The Efficiency of Locomotive
Catalytic Converters
Matt McCarthy, Derek Von Nieda, Muhammad Nazmi Mohd
Faisul, Salim Bin Ghouth
Pennsylvania State University
Introduction to Engineering Design Class
December 3, 2015
1
Abstract
There is a city, Pittsdelphia, where approximately 165,000-tons of freight or minerals (coal, etc.)
per day travel in or out of the port city via rail. NOx emitting from locomotive engines is causing smog,
which is a complaint of the city residents. The locomotives must meet the EPA requirements at Tier 3 or
Tier 4 by reducing the NOx emission at least 70% less. However, the changes associated with meeting
the EPA requirements are supposed to be costly effective. Thus, we chose to upgrade the locomotives by
adding a catalytic converter that can reduce the NOx emissions in order to reduce the smog, as well as
meet the EPA requirements with less expense. We concluded in our research that the product satisfies all
the involved parties (the stakeholders). Regarding to both the railroads and GE, it is financially
affordable. On the other hand, it reduces the NOx emissions to satisfy the EPA requirements and the
Pittsdelphia residents since they will not have the smog over their city any more. Additionally, the
freight is delivered on time.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract
2
List of Figures and Tables
4
Summary
5
Introduction
6
Methods, Assumptions, and Procedures
9
Results and Discussion
16
Conclusions
17
References
18
Appendixes
18
3
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Schedule
page #11
List of Tables
Table 1.
Design metrics matrix to understand the customer needs
page #12
Table 2.
Calculation results
page #13-14
Table 3.
Concept scoring matrix
page #15
4
Summary
Problem
Locomotives carrying 165,000-tons of freight or minerals pass through the city of Pittsdelphia
every day. The engines of the locomotives emit NOx gas that creates smog over the city. The residents
of Pittsdelphia are complaining about the amount of smog generated by the locomotives. Pittsdelphia
must continue to meet EPA requirements, but is looking for a way to reduce smog while retaining the
freight capacity. There are some suggestions to provide a cost effective solution that reduces the smog,
meets the EPA requirements, and for the freight to be delivered on time. Sell existing fleet and purchase
new locomotives, upgrade fleet with exhaust after-treatment hardware, or utilize alternate fuels
(Biodiesel, CNG, LNG, etc.), which may produce less NOx, are efficient solutions. Otherwise, shipping
the freight alternatively by either air, sea, or ground-trucking may be a good solution.
Proposed Solution
We believe that we should upgrade the locomotives by including a catalytic converter. A
catalytic converter is a device that uses a catalyst to convert harmful gases such as nitrogen oxides into
harmless compounds. It acts as a filter by eliminating the emissions from the engine and filtering out the
clean air. The catalytic converter will reduce the NOx emissions and will also be cost effective for
railroad companies in the short run (Whitehorn).
5
Conclusion
Catalytic converters have proven to be the best solution to the problem. They are able to filter
out the harmful gases and remove the smog that is above the city of Pittsdelphia. It will also be much
more feasible for railroads to switch to a catalytic converter rather than completely change the tier of the
locomotives while saving a substantial amount of money. The locomotive catalytic converter will satisfy
all stakeholders especially those that will pay for the product.
Introduction
Stakeholders:
1.
EPA:
Existing Conditions:
Preferred Conditions:
● Tier 2 locomotives
● Wants the minimum
are no longer meet
requirements to be
the minimum EPA
met. Will penalize
requirements and
those who don’t meet
must be upgraded
requirements.
to tier 3-4.
● Wants as few
emissions as possible.
6
2.
Pittsdelphia:
● Pittsdelphia
● Want the smog to be
residents are
reduced.
unhappy with the
smog caused by
locomotives.
3.
Railroad:
● Don’t want to disrupt
the local economy.
● Tier 2 locomotives
● Wants to meet the
are no longer meet
minimum
the minimum EPA
requirements so it is
requirements and
not fined and can
must be upgraded
continue operations.
to tier 3-4.
● Wants to spend as
● Approximately
little money as
165,000-tons of
possible on
freight or minerals
improvements.
are transported
through city.
Tier 2 locomotives
● Wants viable solution
product is being
are no longer meet
(must meet tier 3
built for GE:
minimum EPA
requirements) that
requirements and
could be implemented
must be upgraded
elsewhere.
4.
GE - This
●
to tier 3-4.
7
● Engines are
● Must be cost effective
emitting NOx.
for GE and
customers.
Stakeholders:
● EPA:
❏
US Environmental Protection Agency.
● Pittsdelphia:
❏ The city where the railroad is, and the fright or minerals are transported through.
● Railroad:
❏ The operating company of the locomotives, which transports the fright
or minerals.
● GE - This product is being built for GE:
❏
The company whose job is to upgrade the locomotives, and the product is being
built for it.
Existing Situation:
●
Tier 2 locomotives are no longer meet minimum EPA requirements and must be upgraded
to tier 3-4.
●
Pittsdelphia residents are unhappy with smog caused by locomotives.
●
Engines are emitting NOx.
●
Approximately 165,000-tons of freight or minerals are transported through city.
All the problems associated with the current locomotives are basically depending on the
increasing emissions of the NOx. The NOx emissions are no longer satisfying the EPA requirements,
which must be tier 3 or 4. They are the main cause of the smog over the city of Pittsdelphia, about which
the city residents are complained. The railroad and GE are both sharing the concerns of the cost of the
8
final product while the EPA is pretty much unconcerned. Pittsdelphia is in more of a middle ground
because while they are not directly affected by the cost of the solution, the health of the railroad has a
large bearing on the city’s economy. Approximately 165,000-ton of the fright or minerals are transported
through the city, and the residents are concerning about the city’s economy. Without the railroad, the
city wouldn’t be able to transport all of the goods arriving in its port. Since the railroad and city have
combined interests, it is possible that there could be active cooperation between the two stakeholders.
Preferred Conditions:
● EPA:
❏
Wants the minimum requirements to be met. Will penalize those who don’t meet
the requirements.
❏
Wants as few emissions as possible.
● Pittsdelphia:
❏
Wants the smog to be reduced.
❏
Doesn’t want to disrupt their local economy.
● Railroad:
❏
Wants to meet the minimum requirements so it is not fined and can continue
operations.
❏
Wants to spend as little money as possible on the improvements.
● GE:
❏
Wants a viable solution (must meet tier 3 requirements) that could be
implemented elsewhere.
❏
Must be cost effective for GE and customers.
Although all involved parties have different motivations for reducing NOx emissions to meet at
least tier 3 requirements, They each share an interest in doing so. The EPA wants as less emission as
possible. In other words, it wants the emissions to meet the tier 3 or 4. The Pittsdelphia residents want
the smog to be reduced and their economy to be stable. Railroad and GE are interested in locomotives
that meet the minimum requirement and costly effective, so the railroad can still be operating.
9
Consequently, in our project we are focusing on: How can we reduce the emissions with a
financially affordable product that satisfies all stakeholders?
Methods, Assumptions, and Procedures
Methods
General electric has asked our group to determine a way to reduce emissions from locomotives
at an affordable cost. We are told to consider the emissions requirements, cost, time of delivery, freight
capacity and public opinion. We began by brainstorming different solutions to the problem. We
continued to brainstorm and came up with catalytic converters, solar panels, hybrid train, and electric
trolleys as our possible solutions. However, we felt that researching four different solutions would prove
to be extremely challenging in the limited amount of time we were given. We decided to eliminate two
out of the four topics, the hybrid train and the electric trolley. Hybrid technology is still being researched
today and does not offer many resources and the electric trolley also does not contain much information
and could prove to be expensive for railroad companies. We had then decided that it would be more
efficient for the group if we all focused on one topic. We determined that catalytic converters would be
our main point of research. Catalytic converters are frequently used today while solar panels contain a
limited amount of information and are not applied to locomotives as often.
Our group then created a schedule (Figure 1) that would layout our objectives and time frame.
This proved to be extremely beneficial since it would clearly and effectively map out what we have
discussed and what we still needed to discuss.
Each member researched their information with the use of both Google and the sources provided
by the Penn State Engineering Library. Certain questions we sought to answer in each of these resources
10
consisted of how catalytic converters are used today, how do they work, how much it costs, and how
will it reduce emissions. Each member put placed their information into a single document so all of our
information could easily be located. It was especially beneficial when it was time to answer our
question.
Figure 1
11
Customer Needs
Target specifications were formulated in order to understand what was necessary for
customer satisfaction. Specifics varied from environmental friendly to producing a cost effective
product. This specifications were found in the customer’s report and briefings as well as the
engineering team’s intuitive senses. Parameters chosen here helped to give direction and focus to
the multitude of possible designs for the problem. A list of customer needs and their related
metrics are shown below in the Table 2.
Design Metrics
Needs
Filters out
harmful
particles
Eco Friendly
X
Cost
Effective
Fuel
Efficient
Reducing
maintenance
cost
Less
volume
per
distance
Tier 3 or
higher
Less smog
production
Goods
delivered at
the expected
time
X
X
Meets EPA
req.
X
NOx
emission
X
Timely
Delivery
X
Table 1: Design metrics matrix to understand the customer needs.
12
Assumptions
The assumption most integral to our argument is our presumption that the Rail Network is
seeking the least expensive option that can satisfy their criteria. We made this assumption on the
premise that businesses generally look for the most cost effective option to allow them to continue to be
viable and produce the most profits. While some groups may have weighed environmental concerns
more heavily, we elected to address them at the necessary level, but focus on what would make the most
viable option for the business at the heart of this analysis.
We also had an initial assumption that a catalytic converter would be the cheapest option of those
presented by GE and those which we were able to come up with. This assumption was informed by our
experience with automobiles and the lack of use of alternative fuel sources. We followed this
presumption up with research and based on our analysis metrics we concluded that it was the best
option.
Calculations for the project was made so that the locomotive could function properly and stay
within the recommended EPA requirement. Some of the factors that needed to be computed were:
❖ How much does the fuel cost per trip?
❖ How much does the return trip cost in fuel?
❖ How much NOx?
❖ How much particulates?
❖ How much NOx and particulates could we save if we moved to Tier 4?
At the end of this section Table 3 presents the results of these calculations. We were using unit skills of
physics to calculate the result. For an in depth look at the calculations, see Appendix A.
Fuel cost per trip
$ 0.98 / trip
13
Amount of fuel used per trip
1.06 gallon / trip
Amount of NOx emitted per trip
55 g / trip
Amount of particulates produced per trip
2 g / trip
Amount of NOx emitted per trip (Tier 4)
13 g / trip
Amount of particulates produced per trip (Tier 4)
0.3 g / trip
Change in amount of NOx if moved to Tier 4
42 g / trip
Change in amount of particulates if we moved to Tier 4
1.7 g / trip
Table 2: Result of calculation.
Procedures
Concept Generation
Instead of simply developing a single iterative design, more time was invested in concept
generation in order to produce more confidence in the final results. Based on the research and
target specifications, some concepts were initially produced in the brainstorming session.
Inspirations for many of these concepts included individual creativity, existing models and patent
ideas. Some ideas overlapped and others are seem underdeveloped, so certain concepts were
combined. After this initial analysis, five concepts remained and thus become eligible for a
stricter screening method.
Concept Selection
A concept scoring matrix was made to narrow down the ideas from concept generation. It
was determined that the cost effective, complexity and practicality should be the baseline for
14
comparison because of a couple factors. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) would cause difficulties
and large expenses in converting current diesel fuel oriented infrastructure to LNG infrastructure.
China Electric Trolley couldn’t be chosen either because this system is very new and doesn’t
have a long story behind it, which causes hesitation. With these factors considered, the concept
screening matrix was made and can be found below in Table 3.
Metrics
Concepts
Hybrid
train
Solar
Panels
China
Electric
Trolley
Catalytic
Converter
LNG
Powered
Train
Eco Friendly
+
+
+
+
+
Cost
Effective
-
-
-
+
-
Fuel Efficient
+
0
0
0
0
Meets EPA
req.
+
+
+
+
-
NOx
emission
+
+
+
+
+
Timely
Delivery
0
0
0
0
-
Total
3
2
2
4
-1
Table 3: Concept scoring matrix to narrow down the ideas from concept generation.
With the scoring matrix completed, scores were totaled and catalytic converter was
chosen as the final result.
15
Results and Discussion
Having researched a number of methods to satisfy stakeholders and reconcile their preferred
conditions, the following information became evident. In regards to the initial investment needed to
implement the proposed solutions, the catalytic converter was by far the cheapest option, only requiring
a retrofit of current engines. By contrast, the hybrid and especially the liquid natural gas options have
significantly larger base costs and require the purchase of new engines. Meanwhile, the China electric
trolley and solar powered train options were deemed infeasible because of a lack of available data and
an inability to effectively implement them. Although the initial modest cost of a catalytic converter
makes it an attractive option, the fuel savings provided by hybrid and liquid natural gas powered trains
has the potential to make up for their more expensive implementation costs and produce a net savings
for railroads. However, this return on investment, particularly in the case of liquid natural gas, would not
take effect for years and would be further hampered by current economic conditions. At the moment,
fuel prices for locomotives are exceptionally low, making fuel saving measures less attractive to
railroads. The argument for liquid natural gas is further undermined by the costs of the infrastructure
that would be needed to effect its use. With these lackluster savings and higher initial costs, it is likely
that railroads would end up leaning towards the less exciting but more economical catalytic converters.
Finally, in regards to reducing emissions, catalytic converters, hybrid engines, and liquid natural gas all
succeed in meeting the EPA’s tier 3 requirements. Although there is an argument that hybrid and liquid
natural gas trains could offer a better deal over the course of years or decades, an objective analysis
suggests that catalytic converters will be viewed as the best way forward by railroads.
16
Conclusion
After doing lengthy research on catalytic converters and other alternative methods of reducing
emissions, we have come to the conclusion that a catalytic converter is the best available solution to the
existing problem. It will allow the Railroad to meet the requirements set forth by the EPA and the City
of Pittsdelphia, while having the smallest possible financial impact on the company. Meanwhile, with
this solution providing an attractive option for other railroads across the nation, GE would stand to
benefit from the adding catalytic converters to its pallet of options. Taking everything into consideration,
this solution satisfies all involved stakeholders, while focusing on creating the best possible situation for
the stakeholder who will purchasing and utilizing the product. By our assessment, this makes it the most
likely option to be adopted as the solution for the railroad.
17
References
●
Source 1: Whitehorn, James. "Locomotive Catalytic Converter Manufacturing."Catalytic
Converter Manufacturer Synergy Catalyst. N.p., 15 June 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
●
"LNG Could Push Diesel Trains Into History Books - GE Reports." GE Reports LNG Could
Push Diesel Trains Into History Books Comments. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 7 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.gereports.com/post/93343698908/lng-could-push-diesel-trains-into-history-books/>
●
Guss, C. (2014, 12). No more tiers. Trains, 74, 16. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1622248157?accountid=13158
●
Hayes, R. E., A. Fadic, J. Mmbaga, and A. Najafi. "Modelling of the Automotive Catalytic
Converter." Catalysis Today, n.d. Web.
Appendixes
Appendix A: Physics Calculation
Distance per gallon of diesel (given)
470 miles / gallon
Distance per trip into the city (assumed)
500 miles / trip
Cost of diesel fuel (given)
$ 2.50 / gallon
Amount of NOx emitted in Tier 2 (given)
5.5 g / hp-hr
Amount of particulates produced in Tier 2 (given)
2 g / hp-hr
Amount of NOx emitted in Tier 4 (given)
1.3 g / hp-hr
Amount of particulates produced in Tier 4 (given)
0.03 g / hp-hr
Average speed of locomotive (assumed)
50 miles / hour
Data was collected from the GE presentation
18
Fuel cost per trip
Amount of fuel per trip
Amount of NOx emitted per trip (Tier 2)
Amount of particulate produced per trip (Tier 2)
Amount of NOx emitted per trip (Tier 4)
Amount of particulate produced per trip (Tier 4)
Change in amount of NOx emitted per trip (Tier 4)
Change in amount of particulate produced per trip (Tier 4)
19