http://cumminsengines.com/

Works Cited http://business.tenntom.org/why-use-the-waterway/shipping-comparisons/ http://www.caria.org/barges_tugboats.html http://cumminsengines.com/ http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/sd70m.jsp http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html http://www.mtu-online.com/fileadmin/fm-dam/mtu-global/technical-info/white-papers/3100691_MTU_General_WhitePaper_SCR_2014.pdf http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx http://www.port.pittsburgh.pa.us/index.aspx?page=97 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNDWzFaiDZQ&list=PL3mNee2cpk41AozCJHkhbqBU3y8WhgXkd

QUESTIONS???