Emissions Of Transport Refrigeration Units With CARB Diesel, Gas-to .

1y ago
26 Views
2 Downloads
847.66 KB
12 Pages
Last View : 13d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Elisha Lemon
Transcription

Emissions of TransportRefrigeration Units with CARBDiesel, Gas-to-Liquid Diesel, andEmissions Control DevicesR.A. BarnittNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryD. Chernich and M. BurnitzkiCalifornia Air Resources BoardA. Oshinuga and M. MiyasatoSouth Coast Air Quality Management DistrictE. LuchtThermo King CorporationD. van der MerweSasolChevron Consulting LimitedP. SchabergSasol TechnologyPresented at the 2009 SAE Powertrain, Fuels, and Lubricants MeetingSan Antonio, TexasNovember 2 4, 2009Conference PaperNREL/CP-540-46598May 2010

NOTICEThe submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC(ASE), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308. Accordingly, the USGovernment and ASE retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form ofthis contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes anywarranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, orusefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would notinfringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views andopinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United Statesgovernment or any agency thereof.Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridgeAvailable for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energyand its contractors, in paper, from:U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Scientific and Technical InformationP.O. Box 62Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062phone: 865.576.8401fax: 865.576.5728email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.govAvailable for sale to the public, in paper, from:U.S. Department of CommerceNational Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 22161phone: 800.553.6847fax: 703.605.6900email: orders@ntis.fedworld.govonline ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htmPrinted on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Emissions of Transport Refrigeration Units with CARB Diesel,Gas-to-Liquid Diesel, and Emissions Control DevicesRobb A. BarnittNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryDonald Chernich and Mark BurnitzkiCalifornia Air Resources BoardAdewale Oshinuga and Matt MiyasatoSouth Coast Air Quality Management DistrictErich LuchtThermo King CorporationDouw van der MerweSasolChevron Consulting LimitedPaul SchabergSasol TechnologyABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONA novel in situ method was performed for measuringemissions and fuel consumption of transport refrigerationunits (TRUs). The test matrix included two fuels, twoexhaust configurations, and two TRU engine operatingspeeds. The test fuels were California ultra low sulfurdiesel and gas-to-liquid (GTL) diesel. The exhaustconfigurations were a stock original equipmentmanufacturer (OEM) muffler and a Thermo King pDPFdiesel particulate filter. The two TRU engine operatingspeeds were high and low, as controlled by the TRUuser interface.Transport refrigeration units (TRUs) are refrigerationsystems designed to refrigerate or heat perishableproducts that are transported in various containers,including semi-trailers (Figure 1), box trucks, vans,shipping containers, and rail cars.Test results indicate that GTL diesel fuel reduces allregulated emissions at high and low engine operatingspeeds. Separately, the application of a Thermo KingpDPF reduced regulated emissions, in some casesalmost entirely. Finally, the application of both GTLdiesel and a Thermo King pDPF reduced regulatedemissions at high engine operating speed, but with anincrease in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) at low enginespeed.Figure 1. TRU Mounted on Trailer NosePresented at the 2009 SAE Powertrain, Fuels, and Lubricants Meeting , November 2-4, 2009, San Antonio, Texas, as SAE Paper No. 2009-01-2722.Published with permission.

TRUs are powered predominantly by diesel internalcombustion engines. While TRU engines are relativelysmall, ranging from 9 to 36 horsepower (hp), significantnumbers of vehicles with these engines congregate atdistribution centers, truck stops, and other facilities,posing significant health risks to those who live and worknearby.OBJECTIVESThis paper reports on one component of a largercollaborative project. The primary objective of theactivities reported here was to measure the fuelconsumption and emissions of a TRU fueled with GTLdiesel or CARB ultra low sulfur diesel and equipped witheither a Level 2 VDECS or the stock OEM muffler.Secondary objectives were to evaluate fuel consumptionimpacts due to backpressure with the Thermo Kingdiesel particulate filter, known as pDPF, and to evaluatepDPF performance on equipment outside the terms of itsCARB verification.The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimatesthat there are 40,200 TRUs operating in California at anygiven time, with an annual diesel consumption of morethan 20 million gallons. CARB also estimates that TRUparticulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)emissions are 2 and 20 tons per day (tpd), respectively.The PM emission contribution from TRUs is estimated at2.6% of total diesel PM emissions. PM emissions areprojected to increase to about 2.5 tpd in 2010 and tomore than 3 tpd by 2020.APPROACHINTRODUCTION This project was conducted under acooperative research and development agreementbetween the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE)National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and theSouth Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). Funding was supplied by SCAQMD andthe Advanced Petroleum-Based Fuels Task sponsoredby DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program. Additionalproject partners and their roles are listed in Table 1.The nature of the TRU emissions inventory, as well asCARB’s identification of diesel PM as a toxic aircontaminant, led to CARB’s adoption of an AirborneToxic Control Measure (ATCM) for TRUs and TRUgenerator sets on February 26, 2004.1The ATCM includes a phased compliance schedulebased upon TRU model year; older units requirecompliance sooner.2 The three principal methods ofcompliance include the following:Table 1. Project Partners and RolesProject Partner1. Replacing the existing TRU engine with acertified engine meeting applicable nonroad/offroad emissions standards2. Equipping the engine with a required level ofVerified Diesel Emission Control Strategy(VDECS)3. Operating a TRU or TRU gen set meeting oneof several alternative technology options.Alternative technology options include fuel cells, electricstandby, cryogenic temperature control systems,alternative fuels with a VDECS, and alternative dieselfuels that have been verified as a VDECS. Examples ofalternative diesel fuels include biodiesel and gas-toliquid (GTL) synthetic diesel. In on-road engines, GTLdiesel fuel has been shown to reduce PM emissionswithout accompanying increases in other regulated3,4emissions.NRELCo-funder, project leadSCAQMDCo-funderCARBEmissions testingThermo KingVDECS, engine teardownSasolChevronGTL diesel test fuel for in-useevaluation and emissions testingSYSTEM DESCRIPTION The subject TRU is a modelyear 2004 Thermo King brand SB-200 30 model,mounted to a 48-foot trailer. The engine is a Yanmar 2.2liter, four-cylinder in-line diesel. The engine utilizesmechanically direct injection and is naturally aspirated.There have been few studies on TRU emissions andperformance with a VDECS or alternative technologies.5,6,7Nevertheless, many parties are interested in theoperability of and emissions from TRUs using variouscombinations of VDECS and alternative technologies: Project RoleThe engine shaft power is applied through a direct drivecoupling to a refrigeration compressor off the flywheel.On the front of the engine, a belt system drives thealternator and an engine compartment cooling fan. TheTRU operates at two engine speeds (1450 and 2200rpm) which are mechanically governed by the fuelinjection pump. A general TRU schematic is shown inFigure 2. The enclosure skins, electrical controls, belts,and blower are not shown.TRU end users (fleets) in need of operability dataRegulators in need of emissions dataTRU original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) inneed of emissions data for compliance andoperability data for warranties.2

Figure 3. Thermo King pDPF Wire Mesh ElementTEST FUELS – Test fuels were CARB ultra low sulfurdiesel and GTL diesel. CARB diesel was supplied by alocal distributor of Chevron Products Company. Thisfuel was not analyzed but was presumed to meet thefuel specification for CARB diesel. CARB diesel ischaracterized by a maximum 10% by volume aromaticsand minimum cetane number of 48. SasolChevronsupplied GTL diesel for emissions testing. This fuel wascharacterized by zero aromatic content and a cetanenumber of 81. The appendix presents both the GTLdiesel production lot analytical results and CARB dieselfuel specification for comparison.Figure 2. TRU Power Pack SchematicEXHAUST AFTERTREATMENT – The Level 2 VDECSused in this testing is a Thermo King pDPF. TheThermo King pDPF was verified by CARB as a Level 2device (achieves a greater than or equal to 50%reduction in diesel PM). Additionally, the Thermo KingpDPF was found not to increase NO2 emissions morethan 20% compared with the baseline, indicatingcompliance with the 2009 NO2 emissions limit (13 CCRsection 2706(a)) and thus obtaining designation as aThe CARB“Plus” system per Section 2702(f).8verification cited is for engine model years 2002 andolder; the TRU unit tested is a model year 2004.EMISSIONS TESTING – TRU emissions and fuelconsumption measurements were conducted at theCARB Stockton laboratory (SL). The CARB SL is aheavy-duty vehicle emissions laboratory configured totest heavy-duty diesel-powered vehicles on a twin roll,1,100 hp chassis dynamometer. In addition to wheeledvehicle tests, the SL can also perform emissionsmeasurements on other utility equipment, such as TRUsand transportable air compressors.The principle of operation of the Thermo King pDPF is aflow-through design, utilizing knitted wire elements thatprovide a tortuous path. Passive regeneration of thesoot is triggered by a proprietary catalyst on the meshelements. The pDPF is designed to regenerate whenthe exhaust temperature is in the 230ºC to 450ºC range.A simple control system increases engine speed when abackpressure limit is reached to increase exhausttemperature and initiate soot regeneration. The wiremesh element is shown in Figure 3.All gaseous emissions were measured in the rawexhaust using conventional laboratory-grade analyzersmanufactured by California Analytical Instruments.These included a heated flame ionization detector(HFID) for total hydrocarbon (THC) measurements, twoheated chemiluminescence analyzers for total NOx andNO measurements, an infrared detector for CO and CO2measurements, and a paramagnetic analyzer for O2measurements.Air flow through the engine wasmeasured using a calibrated air turbine installed on theengine air intake.3

PM was sampled by drawing a separate exhaust streamthrough a Sierra BG-2 partial flow sampling system(PFSS). The sampling stream temperature was heldbelow 52ºC. PM samples were collected using a varietyof dilution ratios and sampling times (depending on thetest mode) on primary and secondary 90 mm T60A20filter media. The filters were preconditioned in atemperature and humidity-controlled weighing roombefore and after sample collection and then measuredgravimetrically on a Mettler Toledo UMX 2 microbalance.Table 2. TRU Test MatrixTestRun12345678Fuel consumption was measured using a gravimetricfuel measurement system integrated with a dataacquisition system; both are manufactured by Superflow,Inc. A 22-gallon fuel can suspended by a torque cellprovides real-time fuel consumption data. Both fuelsupply and return lines are routed to the fuel can. Returnfuel is passed through a water-to-fuel heat exchangerprior to being returned to the can. When in operation, thetest equipment’s fuel tank is bypassed completely,operating only on fuel supplied by the B dieselCARB dieselCARB dieselCARB dieselGTL DieselGTL DieselGTL DieselGTL DieselExhaustOEM mufflerOEM mufflerpDPFpDPFOEM mufflerOEM mufflerpDPFpDPFThe high and low TRU engine speeds are nominally2200 and 1450 rpm, respectively. Between each fuelchange, the fuel system was flushed clean and theengine was operated on the new test fuel forapproximately two hours.RESULTSCalibration is obtained through the use of certifiedweights placed on a purpose-designed stand. AmericanPetroleum Institute (API) specific gravity is calculated byfilling and emptying the can. The known volume,measured weight, and measured fuel temperature areused by the Superflow data acquisition system tocalculate the API value, which is displayed as a datachannel. Additional verification of the API value isobtained with the use of a temperature-correctedhydrometer.Steady-state conditions were achieved using the methoddescribed previously and confirmed by evaluatingseveral key parameters. Engine speed (rpm), fuelconsumption (gph), compressor outlet pressure (psi) andexhaust manifold temperature (ºF) were evaluated asindicators of steady-state operation. The figures belowpresent one test that is representative of steady-stateconditions achieved for all test runs. Engine speed andfuel consumption (Figure 4) and exhaust temperatureand compressor outlet pressure (Figure 5) remainconstant during the test procedure, indicating steadystate conditions.The TRU was tested in situ as a complete operationalunit. Unlike a certification test, the engine was notremoved for testing on an engine dynamometer. Theunaltered TRU was controlled using the Thermo Kinguser interface, which controls the load placed on thediesel engine by varying the cooling command to therefrigerant compressor. Steady-state conditions wereachieved by cooling the trailer box to a low temperatureand then adjusting the cooling set point upward,resulting in a stabilized and repeatable engine load.This stabilized mode was verified by monitoring severalparameters as a surrogate for direct load measurement.These stabilized load verification parameters includedthe refrigerant compressor high and low side pressuresand fuel consumption. Continuous gaseous and engineoperating conditions were recorded, and multiple PMfilter samples were taken during the stabilized operation.Vehicle Data IDATA4404,DATA4404: EngSpd- rpm1600DATA4404: Fuel V- gph4.515754.015503.515253.0EngSpd1500Fuel V2.5EngSpd2.014751.51450Fuel V1.014250.51400TEST MATRIX Testing involved two fuels, two engineoperating speeds, and two exhaust configurations. Atotal of eight combinations were tested with duplicatetest runs (Table 2).5.00.0006/17/092505007501000LineNoSuperFlow WinDyn V125014:47:56Figure 4. Steady-State Test Conditions for Engine Speedand Fuel Consumption4

Vehicle Data IVehicle Data IDATA4404,DATA4404: Exh T - degF400DATA4404,DATA4404: A/C Hi- psiDATA4404: CO - PPMDATA4404: NOxPPM- PPMDATA4404: THCPPM- PPM350700Exh T600300500250400A/C 50LineNoSuperFlow WinDyn w WinDyn V1000125015:10:32Figure 6. Steady-State Gaseous EmissionsFigure 5. Steady-State Test Conditions for the CompressorHigh-Pressure Outlet and Exhaust TemperatureTwo runs per test configuration were conducted, and theresults were averaged (Table 3). Two NOx analyzerswere used to measure total NOx and NO. The NO2 andthe ratio of NO/NO2 were calculated and are alsopresented in Table 3. The second NOx analyzer failedduring test runs of GTL diesel fuel with the pDPF; NOresults are designated as not measured (NM).Gaseous emissions results also indicate that steadystate conditions were achieved using this testmethodology (Figure 6). Downward spikes at consistentintervals are representative of emissions bench airinjections and visually separate test runs.Table 3. TRU Emissions 53.89GTLLowMufflerCARBLowGTLLowFuelEmissions and fuel consumption duplicate test runresults are compared across the test matrix in Figures7 12.5CO(g/hr)

14040120351003025CARB NOx60g/hrg/hr80GTL NOx4020CARB THC15GTL THC1020500Figure 7. NOx EmissionsFigure 10. THC Emissions20181001680121460CARB NO40GTL NO10GTL PM6420200Figure 8. NO EmissionsFigure 11. PM Emissions1.6701.4gallons per hour605040g/hrCARB PM8g/hrg/hr120CARB CO30GTL CO201.21.00.8CARB FuelCons.0.60.4100.200.0GTL FuelCons.Figure 12. Fuel ConsumptionFigure 9. CO EmissionsCompared with the baseline condition of CARB dieseland a stock muffler, significant reductions of gaseousemissions and PM are possible when utilizing GTLdiesel, a Thermo King pDPF, or combining the twoapproaches.Table 4 presents the percentagedecreases measured in each case, and additionaldiscussion follows.6

Table 4. Emissions Reductions with GTL Diesel and/or Thermo King pDPFEngineSpeedNOxNONO2COReductions with GTL diesel as replacement for CARB .5%-17.4%Reductions with pDPF as replacement for mufflerHigh 0.5%-11.8% 68.1%-98.8%Low-2.8% 9.4%-44.3%-66.2%Reductions with both GTL diesel and pDPFHigh-11.6%NMNA-99.7%Low 1.7%-42.9%-26.8%-40.4% 2.9%-6.4% 9.7% 3.2%-95.8%-29.8%-20.6%-57.3% 2.0%-9.3% 3.5%-11.1%-97.1%-76.2%-48.1%-72.1%-2.2%-14.4%Note: Figures preceded by a minus sign (e.g., -12.8%) denote a reduction from the baseline, while those preceded by a plus sign (e.g., 2.9%) denotean increase.Reductions in PM are the primary focus of the CARBATCM and ultimately of this project. Replacing CARBdiesel with GTL diesel yielded PM reductions of27% 40%, depending on engine speed. Replacing theOEM muffler with a Thermo King pDPF resulted in PMreductions of 21% 57%, depending on engine speed.The application of both GTL diesel fuel and a Level 2VDECS resulted in impressive, if not purely additive,reductions in PM of 48% 72%. The Thermo King pDPFLevel 2 VDECS CARB verification is specific to TRUengine model years 2002 and older. This Level 2verification requires a 50% reduction in PM frombaseline conditions (OEM muffler). While measured PMreductions in this case are less than 50% for the lowengine speed test condition, note that (a) the enginevintage tested (2004) is outside the engine vintageverified (2002 or older), and (b) the verification data arebased on an eight-mode engine test cycle, rather thanthe steady-state conditions measured in situ. Alsonoteworthy is that, while raw PM emissions are muchlower at low engine speed, the relative percentagedecreases are larger at low engine speed than they areat high engine speed.Reductions of CO and THC were expected with GTLdiesel and generally expected with the pDPF because ofits catalyzed nature. Replacing CARB diesel with GTLdiesel yielded CO and THC reductions of 17% 19% and22% 43%, respectively, depending on engine speed.Replacing the OEM muffler with a Thermo King pDPFresulted in CO and THC reductions of 66% 99% and30% 96%, respectively, depending on engine speed.The application of both GTL diesel fuel and Level 2VDECS resulted in dramatic CO and THC reductions of98% 99% and 76% 97%, respectively, depending onengine speed.Differences in measured fuel consumption wereobserved across the test configurations.Thesedifferences were generally unexpected in terms of bothmagnitude and direction.However, raw fuelconsumption values (Table 3) are generally small, in thehundredths of a gallon per hour. These differences arelikely within the measurement error of the experimentalequipment. It is unlikely that these differences were afunction of the TRU or GTL diesel fuel. The TRU testedutilizes an engine with mechanically direct fuel injection.Thus, there were no subtle changes in fuel injectionvolume and timing due to the application of GTL diesel,with its significantly higher cetane number and lowerdensity.Reductions in NOx were expected with GTL diesel butnot expected with the Thermo King pDPF. ReplacingCARB diesel with GTL diesel yielded NOx reductions of13% 16%, depending on engine speed. The ratio ofNO/NO2 was approximately the same across the twofuels. Replacing the OEM muffler with a Thermo KingpDPF resulted in a slight increase in NOx at high speedengine operation and a marginal decrease at low speed.The ratio of NO/NO2 decreased at high engine speed(larger NO2 fraction), but increased at low engine speed(smaller NO2 fraction). The reason for this is unknown,although it can be presumed that low speed engineoperation does not sufficiently light off the pDPF catalyst,resulting in a smaller oxidized NOx (NO2) fraction. Theapplication of both GTL diesel fuel and a Level 2 VDECSresulted in a NOx decrease of 12% at high engine speed,but an increase of 11% at low engine speed.CONCLUSIONSThese in situ tests characterize the emissions fromintegrated TRUs rather than just the diesel engine. Thismethodology may yield relevant real-world TRUemissions profiles, providing better insight into thecontribution of TRUs to emissions inventories.Integration of emissions over a period of time, includingrelative weighting of high and low idle times, is a logicalextension to this work.The use of GTL diesel fuel as a replacement to CARBdiesel fuel can reduce gaseous emissions and PM atboth high and low engine speeds. Replacement of the7

stock muffler with a Thermo King pDPF can also reducesome gaseous emissions and PM at both high and lowTRU engine speeds.Compounded reductions,significant in the case of CO and THC, were realized incombining GTL diesel fuel with the Thermo King pDPF.7. Kulkarni, C.V., et al. “Modeling and Performance ofTrailer Refrigeration Units with Alternative PowerSystems,” SAE 2007-01-764.8. 8-02.pdf.While there is no concrete explanation for the relativedirectional inversion of measured NOx and calculatedNO2 and NO/NO2 ratio with a pDPF test condition, it islikely that low engine speed operation does notsufficiently raise the catalyst temperature to enable lightoff and high efficiency oxidation. However, furtherinvestigation is warranted.CONTACTRobb Barnitt is a Senior Project Engineer at NREL. Hecan be reached at robb.barnitt@nrel.gov.ACRONYMSAPI: American Petroleum InstituteATCM: Airborne Toxic Control MeasureCARB: California Air Resources BoardCO: carbon monoxideCO2: carbon dioxideDOE: U.S. Department of Energyg/hr: grams per hourgal/hr: gallons per hourgph: gallons per hourGTL: gas-to-liquidHFID: heated flame ionization detectorhp: horsepowermm: millimeterNA: not applicableNM: not measuredNO: nitric oxideNOx: oxides of nitrogenNO2: nitrogen dioxideNREL: National Renewable Energy LaboratoryOEM: original equipment manufacturerO2: oxygenPFSS: partial flow sampling systemPM: particulate matterpsi: pounds per square inchrpm: revolutions per minuteSCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSL: Stockton laboratorytpd: tons per dayTHC: total hydrocarbonsTRU: transport refrigeration unitVDECS: verified diesel emission control strategyACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe primary author wishes to thank the U.S. Departmentof Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Program and ProgramManager Kevin Stork. Also, the authors wish toacknowledge the contributions of Wayne Sobieralski,Roelof Riemersma, Robert Ianni, Tullie Flower andHarlan Quan at CARB. Finally, the authors wish toacknowledge the generous assistance of RockviewFarms for the loan of the TRU and trailer for testing.REFERENCES1. . http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/trude03/fro1.pdf.3. Alleman, T.L., et al. “Final Operability and ChassisEmissions Results from a Fleet of Class 6 TrucksOperating on Gas-to-Liquid Fuel and CatalyzedDiesel Particulate Filters,” SAE 2005-01-3769.4. Alleman, T.L., et al. “Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuels –Properties and Exhaust Emissions: a LiteratureReview,” SAE 2003-01-0763.5. Mader, P., et al. “Emissions, Performance, and DutyCycle Measurements of Diesel Powered TRUs,”SAE 2007-01-1087.6. Grupp, D., et al. “Design, Testing, andDemonstration of a Hybrid Fuel Cell PoweredAPU/TRU System,” SAE 2007-01-0699.8

APPENDIXComponentTotal AcidAppearanceDi Aromatic H/CMono Aromatic H/CPoly Aromatic H/CTotal Aromatic H/CTri Aromatic H/CAshCarbon ResidueCetane NumberCFPPCloud PointColour LovibondTotal ContaminantsCopper CorrosionDensity @ ash PointLubricityOxidation StabilityTotal SulphurViscosity @ 40 KinMethodGTL DieselASTM D974ASTM D4176 0.001100000 83490.442.54IP 391/95ASTM D482ASTM D4530ASTM D613ASTM D6371ASTM D2500ASTM D1500EN ISO 12662ASTM D130ASTM D4052ASTM D86ASTM D93ASTM D6079ASTM D2274ASTM D5453ASTM D445CARB Diesel(Specification)1.4 max10 max48 %%%degCdegCmg/kg205 - 255245 - 295290 - 320170 - 21554 min15 max2.0 - gCdegCdegCvol %degCWSD micrometremg/100mlmg/kgcSt

Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEThe public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondentsshould be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display acurrently valid OMB control number.PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPEMay 20104.3.Conference PaperTITLE AND SUBTITLEDATES COVERED (From - To)5a. CONTRACT NUMBERDE-AC36-08-GO28308Emissions of Transport Refrigeration Units with CARB Diesel, Gasto-Liquid Diesel, and Emissions Control Devices5b. GRANT NUMBER5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER6.7.9.AUTHOR(S)R.A. Barnitt, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; D. Chernichand M. Burnitzki, California Air Resources Board; A. Oshinuga andM. Miyasato, South Coast Air Quality Management District; E. Lucht,Thermo King Corporation; D. van der Merwe, SasolChevronConsulting Limited; and P. Schaberg, Sasol TechnologyPERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)National Renewable Energy Laboratory1617 Cole Blvd.Golden, CO 80401-33935d. PROJECT NUMBERNREL/CP-540-465985e. TASK NUMBERFC08.80005f. WORK UNIT NUMBER8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBERNREL/CP-540-46598SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)NREL11. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENTNational Technical Information ServiceU.S. Department of Commerce5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfield, VA 2216113. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)A novel in situ method was used to measure emissions and fuel consumption of transport refrigeration units (TRUs).The test matrix included two fuels, two exhaust configurations, and two TRU engine operating speeds. Test fuelswere California ultra low sulfur diesel and gas-to-liquid (GTL) diesel. Exhaust configurations were a stock muffler anda Thermo King pDPF diesel particulate filter. The TRU engine operating speeds were high and low, controlled by theTRU user interface. Results indicate that GTL diesel fuel reduces all regulated emissions at high and low enginespeeds. Application of a Thermo King pDPF reduced regulated emissions, sometimes almost entirely. Theapplication of both GTL diesel and a Thermo King pDPF reduced regulated emissions at high engine speed, butshowed an increase in oxides of nitrogen at low engine speed.15. SUBJECT TERMSdiesel engines ; diesel engine emissions ; gas-to-liquid diesel fuels ; transport refrigeration units ; TRUs; dieselparticulate filters ; DPFs16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:a. REPORTUnclassifiedb. ABSTRACTUnclassifiedc. THIS PAGEUnclassified17. LIMITATION18. NUMBEROF ABSTRACTOF PAGESUL19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18F1147-E(10/2008)

TEST FUELS Test fuels were CARB ultra low sulf- ur diesel and GTL diesel. CARB diesel was supplied by a local distributor of Chevron Products Company. This fuel was not analyzed but was presumed to meet the fuel specification for CARB diesel. CARB diesel is characterized by a maximum 10% by volume aromatics and minimum cetane number of 48.

Related Documents:

Category A: Refrigeration Fundamentals Task 1. Refrigeration principles Analyze system conditions, using a Pressure/Temperature (P/T) chart Identify refrigeration system components Explain the operation of a "simple" refrigeration system Calibrate a Thermometer Read temperatures in a refrigeration system Define refrigeration cycle terminology

H2SSIM Results Basin Emissions Units Total Emissions (H2S) 0.071 gms/s kgen 0.25 Total Emissions (H2S) 4922.0 lbs/yr ThetaGen 1.06 Total Emissions (H2S) 2.5 tons/yr KDO 0.05 Total Emissions (H2S) 2.2 tonnes/yr KSO4 10 Emission Flux (H2S) 11.9 gms/m 2 yr kanox 0.006 ThetaOx 1.05 Zone Emissions Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Units m1 Zone Emissions (H2S) 0.02 0.03 0.02 gms/s n 0.2

Inc. Refrigeration Manual. Although each separate part covers a specific area of refrigera-tion theory and practice, each successive publication presumes a basic understanding of the material presented in the previous sections. Part 1 Fundamentals of Refrigeration Part 2 Refrigeration System Components Part 3 The Refrigeration Load Part 4 .

Refrigeration Basics. 7 What is Refrigeration? In vapor-compression refrigeration, a refrigerant is used to move . Commonly used in low and multi-temperature refrigeration systems Can be designed with or without recirculation pumps Ammonia refrigerant. 19 B A C F H IGH P RESSURE V APOR H IGH P RESSURE L IQUID M ED P

– Chiller specifications Refrigeration Cycles Refrigeration process Change thermodynamic state of refrigerant with energy & work transfer 1 ton of refrigeration (TR) 12,000 Btu/hr (3.516 kW) Refrigeration Cycle – Vapor compression Mechanical refrigeration using compressors,

Refrigeration system controls Refrigeration system controls Refrigeration system controllers vary enormously in function and complexity. The simplest control is a thermostat which simply controls the temperature of the cooled space. More complex refrigeration systems, such as those with multiple compressors, ideally require more sophisticated .

1 Freezer 93 units 3 2 Reach-in freezer 21 units Reach-in refrigerator 21 units 4 Refrigerator, 7 cu. ft. 543 units 5 Refrigerator (for Artificial Insemination) 51 units 6 Upright Freezer 316 units Lot 4: Information Technology Devices and Accessories 1 Computer, Laptop 4,721 units 3 Plotter 29 units Printer 411 units 4 Smart TV 213 units

Transport Management System of Nepal Nepalese transport management is affected by existing topographical condition of the country. Due to this only means of transport used in the country are road transport and air transport. In this paper only road transport is discussed. During the Tenth Plan period, the vehicle transport management