bulldozer d9

Transcription

bulldozer d9

SCAQMD Construction Off-Road Trap Study
July 2005
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Booz Allen Hamilton wishes to thank the South Coast Air Quality Management District for
providing leadership and funding of the project, and the California Air Resources Board for
providing financial and technical support. As one of the host-site operators, the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District also provided substantial technical support, financial assistance, and
in-kind contributions.
Additional technical support and in-kind contributions were provided by the Construction
Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC); C. W. Poss Construction, Inc., West Virginia
University, Sukut Construction, Johnson-Matthey, and Engelhard Corporation.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1-1
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES ............................................................................. 1-2
STUDY SCOPE AND DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 1-3
PRE-DEMONSTATION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 2-1
2.1
EQUIPMENT SELECTION ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2
DEMONSTRATION LOCATIONS AND VEHICLE ACTIVITY ............................................... 2-7
2.3
FUEL SELECTION AND LOGISTICS .................................................................................. 2-8
2.4
TRAP SIZING AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ............................................................ 2-9
2.4.1
Engelhard filters................................................................................................... 2-9
2.4.2
Johnson-Matthey filters ..................................................................................... 2-10
2.4.3
Sizing of Traps for Applications........................................................................ 2-11
2.5
INSTALLATION DESIGN ............................................................................................... 2-12
2.5.1
Caterpillar Review of Retrofit Designs.............................................................. 2-13
2.5.2
Backpressure Dynamometer Test by Shepherd Machinery............................... 2-14
2.5.3
Design Review of Final Installation .................................................................. 2-15
2.5.4
Installation of Data loggers................................................................................ 2-16
3.0
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS .................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES ............................................ 3-1
3.1.1
Sequence of Events .............................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.2
Summary of Hours Accumulated by Study Vehicles and Filters ........................ 3-4
3.2
REVIEW OF FILTER DURABILITY INCIDENTS ................................................................. 3-4
3.2.1
657E Scrapers ...................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.2
651B Scrapers ...................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3
D9 Dozers ............................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.4
Dozers at POSS.................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.5
Summary of all Filter Durability related Incidents ............................................ 3-10
3.3
REVIEW OF TRAP INSTALLATION AND MOUNTING INCIDENTS ................................... 3-11
3.3.1
Scraper Installation Incidents............................................................................. 3-11
3.3.2
Dozer Installation Incidents ............................................................................... 3-14
3.3.3
Summary of Installation and Mounting related Incidents.................................. 3-17
3.4
OTHER INCIDENTS....................................................................................................... 3-17
3.4.1
Brown exhaust plume on Johnson Matthey LACSD Dozer retrofits ................ 3-17
3.4.2
Misfueling at POSS............................................................................................ 3-18
3.4.3
Water in Fuel...................................................................................................... 3-18
3.4.4
“Varnish” on Engine Parts ................................................................................. 3-19
3.5
SUMMARY OF ALL INCIDENTS BY VEHICLE ................................................................. 3-19
3.6
SUMMARY OF EXHAUST TEMPERATURE AND BACK PRESSURE DATA ......................... 3-25
3.7
FUEL ECONOMY IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 3-27
3.8
OIL CONSUMPTION IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 3-29
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
ii
3.9
3.10
4.0
OPERATOR INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................. 3-30
FUEL QUALITY SAMPLING DATA ................................................................................ 3-31
EMISSIONS TESTING ................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1
PRE-DEMONSTRATION TEST AT WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY ...................................... 4-1
4.2
RESULTS OF POST-DEMONSTRATION TESTING .............................................................. 4-3
4.3
IN-USE EMISSION TESTING ........................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1
Opacity Testing Results ....................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2
On-Board Testing Results by CARB................................................................... 4-8
5.0
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................. 5-1
5.1
PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF JOHNSON MATTHEY TRAPS ................................. 5-1
5.2
PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF ENGELHARD TRAPS ............................................. 5-2
5.3
INSTALLATION AND MOUNTING ISSUES . ....................................................................... 5-3
5.4
VEHICLE AND ENGINE IMPACTS OF RETROFITTING WITH PARTICULATE TRAPS ............. 5-5
5.5
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES ............................................................................................ 5-6
5.5.1
Capital costs. ........................................................................................................ 5-6
5.5.2
Operating Costs.................................................................................................... 5-9
5.5.3
Emission Reduction Benefits............................................................................. 5-10
5.5.4
Dollars per ton of emissions reduced................................................................. 5-11
5.6
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 5-12
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF CARB TEV
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ITEMS
APPENDIX C: WVU EMISSIONS TESTING REPORT
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: California Statewide PM10 Emissions, 2003 ..................................................... 1-1
Figure 2-1: D9 Dozers ............................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2: 824 and 834 Dozers at Poss .................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-3: 657E and 651B Scrapers ........................................................................................ 2-3
Figure 2-4: LACSD and Poss Demonstration Sites............................................................... 2-8
Figure 2-5: Engelhard Filters ................................................................................................. 2-10
Figure 2-6: JM Filter ................................................................................................................ 2-11
Figure 2-7: Filter Section......................................................................................................... 2-12
Figure 2-8: Dynamometer test of Johnson-Matthey CRT.................................................. 2-14
at Quinn-Shepherd Machinery ............................................................................................. 2-14
Figure 2-9: Insulated Particulate Trap Installations ........................................................... 2-16
Figure 2-10: Pressure Monitoring Apparatus ..................................................................... 2-17
Figure 2-11: Johnson-Matthey Data Loggers ...................................................................... 2-17
Figure 3-1. Exhaust Backpressure versus Temperature for 651B Scraper #625............. 3-26
Figure 3-2: Example of Variability in Fuel Consumption Data........................................ 3-28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Project Participants and Roles............................................................................... 1-3
Table 1-2: Summary of Task Elements................................................................................... 1-4
Table 1-3: Key Project Research Questions............................................................................ 1-5
Table 2-1: D9 Dozers at LACSD .............................................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2: 824/825/834 Dozers at Poss.................................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3: 657E Scrapers at LACSD ........................................................................................ 2-4
Table 2-4: 651B Scrapers at Poss.............................................................................................. 2-4
Table 2-5: Vehicle Statistics...................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-6: Engine Statistics....................................................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-7: Overall Summary of Retrofits ............................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-8: Sizes of Particulate Traps..................................................................................... 2-11
Table 2-9: Filter Locations ...................................................................................................... 2-15
Table 3-1: Project Sequence of Events .................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2: Vehicles, Filter Types and Hours Accumulated................................................. 3-4
Table 3-3: Summary of Filter Durability-Related Incidents (as of 12/1/2003) .............. 3-11
Table 3-4. Summary of Trap Installation and Mounting Incidents ................................. 3-17
Table 3-5: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E SCRAPERS .................................................. 3-20
Table 3-6: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E Scraper ......................................................... 3-21
Table 3-7: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers ............................................................. 3-21
Table 3-8: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers ............................................................. 3-22
Table 3-9: Incident Summary: Poss 651 Scrapers ............................................................... 3-23
Table 3-10: Incident Summary: Poss 824/825/834 Dozers ............................................... 3-24
Table 3-11: Average Exhaust Backpressures During Demonstration ............................. 3-25
Table 3-12. Average Exhaust Temperatures During Demonstration .............................. 3-25
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
iv
Table 3-13: Summary of Fuel Economy Data for Study Vehicles .................................... 3-28
Table 3-14. Dynamometer Fuel Economy Test Data.......................................................... 3-29
Table 3-15: Summary of Oil Consumption Data for Study Vehicles............................... 3-30
Table 3-16. Fuel Sample Results ( sulfur content ppm) ..................................................... 3-31
Table 4-1: Pre-Demo Dynamometer Emissions Test Results.............................................. 4-2
Table 4-2: Post-Demo Dynamometer Emissions Test Results ............................................ 4-4
Table 4-3: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Demo .................................................................... 4-4
Dynamometer Emission Testing............................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-4: Exhaust Opacity Readings Summary, Part 1 of 2............................................... 4-6
Table 4-5. Exhaust Opacity Readings Summary, Part 2 of 2............................................... 4-7
Table 4-6: CARB On-Board Particulate Matter Removal Efficiency.................................. 4-8
Table 5-1: Summary of Filter Incidents for Johnson-Matthey ............................................ 5-1
Table 5-2: Summary of Filter Incidents for Engelhard ........................................................ 5-3
Table 5-3. Summary of Trap Installation and Mounting Incidents ................................... 5-4
Table 5-4. Particulate Trap Capital Costs ............................................................................. 5-8
Table 5-5: Annualized Capital Costs for Particulate Traps................................................. 5-8
Table 5-6. Annual Operating Costs for Particulate Trap Installations ............................ 5-10
Table 5-7. Total Annualized Capital plus Operating Costs for Trap Installations........ 5-10
Table 5-8. Annual Emission Inventory Reduction from Trap Installation ..................... 5-11
Table 5-9. Cost Effectiveness of Particulate Trap Retrofits ............................................... 5-11
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
v
Demonstration of Diesel Particulate Filter Technologies
on Existing Off-Road Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current California Air Resources Board (CARB) emission models estimate that construction
equipment vehicles generate 38 percent of the total off-road PM10 emissions in California, or
about 21 tons per day. This study sought to evaluate the durability and effectiveness of passive
diesel particulate filter (DPF) technology as applied to existing off-road compression-ignition
construction equipment.
The study consisted of engineering and retrofitting a dozen vehicles and monitoring their
operation for one year. The study measured the effectiveness and durability of the filters and
their installation hardware. The study also conducted laboratory dynamometer emission testing
of an off-road diesel engine under various steady-state and transient conditions using filters
before and after being used for a year.
1. Who conducted the study?
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and CARB jointly administered
the project. CARB conducted in-field emissions testing. Significant in-kind contributions,
engineering, and financial support was also provided by Los Angeles County Sanitation District
(LACSD). Additional support came from the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
(CIAQC), and in-kind contributions from C. W. Poss Construction, Inc. (Poss) and Sukut
Construction. Johnson-Matthey (JM) and Engelhard Corporation provided particulate traps.
Booz Allen Hamilton provided project management services. West Virginia University (WVU)
conducted emissions testing.
2. Where was the study conducted?
Poss and LACSD provided the vehicles and the two host demonstration sites. LACSD operates
the Puente Hills Landfill 13 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Poss prepares sites for new
home construction. The Poss study vehicles were employed on a tract two miles north of
Newport Beach.
The project focused on the installation of 21 particulate matter (PM) filters onto 15 engines used
on 12 heavy-duty construction vehicles (some vehicles use 2 engines—and certain engines
required 2 filters). Engelhard supplied 12 filters JM provided the other 9. Shepherd Machinery,
the local Caterpillar dealership (now Quinn-Shepherd), installed the filters on six bulldozers and
six scrapers.
3. What vehicles were selected for the study?
Equipment selection was a balance between using like-model vehicles to compare performance
among differing DPFs, and using vehicles of various ages typically used in the construction
industry.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–1-
The six LACSD vehicles were 1996 vintage 657E scrapers and 2000 vintage D9 dozers (one of
the dozers was a 1996 model. The operators fueled the study vehicles with ultra-low-sulfur diesel
(ULSD) from BP-Arco. LACSD also operated four “control” vehicles (i.e., standard vehicles
without traps installed) throughout the test period: two 657E scrapers and two D9 dozers. One
scraper and one dozer operated on CARB diesel fuel; the remaining scraper and dozer operated
on ULSD. The primary purpose of this control fleet was to establish a baseline for fuel economy,
oil consumption, and reliability performance against which the vehicles fitted with traps could be
compared.
The six Poss study vehicles were manufactured between 1971 and 1983 and consisted of three
Caterpillar 651B scrapers and three Caterpillar 824/825/834 series dozers. Poss did not operate
any “control” vehicles due to limited equipment availability.
4. What was the condition of the engines?
All of the engines used were in good condition and maintained according to Caterpillar service
guidelines. All the Poss engines were certified rebuilt within the last three years, and checked to
assure they met performance specifications. All of the LACSD 657E scraper engines were 1996
vintage. The one mechanical D9 bulldozer #6621 was 1998 vintage, and the two electronic D9
bulldozers were 2000 vintage.
5. What kinds of particulate traps were used?
JM and Engelhard provided both 15" and 20" traps for the study depending on engine size.
Engelhard used DPX 20X15 filters on all applications, except for one 15X15 used on an 825C
dozer with a Caterpillar 3406 engine. JM also used 20X15 CRT (continuously regenerating
technology) filters on most applications. JM’s 15X15 CRT filters were installed on the Poss
bulldozers, and on the front engine of the 657E scrapers.
6. How was filter performance monitored?
JM installed data loggers connected to temperature and pressure sensors upstream of the filters.
These data loggers continuously monitored exhaust temperature and pressure and thus provided
valuable insight into the performance of the various installations. These data loggers proved
useful in predictive diagnosis of trap problems. They also provided a warning light to the
operator if backpressure exceeded a pre-determined threshold. Engelhard also installed
backpressure-warning devices but did not install continuous monitoring data loggers. However,
the LACSD purchased five additional data loggers to continuously monitor performance of the
Engelhard filters.
In addition to the data loggers, filter performance was monitored daily by equipment operators
and maintenance staff at host site locations. Any incidents, failures, or other observations related
to the filters were recorded on incident reports and logged by maintenance staff. Filter
performance was also periodically tested using on-board emissions testing equipment, and
opacity tests were completed regularly throughout the study (see Question 8).
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–2-
7. How were filters mounted onto the vehicles?
The trap manufacturers provided installation designs and some of the mounting hardware to
retrofit the filters to the vehicles. Filters were mounted using metal brackets and large band
clamps often fabricated and welded on-site by Shepherd Machinery technicians. Customized
and/or flexible piping was used to adapt the exhaust system for the traps (in replacement of the
muffler). For all dozer applications, as well as scrapers at Poss, the filters were placed on the
Rollover Protection Structure (ROPS), but stakeholders acknowledged that this location was not
ideal and unlikely to be fielded in a commercial product. In the absence of other alternatives, and
due to time limitations, the study proceeded with the ROPS-based designs. For scrapers at
LACSD, the filters were placed in various locations on the fenders (see Section 2.5.3, Table 2-9,
for additional detail).
Shepherd installed the JM filters beginning in November 2002, and the Engelhard filters in
February 2003.
KEY STUDY FINDINGS
In-service data collection included exhaust opacity, exhaust backpressure and temperature, fuel
and oil consumption, vehicle maintenance, filter efficiency, filter durability, bracket durability,
and operator perceptions.
8. How well did particulate filters perform in reducing particulate emissions?
In October 2002, both an Engelhard and JM filter were tested at the WVU Engines and
Emissions Research Laboratory (EERL). WVU conducted dynamometer tests on a Caterpillar
engine (3408) using both transient and 8-mode steady-state duty cycles.
The JM traps demonstrated highly effective PM emission reductions on the dynamometer tests
conducted by WVU. Both pre- and post-demonstration testing by WVU of the JM filter showed
greater than 98 percent reduction in PM emissions. Engelhard filters also demonstrated highly
effective PM emission reductions. Pre-demonstration testing of the Engelhard filter showed
greater than 98 percent reduction in PM emissions, while post-demonstration testing yielded
about 91 percent PM emission reduction efficiency.
9. Was trap PM reduction sustained throughout the demonstration?
Testing of emissions in actual service (on vehicles at LACSD) was also completed using
CARB’s portable Trap Efficiency Verifier (TEV). Testing was completed on both JM and
Engelhard DPFs. PM emission reduction measured between 91 and 98 percent at various points
throughout the demonstration (see Section 4.3.2, Table 4-6, for additional detail). At the official
end of the project in December 2003, most traps had accumulated in excess of 500 hours of
operation. At the time of this writing, some of the traps had accumulated well over 2,000 hours
of operation with no reported problems related to high backpressure or fouling. Exhaust from
study vehicles was also tested for smoke opacity using the snap acceleration protocol. After
filters were installed, all vehicles gave opacity readings below 1 percent. Also, visual inspection
of the exhaust plume shows remarkable improvement on vehicles equipped with filters.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–3-
10. How well did the particulate traps perform in reducing other criteria emissions?
WVU quantified the PM, CO, HC, and NOx emissions based on steady-state and transient
emissions testing both with and without traps, and using both CARB and ULSD fuel. (Note:
CARB and ULSD sulfur content was approximately 200 ppm and 15 ppm, respectively.) Neither
the JM filter nor the Engelhard filter affected the levels of total NOx significantly. However, the
NO2 portion of NOx increased significantly (three to four times baseline levels) with the
particulate filters installed. The increase in NO2 emissions appeared to be particularly noticeable
at lower engine power levels, and was somewhat more pronounced with the JM traps. Such
increase in NO2 levels is expected with these catalyzed DPFs since these systems generate NO2
(by oxidation of engine out NO) as the means for passive filter regeneration.
HC and CO levels were also greatly reduced with the use of the traps—about 79 and 65 percent,
respectively, for the Engelhard filter, and 93 and 97 percent, respectively, for the JM filter.
WVU also performed testing of the engine using Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuel both with and
without a filter (the JM filter was used for this testing). With the filter installed, the FT fuel
produced emission reduction results almost identical to testing with ULSD. Without a trap, the
NOx emissions with FT fuel increased significantly compared to ULSD.
11. How durable and reliable were the filter elements themselves?
JM traps at LACSD performed well initially, but within 400 to 500 hours of operation, the
backpressure began to rise on all units equipped with the larger (20x15 CRT) filters. Inspections
showed that the ceramic trap elements had ”shifted” out of the canister on all of the larger units,
thus partially blocking exhaust flow and causing backpressure to increase sharply. Investigation
by the canister manufacturer (Donaldson Co.) showed that incorrect filter “banding” (affixing of
the ceramic filter element inside the CRT can), combined with high vibrations in the application
resulted in this problem. JM and Donaldson replaced or re-canned the problem systems.
Following this, the JM traps yielded low and stable backpressure and successfully completed the
rest of the demonstration. The smaller-sized (15x15) filter elements did not show this problem
and also successfully completed the demonstration.
The equipment at Poss was early 1970s vintage with pre-chamber combustion diesel engines.
These engines are known to exhibit extremely high PM emission rates. On these engines, the
current JM traps were not able to successfully regenerate and demonstrated high backpressures.
The increasing backpressures as well as internal inspections of the filters led JM to conclude that
these older engines produced more PM emission than the traps could reliably handle. Thus, these
older engines were deemed a problematic application for JM’s current CRT filter technology.
Approximately five months after the official end of the demonstration in May 2004, LACSD
staff found that the smaller (15") JM traps had also “shifted” within their canister housing, and
there were also concerns about the re-canned larger units. A thorough investigation ensued and
again this problem was diagnosed to be a result of issues with filter banding and canning. All
filters were removed and sent back to JM and Donaldson for analyses. JM and Donaldson
completely redesigned the filter modules and installed additional reinforcements. The updated
systems will be installed at LACSD for further durability evaluation. JM has continued to
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–4-
support these installations and has indicated their intent to support retrofit particulate trap
products for 1995 vintage and newer engines used on such heavy-duty construction equipment.
JM noted that the valuable experience gained in this project would be utilized to improve and
optimize the trap designs.
The Engelhard filters showed excellent durability and reliability throughout the demonstration
period with only a single “failure” on a D9 dozer at LACSD. The ceramic filter inside the
canning shifted and was broken up, thus causing excessive backpressure and loss of power, a
problem similar to the JM filters. A preliminary examination suggested that the filter was likely
installed incorrectly. The filter did not appear to have cracked or melted due to high
temperatures, but rather due to vibration. (See Section 3.2.3 for additional details.) Engelhard
decided not to replace this filter, thus the use of the Engelhard filter was discontinued on this
dozer, and a comprehensive assessment of the failure mode of the Engelhard filter was not
completed.
12. Did traps cause excessive backpressure?
The operators perceived a loss of power if the filter(s) became clogged with soot and caused
excessive backpressure. The JM units at LACSD demonstrated stable and acceptable
backpressure under normal operation. However, when the filter system became defective due to
mechanical slippage of the ceramic filters, high backpressure was observed. In Poss applications
with older engines, the JM filters could not successfully regenerate with the high engine-out PM
and exhibited high filter backpressure. The Engelhard units installed at both Poss and LACSD
showed generally stable exhaust backpressure and did not experience loss of power (with the
exception of the single D9 dozer cited above).
13. How durable and reliable were trap mounting and installation hardware?
Filters from both JM and Engelhard experienced various incidents at both Poss and LACSD.
Incidents included: loose and failed seal rings and band clamps, torn flex pipes, fractured
brackets, loose or broken support brackets, and cracked and broken welds. Most of these failures
were related to the placement of the filters on the ROPS.
The tracked dozers at LACSD suffered the most incidents related to the trap mounting hardware.
Rubber-tired dozers at Poss as well as the rubber-tired scrapers at LACSD, on the other hand,
fared quite well with little or no installation issues. The scrapers at Poss also experienced several
incidents related to installation and mounting hardware—possibly because of the severe duty
cycle these units experience.
It should be recognized that OEM trap engineers (as well as Shepherd who assisted with
installation) had limited time to design brackets and other mounting hardware once the overall
installation configuration was approved. Moreover, these designs were essentially a first pass at
how to retrofit these vehicles. Retrofit piping was generally not routed in a compact, efficient
fashion as it might be in a production situation. Rather, the piping tended to be routed in simple
“right angle” configurations that stuck out from the vehicle (see various installation pictures in
Chapter 2). Such designs tended to exacerbate vibration. A location closer to the engine exhaust
manifold is preferred, but a location that does not block the operator’s visual field, or block
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–5-
service access, was not apparent for the vehicles used in this study. Caterpillar noted that routine
placement on the ROPS would require OSHA rollover studies.
It should be noted that while several of the test vehicles experienced significant and repeated
problems with the trap hardware installations, nearly half of the installations experienced few or
no issues—including the scrapers at LACSD and the dozers at Poss. (These units did require
periodic maintenance such as tightening and adjusting brackets, but did not experience any
significant failures.) Given that installation designs were developed under tight time constraints
and were modified in the field, and that several of the installations experienced no failures, it is
reasonable to assume that designs could likely be improved, and that commercially viable
installation hardware and mounting systems could be developed for these heavy-duty
construction equipment applications.
14. Did traps have an impact on driver-machine performance?
Drivers did not report any noticeable impact on vehicle operation from DPF filters. Where filters
blocked a portion of the visual field, operators were able to adapt with no loss in efficiency.
15. Were traps found to be a hazard to equipment operation?
None of the engines were damaged during the course of the demonstration. When excessive
backpressure developed, the backpressure alarms were activated as intended and corrective
actions pursued. No incidents of excessive oil leakage or any other engine problems were
observed due to high filter backpressure.
16. Did traps cause a significant change in fuel consumption?
LACSD operations recorded fuel and oil consumption along with hours of operation for both the
test and control fleets. This data did not reliably demonstrate a change in fuel or oil consumption
as a consequence of filter retrofits, or from the use of ULSD. The data suggest that driver style
had a much larger effect on fuel consumption. Additionally, the fuel consumption data
accumulated by West Virginia University during controlled dynamometer testing also showed no
significant change in fuel economy with the particulate filters installed.
CONCLUSIONS
The prototype traps from Engelhard completed the demonstration with only a single failure out
of a total of 12 traps. This single failure was caused from slippage of the ceramic trap element,
which could be related to the banding design or vibration. However, the use of the Engelhard
filter on this dozer was discontinued and a full investigation of the failure mode was not
completed. A preliminary investigation by Engelhard suggested that the failure was due to poor
assembly quality during manufacturing. The traps from Engelhard, as of this writing, continue to
operate successfully at LACSD, and several traps have accumulated over 2,000 hours of
operation. The Engelhard traps installed on the older, high-PM-emitting (pre-combustion
chamber) engines at Poss also performed very well, with no instances of high backpressure
and/or failed filter elements. These results indicate that duty cycles (and overall operating
conditions) of high-horsepower diesel construction equipment are sufficient to support the
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–6-
regeneration required by the Engelhard traps, and therefore represent a reasonable application for
retrofit with self-regenerating style particulate filters.
The JM traps performed well on 1996 vintage and newer diesel engines, but were deemed not
compatible with the 1970s vintage Poss diesel engines. Although the JM traps exhibited some
“canning” issues associated with affixing the ceramic trap element within the canister housing,
newer designs and assembly methods are expected to correct this largely mechanical problem. At
the time of this writing, the new filters with the new banding design have accumulated
approximately 1,000 hours of operation, and the original filters that were “re-canned” using the
new banding design have accumulated approximately 2,500 hours. It is important to note that the
JM traps on these engines did not have any failures due to lack of regeneration.
Although basic particulate trap technology (the self-regeneration process) was validated for use
on heavy-duty diesel construction equipment, significant challenges still remain regarding
installation and mounting of the very large particulate filters on these types of equipment. The
problem is exacerbated by the fact that the higher horsepower engines (Caterpillar 3412s and
D346s) required two very large filter sizes to adequately handle the high-volume exhaust flow
from these engines. The heavy filters, combined with severe vehicle vibration that is typical of
large off-road construction equipment, likely led to mechanical issues with filter canning and
mounting on many of the installations.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
-ES–7-
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BACKGROUND
This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness and durability of diesel particulate filters (DPFs)
on heavy-duty off-road construction equipment. California Air Resources Board emission
models estimate off-road equipment generated about 34 tons per day of particulate matter (PM)
10 in 2003 (the single largest contributor of all mobile sources including on-road cars and
trucks), and that construction equipment is by far the largest single source within the off-road
equipment category—generating about 21 tons per day (tpd) of PM10 in 2003 (see Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1: California Statewide PM10 Emissions, 2003
This project was jointly administered by South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts (LACSD). The Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC) also
assisted with a variety of program coordination activities.
The study involved a total of 12 heavy-duty construction vehicles: 6 bulldozers and 6 scrapers. A
total of 15 engines were retrofitted with filters since three of the six scrapers were equipped with
two engines, one in the front and one in the rear. Also, the larger (front) engines on the scrapers
required two particulate filters (configured in parallel), therefore the demonstration included a
total of 21 separate filters.
Engelhard Corporation supplied 12 filters and JM provided the other 9. Shepherd Machinery, the
local Caterpillar dealership, installed the filters on six dozers and six scrapers.
The demonstration included two “host-site” operators: the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts (LACSD), and C.W. Poss Construction Inc. The LACSD tested vehicles at the Puente
Hills Landfill 13 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. This is one of the largest landfills in the
country and is characterized by typical “cover and compacting” operations associated with
landfills.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1-1
C. W. Poss Construction Inc. provides site preparation services for homebuilders. The Poss study
vehicles were employed on a tract about two miles north of Newport Beach. Home site
preparation represents a comparatively severe duty cycle.
Sukut Construction also supplied a separate “loose” engine (a Caterpillar 3408) to support
dynamometer emissions testing by West Virginia University. The Cat 3408 model is used in
several pieces of construction equipment included in the test program (both scrapers and dozers).
Project objectives included:

1.2
Evaluate the durability of PM filters (traps) under normal in-service operating conditions on
large heavy-duty construction equipment for a period of 1,400 hours, or one year, whichever
came first
Evaluate any changes in PM filter effectiveness (as measured by in-service PM emission
reduction percentage) throughout the demonstration
Assess any differences in performance (durability and/or effectiveness) among filter
technologies from different manufacturers
Determine if and how varying duty cycles of different types of construction equipment
impact filter durability and effectiveness (by operating several pieces of equipment at
different host sites)
Determine how trap durability and/or effectiveness is impacted by engines with inherently
different engine-out PM emission levels
Determine if the filters have any impact on engine durability, fuel economy, and/or oil
consumption
Evaluate any impacts on the operator including safety, performance, and efficiency of the
equipment (vehicles)
Gauge operators’ overall impressions and comments on the filters
Quantify the costs to retrofit and maintain PM filters for this demonstration project.
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES
Table 1-1 lists the project participants and their roles.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1-2
Table 1-1: Project Participants and Roles
Organization
Role
Staff and Role
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
Project Manager
•
•
Adewale Oshinuga, Project Officer
Drue Ramirez, Contract Administrator
California Air Resources
Board (CARB)
Co-sponsor, On-board
PM emission
measurement, fuel
analysis
•
•
•
•
Jim Shears, Engineering Manager
Keshav Sahay, Air Resources Engineer
John Karim, Staff Pollution Specialist
Juan Osborn, Sr. Engineer
Construction Industry Air
Quality Coalition (CIAQC)
Industry Association
•
•
•
Jeb Stuart
Mike Lewis
Clayton Miller
Los Angeles County
Sanitation District
(LACSD)
Heavy equipment
owner-operator, cosponsor
•
•
•
•
Frank Caponi, Engineering Supervisor
Monet Wong, Engineer,
Patrick Feenan, Sr. Mechanic for all LACSD sites
Larry Isenberg, Puente Hills Maintenance Manager
•
•
•
Charlie Poss, Owner
Wayne Kriehn, Purchaser
Bob Ischerwood, Lead Mechanic, Newport Coast
Provided engine for
WVU testing
•
•
Rick McCourt, Safety/Risk Manager
Mike Ortiz, Sr. Mechanic Engineer
Johnson-Matthey, Inc.
(JM)
Trap manufacturer
•
•
•
•
Dr. Sougato Chatterjee, Engineering Manager
Boyd Peart, Installation and Project Manager
Todd Jacobs, Installation Engineer
Marty Lassen, Commercial Development
Engelhard Corporation
Trap manufacturer
•
•
Richard Zurbey, Technical Service Engineer
John Macaluso, West Coast Retrofit Manager
West Virginia University
(WVU)
Engine Dynamometer
Testing and Emission
Analysis
•
•
Prof. Mridul Gautam, Ph. D. Professor of Mechanical
Engineering
Vinay Nagendran, Engineer
Shepherd Machinery Co.
(now Quinn-Shepherd)
Trap installation,
maintenance,
dynamometer testing
•
•
•
•
Bob Shepherd
Bruce Burlew, Supervisor
Tom Barr, Components Manager
Mike Correll, Weld Shop Supervisor
Booz Allen Hamilton
Project Management
•
•
Bob Kreeb, Project Manager
Howard Paris, Deputy Project Manager
C. W. Poss Construction, Heavy equipment
Inc., Gen. Eng. Contractor owner-operator
Sukut Construction
1.3
STUDY SCOPE AND DATA COLLECTION
This section reviews the task elements completed during the demonstration, the key
questions/issues addressed by the project, and the types of data collected to support the analyses.
Table 1-2 lists the predefined tasks and their elements.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1-3
Table 1-2: Summary of Task Elements
Task Number and
Description
Summary of Task Elements
1. Procure Fuel and PM
Traps
•
•
•
Assist equipment owners to obtain and store fuel.
OEM’s procure data to design traps and brackets.
Ensure equipment is properly fueled using sulfur content testing.
2. Baseline Emission
Testing
•
•
Determine suitable vehicles for study based on vehicle status and history.
Check exhaust opacity values.
•
•
Transport engine and filters to be tested.
WVU conducts dynamometer testing of filters to quantify changes in principal
emission components. WVU uses 8-mode steady state and transient duty
cycle.
WVU compares emissions using CARB, ULSD and Gas-to-Liquid (GTL,
Fischer-Tropsch, FT) fuels.
3. Baseline
Dynamometer
Testing
4. Retrofit Equipment
with PM filters
5. On-Board PM
Emission Testing
6. Demonstration
Monitoring
7. Final Dynamometer
Test
•
•
•
Obtain operating permits for modified equipment.
Coordinate retrofit of vehicles.
•
•
CARB staff installs equipment to measure PM emission reductions during
vehicle operation.
Opacity testing completed periodically.
•
•
•
•
•
Document incidents and coordinate stakeholder interests.
Drivers are polled to see if filters change vehicle performance.
Record fuel and oil use by study vehicles.
Routinely monitoring fuel samples for sulfur content
Filters and brackets are inspected, and backpressure monitored.
•
•
Transport engine and traps to WVU.
WVU conducts 8-mode steady state and transient duty cycle testing of filters
after 1 year of field operation. Emission constituents are quantified to determine
trap efficiency.
Table 1-3 summarizes key questions and issues addressed in the Project as well as the associated
tasks and/or data needed to address those questions.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1-4
Table 1-3: Key Project Research Questions
Questions / Issues
Addressed
Tasks completed and Data Collected
What is condition of engines prior
to beginning the Project?
Maintenance history, equipment statistics, operating characteristics, and oil
consumption data collected by maintenance staff. Opacity testing of the
engine exhaust was measured before and after filter installation.
How well do the traps reduce PM
in real world operation?
On-board testing conducted by CARB, and periodic opacity testing.
How well do the traps reduce PM
and other emission constituents?
Dynamometer testing conducted by West Virginia University.
How can the traps be mounted to
the equipment?
Equipment dimensions and engine configuration recorded by trap
manufacturers. Discuss with Caterpillar.
Will retrofitting an engine with
traps cause excessive
backpressure on the engine? Will
higher backpressure impact
engine operation?
Prior to filter installation on the demonstration vehicles, Shepherd
conducted a dynamometer test with each filter (one from each
manufacturer) mounted to a 3408 engine. A typical duty cycle was
simulated to obtain temperature and backpressure curves.
The effect of DPFs and/or ULSD
fuel on the rate of fuel
consumption?
Fuel consumed and hours of operation recorded by operations and
maintenance staff.
Are the rigs retrofitted with traps
consistently fueled with Ultra Low
Sulfur Diesel?
Sulfur content analyzed by CARB staff chemists.
How quickly do the filters foul,
and do they become a hazard to
the engine?
Data loggers were used to record engine-out exhaust temperature and
pressure during the demonstration.
Are the filters continuing to
remove particulate during the
demonstration?
Opacity of exhaust emissions was tested periodically throughout the
demonstration.
Do the filters impact how well the
vehicles can be operated?
Drivers were interviewed regarding vehicle performance.
How much does it cost to install
and operate equipment retrofitted
with traps?
Installation and major repair costs were logged, and, additional fuel costs
were calculated from fuel usage. Minor repair costs were incurred but not
consistently logged.
Are manufacturers ready to
retrofit vehicles with PM traps?
Problems with the installations were logged as they occurred.
How well do the traps and
brackets stand up to the rigors of
heavy-duty equipment operation?
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Traps and installations were periodically inspected during the
demonstration.
1-5
2.
2.1
PRE-DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Project participants (including SCAQMD, CARB, host-site operators, and CIAQC) employed a
variety of criteria to select vehicles used in the demonstration. The vehicles selected were to:

Represent a cross-section of heavy-duty construction equipment used in California
Allow for comparison of traps from a particular manufacturer operating on like equipment but
at different sites (and therefore different duty-cycles)
Allow for comparison of traps from different manufacturers operating on the same type of
equipment at the same site
Allow for comparison of a particular trap design (i.e., same size, manufacturer) operating on
different types of equipment
Be capable of completing the demonstration without requiring major repair.
Engelhard Corporation and JM were selected to participate in the demonstration based on their
significant experience in the design, manufacture, and servicing of particulate traps for heavy-duty
vehicles. Both companies also submitted acceptable technical proposals regarding specific trap
designs, available sizes (capacity), and required schedule delivery and cost-sharing criteria.
The inventory of vehicles owned and operated by both host sites (CSD and Poss) defined which
models were candidates for the study. Both LACSD and Poss operate dozers, scrapers, off-road
trucks, and numerous other types of diesel equipment. LACSD’s operations are “permanent” in
that all equipment involved in the study was located and maintained at the Puente Hills Landfill.
The Poss operation represented special challenges because any particular construction site under
development by Poss was by definition “temporary”. A typical site development project for Poss
might be for just a month, or more than a year for large projects. Equipment used at a particular
site could be moved when workloads shift among the various sites under development, or due to
schedule and other contract changes. As it turned out, the Poss site to be used for the study
changed twice while the traps and brackets were being prepared, thus, the original Poss vehicles
nominated for the study were unavailable. Poss management worked closely and cooperatively
with SCAQMD and other project participants to select vehicles that that would most closely meet
the overall study needs while minimizing disruptions to operations.
Dozers and scrapers were selected as the two types of construction equipment on which the traps
would be installed and tested. Dozers and scrapers were available at both sites, both employed
Caterpillar equipment, and both of these types of units were heavily utilized—operating about 8 to
10 hours each day.
Dozers
There were two primary types of dozers involved in the demonstration: Caterpillar D9s and olderstyle 824/825/834 Series.
Caterpillar D9 Dozers: These units were used exclusively at the LACSD site. A total of three units
were retrofitted, two with JM filters and one with an Engelhard filter.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-1
Two of the units were model year 2000 and were equipped with Caterpillar electronic unit injector
(EUI) 3408 engines rated at 405 hp. The third unit was built in 1996 and equipped with a
Caterpillar mechanical unit injector (MUI) 3408 engine rated at 400 hp. There were also two
control vehicles included in the demonstration. Fuel economy, oil consumption, and engine
maintenance were tracked for these control vehicles (as well as the test vehicles) throughout the
demonstration in order to establish a credible performance baseline by which the test vehicles
could be compared (see Table 2-1) .
Table 2-1: D9 Dozers at LACSD
Equip #
6621
6654
6655
6620
6653
Rig Yr.
1996
2000
2000
1998
2000
Engine
3408 MUI
3408 EUI
3408 EUI
3408 MUI
3408 EUI
Trap
JM
ENG
JM
none
none
The D9 dozers are fitted with extra-large blades in front that are specifically designed to compress
the landfill debris. The steel treads also compact debris and provide good traction on mixed
materials. Debris occasionally becomes entangled in the tread and gears, and requires periodic
removal (see Figure 2-1).
D9 dozer
Large blade of D9 dozer
Figure 2-1: D9 Dozers
The D9 dozers are considered very large at about 110,000 lbs total weight. The filter units were
installed on top of the Roll-Over Protection System (ROPS). (See Section 2.5 for details on
installation.)
824/825/834 Dozers: These units were used exclusively at the Poss site. A total of three units were
retrofitted, two with JM filters, and one with an Engelhard filter. The 824B (1977 model year) and
825C (1983 model year) are smaller rubber-tired dozers weighing about 67,000 lbs. The 824B was
equipped with a Caterpillar D343 engine. This engine (rebuilt in 2001) is an older-style, 893 cubic
inch, pre-chamber combustion design rated at 315 horsepower. The 825C was equipped with a
similarly sized but newer (1983) 3406 direct injection engine (EUI) that was rebuilt in 2002 and
rated at 375 horsepower. The 834 dozer is a larger (102,000 lbs) rubber-tired dozer equipped with
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-2
a Caterpillar 3408 direct injection engine, rebuilt in 2002, and rated at 450 horsepower. The Poss
site did not include a dozer control fleet (see Table 2-2).
Table 2-2: 824/825/834 Dozers at Poss
Model
824B
825C
834B
Equip #
407
415
409
Rig Yr.
1977
1983
1971
Engine
D343 MUI
3406 EUI
3408 MUI
Trap
JM
ENG
JM
The Poss dozers are fitted with normal-sized front blades used for earthmoving. Poss used the 824B
dozer to pull a “sheep’s-foot,” which is a heavy roller with large protruding studs that compresses
and textures the surface of deposited soil (see Figure 2-2).
824B dozer with filter
834 dozer with filter
Figure 2-2: 824 and 834 Dozers at Poss
Scrapers
A scraper is a two-axle mounted tractor that pulls a bin with a hydraulically actuated blade along
the bottom leading edge. The tractor pulls the bin, and the blade is lowered to scrape up a layer of
earth, which piles up in the bin. When this bin is full, the scraper goes to the deposition area.
Another hydraulic scoop at the back of the bin pushes the load to the front, where it falls out over
the blade in a layer. LACSD uses 657E scrapers and Poss mainly uses 651B scrapers (see Figure
2-3).
657E scraper without filter
651B scraper without filter
Figure 2-3: 657E and 651B Scrapers
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-3
657E Scrapers: These units are very large, dual-engine machines weighing about 167,000 lbs
each. A total of three units were retrofitted, two with Engelhard filters and one with JM filters. The
657E scrapers (all were identical) were built in 1996 and equipped with a Caterpillar 3412 MUI
engine in the front rated at 550 horsepower (1650 cubic inch) and a Caterpillar 3408 MUI engine
in the rear rated at 400 horsepower (1100 cubic inch). The front engine (3412) was sufficiently
large that the largest available filter from either manufacturer was still not sufficient to handle the
exhaust flow volume. Therefore, these engines required two filter units to be configured in parallel
in the exhaust system in order to accommodate backpressure and flow requirements. Each 657E
therefore operated with a total of three particulate traps. There were also two “control” 657E
scrapers included at the demonstration site at LACSD (see Table 2-3).
Table 2-3: 657E Scrapers at LACSD
Equip #
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
Rig Yr.
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Engine
3408 MUI, 3412 MUI
3408 MUI, 3412 MUI
3408 MUI, 3412 MUI
3408 MUI, 3412 MUI
3408 MUI, 3412 MUI
Trap
JM
ENG
ENG
none
none
651B Scrapers: The 651B scrapers were used only at the Poss site. These are older-style scrapers
weighing about 127,000 lbs and utilizing a single Caterpillar D346 engine. These engines are
identical in displacement to the 3412 engine (1,650 cubic inch) and are rated at 575 horsepower.
They utilize the older pre-chamber combustion design. The 651B scrapers were built in the early
1970s, but the engines were recently rebuilt (2000 to 2002). A total of three 651B scrapers were
retrofitted with traps, two with Engelhard and one with JM. The Poss site did not include a scraper
control fleet (see Table 2-4).
Table 2-4: 651B Scrapers at Poss
Equip #
605
625
628
Rig Yr.
1973
1973
1976
Engine
D346
D346
D346
Trap
JM
ENG
ENG
[Note: While Poss primarily used 651B scrapers for its work, no single type of dozer dominated.
Moreover, the changing needs of the POSS sites dictated that vehicles be transported from one site
to another. Poss transported one 651B to the final location (Newport), but the study used the
dozers that were already stationed at Newport when the retrofits were conducted.]
General Notes on Equipment Selection
CIAQC members sought to provide equipment that would represent a cross-section of the heavy
duty vehicles used in the construction industry in California. Stakeholders acknowledged that the
final equipment selection was not ideal, but represented a good compromise given the cost,
schedule, and location logistics issues that were in play.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-4
JM expressed concern about the high PM emissions from older 1970s pre-chamber diesel engines
included in the study. Project stakeholders, however, felt that studying older equipment would
provide an interesting “worse case” application for the particulate traps.
Stakeholders also wanted the equipment to be tested for as long as possible. This meant selecting
equipment that would not likely need extensive repairs during the test period (i.e. engines should
not be scheduled for rebuilding. In the case of LACSD, the study vehicle or engines were all
manufactured in 1996 or 2000, and were therefore not due for a major overhaul during the
demonstration.
Also, while Poss’s equipment was much older, they had recently rebuilt many of the engines on
their dozers and scrapers—and all engines were examined by Shepherd prior to the demonstration
to ensure they were in good working order. These examinations included checking timing, fuel
flow, backpressure, and rack (throttle) operation.
Both LACSD and Poss follow Caterpillar guidelines for scheduling preventive maintenance.
Twice a year, the oil is tested and the hydraulic fluid meter is replaced. Four times a year, staff
replace the water filter and transmission oil filter. Six times a year, the fuel and air filter are
replaced. Once every 500 hours, the transmission oil is replaced, and once every 1,000 hours the
hydraulic oil is replaced. Once a month, oil and oil filters are replaced and a 150-hour maintenance
checklist is followed.
Tables 2-5 and 2-6 provide statistics on the filters, vehicles, and vehicle engines used in the study.
Table 2-5: Vehicle Statistics
Eq#
Equipment Type
Rig Year
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6655
6621
6654
6620
6653
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
D9N dozer EUI
D9N dozer MUI
D9N dozer EUI
D9N dozer MUI
D9N dozer EUI
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
1996
2000
1998
2000
407
409
415
605
625
628
824B dozer
834 dozer
825C dozer
651B scraper
651B scraper
651B scraper
1977
1971
1983
1973
1973
1976
RigWeight
Trap
Fuel used
JM
Eng
Eng
Control
Control
JM
JM
Eng
Control
Control
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
CARB
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
CARB
ULSD
JM
JM
Eng
JM
Eng
Eng
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
ULSD
CSD
167,270 lbs
167,270 lbs
167,270 lbs
167,270 lbs
167,270 lbs
109,180 lbs
109,180 lbs
109,180 lbs
109,180 lbs
109,180 lbs
POSS
66,975 lbs
102,195 lbs
66,975 lbs
126,880 lbs
126,880 lbs
126,880 lbs
vehicles retrofitted with traps
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-5
Table 2-6: Engine Statistics
Engine
Type
Filter
Type of fuel
injection
Year
engine
rebuilt
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
3412 (F)
3408 (R)
3412 (F)
3408 (R)
3412 (F)
3408 (R)
3412 (F)
3408 (R)
3412 (F)
3408 (R)
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
JM
JM
ENG
ENG
ENG
ENG
none
none
none
none
JM
JM
ENG
none
none
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
MUI
EUI
MUI
EUI
MUI
EUI
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
1996
2000
1998
2000
407
409
415
605
625
628
824B dozer
834 dozer
825C dozer
651B scraper
651B scraper
651B scraper
D343
3408
3406
D346
D346
D346
pre-chamber
MUI
EUI
pre-chamber
pre-chamber
pre-chamber
2001
2002
2002
2000
2002
2001
Dyna
Dyna
657E scraper
657E scraper
3408 (R)
3408 (R)
MUI
MUI
2002
2003
Eq#
Equip Type
6604
657E scraper
6605
657E scraper
6606
657E scraper
6607
657E scraper
6608
657E scraper
6655
6621
6654
6620
6653
Engine Hrs
at start of
Demo
Rated
HP
Rated
RPM
Displ.
(cubic
inches)
Notes
12,124
12,124
12,991
12,991
12,818
12,818
12,542
12,542
13,538
13,538
4,864
9,158
5,456
9,401
4,598
550
400
550
400
550
400
550
400
550
400
405
400
405
400
405
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
1649
1098
1649
1098
1649
1098
1649
1098
1649
1098
1098
1098
1098
1098
1098
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Original engine.
Certified rebuilt
Certified rebuilt
Certified Rebuilt 9/97
Certified rebuilt
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
315
450
375
575
575
575
2100
2100
2100
2000
2000
2000
893
1098
893
1649
1649
1649
Rebuilt. no aftercooler
Certified rebuilt
Repowered with EUI
Rebuilt
Rebuilt
Rebuilt
---
418
418
2100
2100
1098
1098
Rebuilt, 1st WVU test
Rebuilt, 2nd WVU test
CSD
POSS
JM
JM
Eng
JM
ENG
ENG
SUKUT
vehicles retrofitted with traps
The final selection of equipment, and the assignment of traps to specific vehicles resulted in an
overall good mix of test platforms. A total of 12 vehicles were retrofitted in the study: 6 with
Engelhard traps and 6 with JM traps; with 6 of the test vehicles located at LACSD and 6 at Poss.
A total of 15 engines were retrofitted: 8 with Engelhard and 7 with JM, with 9 located at LACSD
and 6 at Poss. A total of 21 filters were involved in the program: 12 from Engelhard and 9 from
JM, with 12 located at LACSD and 9 located at Poss. The overall distribution of filters is
summarized in Table 2-7.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-6
Table 2-7: Overall Summary of Retrofits
2.2
DEMONSTRATION LOCATIONS AND VEHICLE ACTIVITY
Trap installations were demonstrated at two sites: the Puente Hills landfill and the Newport Coast
site. The LACSD operates the Puente Hills landfill, which is the largest landfill operation in the
country. The operation consists of waste haulers unloading their contents. The dozers compress
and form the material into 30-foot-high zones called cells. Scrapers remove earth from a nearby
hill and deliver it either on or next to municipal solid waste. The dozers then form and compress a
minimum one-foot layer of earth over the solid waste. Poss Construction was performing home site
preparation on a steeply hilled area about 2 miles north of Newport Beach. This location was the
second test site, and was referred to as the Newport Coast site (see Figure 2-4).
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-7
CSD Puente Landfill
C. W. Poss Newport Coast Project
Figure 2-4: LACSD and Poss Demonstration Sites
The Newport Coast site included preparations for roads, utility installation, and home settings. The
site itself consisted of sandy soil, sandstone, and some rock. The scrapers often needed one or two
dozers to help push as they cut the sandstone and rock out of place.
2.3
FUEL SELECTION AND LOGISTICS
LACSD normally fueled its vehicles with BP-Arco brand CARB diesel, and the C.W. Poss
vehicles were fueled with Phillips-brand CARB fuel. The study “control” vehicles receiving
CARB fuel continued to use this fuel throughout the demonstration. Control vehicles (those
without traps) that were slated to operate on ULSD during the demonstration period received BPArco ECD-1 brand diesel fuel.
During the study, BP-Arco was the only refiner in the Los Angeles basin selling ULSD
commercially. For the purpose of this study, BP-Arco made red-dyed ULSD available to LACSD
and Poss at $0.055 above the CARB rack price. Refiners add red dye to off-road diesel fuel to
designate that no highway taxes are paid on it.
For ULSD fuel, the specification is 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur instead of the 500 ppm
sulfur for CARB diesel. (CARB specifications are listed in the California Code of Regulations,
Title 13, Mobile Sources and Fuels, Chapter 5, Standards for Motor Vehicle Fuels, Article 2,
Standards for Diesel Fuel.) However, routine sampling of the CARB fuel at LACSD indicates the
sulfur level is much lower than the 500 ppm specification—and is usually around 50 ppm.
This study designated all traps to use ULSD throughout the test period. Sulfur in diesel fuel
“poisons”, or otherwise renders ineffective, the catalytic precious metal coatings on the filters that
are needed to lower regeneration temperatures. In addition, sulfur contributes to PM formation.
(see Section 2.4 for additional detail on trap design). California mandates the sale of ULSD in the
state in beginning 2006 for all diesel equipment.
Before the program, LACSD fueled its vehicles with CARB diesel from six 5,000-gallon tanks
located on-site at the Puente Hills landfill. LACSD designated one of the six tanks, and added
another tank (totaling two), to store the ULSD for this program. LACSD had an ongoing contract
with BP-Arco and amended it to truck in the ULSD. LACSD staff painted the study vehicles with
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-8
green paint at strategic locations and painted “ULSD only” to identify these vehicles to the fueling
contractor.
Poss purchased an additional 10,000-gallon above-ground fuel tank for the Newport Coast site and
dedicated it for ULSD storage. Poss subcontracts a wet-hose service to fill its vehicles during the
evening hours (after the end of the work day). However, dozers often require a top-off of fuel
during the noon lunch break to work through the entire day. The Poss lubrication/fuel truck
technician performs this noon top-off. For this study, Poss agreed to fill the test vehicles (those
with traps) with ULSD using the lubrication/fuel truck both at the noon top-off as well as for the
main fueling operations in the evening. This arrangement avoided the need to have a third-party
wet-hose supplier involved in the fueling—thus reducing costs and improving quality control
related to fueling.
2.4
TRAP SIZING AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
A diesel particulate filter, or trap, positioned in the exhaust stream is designed to collect a
significant fraction of PM emissions—normally above 85 percent. The most common type of
particulate filter is the wall-flow monolith made of either cordierite (a synthetic ceramic material),
or silicon carbide (SiC). Cordierite has a low thermal expansion coefficient, which makes it
resistant to temperatures up to 1200ºC, and has good mechanical strength. Wall-flow monoliths
made of silicon carbide have temperature resistance even higher (up to 1800ºC), and are less
affected by long-term thermal cycling. SiC is generally considered the filter material of choice for
future PDFs.
Particulate matter that is trapped on the filter will oxidize, or burn and transform into carbon
dioxide, at temperatures of about 550º to 650ºC or higher. Unfortunately, these temperatures are
rarely encountered with diesel engines. Most heavy-duty diesel engines have exhaust temperatures
in the range of 300º-450ºC1. As such, a frequent means of removing the trapped particulate from
the filter must be provided, as the volume of such particulates generated by a diesel engine could
otherwise be sufficient to plug the filter in a matter of hours.
With passive regeneration, the required oxidation temperature of the particulate matter is lowered to
allow for auto-regeneration to occur during regular vehicle operation. One way to accomplish this is
to apply a base or precious metal catalytic coating directly to the filter surface. Another option is to
place a separate catalyst layer near the filter unit. In the presence of such catalytic material, the
temperature required for particulate oxidation is typically brought down to 250º-350º C.
2.4.1
Engelhard Filters
Engelhard filters are designated as “DPX Catalyzed Diesel Soot Filter.” The Engelhard version of
this technology consists of a single ceramic monolith encased in a stainless steel shell. Cones on
each side make the transition between the 6-inch exhaust piping and the diameter of the monolith.
Two retaining rings hold the monolith in place. The shell is vee-clamped to stainless steel cones
over the retaining rings. Ring clamps attach cone-shaped end-pieces to the catalyst can (see Figure
2-5).
1
DieselNet Technology Guide, Diesel Filter Regeneration section. DieselNet, May 1999
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-9
Figure 2-5: Engelhard Filters
The monolith is a matrix of square channels, half of which are blocked off on one face and the
other half blocked off on the opposite face. The blocking is done in a symmetric diagonal or
checkerboard pattern. The DPX is a “wall-flow filter,” which means that the long channels allow
exhaust gases to diffuse through the porous ceramic walls. The surfaces are coated with
catalytically active metal. Above 7000 F, the metals convert the carbon-based particulate into CO2.
The volume percent of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon vapors are also catalytically reduced.
Inorganic particulate ash is removed by reversing the filter or by blowing it out with compressed
air. Engelhard recommends reversing the filters every 1,000-2,000 hours of operation.
2.4.2
Johnson-Matthey Filters
The diesel particulate filter from JM (Figure 2-6) is commercially known as Continuously
Regenerating Technology or CRT® filter system. The device is composed of two primary sections,
where the oxidation step in the first is
Outlet
Filter
Head
followed by the soot collection/combustion
Catalyst
Section
Inlet
Section
process in the second. As shown in the
Head
figure, the CRT filter comprises four
modules, which include an inlet head,
catalyst section, filter section and an outlet
head. The catalyst section contains an
oxidation catalyst consisting of a ceramic
honeycomb substrate coated with a
proprietary highly active platinum group
metal. Aside from oxidizing a portion of
Wall-flow
Oxidation
the NO for soot combustion, the catalyst
Filter
Catalyst
also oxidizes CO, HC and the SOF portion
of the PM.
Figure 2-6: JM Filter
In the filter section (see Figure 2-7), the exhaust gas flows through a bare ceramic wall-flow filter.
The filter is also a honeycomb design with alternate channels blocked at each end forcing exhaust
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-10
to flow through the walls of the filter where gaseous
components pass through and the soot is trapped. The
trapped soot is then combusted by the NO2 generated by
the catalyst.
The substrate for the oxidation catalyst and the
particulate filter were manufactured by Corning Inc.
The DOC and the filter sections are connected using
bolted flanges and a gasket. Manifolds convert the
exhaust from 6-inch piping to the larger diameter
elements. These manifolds are flange bolted on each
end.
2.4.3
Sizing of Traps for Applications
Figure 2-7: Filter Section
Both Engelhard and JM sized their filters based on engine displacement and the exhaust flow rates
of the specified equipment, (see Table 2-8).
Table 2-8: Sizes of Particulate Traps
Equip Type
Eq#
Engine Type
CSD
6604 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
657E scraper
6605 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
657E scraper
6606 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
D9N dozer elec 6655 3408
D9N dozer mech 6621 3408
D9N dozer elec 6654 3408
POSS
824B dozer
407 D343
834B dozer
409 3408
825C dozer
415 D3406
651B scraper
605 D346
651B scraper
625 D346
651B scraper
628 D346
657E scraper
Trap
DPF Type
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
Eng
Eng
JM
JM
Eng
15X15 CRT (2)
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15
JM
JM
Eng
JM
Eng
Eng
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
DPX 15X15
20X15 CRT (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
For the front engines of the 657E scrapers (3412) and the single engines on the 651B (D346)
scrapers, Engelhard specified the use of two DPX 20X15 traps (the largest available from
Engelhard). A single DPX 20X15 was specified for the rear engines of the 657E scrapers, as well
as for the D9 dozer. For the 825C dozer with a 3406 EUI, Engelhard specified a single DPX 15 X
15 filter.
JM specified the use of two filters (15 x 15 CRTs) on the 3412 engines, but used twin 20 x 15
CRTs on the older D346 engine at Poss. For the 3408 engines in 657E scrapers and D9 dozers, JM
specified a single 20 x 15 CRT. On the dozers at Poss, JM specified 15 x 15 CRTs for both the
D343 engine in the 824B, as well as the 3408 engine used in the 834B. [Note: The 3408 engine
used in the 834B dozer at Poss was essentially identical in design to the 3408 engines used in
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-11
dozers and scrapers at LACSD, therefore, it is unclear why JM specified a slightly smaller filter
(15 x 15) for the Poss installation versus a 20 x15 filter for 3408s at LACSD.]
2.5
INSTALLATION DESIGN
The PM filter manufacturers (OEMs) were responsible for designing the brackets, piping, clamps
and other fittings needed to mount the PM filters on the vehicles and configure them into the
exhaust system. Bracket design required a detailed understanding of numerous issues including
vibration, safety, visibility, ergonomics, operating temperatures, exhaust flow, and other vehiclespecific factors.
In addition to reducing particulate emissions, the filter also acts as a muffler—and the “going-in”
strategy was to replace the existing mufflers with the PM filters. However, a typical muffler for
the engines in the demonstration may weigh about 40 to 50 pounds and is significantly smaller
than the PM filters. The Engelhard filters weighed about 100 to 125 pounds and the JM filters
weighed nearly 300 pounds.
The PM filter brackets must be sturdy enough to withstand the vehicle vibration while supporting a
comparatively large and heavy filter unit. The piping leading to and from the trap must also resist
vibration. The exhaust piping must conduct the exhaust gases from the engine to the catalyst
without losing too much heat. If too much heat is lost, the regeneration process may not be able to
keep up with the accumulation of soot. If too much soot accumulates, when regeneration
eventually does occur, the ceramic matrix can overheat causing cracking or melting.
Also, on the 657E scrapers and D9 dozers at LACSD, and the 651B scrapers at Poss, the muffler
incorporates an “aspirator” to draw larger dust particles away from the air filter intake and reduce
the rate of filter plugging. This line must be replaced and re-routed when the trap is installed. Lowline aspirators are an exhaust pipe that has dimples or welded inserts to function like a nozzle. The
nozzle generates a low-pressure zone using the Venturi effect. Equipment suppliers do not
normally stock exhaust aspirators because they are usually integrated into the OEM mufflers.
Caterpillar and Donaldson manufacture exhaust aspirators. Shepherd staff located these parts for
this study. Shepherd technicians plumbed the low-line aspirators into the exhaust stream and the
low-line coming from the air filter.
All of the initial designs submitted by the OEMs placed the traps either on the driver cab or on the
ROPS. The ROPS and the driver cab are integrated as one structure on all the study vehicles
except the D9 dozers, where they are two separate structures. However, several design
modifications occurred during the retrofit. Challenges encountered during installation included:

The OEMs could not mount the traps where they would block access to the engine, or to other
areas that needed frequent servicing. For example, on the 657E scrapers, the exhaust piping (as
originally designed) blocked the area needed to remove the rear engine air filter. In another
case, LACSD worked with OEMs to reposition the filters on the right front fender of the 657E
scraper to improve the driver’s side vision. It was also necessary to adjust the stop on the 657E
scraper yoke to prevent the yoke from turning so far that it would damage the filter.

The OEMs could not place the filters under the hood of the engine because the filters were too
large to fit. The Engelhard filter was almost small enough to fit under the hood of the D9, but
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-12
LACSD staff believed the filter would obstruct the fan’s cooling stream and the resulting heat
might damage the nearby electronics.

The visual range of the operator limited the placement of the traps from being in front or to the
side of the driver’s cab. Caterpillar placed and oriented its mufflers to minimize blocking the
visual range of the operator. Although most filters were placed above the cab, filters were also
placed on the right front fender of the 657E scraper. The two 20-inch diameter filters reduced
some of the driver’s visual field but drivers appeared to successfully adapt to their presence.
2.5.1
Caterpillar Review of Retrofit Designs
Before proceeding with the installation of the particulate traps, the LACSD requested that
Caterpillar review the proposed designs. Caterpillar noted two primary concerns: a potential
compromise of structural integrity and increased backpressure.
Structural Integrity. Caterpillar has tested its ROPS structures extensively to comply with OSHA
regulations and intended applications. Off-road vehicles are subject to possible rollover since they
are often used on very steep inclines and the ROPS structure is designed to withstand such an
event. Caterpillar was asked to review installation proposals since a 100- to 300-pound mass of
ceramic at 450 degrees Fahrenheit poses a potential hazard to the driver in the event of a rollover.
Caterpillar engineering staff indicated that adding the filters to the ROPS structure would likely
drop its natural vibration frequency. Over a prolonged period, this vibration could cause fatigue
cracking (according to Christine Hoecker, Caterpillar D9 dozer ROPS engineering specialist), but
that such symptoms would likely occur gradually/incrementally, and could be detected if an
inspection program was in-place. Caterpillar indicated that significant finite element analysis and
prototype testing would need to be completed to determine the likelihood and extent to which
durability and reliability of the ROPS structure might be compromised. Further, Caterpillar
engineers believed it unlikely that Caterpillar could approve the ROPS location for commercial
trap retrofits. Caterpillar staff suggested that having the filter above the ROPS could also increase
the risk of rollover, although probably only slightly.
Backpressure. One of the main concerns relating to the trap installation was the effect on engine
performance and reliability. Substituting a trap for the muffler may increase engine backpressure,
particularly as ash builds up on the surface of the catalyst. If the exhaust flow is restricted, more
heat remains in the engine, increasing wear and decreasing durability. Caterpillar’s comments
related to backpressure issues are summarized as follows:
1. Caterpillar off-road design guidelines specify 1.84 inches Hg (25 inches of water) as an
optimal backpressure for the exhaust system.
2. Caterpillar engines are certified up to 2.94 inches Hg (40 inches of water), and 2.94 inches Hg
is the recommended limit.
3. Exceeding the recommended backpressure is expected to have the following effects:
a. Reduced output torque and engine response.
b. Increases in stack temperature of approximately 20.4 degrees Fahrenheit for 1 inch Hg (or
1.5 F for every 1 inch of water)
c. Loss of turbocharger sealing
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-13
d.
e.
f.
g.
2.5.2
Piston-ring-liner wear
Fatigue cracking of exhaust system components including exhaust valves
Loss of fuel economy by approximately 0.5 percent per 1 inch Hg (13.6 inches of water)
Soot deposits or smoke from exhaust joints
Backpressure Dynamometer Test by Shepherd Machinery
Equipment owners expressed concerns about the backpressure estimates provided by the trap
manufacturers. LACSD staff noted that heat is the worst enemy of these diesel engines. These
engines run relatively hot, so increasing temperature would potentially burn valves or drop pistons.
The backpressure estimates from Engelhard were within the limits recommended by Caterpillar
with expected flow rates below 1 inch of mercury (0.67 to 0.89 inches Hg). However, Engelhard
backpressure estimates did not include all of the modified piping for the new installations.
Backpressure estimates from JM (which did include the redesigned exhaust system piping)
exceeded limits for some of the installation designs. The JM estimates ranged from 2.41 to 3.80
inches Hg, and as noted, Caterpillar set its guideline at 2.94 inches Hg for off-road vehicles.
Given these estimates, stakeholders agreed to test the backpressure on a dynamometer mounted
test engine with each trap configured into the exhaust system to simulate its intended placement on
the vehicle. On August 7, Shepherd reinstalled the LACSD 3408 engine onto the dynamometer,
(see Figure 2-8). The Shepherd engineers tested the engine exhaust backpressure with 20X15-size
filters from Engelhard and JM, as well as with a stock muffler. The backpressures measured from
the muffler, the JM trap and the Engelhard trap were 1.98 inches, 1.03 inches, and 1.1 inches of
Hg, respectively. This test indicated that installed traps would not generate excessive backpressure
when clean.
Figure 2-8: Dynamometer test of Johnson-Matthey CRT at Quinn-Shepherd Machinery
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-14
2.5.3
Design Review of Final Installation
Host site operators (as well as other project participants) sought near-commercial designs for this
demonstration. After considerable discussion, the stakeholders acknowledged that for the primary
purposes of the demonstration, a commercial design could not be developed in a timely manner.
The stakeholders agreed to allow the OEMs to design brackets supported by the cab ROPS if no
alternative was apparent, and that locating filters on the ROPS was an acceptable design since the
demonstration was to be for a period of only 1 year, and any signs of fatigue could be quickly
addressed. For most front-mounted engines, the OEMs designed brackets that mounted the filters
on top of the ROPS.
The location above the ROPS however had one additional drawback. When transporting these
vehicles, owners load them onto a flatbed truck. A filter mounted on the ROPS may exceed the
height limitation for some highway overpasses.
Rather than install the filters on the ROPS of the 657E scrapers, LACSD staff offered to work with
Shepherd technicians to reinforce the right side front fender and mount the twin filters for the 3412
engines at that location. Similarly, LACSD chose to mount the filter for the rear engine of the
657E scrapers on the left rear fender. The technicians positioned the filters on the fenders to
minimize the loss of operator side vision. The final locations of the filters are listed in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9: Filter Locations
Equip Type
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
D9N dozer
824B dozer
834B dozer
825C dozer
651B scraper
651B scraper
651B scraper
Eq#
Engine Type
CSD
6604 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
6605 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
6606 3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
6655 3408 EUI
6621 3408 MUI
6654 3408 EUI
POSS
407 D343
409 3408 MUI
415 3406 EUI
605 D346
625 D346
628 D346
DPF Type
Filter
Location
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
Eng
Eng
JM
JM
Eng
15X15 CRT (2)
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15
rt. front fender
left rear fender
rt. front fender
left rear fender
rt. front fender
left rear fender
ROPS
ROPS
ROPS
JM
JM
Eng
JM
Eng
Eng
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
DPX 15X15
20X15 CRT (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
ROPS
ROPS
ROPS
ROPS
ROPS
ROPS
Trap
To protect staff from the hot surfaces, LACSD required filters to be insulated. The ceramic
elements retain heat for several hours after shutoff. Thermal Energy Products of Brea designed and
manufactured insulating pads constructed of fiberglass and silicon rubber backing. Also, the 651B
scraper at Poss that had been retrofitted with a JM filter was insulated in an attempt to improve
regeneration.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-15
Engelhard literature cautions against insulating the body of their filters, but Engelhard project
engineers did not object to the insulating of the filters at LACSD, and no adverse effects were
observed. Examples of insulated retrofits are shown in Figure 2-9.
.
657E scraper front with JM filter
657E scraper front with Engelhard filter
D9 dozer with filter
657E scraper rear with Engelhard filter
Figure 2-9: Insulated Particulate Trap Installations
2.5.4
Installation of Data Loggers
Equipment owners expressed concern that the particulate traps would generate a higher
backpressure than the muffler. As previously noted, Caterpillar’s guidelines advise against
backpressure increasing above 2.94″ Hg.
The manufacturers installed pressure sensors that activated warning lights when the backpressure
increased beyond a preset limit. JM provided CRTdm™ data loggers programmed to generate
pressure alarms at 5 and 7 inches of Hg. The alarms register as red warning LED lights on the front
panel of the CRTdm™, and on an indicator box attached to the drivers’ dashboard. The high
backpressure alarms were programmed to latch on if the pressure was exceeded for a sum total of
three minutes within a one-hour period.
For the Engelhard pressure monitor kits, when backpressure went above 7.4 inches of Hg for 15
seconds, the amber light came on. If backpressure went above 7.4 inches of Hg for 60 seconds, the
orange light came on. The lights “latch”, that is, if the backpressure drops below the set point, the
lights will not go off until power is turned off at the ignition switch (see Figure 2-10).
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-16
Temperature and backpressure probes
Engelhard warning and alarm lights
Figure 2-10: Pressure Monitoring Apparatus
In addition to the high-backpressure warning system, JM also included CRTdm™ data logger
modules for all of their retrofits to continuously sample and record exhaust temperature and
pressure via sensors installed in the exhaust system (see Figure 2-11). The modules record a high,
low, and average value every two minutes for both temperature and pressure. JM placed the
CRTdm’s in NEMA enclosures bolted to the vehicle. The modules had four internal lights that
indicated whether a pressure or temperature alarm was generated, or if a system problem had
developed. By connecting an RS 232 cable from a PC to the CRTdm module, the PC could extract
the recorded data. Software on the PC plots the data for review. The graphic representation of the
backpressure and temperature provided insight into the performance of the various installations
and help diagnose problems.
JM CRTdm module
JM warning and alarm lights
Figure 2-11: Johnson-Matthey Data Loggers
In May 2003, LACSD staff installed data loggers similar in design to the JM data loggers on their
Engelhard traps.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2-17
3.
3.1
DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
During early 2002, filters were procured, fueling logistics were completed, and procedures for
collecting demonstration data were reviewed with host site participants.
In the spring of 2002, the filter manufacturers began developing the installation designs based on
the designated study vehicles. Baseline opacity testing was completed on several vehicles, and,
baseline fuel economy, oil consumption, and vehicle maintenance history data were also gathered.
Installation design efforts continued through the summer of 2002. In August, WVU recorded
transient engine operating data on equipment at LACSD to be used for developing the emissions
test cycle.
Shepherd Machinery also conducted dynamometer tests on an engine using both Engelhard and JM
filters. The Shepherd testing investigated the extent to which clean filters increased backpressure,
and looked at how increased backpressure affected engine performance. The backpressures
measured from the muffler, the JM filter and the Engelhard filter were 27″, 14″, and 15″ of water,
respectively. The exhaust temperatures were also recorded to determine validate sufficiently high
temperatures for regeneration. This test validated the traps installations themselves (when
new/clean) did not increase backpressure over the stock muffler. Installation designs were finalized
and mounting kits ordered at the end of August.
In October 2002, two of the filters to be mounted on field equipment were tested at the WVU
Engines and Emissions Research Laboratory (EERL). WVU conducted dynamometer tests on a
typical engine (3408) using transient and 8-mode steady state duty cycles. (See Appendix C,
Chapter 4, page 73 for a complete description of test cycles and procedures. Note: Appendix C is
provided under separate cover.) WVU performed baseline testing, and quantified the PM, CO, HC,
and NOx coming from filters of both manufacturers. Both JM and Engelhard filters significantly
reduced the CO and HC emissions. Neither filters significantly affected the NOx emissions.
However, PM emission levels were reduced 97 percent or more with these systems.
In October and November 2002, Shepherd installed the JM filters on the test vehicles. In January
2003, CARB conducted first round of on-board emissions testing using their TEV system. CARB
tests of the JM filters yielded a consistent 97 percent reduction in PM emissions on filters that had
accrued 300 hours of operation. Installation of Engelhard filters was delayed until
February/March. CARB later tested the Engelhard filters and found approximately 94 percent
reduction in PM on filters that had accrued 750 hours.
Exhaust from study vehicles was tested for opacity using the snap acceleration protocol. Most of
the older (pre-70s vintage) vehicles generated 95 to 99 percent opacity, but values of 60 percent to
70 percent were measured after timing, throttle (rack) and other engine parameters were adjusted.
The LACSD vehicle engines emitted less smoke, but in a wide range of opacities. Electronically
controlled engines mounted on the LACSD D9 dozers yielded opacity values between 1.1 percent
and 4.6 percent. After filters were installed, all vehicles gave readings below 1 percent.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-1
CSD operations recorded fuel and oil consumption along with hours of operation. This data could
not reliably demonstrate a change in fuel or oil consumption from the filters or from the use of the
ULSD.
Vehicle drivers were polled to assess how filters affected perceived vehicle performance. Drivers
did not report any noticeable impact on vehicle operation with these exceptions: (1) Where filters
blocked a portion of the visual field, the drivers were able to adapt, but the blockage was a
nuisance. (2) Filters that became clogged with soot increased backpressure and caused a loss of
power. The blockage and power loss only occurred where filters were experiencing problems as
noted below. Properly operating filters did not generate concerns for drivers.
JM installed data loggers connected to temperature and pressure sensors upstream of the filters.
The data provided valuable insight into the performance of the various installations. The devices
aided diagnosis of problems and indicated when filters needed to be cleaned.
Both JM and Engelhard filters performed very well in terms of reducing the PM emissions on 1996
or newer engines models. The Engelhard filters were also successful on the older style prechamber combustion engines at Poss. The JM filters installed on the older Poss vehicles did not
successfully regenerate and developed high backpressure. Results indicated that the current JM
filter technology was not applicable for such older-style engines.
At LACSD, several of the 20x15 JM ceramic filter elements experienced “shifting” within the can,
causing flow blockage and high backpressure, and sometimes resulting in damage to the monolith
itself. Investigation by the can manufacturer Donaldson Co. showed that incorrect filter “banding”
(fixing ceramic filter element inside the CRT can), combined with high vibrations in the
application resulted in this problem. JM and Donaldson replaced or re-canned the problem
systems. Following this, the JM filter yielded low and stable backpressure and successfully
completed the rest of the demonstration. One Engelhard filter mounted to a track-style dozer was
damaged when the vibration and backpressure forced the catalyst against a retaining strut that
caused the catalyst to fracture.
The brackets and piping used to retrofit the filters experienced a variety of problems. These
vehicles, especially the track-type dozer, undergo extreme vibrations that require robust support.
Flex-pipes used to connect the exhaust piping to the trap tore open in the initial designs. In various
instances, ring clamps broke and seal clamps became torn. These clamps were used to connect
exhaust pipe elements. The jostling forces of the dozers also caused cracks in the material
supporting the exhaust stack. On the Poss scrapers, the welds on Engelhard brackets cracked apart,
and several joint locations lost bolts due to vibration or breakage. Some original vehicle exhaust
piping cracked due to greater stresses imposed by the added equipment.
3.1.1
Sequence of Events
Table 3-1 provides a history of the project’s key events.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-2
Table 3-1: Project Sequence of Events
Date
Event
January 2002
Order PM traps from Engelhard & Johnson-Matthey.
February 2002
Research equipment and develop logistics to supply fuel. Filter manufacturers evaluate
equipment for retrofit.
March 2002
Obtain CARB operating permits for engine modifications.
April 2002
Initial opacity testing. Engelhard ships filters.
May 2002
Test opacity of POSS equipment. Engelhard ships remaining filters. Ship ULSD and CARB
fuel to WVU.
June 2002
Engelhard and Johnson-Matthey develop installation designs. Ship engine and filters to
WVU for dynamometer testing. Conclude fueling agreements.
July 2002
Stakeholders meet to evaluate backpressure estimates and installation designs. Shepherd
conducts backpressure dynamometer tests.
August 2002
WVU records scraper transient duty cycle. LACSD approves installation designs. OEM’s
specify bracket kit elements.
September 2002
POSS study site changed from Norco to Newport Coast. WVU records transient duty cycle
from LACSD scraper. Johnson-Matthey ships filters. Caterpillar reviews proposed
installation designs. LACSD begins fueling study vehicles with ULSD. Testing of fuel by
CARB begins.
October 2002
West Virginia University completes first round of dynamometer testing. Shepherd installs
three Johnson-Matthey filters and LACSD places vehicles in service. C. W. POSS
purchases dedicated fuel tank to supply study vehicles with ultra low sulfur diesel. Exhaust
opacity of retrofitted vehicles is tested.
November 2002
WVU issues results of the dynamometer testing. Shepherd installs remaining four
Johnson-Matthey filters. Engelhard internal procurement of parts delayed.
January 2003
CARB conducts first round of on-board PM removal efficiency testing. Incidents begin to be
recorded on vehicles. Engelhard ships kits but kits are incomplete. Remaining parts are
expedited or improvised.
February 2003
Shepherd completes installation of Engelhard traps on LACSD vehicles. Vehicle
modification permits renewed.
March 2003
LACSD staff discovers one trap element has shifted within the can. Shifted filter element is
sent to Donaldson for re-canning.
April 2003
A second Johnson-Matthey trap is removed for re-canning. Shepherd cleans filters on
POSS dozers to reduce backpressure.
May 2003
Re-canned Johnson-Matthey filter replaced on LACSD scraper rear engine. LACSD dozer
filter removed for re-canning. Engelhard filter on LACSD D9 dozer #6654 found fractured.
June 2003
Engelhard bracket welds fail on POSS scraper traps. Johnson-Matthey traps removed from
POSS dozers due to high backpressure. Flex pipe torn open on LACSD D9.
July 2003
Vehicle inspections reveal various problems with brackets and piping.
August 2003
September 2003
Remaining POSS study vehicles are fueled with CARB diesel instead of ULSD.
CARB conducts PM removal efficiency testing on LACSD vehicles retrofitted with
Engelhard filters.
October 2003
Shepherd ships Sukut’s engine to WVU for second round of Dynamometer testing.
December 2003
Shepherd ships traps to WVU. Data collection on field demonstration is concluded.
January 2004
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
WVU performs second round of dynamometer emission testing.
3-3
3.1.2
Summary of Hours Accumulated by Study Vehicles and Filters
Table 3-2 lists the study vehicles showing the filter installation or reinstallation date, the total
number of hours accrued by December 1, 2003, and the average hours per week that the vehicles
worked.
Both Poss and LACSD manually record hours of operation each day. These daily logs are used to
help schedule equipment maintenance and periodic servicing. Copies of daily log sheets were
provided to record and track equipment hours.
Table 3-2: Vehicles, Filter Types and Hours Accumulated
Opr
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
CSD
Poss
Poss
Poss
Poss
Poss
Poss
Equip Type
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
657E scraper
D9N dozer elec
D9N dozer elec
D9N dozer elec
D9N dozer mec
D9N dozer mech
651B scraper
651B scraper
651B scraper
824B dozer
825C dozer
834B dozer
Eq#
6604
6604
6605
6605
6606
6606
6607
6607
6608
6608
6655
6654
6653
6620
6621
605
625
628
407
415
409
Engine Type/
Installation
3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
3412 (Front)
3408 (Rear)
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
D346
D346
D346
D343
D3406
3408
Engine
year
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
2000
2000
1998
1996
2000
2002
2001
2001rb
2002
2002rb
Trap
DPF Type
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
Eng
Eng
None
None
None
None
JM
Eng
None
None
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
JM
Eng
JM
15X15 CRT (2)
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15
Control (CARB)
Control (CARB)
Control (ULSD)
Control (ULSD)
20X15 CRT
DPX 20X15
Control (ULSD)
Control (CARB)
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
DPX 20X15 (2)
15X15 CRT
DPX 15X15
15X15 CRT
Installation Date
(Reinstalled)
10/7/02
10/7/02
3/11/03
3/11/03
3/7/03
3/7/03
10/2/02
10/2/02
10/8/02
10/8/02
5/23/03
3/8/03
10/1/02
10/17/02
6/17/03
11/25/02
3/11/03
3/11/03
11/21/02
4/26/03
11/25/02
Trap Hours as Avg Hours
of 12/1/03
per week
1403
1179
1134
1134
1086
1086
1277
1277
1414
1414
877
(381 by 5/22)
2123
1847
556
(386 by 4/22)
856
699
(766 by 6/26)
977
(675 by 6/26)
23.4
23.4
29.6
29.6
28.3
28.3
21.0
21.0
23.6
23.6
32.0
31.0
27.5
33.0
28.6
18.2
25.6
20.9
25.2
36.4
17.7
[Note: For dozers #6621 and #6655, the original ceramic filter elements (traps) were damaged
early in the demonstration and JM provided all-new traps that had been “re-canned” with more
internal matting to prevent shifting. (see section 3.5.3 for additional details). As these were all-new
traps, their re-installation date is at the beginning of June. Also, the Engelhard trap on the D9 dozer
#6654 fractured and was removed in late May, but was not replaced.]
3.2
REVIEW OF FILTER DURABILITY INCIDENTS
The following is a discussion of incidents related to the durability and reliability of the particulate
traps themselves—but not the physical mounting or installations. A review of incidents related to
installation hardware, brackets and exhaust system modifications is presented in Section 3.3.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-4
3.2.1
657E Scrapers
657E Scraper #6604 – On October 7, 2002, Shepherd and LACSD technicians installed three JM
particulate filters, two 15X15 CRTs in parallel on the front fender to the right of the operator, and
one 20X15 CRT on the rear fender standing upright. WVU had used the latter filter for the
dynamometer testing.
Rear Engine. After about four months of operation, the rear filter began to show increasing
backpressure. The data logger files showed 5 to 6.6″ Hg.—well above the maximum recommended
level of 3″ Hg. The engine was evaluated and the fuel injectors replaced. JM reviewed the data and
indicated cleaning the filter would not be appropriate because hours of operation were low at that
point.. The rear engine filter continued to register elevated backpressure and a more thorough set
of diagnostics were ordered and completed March 12. Although nothing significant was found,
LACSD staff replaced the fuel pump.
On March 21, the file from the data logger showed a spike in the backpressure, although the driver
did not notice a loss of performance. On March 31, the JM project engineer opened up the filter
canister. The catalytic trap element was found to have slipped past the glass fiber mat used to
anchor it in place, (in industry parlance, the ceramic trap had “shifted”).
The ceramic trap element is secured inside the
can using a fibrous glass material such as 3M’s
“Interam” or “Unifrax.” During the
manufacturing process, the trap element is
mounted inside the shell cushioned by the fibrous
mat and then heated. The heating process causes
the mat to try to expand and this serves to lock
the trap element in place. If the trap element
shifts within the canister, the fibrous mat
becomes exposed. The fibers break and
accumulate both inside the channels, and on the
facing surface of the trap. These fibers then create
657E scraper #6604 rear engine trap element
a scaffold for soot and ash to avoid contact with
the catalytic surface and thus build up. Once the filter has shifted, backpressure can build up
rapidly.
CSD staff helped remove the trap and shipped it back to Donaldson for analysis. The LACSD staff
bolted the remaining filter assembly back together to enable the rig to run. Analysis by Donaldson
and JM showed that there was no damage to the ceramic trap element itself. They theorized that
the reason the trap had “shifted” was that insufficient matting material had been used to hold the
element in-place in the original design. This, in combination with the high vibration, resulted in the
filter brick coming loose. A decision was made to re-mount the original trap element into a new
canister using additional matting material to hold the filter in-place. The new “canned” 20 x15
CRT was reinstalled on the rear engine of scraper #6604 in late May 2003 the filter backpressure
remained acceptable for the remainder of the demonstration and there were no further incidents.
Front Engine. The two front filters performed very well through the entire demonstration, which
officially ended in November 2003. However, subsequent to the official end of the demonstration,
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-5
these traps “shifted” within their canisters in a fashion similar to that of the rear trap (in April
2004).
657E Scraper #6605 – On March 8, 2003, Shepherd and LACSD technicians completed the
retrofit of this vehicle with three Engelhard 20X15 DPX filters. These filters completed the
demonstration period with no backpressure incidents. The rear filter was removed December 12,
2003.
657E Scraper #6606 – On March 7, 2003, Shepherd and LACSD technicians finished installation
of three Engelhard 20X15 DPX filters on this vehicle. Two filters were placed in parallel on the
right front fender and the third next to the rear engine. The filters performed well throughout the
demonstration with no significant increase in backpressure.
3.2.2
651B Scrapers
651B Scraper #605 – On November 25, 2002, Shepherd retrofitted #605 with two parallel
mounted 20X15 CRTs (JM) on the cab roof.
651B scraper with Johnson-Matthey filter
On January 6, 2003, an examination of the data
logger files showed higher than normal
backpressure. The maximum backpressure
reading started at 4" of Hg, but it began to creep
upward in mid-December, 2002. When the
scraper returned to work on December 26,
backpressure rose as high as 9" Hg, but dropped
to 5" Hg the next day. On January 8, the engine
was run under a full load and only yielded 2 to 3″
Hg as shown both by the data logger and verified
with another diagnostic meter. Also, the POSS
mechanics checked the timing, the rack travel and
the compression ratio, all of which gave good
readings. Poss staff then changed the air filters.
POSS supervision suggested that the driver might be the cause of the lagging performance. On
January 14, 2003, the backpressure maximum still showed around 5" Hg. By this time, the filter
had logged 111 hours. The JM representative expressed concerns about both the backpressure and
the relatively lower exhaust temperature, about 350 C, and recommended installing insulation to
boost the temperature and improve catalytic conversion. By comparison, both of the JM retrofitted
Poss dozers, 824B #407 and 834 #409 operate at about 450 C. The rig began operating with
insulation on February 21 but average backpressure remained around 4.5″ Hg.
On March 28, the data logger file revealed a steady increase over the previous week. On April 22,
Shepherd staff removed the two trap elements for examination. The trap nearest the inlet had
shifted approximately 2.5 inches within its canister, and the trap nearest the outlet shifted 1.75
inches. The ceramic filter was intact, but had cuts in the monolith from opposing reinforcing struts
of the outlet manifold, and a bruise from the internal portion of the outlet pipe. Also, material from
the Interam mat was layered on the trap surface as well as being inside the trap channels. Samples
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-6
from the catalyst and oxide elements were collected for analysis. Shepherd removed the remaining
retrofit elements and reinstalled the muffler assembly. Also, one of the diesel oxidation catalyst
(DOC) elements also shifted slightly. It was 1/16” above the side of the flange on one side, and ¾”
above the other side.
A review of additional data logger data, as well
as an analysis of the damaged filter elements was
completed by JM engineers. JM concluded that
the high level of particulate matter emitted by the
older pre-chamber combustion engine (the
D346) was excessive and that resulted in filter
damage with high temperature exotherm. This
old equipment did not represent a good
application for their filters.
3.2.3
D9 Dozers
D9 Dozer #6621 – On October 18, 2002,
Shepherd technicians installed a single JM
20X15 CRT on the ROPs over the dozer cab.
651B Scraper, #605 Trap Elements
The D9 dozers with CRT filters exhibited a brown plume from the exhaust due to excess NO2
production by the filter system. The filter itself performed well for six months, but backpressure
began to build in May 2003. On May 22, LACSD staff removed the JM filter installed on the D9
dozer #6621. Examination revealed that both the ceramic trap and the diesel oxidation catalyst
(DOC) element shifted out of place. Debris from the shifting damaged the ceramic trap and a
chunk of the ceramic trap broke loose. The ceramic element was removed and replaced three
weeks later.
The replacement unit included additional structural
matting to help secure the element in place. The
newly designed trap performed well after that. The
reason for both these catalyst and filter element
shifting was attributed to improper ceramic brick
banding. The DOC element slipped about seven
inches on one side. Uneven slipping of the diesel
oxide catalyst element was also observed on one of
the JM filters from the C. W. Poss 651B scraper
#605 installation.
D9 Dozer #6654 – On February 27, 2003 retrofit of
this vehicle with a single 20X15 DPX Engelhard
filter was completed.
D9 dozer #6621 trap element
In Mid-May, the excessive exhaust smoke was observed coming from this unit. On May 22, 2003,
LACSD staff removed the filter outlet manifold. The trap inside the canning had shifted and was
partially broken up so that loose chunks were present. The filter did not appear to have cracked or
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-7
melted due to high temperatures, but rather due to vibration. As no soot was observed on the outlet
channels, Engelhard technicians believed the filter did not experience burn-through.
Hypotheses are that (1) the canning of the filter
element may have been too loose, or (2) the
backpressure force against the upstream face caused
fracturing as the downstream facing surface contacted
the restraining crossbars. Engelhard reported:
“…the outlet cone was removed from the centerbody and visual inspection revealed that the
substrate had become dislodged from the centerbody and allowed to ‘beat’ itself against the outlet
cross-members and the housing, resulting in
substrate attrition and fracture. The major demise
was due to mechanical stress. No sign was evident
that the substrate experienced excessive
D9 dozer #6654 trap element
temperatures, local hotspots and/or chemical
attack. The dislodging probably occurred from the combination of the substrate not being a
hundred percent mounted correctly to the center-body and the complete unit being exposed
to excessive vibration. These two factors created a rapid decline of the diesel particulate
filter's (DPF) structure and performance.”
D9 Dozer #6655 – On December 2, 2002, Shepherd technicians completed the second retrofit of a
D9. On January 24, the driver noted a loss of power. Investigation revealed a severely clogged fuel
filter. However, this PM filter also began to build backpressure in April 2003. On April 8th, 2003,
the driver of dozer #6655 reported that the warning light became lit, but not the alarm light. The
datalogger file also showed a gradual increase of backpressure. JM advised LACSD to inspect the
internal filter elements.
On April 10, 2003, LACSD discovered that the filter element had shifted out of place in a manner
similar to that found for the filter on the rear engine of 657E scraper #6604. The ceramic trap
element was broken during the removal process when it grazed a nearby pipe. LACSD sent the
filter to Donaldson for analysis. On May 23, 2003, LACSD installed a replacement filter. The
replacement trap performed well after reinstallation.
3.2.4
Dozers at Poss
824B Dozer #407 – On November 25, 2002, Shepherd technicians installed a single 15X15 CRT
on the cab roof which doubles as the ROPS. Although this vehicle was from 1971, the engine was
rebuilt in 2001, and the high exhaust temperatures suggested that the filter had a good chance of
working.
On February 10, the 824B dozer #407 backpressure was consistently between 2 and 2.5″ Hg. The
rig was not operated for 10 days due to scheduling and weather. On February 20, the rig operator
reported that the backpressure warning light was lit, and said that the rig seemed to be sluggish.
Data logger files showed the backpressure rose from 3″ up to 7″ Hg, and stayed at that level after
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-8
that. In both this case, and in the incident with 651B scraper #605, backpressure rose substantially
after the rig had sat idle for a couple of weeks.
On March 7, the data logger file was downloaded.
The readings indicated that the average backpressure
reading dropped from 7″ Hg as seen on February 24
to 5″ Hg on March 5. The rig had not been operated
during that time due to rain. On March 28, JM
removed the trap for inspection. JM found that a few
cells or channels had burned through. This burningthrough effect is due to carbon buildup followed by
local burning and melting of the ceramic substrate.
In this case, only a few cells were lost. JM reversed
the filter in its housing and reinstalled it. While JM
expected some exhaust would escape through the
damaged cells, most of the exhaust would still be
catalytically filtered as intended.
824B dozer with JM filter
After two months of increasing pressure, the trap was removed on June 26, 2003. Similar to the
651B scraper with a JM filter, it was concluded by JM that high particulate emissions from the
D343 pre-combustion chamber engine was excessive and not a good application for their filters.
834 Dozer #409 – The 15X15 CRT from JM was installed on November 25, 2002. This engine (a
3408 MUI), had been rebuilt in 2002. The trap performed well initially. In February, a check of
data logger files revealed that backpressure had been trending steadily higher since January 17.
The backpressure from this JM trap increased from 2.5″ to 4″ Hg with spikes above 5″ Hg.
On March 6, Poss maintenance reported that the backpressure warning light had come on. The data
logger file revealed that while the backpressure had started at 3″ Hg, the backpressure had spiked
up to 10″ Hg. After March 6, dozer #409 backpressure dropped down to 4 to 5″ Hg.
834 dozer with JM filter
Detail of JM brackets
On April 22, the filter was removed for inspection. The filter element may have moved slightly,
but the facing surface of the cells was still flush with the lip of the flange. Shepherd technicians
used compressed air to blow out the ash from the trap, then reassembled the filter and installed it.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-9
Cleaning the trap reduced the backpressure from around 7″ to 3″ Hg. In a few days, the
backpressure rose 1″ Hg. After that, backpressure gradually increased until it was back up to 6″ by
May 21, 2003.
On May 21, JM re-examined this filter and found that the accumulation of soot and uneven
oxidation of that soot had caused significant burn-through of the ceramic trap element. This trap
was also removed on June 26.
825C Dozer #415 – This vehicle was selected for retrofit with an Engelhard DPX 15 x 15 filter
when the previously selected vehicle was relocated. Although this dozer had been re-powered with
a 3406 EUI engine, the opacity was still approximately 20 percent. The filter performed well
throughout the demonstration.
825C dozer with Engelhard filter
3.2.5
825C dozer filter close-up
Summary of all Filter Durability-Related Incidents
Table 3-3 provides a high-level summary of all filter durability and reliability-related incidents for
the JM and Engelhard particulate filters. A more complete discussion of filter performance,
reliability and durability is presented in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 for the JM and Engelhard filters,
respectively.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-10
Table 3-3: Summary of Filter Durability-Related Incidents (as of 12/1/2003)
Johnson Matthey
Location Unit #
CSD
6604 R
" "
" "
Vehicle Type Engine EngYr.
657E scraper 3408
1996
" "
" "
" "
" "
Trap
20x15
" "
" "
6604 F
" "
" "
3412
1996
(2) 15x15
CSD
CSD
POSS
POSS
" "
POSS
6621
6655
605
407
" "
409
D9
D9
651E
824B
" "
834
dozer
dozer
scraper
dozer
" "
dozer
3408
3408
D346
D343
" "
3408
1996
1996
1973
1977
" "
2002*
20x15
20x15
(2) 20x15
15x15
" "
15x15
Unit #
6605
" "
6606
" "
6654
625
628
415
Vehicle
657E
" "
657E
" "
D9
651E
651E
825C
Hours Major Filter Durability Incidents
571 Trap element shfited
1397 Cannister gasket torn
No incidents (both traps shifted 5
1400
months after end of demo)
898 Trap and DOC elements shfited
386 Both Traps "shfited"
377 slight burn through of trap element
766 trap shifted; damages
* rebuilt
Location
CSD
" "
CSD
" "
CSD
POSS
POSS
POSS
Englehard
Type Engine EngYr.
Trap
scraper 3408
1996
20x15
" "
3412
1996
(2) 20x15
scraper 3408
1996
20x15
" "
3412
1996
(2) 20x15
dozer
3408
1996
20x15
scraper D346 1973
(2) 20x15
scraper D346 1976
(2) 20x15
dozer
3406 1983*
15x15
Hours
Major Filter Durability Incidents
No incidents
~1150
No incidents
No incidents
~1100
No incidents
381 Trap element shfited; fractured
No incidents
No incidents
No incidents
* rebuilt in 2002 with EUI
3.3
REVIEW OF TRAP INSTALLATION AND MOUNTING INCIDENTS
This section presents a detailed description of incidents that occurred on the test vehicles related to
the physical trap installation and mounting hardware and exhaust system configuration. Summary
observations and conclusions related to installation issues in presented in Section 5.3. Specific
installation incidents are discussed in the sections following.
3.3.1
Scraper Installation Incidents
657E Scraper #6604
On January 23, 2003, inspection revealed damage to the low-pressure line running along the hood
of the 657E scraper #6604. This line had been re-routed with the installation of the JM filters. The
low-pressure return line provides suction to the air inlet filter that removes heavy particulates
before they are caught by the air filter. The low-pressure line transports the particulates from the
inlet to the exhaust aspirator. This line was significantly crimped due to pinching by other vehicle
components.
The towing portion of the scraper can turn at a sharp 90 degree angle, and the towing yoke would
not normally impact the installed low-pressure line. This damage occurred when the scraper front
had turned in a sharp 90 degree angle, and was tilted up on the right side at the same time. The
combined angles enabled the pipes mounted to the yoke to pinch the low-pressure line.
On October 10, 2003, inspection revealed that exhaust was leaking in various locations on the rear
engine installation, and the exhaust elbow had disconnected due to vibration.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-11
657E Scraper #6605
On August 22nd, the front engine exhaust stack of
657E scraper #6605 was bent backwards about 6
inches from the vertical position when it contacted
the overhanging portion of a green waste grinding
rig. The damage did not affect the performance of
the installation, although the thermocouple was
disconnected during the incident (and subsequently
replaced).
657E Scraper #6606
No significant installation related incidents
657E scraper #6604
POSS 651B Scraper #605
On February 26, 2003, Poss staff noted that the flex pipe portion of the exhaust line had ripped
open during vehicle operation. The Poss mechanics at Newport obtained a replacement flex pipe
and welded it into place.
On February 20, the driver reported the insulation was giving off a burning smell that was
irritating. The insulation vender said that when the wrap was heated for the first time, some odor
might be noticed. The wraps consist of wire mesh, fiberglass matting and an exterior silicone
rubber impregnated cloth. On February 28, the driver again reported watery eyes and a scratchy
throat. Another driver was substituted, but after a few hours of operation, he also complained of
watering eyes, scratchy throat and headache. On March 10, inspection of the wrap revealed that
soot had blown through the area near the top 90-degree angle. The underside of the wrap was
coated with soot, indicating that exhaust was blowing through the length of the insulation. When
the engine was started, technicians discovered a leak at the bottom 90-degree elbow coming out of
the exhaust manifold. The shape of the leak and the wrap apparently directed exhaust vapors
toward the driver. The driver’s symptoms were due to the exposure to exhaust gas, and not to
burning of the insulation wrap. Poss staff repaired the 90-degree elbow resealing the exhaust flow.
POSS 651B Scrapers #625 and #628
On March 11, 2003, Shepherd technicians finished the duplicate installation of two 20X15 DPX
Engelhard traps mounted on the cab roof of both scrapers.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-12
651B scraper with Engelhard filter
Detail of 651B scraper Engelhard filter cradle
On June 19, 2003, inspection of the two 651B scraper retrofits revealed weld breaks in various
support struts.
Scraper #628 has two Engelhard filters mounted in tandem on the cab roof. Two half-circle bands
that are clamped together encircle and support the filter. The lower half circle is welded onto two
flat straps of steel that extend down to an angle iron. These flat straps hold and suspend the filter
above the cab.
While the straps of steel were still welded to the cab-mounted angle iron, all eight of the welds
supporting the lower half-circles were broken. It is unclear whether the failures were due to faulty
welding or due to excessive strain. It may be that once one weld failed, the others failed in rapid
succession. Shepherd technicians did not weld these contacts; the brackets came pre-welded from
an Engelhard subcontractor.
Lacking the support of the vertical straps, the filters were resting on the surface of the cab or on the
angle irons. The straps still had enough strength to keep the filters in place. As the filters had
dropped about an inch from their previous position, several other attachment points were broken or
bent.
651B scraper filter bracket with broken welds
651B scraper filter bracket with broken welds
Inspection of the duplicate installation on 651B scraper #625 revealed identical damage. A smoke
test of scraper #625 yielded zero percent opacity, indicated the traps were still functioning.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-13
Shepherd technicians replaced the steel straps with angle-iron type struts. These struts performed
well for the remainder of the study.
Identical filter brackets were installed for the filters on the 657E scrapers #6605 and #6606. None
of the straps failed on these vehicles during the study. The difference in survival is probably due to
the more difficult work cycle of the Poss scrapers.
3.3.2
Dozer Installation Incidents
CSD D9 Dozer #6654
Prior to March 20, the hose connecting the dust ejector low-pressure aspirator line had fallen off
twice from the dozer. When it fell off the third time, a tear in the main exhaust line was detected.
The tear was in the 90-degree elbow just downstream
from the weld to the main exhaust manifold. The
location of the tear indicated that the rupture was due
to the back-and-forth vibration stresses. The vertical
pipe experienced vibration relative to the static exhaust
manifold, and vibrated away from the weld joint. The
vertical pipe had a brace connecting to the nearby air
intake, but this may have acted as a fulcrum or pivot
for the vibration. Additional braces were installed to
prevent a recurrence.
On April 21, 2003, the seal clamp securing the exhaust
inlet to the trap had completely torn away from the
bolted portion of the clamp pinching the ends of the
steel band.
D9 dozer #6654 torn seal clamp
CSD D9 Dozer #6621
In early March, excessive vibration caused a seal clamp to fail on the exhaust stack outlet side of
the JM filters.
D9 dozer #6621 ring clamp break at bolt hole
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-14
On April 21, 2003, inspection of the dozer revealed an unusually large vibration in the lowpressure line suspended above the primary exhaust pipe leading to the filter. Closer examination
showed that the ring clamp had broken at the bolt hole where the bracket bends to go up toward the
low-pressure line.
On July 17, JM staff found the flex pipe had torn away from the seal clamp, presumably due to the
vibration. The flex pipe connects the exhaust piping to the filter inlet. Also, a supporting ring
clamp on the low-pressure return line was split open where the bar is pre-bent at a 90-degree angle.
In mid-October, the dozer was seen venting exhaust just in front of the flex pipe. Inspection
revealed that the seal clamp was not securely sealing the exhaust system with the result that when
the engine worked hard, exhaust could be seen blowing out through the gap. It was unclear when
the gap developed. Also, the copper tubing low pressure line was loose and a connector replaced.
CSD D9 Dozer #6655
On February 20, the dozer returned to the yard using a different route than normal. The exhaust
pipe, which is higher than the stock exhaust pipe, clipped the telephone lines leading to the
Mechanical Yard Supervisors Office.
In mid-April 2003 examination showed that the ring clamp supporting the low-pressure aspirator
line had broken at the bolt hole where the bracket bends to go up toward the low-pressure line.
(This is the same ring clamp that had failed on D9 dozer #6621.) Also, the steel band of the seal
clamp securing the inlet to the trap was completely torn away from the bolted portion pinching the
ends of the steel band. The mechanic replaced a similar seal on the D9 dozer #6654 exhaust.
When the D9s were retrofitted, LACSD staff relocated the air conditioners on the D9s from the
ROPS to the left fender to make room for the filters. In May, the air conditioner bolts on #6655
came loose.
D9 dozer #6655 ring clamp break in ring
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-15
On June 24, 2003, Shepherd sent a technician to repair a problem with the JM installation on the
LACSD D9 dozer #6655. The flex pipe connects the exhaust piping to the filter inlet. This flex
pipe was torn open on both ends, presumably due to vibration.
On July 17, 2003, JM staff noticed cracks developing in the dozer exhaust manifold. The filter
exhaust manifold is bolted to the filter can and supports the upright exhaust stack. The inertia of
the upright exhaust stack caused strain cracks in the nearby surface structure of the exhaust
manifold. Shepherd technicians welded these cracks closed and reinforced the surrounding metal.
During the month of September 2003, two additional incidents occurred: (1) the exhaust pipe was
reported loose and therefore the fitting was replaced; and (2) the copper tubing connector and
thermocouple were disconnected from the severe vibration—and were therefore replaced.
On October 14, 2003, observation of the dozer
revealed that the exhaust stack rising from the
filter outlet manifold was loose. Moreover, the
hose connecting the stack to the low pressure
return line was missing. Movement of the
stack probably caused the hose to fall off. The
stack had previously (July 17) caused strain
cracks to develop in the supporting exhaust
manifold connected to the end of the trap.
Welders had reinforced the metal around the
cracks. Along with this reinforcing, welders
added a large ring clamp around the stack and
this was bolted to a strut welded onto the
D9 dozer #6655 broken ring clamp on stack
manifold. A crack had developed in the ring
clamp and one fourth of the ring was missing. Enough of the ring was left to keep the stack in
place, but the stack was not secure.
D9 dozer #6655 with loose exhaust stack;
Aspirator indentations form Venturi
constriction
D9 dozer #6655 with leaking seal clamp
Poss Dozers #407, 409, and 415.
No significant installation incidents occurred on any dozers at Poss.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-16
3.3.3
Summary of Installation and Mounting related Incidents
Table 3-4 shows a summary of all incidents related to trap mounting and installations. As can be
seen from the data, the tracked dozers at LACSD presented the most server service environment
and resulted in the most incidents related to the mounting hardware. Rubber-tired dozers at Poss as
well as the rubber-tired scrapers at LACSD fared very well with little or no installation issues. The
scrapers at Poss also experience several incidents related to the installation hardware—possibly
because of the severe duty cycle these units experience. A more complete discussion of installation
incidents is presented in Section 5.3.
Table 3-4. Summary of Trap Installation and Mounting Incidents
Location
Unit #
Vehicle
Type
Trap
Manufacturer
LASCD
6604
657E
scraper
JM
LASCD
6605
657E
scraper
Engelhard
No Installation Incidents
LASCD
6606
657E
scraper
Engelhard
LASCD
6654
D9N
dozer
Engelhard
LASCD
6621
D9N
dozer
JM
LASCD
6655
D9N
dozer
JM
POSS
407
824B
dozer
JM
POSS
409
834
dozer
JM
POSS
415
825
dozer
Engelhard
POSS
605
651B
scraper
JM
POSS
625
651B
scraper
Engelhard
Fractures in mounting bracket support struts.
POSS
628
651B
scraper
Engelhard
3.4
3.4.1
Description
Low pressure return line crimped. Exhaust
leaks found on rear engine installation.
Exhaust elbow disconnected.
Leaks at exhaust elbows; broken seal and
flange clamps; low pressure line failures.
Flex line torn; seal clamp failures; numerous
exhaust leaks; copper tubing return line loose,
replaced connector.
Ring clamp failures; flex line torn; leaking seal
clamps; exhaust stack weld failures; copper
tubing return line loose/leaks.
Torn flex pipe; leaks at elbows, flange seal
OTHER INCIDENTS
Brown Exhaust Plume on JM LACSD Dozer Retrofits
Immediately after the first D9 dozers at LACSD were retrofitted with JM traps (units #6621 and
#6655, both configured with 20 x 15 CRTs), operators and technicians noted a brown plume
coming from the exhaust immediately after the engines would be put in high RPM (or under load)
following a half-hour or so of sitting idle. Drivers reported that the plume would be seen for a short
time (less than 1 minute). Initially, JM suggested that this may be part of the “de-greening” process
associated with new filters. However, the brown plume continued to be visible under the described
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-17
conditions throughout the demonstration. It was also noted that when the Poss vehicles were
retrofitted with JM filters, a similar brown plume was not seen.
JM suggested that the plume was due to the generation of excess NO2. The oxide catalyst portion
of these filters had been formulated with a high level of catalytic activity. The LACSD vehicles did
not produce enough PM to consume the NO2 generated by the filter. The Poss vehicles did produce
sufficient PM to consume the NO2 and thus did not generate the brown plume.
3.4.2
Misfueling at Poss
On August 12, Poss advised project management that the remaining study vehicles were being
fueled with CARB diesel instead of the ULSD. Logistical issues required Poss staff to relocate the
fuel tanks used to supply diesel to the equipment. By this time, all of the JM traps had been
removed from the Poss equipment. The use of this fuel was not expected to cause any permanent
damage to the Engelhard traps. However, the supply of ULSD could not be re-established, and the
subsequent data from these vehicles was deemed to be outside the scope of the study.
3.4.3
Water in Fuel
On January 22, 2003, the driver of the D9N dozer #6655 informed LACSD Operations of a loss of
power. Maintenance investigated and concluded that either a problem developed with the trap or
that the rig developed a defect in the power train or problem in the fuel system. The rig had not
required special maintenance during the previous two years.
On January 24, Shepherd mechanics said that the injectors were plugged up and carbonized. Clogs
were said to contain both dirt and algae. The fuelers reported that the fuel tank contained a
significant amount of water. The fuelers suggested that the presence of the water developed due to
condensation inside the fuel tank which is caused from the use of a non-vented fuel cap. Normally,
the fuel cap has vents but the fuel cap used did not, thus causing the condensation problem. The
fuelers said the dozer tank contained 11 inches of water, or about 5 gallons. The water was
removed from the tank and the fuel injectors were replaced by LACSD staff.
The other vehicles in the program were checked to see if the water had contaminated the ultra-low
sulfur fuel supply. No significant amounts of water were found in the other vehicles.
On February 27, 2003, maintenance operations again detected the presence of water contaminating
the fuel. Water was visible in the bowl of the fuel-water separator element. About a gallon of water
was removed from the tank. While a significant amount of rain had fallen recently, water was not
found in any other tanks.
Further analysis by Shepherd mechanics suggested that deterioration of O-rings on the fuel
injectors allowed coolant to flow into the fuel tank through the injectors. Coolant contacts the
injectors, but the O-rings keep it from entering the fuel system. If the O-rings fail, under normal
circumstances, the fuel pressure is sufficient to prevent water from entering the fuel system.
Shepherd said that under some conditions, this coolant flow does take place.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-18
3.4.4
“Varnish” on Engine Parts
On January 6, 2003, a Shepherd mechanic servicing the LACSD study vehicle 657E scraper #6605
found that the engine would not start. Further investigation indicated that the fuel plunger and
barrels appeared to be stuck due to the presence of a “varnish” or a thin gum deposit. The
technician said that he had similar previous experiences with rigs using low sulfur fuel use, and
that as this varnish develops, engine parts with close tolerances are affected.
LACSD staff also found the fuel pump for 657E scraper #6604 rear engine affected by this
varnish, and in need of reconditioning. On March 25, LACSD staff found the rack was frozen on
the rear engine of 657E scraper #6606. The varnish was again suspected as being responsible.
The Shepherd supervisor/engineer servicing LACSD said that this problem was seen almost
exclusively at the LACSD Puente Hills facility. Shepherd indicated that the problem pre-dated the
introduction of the ultra low sulfur fuel used for the current study, and has been seen in vehicles
running on CARB diesel. ULSD fuel has been used in a variety of studies without developing this
problem.
LACSD staff sent parts coated with varnish to BP-Arco laboratories for evaluation, but results to
date have been inconclusive. This problem appears to be restricted to LACSD vehicles, including
vehicles not using ULSD. It may be that the recycled oil used by LACSD inactivates the lubricity
packages added to the CARB and ULSD fuels.
3.5
SUMMARY OF ALL INCIDENTS BY VEHICLE
Tables 3-5 through 3-10 summarize all significant incidents related to the filter installations on
demonstration vehicles.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-19
Table 3-5: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E SCRAPERS
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
6604
657E Scraper
LACSD
Johnson-Matthey
10/7/2002
Approx. hours on
vehicle
0
1/24/2003
332
CARB on-board testing completing. More than 97 % PM
reduction efficiency found for both engines.
3/21/2003
547
Back pressure found to have risen sharply.
3/31/2003
571
Ceramic substrate found to have shifted within the trap
canister housing on the rear-engine filter. The ceramic
substrate itself (trap) was not damaged.
4/7/2003
571
Trap ceramic was removed for "re-canning".
5/7/2003
646
Rear engine trap element re-installed within a new canister.
10/10/2003
1175
Exhaust leaks found on rear engine; Exhaust elbow
disconnected due to vibration.
10/17/2003
1219
The rear engine trap was removed for final testing by WVU.
11/25/2003
1397
WVU discovers leak due to loss of gasket material
separating the 1st stage "catalyst" section from the 2nd
stage "trap" section. Gasket material replaced.
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
Date
Incident Description: Rear Engine
A single 20x15 CRT filter was installed for the rear engine
Incident Description: Front Engine
10/7/2002
0
12/23/2002
239
Two 15x15 CRT filters installed in parallel on the right
fender. Shepherd installs stop on the yoke to prevent the
driver from turning the cab so sharply that it contacts the
filters.
Low-pressure return line found partially crimped by yoke.
12/1/2003
1397
Filters functioning properly at the end of demonstration.
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
Date
3/7/2003
6605
657E Scraper
CSD
Engelhard
Approx. hours on
vehicle
0
8/22/2003
681
9/9/2003
742
12/1/2003
1117
Approx. hours on
vehicle
Date
3/7/2003
0
9/9/2003
742
12/1/2003
1117
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
A single DPX 20x15 filter installed on the rear engine.
Exhaust stack bent backwards 6 inches after contacting
another piece of equipment.
CARB on-board testing completing: PM reduction efficiency
measured above 90 %.
Filter functioning properly at the end of the demonstration.
Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the right
fender for the front engine.
CARB on-board testing completing: PM reduction efficiency
measured above 90 %.
3-20
Table 3-6: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E Scraper
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
6606
657E Scraper
CSD
Engelhard
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
3/7/2003
0
9/11/2003
759
reduction efficiency measured.
12/1/2003
1086
Filter functioning properly at end of demonstration.
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
3/7/2003
0
9/11/2003
759
12/1/2003
1086
A single DPX 20x15 filter installed.
Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the right fender
for the front engine.
Filters functioning properly at end of demonstration.
Table 3-7: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
6621
D9 Bulldozer
CSD
Johnson-Matthey
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
10/18/2002
0
A single 20x15 CRT filter installed on the ROPS above the
driver cab.
11/1/2002
44
Brown plume first observed from exhaust due to excess
NO2 production by filter.
3/1/2003
556
Seal clamp failure. Buildup of backpressure detected. Trap
element removed.
4/21/2003
757
Ring clamp suspending the low-pressure return found
broken at bolt hole.
5/22/2003
898
CSD staff remove rear manifold of filter and find that both
trap and oxide catalyst elements have shifted. Trap element
removed for recanning.
6/17/2003
1022
Recanned trap element reinstalled.
7/17/2003
1104
Flex pipe torn. Heavy duty seal clamp installed.
9/30/2003
1407
Copper tubing return line loose: replaced connector.
10/23/2003
1527
Leakage past seal clamp detected.
10/31/2003
1544
Rig out of service for unrelated repairs.
12/1/2003
1564
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Incident Description:
3-21
Table 3-8: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
6654
D9 Bulldozer
LACSD
Engelhard
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
2/27/2003
0
3/1/2003
-
3/20/2003
88
4/21/2003
265
Steel band of seal clamp found torn from bolted portion.
5/15/2003
343
Operator notices exhaust has become sooty again.
5/22/2003
381
Trap ceramic found to have shifted and fractured. Original
exhaust system re-installed.
A single DPX 20x15 filter installed on the ROPS above the
driver cab roof.
Flexible tubing connecting aspirator with low pressure return
line falls off twice in March.
Flexible tubing falls off a third time. LACSD staff detect tear
in 6" flex piping.
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
6655
D9 Bulldozer
CSD
Johnson-Matthey
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
12/2/2002
0
1/24/2003
101
Driver detects a loss of power due to plugged oil injectors.
1/28/2003
110
CARB on-board testing completing. More than 97% PM
2/20/2003
146
Exhaust stack clips telephone lines.
2/24/2003
158
Fuelers find 9 gallons of water in fuel tank.
A single 20x15 CRT filter installed on the ROPS above the
driver cab. Brown plume observed from exhaust due to
excess NO2 production by filter.
2/27/2003
167
Fuelers an addition gallon of water in fuel tank.
4/8/2003
384
Backpressure warning light lit.
4/10/2003
398
CSD staff remove rear manifold of filter and find trap has
shifted. Trap ceramic was removed for "re-canning", but is
cracked during the process of removal.
4/21/2003
405
Ring clamp suspending the low-pressure return found broken.
5/23/2003
517
Replacement ceramic trap element reinstalled.
6/24/2003
674
Shepherd replaces flex pipe that had torn open.
7/17/2003
765
Manifold that supports exhaust stack is found cracked.
9/10/2003
~900
Exhaust pipe fitting loose
9/30/2003
~1050
Copper tubing torn from exhaust due to vibration
10/14/2003
1144
Inspection reveals ring clamp bracing exhaust stack failed.
12/1/2003
1394
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-22
Table 3-9: Incident Summary: Poss 651 Scrapers
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
Date
11/25/2002
12/13/2002
605
651E Scraper
Poss-New port
Johnson-M atthey
Approx. hours on
vehicle
0
Two parallel 20x15 CRT filters m ounted to driver cab ROPS.
83
Backpressure increasing past 4 inches of Hg.
12/26/2002
90
Backpressure spike up to 9 inches of Hg., but drops to 5
inches of Hg the next day. Rig taken out of service for tire
repairs.
1/8/2003
101
Under full load, backpressure only reads 3 inches of Hg.
1/14/2003
111
Operator com plains of lagging perform ance. Backpressure
back up to 5 inches of Hg.
2/20/2003
264
Traps and exhaust lines insulated to im prove regeneration.
2/26/2003
271
Flex pipe portion of the exhaust line torn open.
2/28/2003
271
Operator com plains of odor and headaches.
3/10/2003
271
Inspection finds exhaust leak upstream of added piping.
3/12/2003
271
Mechanics tighten and seal exhaust m anifold.
3/28/2003
314
Backpressure is found to be rising steadily.
4/22/2003
386
Technicians find that both traps and the upstream oxide
catalysts have slipped within the cannisters. Traps rem oved.
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
Date
3/11/2003
6/19/2003
628
651E Scraper
Poss-Newport
Engelhard
Approx. hours on
vehicle
Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the driver cab
0
roof ROPS.
Strut support bars for filter brackets found to be detached
330
due to failed welds. Shepherd makes repairs on 6/21/03.
8/1/2003
456
Rig fueled with CARB diesel instead of ULSD.
11/5/2003
661
Filters removed prior to sale of vehicle.
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
625
651E Scraper
Poss-Newport
Engelhard
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
3/11/2003
0
5/28/2003
221
6/19/2003
324
Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the driver cab
roof ROPS.
Richard Zurbey of Engelhard conducts temperature and
backpressure testing.
Strut support bars for filter brackets found to be detached
due to failed welds. Shepherd makes repairs on 6/21/03.
8/1/2003
477
11/7/2003
771
Filters removed prior to sale of vehicle.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-23
Table 3-10: Incident Summary: Poss 824/825/834 Dozers
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
407
824B Bulldozer
Poss-Newport
Johnson-Matthey
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
11/25/2002
0
A single 15x15 CRT filter installed.
2/20/2003
270
Warning light lit and operator reports sluggish engine
response. Backpressure record shows a recent increase to
7 inches of Hg. Filter is cleaned. Sensor shows some
decrease in backpressure after cleaning.
3/7/2002
293
Engine checks out as meeting Caterpillar specifications.
3/28/2003
377
6/26/2003
766
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
409
834 Bulldozer
Poss-Newport
Johnson-Matthey
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
11/25/2002
0
Check of trap element reveals slight burn-through of trap
element. Trap element reinstalled in reverse direction.
Trap retrofit is removed after significant burnthrough and
slippage found.
A single 15x15 CRT filter installed on driver cab ROPS.
Backpressure begins to rise from 2.5 inches Hg to 4-5
inches of Hg.
High backpressure warning light lit. Backpressure spikes to
a high level, but it drops in subsequent days.
1/17/2003
113
3/6/2003
253
4/22/2003
405
Trap cleaned, and check of sensor shows decrease in
backpressure from 7 to 3 inches of Hg. However,
backpressure rises over the next couple of weeks.
5/14/2003
511
Backpressure found to be registering up to 6 inches of Hg.
5/21/2003
561
Check of trap shows significant burnthrough.
5/26/2003
561
Trap removed and muffler restored.
Unit #
Vehicle Type
Location
Filters
415
825C Bulldozer
Poss-Newport
Engelhard
Date
Approx. hours on
vehicle
4/26/2003
0
8/1/2003
452
12/1/2003
1184
Filter performing well at end of demo. Filter remains
installed.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
One DPX 15x15 filter installed in parallel on the cab roof
ROPS.
3-24
3.6
SUMMARY OF EXHAUST TEMPERATURE AND BACK PRESSURE DATA
As previously noted, exhaust backpressures and temperatures were recorded for all JM-equipped
vehicles throughout the demonstration. In May 2003, LACSD also began recording this data on
vehicles with Engelhard filters. ( Instances of increasing backpressure for specific pieces of
equipment are described in detail in Section 3.4.) Average monthly backpressure and temperature
readings are summarized for all equipment in Table 3-11 (backpressure) and Table 3-12
(temperature). To generate these tables, recorded backpressure and temperature data files were
manually/visually examined and representative values determined for each engine based on typical
duty cycles. The data roughly represent “average peak” values for the month.
Table 3-11: Average Exhaust Backpressures During Demonstration
Approximate Average Exhaust Pressure in inches of Hg (mercury)
Opr
Eq#
Equipment Type
CSD 6604F 657E scraper
CSD 6604R 657E scraper
CSD 6621 D9N dozer mec
CSD 6654 D9N dozer elec
CSD 6655 D9N dozer elec
Poss 407
824B dozer
Poss 409
834 dozer
Poss 605
651B scraper
Poss 415
825C dozer
Poss 625
651B scraper
Poss 628
651B scraper
"-" mean no data available
Trap
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
Eng
Eng
JM
Eng
JM
JM
JM
JM
Eng
Eng
Eng
Nov,
02
Dec,
02
Jan,
03
Feb,
03
Mar,
03
Apr,
03
May,
03
Jun,
03
Jul,
03
1
2
2
2
-
1
2
2
3
-
2
3
1
2
2
4
-
2
4
2
2
6
3
4
-
2
5
3
3
5
3
5
-
2
1
5
n.a.
3
4
5
-
2
1
8
n.a.
4
4
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
n.a. n.a.
5
5
-
Aug, Sep,
03
03
2
2
2
2
2
1
-
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
-
Oct,
03
Nov,
03
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
-
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
-
Table 3-12. Average Exhaust Temperatures During Demonstration
Approximate Average Exhaust Temperature in Degrees Centigrade
Opr
Eq#
Equipment Type
Trap
Nov, Dec,
02
02
Jan,
03
Feb,
03
Mar,
03
Apr, May, Jun,
03
03
03
JM
360 430 440 410
JM
500 530 410 390
Eng
Eng
Eng
Eng
CSD 6621 D9N dozer mec JM
460 470 480 520
CSD 6654 D9N dozer elec Eng
CSD 6655 D9N dozer elec JM
- (360) (360) (360) (400) 400
Poss 407
824B dozer
JM
440 430 490 490 450
Poss 409
834 dozer
JM
440 450 450 440 460 500
Poss 605
651B scraper
JM
300 320 330 370 400 400
Poss 415
825C dozer
Eng
Poss 625
651B scraper
Eng
Poss 628
651B scraper
Eng
Note: Parenthesis indicate data is questionable based on quality of recorded data
Jul,
03
Aug, Sep,
03
03
Oct, Nov,
03
03
410 430
400
440 440 450 470 470
(400) (400) (380) - (380)
(460) (460) (430) (420) (460) (440)
400
470
450
- (480) (520) (510)
360 400 370 380 390 370
-
The recorded backpressures for the larger 20X15 CRT JM traps at LACSD showed good
performance for a few months with a gradual build-up following slippage of the trap element.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-25
After being replaced or re-canned, JM traps yielded low backpressure for the rest of the
demonstration (vehicles 6604, 6621 and 6655).
The JM traps on the older Poss vehicles showed a build-up of backpressure as the traps fouled due
to the high rate of soot generation.
In some instances, the logs showed fairly rapid changes both up or down without a known reason
as to why the change occurred. Some sudden increases were seen after the engines had been idle
for several weeks (due to rain). These sudden increases may have been caused by a prolonged
period of idling before the vehicles were put back into service. The backpressure usually improved
over a few days after the sudden increase, but it rarely returned to the previous low level.
The LACSD vehicles retrofitted with Engelhard traps and data loggers showed no significant
increase in backpressure during the demonstration.
Data loggers recorded progressively higher temperatures corresponding to the higher
backpressures generated as the shifted traps became blocked. Temperature excursions may be seen
for the rear engine of the 657E scraper #6604, the D9 dozer #6621, and the POSS engines.
In May 2002, Engelhard collected data from the Poss 651B scraper #625 to evaluate temperature
and backpressure. The data generated graph shown in Figure 3-1.
30
25
Pressure in inches of water
20
15
10
Inches
of
Water
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Temperature Degrees Fahrenheit
Figure 3-1. Exhaust Backpressure versus Temperature for 651B Scraper #625
The curve illustrates the close relationship between exhaust temperature and backpressure. Up to
about 12 inches of water, temperature increases by about 75 degrees F for each inch of water.
Above 12 inches of water, the temperature increases at a much slower rate: about. 8.8 degrees F
for each additional inch of water.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-26
3.7
FUEL ECONOMY IMPACTS
The study addressed whether fuel economy is impacted when a trap is installed in place of a
muffler, and whether fuel consumption is different for CARB diesel versus ULSD.
LACSD employs a subcontractor to fuel the vehicles and they record the fuel consumption for
each vehicle. For the purpose of this study, LACSD staff also recorded the daily fuel consumption,
the total hours operated, and any notable maintenance.
Poss normally uses a wet-hose subcontractor to fuel its vehicles in the field. The wet-hose
technician normally records the fuel used by each vehicle. However, Poss provided one of its own
fueling trucks to supply ULSD to the study vehicles. This was necessary to assure that the study
vehicles received ULSD during the noon fuel top-off, as well as during fueling after hours. As the
Poss fuel truck was not fitted with a flow meter, Poss staff could not record the quantity of fuel
supplied to the vehicles—and no fuel economy data is available from Poss. Poss staff painted and
stenciled their study vehicles to denote them as receiving ULSD fuel only.
Beginning in March 2002, LACSD staff began tracking fuel consumption and hours of use for the
study vehicles in order to establish baseline data (with CARB fuel) before traps were installed.
Baseline fuel use tracking on CARB diesel continued for approximately five months through the
beginning of September. All test vehicles were converted to ULSD during September 2002. The
JM filters were installed on the test scrapers and dozers at LACSD soon after the ULSD fueling
capability was available, therefore baseline fuel economy data for the JM test vehicles on ULSD
(but before the traps were installed) is not available. However, it should be noted that two 657E
scrapers and two D9 dozers were designated as “control” vehicles. As such these units provided
fuel consumption data on vehicles without traps, but operating on ULSD as well as CARB fuel.
It should also be noted that installation of the Engelhard filters at LACSD was delayed
approximately four months due to unavailability of the units from the OEM. During this time, the
scrapers and dozers targeted for installation with Engelhard filters continued to operate on ULSD.
These units (two scrapers: #6605 and #6606, and one dozer: #6654) operated approximately fourand-a-half months on ULSD fuel and therefore provide additional baseline data on CARB versus
ULSD fuel economy. The results of the fuel economy data tracking effort are summarized in Table
3-13.
The fuel economy data shown in Table 3-13 do not appear to track with pre-demo hypotheses, nor
with conventional wisdom. Specifically, the fuel economy appears to have improved on all
vehicles after the particulate traps were installed. Also, for the D9 dozers, the fuel economy with
ULSD actually improved compared to CARB fuel, but CARB versus ULSD fuel efficiency was
essentially unchanged on 657E scrapers. It is also apparent that there are large differences in fuel
economy among like vehicles. For example, control scrapers 6608 and 6607 exhibited fuel
economy of 15.6 and 8.56 gallons per hour respectively while they were both operating on CARB
fuel—and, dozers 6621 and 6653 reported fuel economy of 5.7 and 10.6 gallons per hour
respectively before traps were installed and while still operating on CARB fuel.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-27
Table 3-13: Summary of Fuel Economy Data for Study Vehicles
Further evidence of the variability in fuel use data can be seen by analyzing data from one specific
vehicle. An example of such data is shown in Figure 3-2 for a D9 dozer:
Daily fuel economy Distribution
(CSD D9 Bulldozer #6655)
Gallons/Hour
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hours Used Per Day
Figure 3-2: Example of Variability in Fuel Consumption Data
Each data point in Figure 3-2 represents the fuel economy on a particular day. As shown, most
days, the unit operated 8 or 9 hours. The fuel use data however (gallons per hour) is extremely
scattered, ranging from 6 gal/hr to 16 gal/hour for the very same piece of equipment. The
explanation is likely attributable to several factors including major differences in duty cycles due
to weather condition, work load, type of soil, location of operation, operator peculiarities, and/or
equipment condition. Also, it would appear that some data were unreported or inaccurately
reported, leading to a biasing on the low side. Typical fuel consumption for scrapers is 15 to 20
gallons per hour and 10 to 14 gallons per hour for the D9 dozers.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-28
In our view, the data do not reliably show changes in fuel economy due to installation of PM
traps—or even due to a switch to ULSD. Any POSSIBLE change in real fuel economy due to the
addition of traps and/or the ULSD fuel is masked by normal variations associated with duty cycles,
operator influence, and, data collection reliability. In short, the quality of the data appears to be
comparatively weak—and no meaningful conclusions should be drawn from it.
Dynamometer Measured Fuel Consumption. During emissions testing of the Caterpillar 3408
engine at WVU, fuel consumption was also closely monitored. These tests are performed under
very controlled conditions and fuel economy is precisely measured. As a result, these tests provide
perhaps the most reliable estimates of the impact on fuel consumption of installing the particulate
traps. Fuel economy from the dynamometer emissions testing at WVU is shown in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14. Dynamometer Fuel Economy Test Data
(transient test cycle, WVU)
Test Phase Fuel Type
Trap
Fuel
consumption
(lb/bhp-hr)
Pre Demo
Pre Demo
Pre Demo
Pre Demo
Pre Demo
Pre Demo
CARB
EDC1
FT
ECD1
ECD1
FT
no
no
no
Englehard
JM
JM
0.41
0.41
0.437
0.406
0.402
0.412
Post Demo
Post Demo
Post Demo
ECD1
ECD1
ECD1
no
Englehard
JM
0.393
0.397
0.397
As shown in Table 3-14, fuel consumption test data with and without a particulate trap is nearly
identical of each other—and within the statistical margin of error associated with these tests. This
test data confirms that there is no discernable impact on fuel economy from installation of the
particulate filters.
3.8
OIL CONSUMPTION IMPACTS
LACSD staff recorded additions of oil to the equipment on the same sheets used to record the fuel
use and hours of operation. Poss mechanics were interviewed on a periodic basis to determine if
any of the rigs were consuming unusual amounts of oil. ( Poss however did not keep detailed oil
consumption data.) LACSD used a recycled SAE 15W40 sold by Yankovitch Company. Poss
supplied its study vehicles with Chevron DELO 400 motor oil.
Excessive oil consumption is often a sign of a worn engine that effectively allows oil to “blow by”
the piston rings and into the combustion chamber—and eventually out the exhaust. Oil and oil
combustion products have been shown to damage (or reduce) the effectiveness of catalyzed
particulate traps and reduce durability. In very rare instances, the oil can rapidly burn and
destructively heat the catalyst.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-29
As with the fuel economy data, the oil consumption data appears to be inconclusive. Table 3-15
shows a summary of the average oil consumption for the test vehicles throughout the study period.
Table 3-15: Summary of Oil Consumption Data for Study Vehicles
An examination of the data in Table 3-15 reveals no discernable trends. Average oil consumption
with traps installed appears to actually be less than with stock mufflers in nearly all cases. In any
event, there were no reported instances (either in the recorded data, or via interviews with
mechanics) of abnormally high oil usage on any of the engines under test. Neither LACSD nor
Poss vehicles exhibited significant changes in oil consumption following retrofit with PM traps
from either of the manufacturers.
3.9
OPERATOR INTERVIEWS
Project staff routinely polled both vehicle drivers and maintenance staff to assess any perceptible
change in vehicle performance, operation or other incidents.
Drivers did not report any noticeable change in vehicle performance after being retrofitted with
particulate traps. Drivers did remark positively regarding the loss of visible exhaust soot with the
traps—and that the elimination of the heavy smoke improved their overall work environment.
Drivers also found that vehicles with traps are slightly quieter than those without, with the
exception of the Poss 834 dozer that seemed to have some increased valve clatter.
Drivers reported alarm lights due to high backpressure in a timely manner, and sometimes noted a
loss of power at the same time. Project staff followed-up on these reports by performing
inspections and downloading the backpressure logs.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3-30
Drivers mainly reported problems with the retrofit when exhaust piping failures allowed exhaust to
escape through the various breaks and tears in the exhaust piping.
3.10 FUEL QUALITY SAMPLING DATA
During the demonstration, LACSD and Poss maintenance technicians sampled fuel from the study
vehicles. CARB analytical staff tested these samples for sulfur content to spot-check the proper
ULSD fueling of the study vehicles. The test frequency was reduced when the fueling was
routinely segregated. The fuel testing did not indicate accidental misfueling during the
demonstration phase.
The LACSD vehicles #6607 and #6620 fueled with BP’s CARB diesel show sulfur levels below
60 ppm of sulfur. BP does not normally sell CARB diesel with sulfur levels this low, but it does
occur. The Poss vehicles fueled with Phillips CARB fuel tested at 126 and 182 ppm sulfur. Fuel
sample data is summarized in Table 3-16
Vehicle Description
CSD 657E scraper #6604 JM
CSD 657E scraper #6606 Eng
CSD D9N dozer elec #6655 JM
CSD D9N dozer mec #6621 JM
CSD 657E scraper #6605 Eng
CSD D9N dozer elec #6654 Eng
CSD 657E scraper #6608 None
CSD D9N dozer elec #6653 None
CSD 657E scraper #6607 None
CSD D9N dozer mec #6620 None
Poss 651B scraper #605 JM
Poss 824B dozer #407 JM
Poss 834B dozer #409 JM
Poss 651B scraper #625 Eng
Poss 651B scraper #628 Eng
Poss 825C dozer #415 Eng
Poss CARB diesel
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
8
9
8
8
Diesel fuel sulfur content in parts per million (ppm)
7
6 11
10
11
7
6
7
6
10
7
7
7
6
10
7
6
6
5
10
8
7
6
7
6
13
8
7
7 16
6
10
7
7
6
6
10
7
7
6
7
6
10
25
46
18
51
7
8
7
5 4
5
28
8
7
5 5
5
7
7
5 5
5
5
5
126 126
3-31
10/17/03
6/4/03
4/8/03
3/28/03
2/27/03
2/10/03
1/27/03
1/10/03
1/3/03
11/25/02
11/21/02
11/1/02
10/18/02
Date that fuel was sampled-->
10/7/02
Table 3-16. Fuel Sample Results ( sulfur content ppm)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
182
183
182
183
182
4.
4.1
EMISSIONS TESTING
PRE-DEMONSTRATION TEST AT WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
In October 2002, JM 20 x 15 CRT and Engelhard DPX 20 x 15 particulate filters were tested at the
Engines and Emissions Research Laboratory (EERL) of West Virginia University (WVU). This
pre-demonstration emissions testing was used to establish the baseline emissions reduction
potential of the filters in their “as new” condition. These same filter units were then to be installed
in test vehicles, operated for one year or 1,400 hours, and then retested by WVU to determine any
changes in emission reduction effectiveness.
West Virginia University staff conducted the dynamometer testing on a Caterpillar 3408 diesel
engine fitted with the traps from the two OEMs. Sukut Construction provided the 3408 engine for
testing. The Caterpillar 3408 is a V-8 turbocharged diesel engine that is used to power the D9
dozer and is also used in the rear engine of a 657E scraper.
The dynamometer test measured PM, NOx, CO, and HC emission rates (in grams per brake
horsepower-hour) under both standard 8-mode (steady state) as well as transient test cycles. The
transient cycle was derived based on actual torque and speed data obtained by monitoring the duty
cycle of a 3408 engine on a 657E scraper during normal operating conditions. The transient cycle
was then reproduced on the engine dynamometer and the engine emissions analyzed and averaged.
It should be noted that most industry experts are in agreement that transient cycle emissions testing
is much more representative of real-world emissions. For purposes of comparing impacts on
emissions of various fuels and/or the particulate traps, we therefore focus on analyzing the results
of transient testing rather than the 8-mode tests.
The Engine Emissions Research Center (EERC) at WVU uses state-of-the-art engine test
equipment and operates heavy-duty engines over transient as well as steady state cycles. WVU
conducted emissions testing on a 500 horsepower absorbing/motoring DC dynamometer. Engine
exhaust is ducted to an 18" diameter total exhaust double dilution tunnel based on the critical flow
Venturi-constant volume sampler (CFV-CVS) concept. Microprocessor controlled heated probes
and sampling lines are used to draw gaseous samples into the gas analysis bench.
Continuous sampling and analysis of the exhaust stream is done by non-dispersive infrared
analyzers (NDIR) for carbon monoxide (low and high) and carbon dioxide. A wet
chemiluminescent analyze is used for oxides of nitrogen and heated flame ionization detector
(HFID) for total hydrocarbons. Total particulate matter is sampled on a 70-mm fluorocarbon
coated glass fiber filters for subsequent gravimetric analysis. (See Appendix C for a detailed report
from WVU on the emissions testing procedures, methodologies, equipment, and dynamometer test
results).
The testing analyzed the engine exhaust emissions using CARB diesel, a ULSD fuel (BP-Arco’s
Emission Control Diesel-1, normally referred to as ECD1) and gas-to-liquid (GTL) diesel fuel.
CARB diesel had the highest sulfur content among the three test fuels, with 0.0216 percent by
weight, followed by ECD1 with 0.0014 percent by weight, and Fischer-Tropsch with 0.0010
percent by weight. The data obtained after testing both baseline and retrofit versions was compiled
in terms of cycle-averaged emissions.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-1
Table 4-1 lists the summary findings from the pre-demonstration emissions testing at WVU.
Percentage reduction calculations use ECD1 transient test results as the “baseline” since only
ULSD will be available in the near future in California, and, the transient cycle is more
representative of a real-world duty cycle.
Table 4-1: Pre-Demo Dynamometer Emissions Test Results
(Overall Weighted Avg. Emissions for Steady State and Transient Duty Cycle tests)
PM
CARB Baseline
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
GTL - JM (CRT)
0.19
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.34
0.006
0.005
0.004
% Reduction in
Transient Test
emissions versus
ECD1 Baseline
5.9%
0%
98.2%
98.5%
98.8%
NOX
CARB Baseline
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
GTL - JM (CRT)
7.43
7.18
9.21
8.24
8.78
6.98
6.25
7.00
6.33
6.54
-11.7%
0.0%
-12.0%
-1.3%
-4.6%
HC
CARB Baseline
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
GTL - JM (CRT)
CO
0.21
0.29
0.02
0.06
0.02
1.99
2.08
0.07
0.73
0.04
27.6%
0.0%
93.1%
79.3%
93.1%
CARB Baseline
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
GTL - JM (CRT)
1.14
0.23
0.11
0.14
0.09
1.26
1.23
0.16
0.07
0.14
Emission
Type
Fuel Type
8-mode
Weighted
Average
(g/bhp-hr)
Transient
Cycle
(g/bhp-hr)
4.3%
0.0%
96.6%
64.9%
98.1%
Highlights of the findings are as follows:

Both the JM and Engelhard filters achieved a 98 percent reduction in PM emissions over the
baseline engine (without a trap).
PM emissions with GTL (Fisher-Tropsch) fuel (combined with a particulate trap) were similar
to ECD1.
ULSD fuel decreased NOx emissions about 11 percent compared to standard CARB fuel.
While both particulate filters affected NOx emissions, these changes were probably not
meaningful, and due as much to measurement variability as to the performance of the filters
The particulate filters also reduced hydrocarbon emissions by about 80 percent (Engelhard)
and 93 percent (JM)
Both filters substantially reduced carbon monoxide emissions; the JM filter was slightly more
effective in reducing carbon monoxide.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-2
4.2
RESULTS OF POST-DEMONSTRATION TESTING
Pre-demonstration emissions testing took place in October 2002, and post-demonstration testing
occurred in January 2004. During that time, the engine used for the first round of testing was sent
back to California to serve as a stand-by replacement engine for Sukut Construction.
Unfortunately, this engine was needed to replace an engine that failed, and Sukut provided a
different rebuilt engine for the second round of testing. (This engine was also a Cat 3408 and
identical to the first engine.) WVU conducted a new set of baseline emissions tests on this second
engine to enable a comparison with the first round of testing. As noted, JM and Engelhard each
designated a 20X15 filter for dynamometer testing in accordance with the use of the 3408 test
engine. After the pre-demo testing, WVU sent the two filters to Los Angeles. LACSD staff
mounted the JM and Engelhard filters on the 657E scraper #6604 rear engine and on the D9 dozer
#6654, respectively.
The JM filter on the rear 657E scraper rear engine was the first filter that “shifted” during early
testing, but the ceramic trap was re-canned and reinstalled on the scraper. On October 17, LACSD
staff removed this filter for shipment back to WVU. The filter had accrued a total of 1,160 hours of
service by the time it was retested by WVU. When WVU installed this filter, the engineers found
that it had lost a portion of a seal between the diesel oxide catalyst and the trap portions of the unit.
WVU improvised a replacement seal and reinstalled the filter.
The Engelhard filter that WVU initially tested became fractured after 381 hours of service on the
D9 dozer. The filter mounted to the 657E scraper #6606 rear engine was selected to substitute for
the second round of WVU dynamometer testing. When LACSD staff removed this filter on
December 3, it had accrued 1,086 hours of service.
At the request of SCAQMD, WVU included an analysis of both the NOx and NO in the post-demo
testing. The amount of NO2 can be inferred by the difference. NO2 is of interest since it is a
particularly strong oxidizing and has adverse health effects on the respiratory system. NO2 is also
responsible for the brownish gas that is sometimes associated with diesel exhaust.
Highlights of the findings from the post-demo emission testing are as follows:

Both the JM and the Engelhard filters reduced PM emissions by more than 90 percent in both
the transient and the 8-mode duty cycles—thus showing little or no degradation in
effectiveness from the beginning to end of the demonstration period. The PM emission
reduction efficiency of the filters appears to nearly as high at the end of one year of operations
as when the filters where new.

Total NOx emissions showed little impact with the particulate filters. However, NO2 increased
by about 400 percent and 300 percent for the JM and Engelhard filters, respectively, versus
baseline (without a trap) emissions. This is likely what caused the reddish-brown smoke from
some of the installations as detailed in Chapter 3. Further, these tests show NO2 emission rates
to have a very strong dependence on the duty cycle with NO2 emissions being comparatively
high at lower power levels (versus an engine without a trap). This was particularly true for the
JM filter.

The testing also showed reductions of 99 percent or more for hydrocarbon emissions—and
about 90 percent reduction of CO.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-3
Table 4-2 lists a summary of results from the post-demo testing. For convenience, Table 4-3 shows
a comparison of emission testing results from before and after the in-use demonstration testing.
Table 4-2: Post-Demo Dynamometer Emissions Test Results
Emission
Type
PM
NOX
NO
NO2 (by
difference)
HC
CO
Fuel Type
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
ECD1 Baseline
EDC1- JM (CRT)
EDC1- Eng (DPX)
8-mode
Weighted
Average
(g/bhp-hr)
0.17
0.01
0.01
6.52
6.14
5.96
4.06
3.66
3.19
2.46
2.48
2.77
0.12
0.00
0.00
1.31
0.24
0.03
Transient
Cycle
(g/bhp-hr)
0.33
0.00
0.03
6.40
6.05
5.96
5.99
3.98
4.40
0.41
2.07
1.56
0.30
0.00
0.00
2.10
0.16
0.21
% Reduction
versus ECD1
Baseline
(Transient Test)
0%
> 99%
90.9%
0.0%
5.5%
6.9%
0.0%
33.6%
26.5%
0.0%
-404.9%
-280.5%
0%
> 99%
> 99%
0%
92.4%
90.0%
Table 4-3: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Demo Dynamometer Emission Testing
Baseline (no filter)
Johnson Matthey
PM
Englehard
Johnson Matthey
NOX
Englehard
Johnson Matthey
NO
Englehard
NO2
Johnson Matthey
difference
Englehard
Johnson Matthey
HC
Englehard
Johnson Matthey
Englehard
CO
Emission Test Results (grams/ hp-hr)
(all tests completed with ECD1 fuel)
8-mode
Transient
pre-demo
post demo
pre-demo
post demo
0.20
0.17
0.34
0.33
0.01
0.01
0.006
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.03
7.18
6.52
6.25
6.40
9.21
6.14
7.00
6.05
8.24
5.96
6.33
5.96
(1)
4.06
(1)
5.99
(1)
3.66
(1)
3.98
(1)
3.19
(1)
4.40
(1)
2.46
(1)
0.40
(1)
2.48
(1)
2.07
(1)
2.77
(1)
1.56
0.23
0.12
0.29
0.30
0.11
0
0.021
0.001
0.14
0
0.06
0.001
1.23
1.31
2.10
2.10
0.16
0.24
0.066
0.16
0.07
0.03
0.72
0.21
(1) NOx speciation provided for post demo testing only
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-4
4.3
4.3.1
IN-USE EMISSION TESTING
Opacity Testing Results
Project staff (including technicians from the host-sites) conducted opacity testing on study vehicles
using a Wager Model 6500 Smoke Meter. The meter consists of a light source and light detector
that measures the absorbance of light in the exhaust stream. The determination of opacity follows
the protocol given in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1667 Recommended Practice,
“Snap Acceleration Smoke Test Procedure for Heavy-Duty Powered Vehicles.”
If the vehicle has not been running, the driver allows the engine to idle for 30 minutes prior to the
test. Once the engine has warmed up, the tester prepares the opacity meter. The opacity meter
electronics run through a baseline determination for each test. The light source and detector are
separate elements 8″ apart. The tester positions the sensor and light source between 4″ and 6″
above the lip of the exhaust and on either side of the exhaust stream. With the vehicle in neutral,
the driver performs a “snap acceleration.” As the exhaust exits, the soot in the exhaust absorbs the
light from the instrument light source. The procedure is repeated three times and the average of the
three tests is reported.
Opacity testing was conducted on test vehicles shortly after the project began, before and after
retrofit, and in conjunction with the CARB on-board testing. Additional tests were taken
periodically throughout the demonstration, depending on the availability of the vehicles.
Existing regulations specify that on-road diesels produce no more that 40 percent opacity, but do
not regulate the off-road diesel engines in the same manner.
Initial tests of 651B scrapers with D346 pre-chamber injection usually generated 99 percent plus
opacity. (see Table 4-4 for detailed opacity testing results). This amount of soot was deemed to be
potentially harmful to the soot filters. When vehicles selected for study registered high opacity
values, the POSS mechanics completed engine adjustments including resetting timing, rack travel
(fuel delivery), replacement of air and fuel filters, etc.. These steps generally helped to reduce
opacity to approximately 60 to 70 percent in most cases. A few of the 1996 657E scrapers also
generated opacity values above 40 percent, and these were also adjusted (see Table 4-5).
Leaning the fuel-to-air ratio (by reducing maximum fuel flow via adjustment of the rack position)
reduces the opacity reading to between 50 percent and 80 percent on the older machines. On the
newer post 1995 engines, opacity could go from 80 percent to below 15 percent by making such
adjustments. Mechanics expressed concern that when the ratio is too low, the driver is unable to
get as much power from the engine. Mechanics were careful to avoid reducing the ratio so much
that the study vehicles exhibited these problems.
The LACSD D9 dozer engines equipped with electronic ignition could generate opacity values
below 5 percent. The Poss 825C with a repowered 3406 EUI engine yielded about 20 percent
opacity. Engines on both the 824B (Cat D343) and 834 (Cat 3408) bulldozers had been rebuilt
within the last three years and also exhibited relatively low opacity readings (without a trap) of
21.2 and 11.7 percent respectively. Installation of particulate traps drastically reduced opacity
readings with most values below 5 percent.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-5
Static opacity testing may not be a reliable indicator of soot production under load. For example,
although Poss dozers 824B and 834 (both MUI engines) exhibited relatively modest opacity
readings, the two JM traps were still overwhelmed by the soot generated and experienced burnthrough. JM engineers had hoped that under heavy loads, these engines would generate
temperatures high enough to support adequate regeneration of the very high engine-out particulate
emissions. As discussed earlier however, the traps on these engines were unable to adequately
regenerate causing backpressures to rise. The traps were eventually removed at 560 hours (dozer
834) and 766 hours (dozer 824B). It should be noted that a check of the opacity from these two
dozers after the demonstration (fitted with DOCs only) yielded maximum opacity values. This
change in opacity may have been due to a change in the fuel-air ratio (initiated by Poss
mechanics).
Table 4-4: Exhaust Opacity Readings Summary, Part 1 of 2
Opr
Equip Type
Eq#
Engine
Eng Year
CSD 657E scraper
6604 3412 F
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6604 3408 R
1996
D9N bulldozer
CSD mechanical
ignition
6621 3408
1996
D9 bulldozer
CSD electronic
ignition
6655 3408
Poss 824B bulldozer
407
D343
2001
Poss 834 bulldozer
409
3408
1971
Trap
DPF Type
Date Trap
Installed
JM
JM
15X15 CRT (2)
15X15 CRT (2)
10/7/02
10/7/02
JM
20X15 CRT
10/7/02
JM
JM
JM
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT
10/18/02
6/17/03
JM
JM
20X15 CRT
20X15 CRT
5/23/03
5/23/03
JM
JM
JM
JM
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
15" DOC
11/21/02
11/21/02
11/21/02
6/28/03
JM
JM
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
15X15 CRT
11/25/02
11/25/02
11/25/02
20X15 CRT (2)
11/25/02
2000
JM
Poss 651B scraper
605
D346
1973
JM
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-6
Opacity Test
Date
4/12/02
9/11/02
11/12/02
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
10/10/03
10/10/03
4/9/02
9/11/02
10/24/02
11/12/02
10/10/03
4/9/02
9/11/02
10/17/02
5/27/03
10/10/03
11/19/02
1/28/03
4/22/03
6/21/03
9/20/03
11/19/02
11/27/03
1/28/03
6/21/03
10/10/03
5/15/02
9/14/02
11/1/02
11/1/02
1/28/03
4/23/03
Opacity
Reading
40.5
28.1
0.0
0.0
39.8
44.7
0.0
22.0
45.1
45.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
4.9
3.3
0.0
0.3
21.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
98.5
11.7
5.6
4.4
6.7
99.9
90.6
79.1
85.5
65.7
4.6
63.4
Comment
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Removed for WVU
Filtered, 1st Trap
Filtered, 1st Trap
Filtered, 2nd install
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
DOC only
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
DOC only
Fuel Adjusted
Filtered
No filter
Table 4-5. Exhaust Opacity Readings Summary, Part 2 of 2
Opr
Equip Type
Eq#
Engine
year
Engine
CSD 657E scraper
6605 3412 F
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6605 3408 R
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6606 3412 F
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6606 3408 R
1996
D9N bulldozer
CSD electronic
ignition
6654 3408
2000
Poss 651B scraper
625
D346
2002
Poss 651B scraper
628
D346
2001
D3406
2002
CSD 657E scraper
6607 3412 F
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6607 3408 R
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6608 3412 F
1996
CSD 657E scraper
6608 3408 R
1996
825C bulldozer
415
Poss electronic
ignition
Trap
Date Trap
Installed
DPF Type
Eng
Eng
Eng
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
Eng
Eng
Eng
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15
Eng
Eng
Eng
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03
Eng
Eng
DPX 20X15
DPX 20X15
3/7/03
3/7/03
Eng
DPX 20X15
3/8/03
Eng
Eng
Eng
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
Eng
Eng
3/11/03
3/11/03
3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03
4/26/03
Eng DPX 15X15
4/26/03
Eng DPX 15X15
None Control (CARB) 10/2/02
None Control (ULSD) 10/8/02
CSD
D9N bulldozer
mechanical
6620 3408
1989
CSD
D9N bulldozer
elec
6653 3408
2000
629
-
Poss 651B scraper
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
D346
None Control (ULSD) -
4-7
Opacity Test
Date
4/12/02
9/11/02
10/24/02
3/28/03
6/17/03
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
10/24/02
3/24/03
6/18/03
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
3/24/03
6/18/03
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
3/24/03
10/10/03
4/9/02
9/11/02
10/17/02
3/24/03
10/10/03
3/6/03
3/6/03
4/23/03
6/18/03
9/20/03
3/6/03
3/6/03
4/23/03
6/18/03
4/26/03
6/21/03
9/20/03
4/12/02
9/10/02
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/10/02
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
10/10/03
4/12/02
9/11/02
9/11/02
10/10/03
4/9/02
9/11/02
10/24/02
10/10/03
4/9/02
9/11/02
10/17/02
10/10/03
9/14/02
11/1/02
Opacity
Reading
77.6
73.4
59.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.3
55.1
38.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
11.4
15.4
0.0
0.5
1.7
58.7
23.5
0.0
2.0
4.0
12.9
8.0
0.0
14.7
99
65
0.2
0.0
0.0
99
65
0.0
0.2
20.2
0.0
0.0
44.6
26.6
17.4
31.3
34.2
32.7
28.0
19.7
42.2
86.7
80.8
12.0
58.9
55.9
46.8
65.0
68.0
1.4
4.5
5.1
7.0
99.4
56.5
Comment
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
Filtered
No filter
Estimated
Est after fuel adjusted
Estimated
Est after fuel adjusted
Filtered
Filtered
After fuel adjusted
4.3.2
On-Board Testing Results by CARB
CARB completed a series of in-service emissions tests throughout the demonstration period on
selected vehicles retrofitted with traps . These tests were completed using CARB’s portable onboard emissions testing system. (See Appendix A for a more detailed description of CARB Trap
Efficiency Verifier-TEV.)
Essentially, the CARB system measures PM in the exhaust stream both before and after the filter
to determine PM reduction efficiency on a percentage basis. Heated lines conduct the exhaust gas
(both before and after the filter) at measured rates to pre-weighed filters. After a controlled period
of engine operation, the filters are reweighed. The amount of particulate collected before and after
the trap was then correlated to the recorded engine duty cycle.
The results given in Table 4-6 are in line with the findings from the WVU dynamometer testing.
Beginning January 24, 2003, CARB staff performed on-board testing of three JM filters while the
vehicles were in operation. During the week of September 8, 2003, CARB staff tested the
Engelhard filters retrofitted on the LACSD 657E scrapers.
Table 4-6: CARB On-Board Particulate Matter Removal Efficiency
Vehicle
Engine
LACSD 657E Scraper #6604 Johnson-Matthey
LACSD D9N dozer #6655 Johnson-Matthey
LACSD 657E Scraper #6605 Engelhard
LACSD 657E Scraper #6606 Engelhard
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
4-8
PM Removal
Efficiency
Hours of
filter use
Front
97.4 %, 98.7 %
313
Rear
97.5 %
313
-
98.9 %
102
Front
94.3 %
739
Rear
94.2 %
739
Front
91.1 %
757
Rear
91.3
757
5.
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section summarizes observations and conclusions regarding: the performance and durability
of the traps on heavy duty construction equipment: trap installation and mounting issues; impacts
of the traps on overall vehicle and engine performance; emissions testing results; and, provides a
summary of likely life cycle costs for retrofitting traps on typical types of construction
equipment and the expected emissions reduction benefits. The subsections include:

Performance and durability of Johnson-Matthey traps
Performance and durability of Engelhard traps
Installation issues
Vehicle and engine impacts of retrofitting construction equipment with particulate traps
Cost-benefit analyses
Conclusions
5.1
PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF JOHNSON-MATTHEY TRAPS
The JM traps showed excellent PM emission reductions both on the dynamometer tests at WVU,
and verified by in-use testing with CARB’s Trap Efficiency Verifier system. Both pre- and postdemonstration testing of the JM filter showed greater than a 97 percent reduction in PM
emissions. CARB testing yielded almost identical reduction numbers.
The JM filters however experienced significant internal structural problems during the
demonstration period with nearly all of the ceramic filter elements “shifting” within the canister
housing. Table 5-1 summarizes major JM filter-related incidents.
Table 5-1: Summary of Filter Incidents for Johnson-Matthey
Location
CSD
" "
Unit #
6604
" "
Vehicle Type Engine EngYr.
657E scraper 3408
1996
" "
" "
" "
" "
Trap
20x15
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
3412
1996
(2) 15x15
CSD
CSD
POSS
POSS
" "
POSS
6621
6655
605
407
" "
409
D9
D9
651E
824B
" "
834
dozer
dozer
scraper
dozer
" "
dozer
3408
3408
D346
D343
" "
3408
1996
1996
1973
1977
" "
2002*
20x15
20x15
(2) 20x15
15x15
" "
15x15
Hours
Major Filter Incidents
1397 Cannister gasket torn
No incidents (both traps shifted 5
??
months after end of demo)
898 Trap and DOC elements shfited
386 Both Traps "shfited"
377 slight burn through of trap element
* rebuilt
Investigation by the can manufacturer, Donaldson Co., showed that incorrect filter “banding”
(fixing ceramic filter element inside the CRT can), combined with high vibrations in the
application resulted in this problem. JM and Donaldson replaced or re-canned the problem
systems. Following this, the JM traps yielded low and stable backpressure and successfully
completed the rest of the demonstration.
Poss Installations. The JM traps on the older Poss vehicles showed a build-up of backpressure
as the traps “fouled” due to the high PM emission rates. In some instances the logs showed fairly
rapid changes both up or down without a known reason as to why the change occurred. Some
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-1
sudden increases were noted after the equipment had been inactive for several weeks (due to
work load, scheduling, or other logistics issues). These sudden increases may have been caused
by a prolonged period of idling before the vehicles were returned to service. The backpressure
usually improved over a few days after the sudden increase, but it rarely returned to the previous
low level.
When the backpressure rose on two Poss dozers and 651 scraper, JM arranged to clean these
traps. When these were opened up, some burn-through of the ceramic element was found.
Additionally, “shifting” incidents occurred on both the smaller (15x15) and larger (20x15) filters.
The increasing backpressures of the POSS retrofits led JM staff to conclude that these older
engines produced more PM emission than the trap could oxidize. Thus, these older engines were
deemed a problematic application of JM’s current CRT filter technology. During demonstration
vehicle selection, JM expressed concern that the traps would not be able to oxidize the higher
quantity of particulate coming from the pre-1980 engines
LACSD Installations. JM installations at LACSD initially performed well, but within 400 to
500 hours of operation, the backpressure began to rise on all units equipped with the larger
(20x15 CRT) filters. Inspection of the vehicles showed the ceramic trap elements had shifted at
400 hours on dozer #6655, at 570 hours on scraper #6604, and at 900 hours on dozer #6621. The
smaller traps on the 3412 scraper engine did not fail (shift) during the demonstration period. In
some cases, the oxidation catalyst mounted upstream on the JM traps also shifted slightly.
The ceramic trap element is secured inside the can using a fibrous glass material such as 3M’s
“Interam” or “Unifrax.” The trap element is mounted inside the shell cushioned by the fibrous
mat and then heated. The heating process causes the mat to try to expand and this serves to lock
the trap element in place. In several instances, the trap element shifted out of place. When this
happens, the fibrous mat becomes exposed. The fibers break and accumulate both inside the
channels, and on the facing surface of the trap. These fibers then create a scaffold for soot and
ash to avoid contact with the catalytic surface and thus build up. In addition, the shifted filter
element can also restrict exhaust flow out of the can. Thus, once the filter has shifted,
backpressure can build up rapidly.
For this program, it appears that Donaldson Co. used improper matting for such large catalyst
and filter elements. However, JM and Donaldson arranged for all the large LACSD filters to be
re-canned with the correct matting. After being replaced or re-canned JM traps yielded low
backpressure for the rest of the demonstration (Vehicles 6604R, 6621 and 6655). [Note:
approximately five months after the official end of the demonstration in December 2003, the
small 15x15 CRTs also were discovered to have “shifted” within their canister housings, and, the
previously re-canned/improved larger units also failed. Again, Donaldson and JM reviewed the
shifted filters and after thorough analysis, re-canned and reinstalled at their own expense, all the
filters at LACSD in November 2004.]
5.2
PERFORMANCE AND DURABILITY OF ENGELHARD TRAPS
The Engelhard filters demonstrated highly effective PM emission reductions. Pre-demonstration
testing of the Engelhard filter showed greater than 97 percent reduction in PM emissions,
whereas post-demo testing yielded about 91 percent PM emission reduction efficiency. In-field
CARB testing yielded very similar emission reduction numbers.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-2
The Engelhard filters also showed excellent durability and reliability throughout the
demonstration period with only a single “failure” on a D9 dozer. Table 5-2 summarizes filter
related incidents for Engelhard.
Table 5-2: Summary of Filter Incidents for Engelhard
Location
CSD
" "
CSD
" "
CSD
POSS
POSS
POSS
Unit #
6605
" "
6606
" "
6654
625
628
415
Vehicle
657E
" "
657E
" "
D9
651E
651E
825C
Type Engine EngYr.
scraper 3408
1996
" "
3412
1996
scraper 3408
1996
" "
3412
1996
dozer
3408
1996
scraper D346 1973
scraper D346 1976
dozer
3406 1983*
Trap
20x15
(2) 20x15
20x15
(2) 20x15
20x15
(2) 20x15
(2) 20x15
15x15
Hours
381
Major Filter Incidents
No incidents
No incidents
No incidents
No incidents
Trap element shfited; fractured
No incidents
No incidents
No incidents
* rebuilt in 2002 with EUI
Both the LACSD and Poss vehicles retrofitted with Engelhard traps showed no
significant/sustained increases in backpressure during the demonstration. The Engelhard traps
were not monitored with data loggers for most of the demonstration, but were equipped with
high pressure warning lights. There were no instances of high pressure warnings on the
Engelhard installations.
The Engelhard trap failure on the D9 track style dozer is notable. The ceramic element was held
in place by a retaining strut or brace. Engelhard concluded that this damage was due a
combination of backpressure forcing the trap element against the brace and the severe vibration
coming from the vehicle treads. Also, Engelhard suggested that the “canning process” on this
unit may have been faulty (poor quality control).
5.3
INSTALLATION AND MOUNTING ISSUES
Equipment owners expressed concern regarding the survivability of the traps on construction
equipment that undergoes severe vibrations and physical shocks. OEM trap engineers (as well as
Shepherd who assisted with installation) had limited time to design brackets and other mounting
hardware once the overall installation configuration was approved. Moreover, these designs were
essentially a first pass at how to retrofit these vehicles.
As reviewed in detail in Section 3.6, the filter installations for both JM and Engelhard
experienced numerous incidents at both Poss and LACSD. Incidents included: loose and failed
seal rings and band clamps; torn flex pipes, fractured brackets; loose or broken support brackets;
and cracked and broken welds.
On many of the installations, the exhaust piping used seal clamps and band clamps to connect
one pipe to another—including flex tubing to solid tubing. The seal clamps generally worked as
intended, but in a few instances, the clamp broke at the 90° bend near the bolt hole. In these
cases, the failure was forgiving in that the shape of the clamp was sufficient to keep the piping in
place until repaired.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-3
In general, the D9 tracked dozer with its steel tread provided the most severe mechanical duty
cycle for the trap installation. When the treads beat against solid ground, severe vibrations are
generated within the vehicle structure—thus stressing all welded and bolted components. This
vibration is continuous even on soft ground, although less severe. The other study vehicles that
are supported by large rubber tires are better able to absorb physical shocks. (Dozers at Poss as
well as all scrapers, both the 657E and 651B, are rubber-tired). While scrapers are rubber-tired,
in the process of scraping up soil the blade encounters rocks and sandstone that can generate
significant jarring and vibration in the vehicle structure. Also, scrapers will sometimes require
the assistance of dozers to push from behind. Such arrangements induce additional (and large)
transient impacts in both machines. A summary of installation incidents is presented in Table 5-3
Table 5-3. Summary of Trap Installation and Mounting Incidents
Location
Unit #
Vehicle
Type
Trap
Manufacturer
LASCD
6604
657E
scraper
JM
LASCD
6605
657E
scraper
Engelhard
LASCD
6606
657E
scraper
Engelhard
LASCD
6654
D9N
dozer
Engelhard
LASCD
6621
D9N
dozer
JM
LASCD
6655
D9N
dozer
JM
POSS
407
824B
dozer
JM
POSS
409
834
dozer
JM
POSS
415
825
dozer
Engelhard
POSS
605
651B
scraper
JM
POSS
625
651B
scraper
Engelhard
POSS
628
651B
scraper
Engelhard
Description
Low pressure return line crimped. Exhaust
leaks found on rear engine installation.
Exhaust elbow disconnected.
Leaks at exhaust elbows; broken seal and
flange clamps; low pressure line failures.
Flex line torn; seal clamp failures; numerous
exhaust leaks; copper tubing return line loose,
replaced connector.
Ring clamp failures; flex line torn; leaking seal
clamps; exhaust stack weld failures; copper
tubing return line loose/leaks.
Torn flex pipe; leaks at elbows, flange seal
As can be seen from the data, the tracked dozers at LACSD suffered the most incidents related to
the mounting hardware. Rubber-tired dozers at Poss as well as the rubber-tired scrapers at
LACSD on the other hand faired quite well with little or no installation issues. The scrapers at
Poss also experience several incidents related to the installation hardware—possibly because of
the severe duty cycle these units experience.
The designs from both filter manufacturers specified liberal use of flex pipes for connecting the
inlet and outlet of the traps to the existing exhaust systems, with the expectation that the flex ribs
would help absorb the vibration. However, in several instances the flex pipes tore at locations
very near the point at which they connected (using seal clamps) to solid (fixed) tubing.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-4
The exhaust pipe clamps also proved to be problematic. Some of the thin sheet-metal-type seal
clamps tore, while the ring clamps would crack and split apart. In one case, while the seal clamp
was very strong, it was too stiff to provide a good seal for the exhaust. In some places band
clamps worked while in others, the metal is readily torn. Ring clamps also failed at the bolt hole
or where the metal is pre-bent. Flexible piping failures occurred on several rigs. The flexibility is
desirable, but too much flexing results in tearing.
Also, retrofit piping was generally not routed in a compact, efficient fashion as it might be in a
production situation. Rather, the piping tended to be routed in simple “right angle”
configurations that stuck out from the vehicle, (see various installation pictures in Chapter 2).
Such designs tended to exacerbate vibration.
It should be noted that while several of the test vehicles experienced significant and repeated
problems with the trap installations, nearly half of the installations experience little or no issues
including the scrapers at LACSD and the dozers at Poss. Given that installation designs were
developed under tight time constraints and executed in the field, and the fact that several of the
installations experience no failures, it is reasonable to assume that designs could likely be
improved and that commercially viable installation hardware and mounting systems could be
developed for these heavy-duty construction equipment applications.
5.4
VEHICLE AND ENGINE IMPACTS OF RETROFITTING WITH PARTICULATE TRAPS
Fuel Economy. The installation of particulate traps had no discernable impacts on fuel
consumption
Oil Consumption. The installation of particulate traps had no discernable impacts on oil
consumption
Exhaust Opacity. The particulate traps essentially eliminated all visible smoke on retrofitted
vehicles.
Maintenance. The filter manufacturers recommend cleaning the trap elements periodically.
Cleaning requires that the trap be removed and the accumulated ash blown out using compressed
air. Alternately, the trap is reversed and the ash is blown out while the trap is used. Some trap
manufacturers have developed devices to make the cleaning task easier.
For both Poss and LACSD, the level of engine maintenance did not increase for vehicles
retrofitted with PM traps in comparison to previous levels of maintenance, or to control vehicles.
Engine tune-ups, oil change frequency, air and fuel filter servicing all remained the same.
Engine Power. Vehicle operators were routinely asked to provide their own assessments of
equipment performance. Drivers did not report a noticeable change in performance for vehicles
retrofitted with properly functioning particulate traps. In those instances where a build-up of
backpressure developed, drivers reported some loss of power. The loss of power only became
perceptible to the drivers when the backpressure exceeded 5″ Hg. Filter installations that
developed backpressure above 5″ were either malfunctioning or acknowledged by the trap
manufacturers to be deficient for that service. Filters that performed for the duration of the
demonstration did not generate backpressures above 4″ Hg.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-5
Performance of Low-Line Aspirators. Low-line aspirators are an exhaust pipe that has dimples or
welded inserts to function like a nozzle. A small diameter pipe is inserted in the zone just after
the throat. The nozzle generates a low-pressure zone using the Venturi effect. Equipment
suppliers do not normally stock exhaust aspirators because they are usually integrated into the
OEM mufflers. Caterpillar and Donaldson manufacture exhaust aspirators. Shepherd staff
located these parts for this study. Shepherd technicians plumbed the low-line aspirators into the
exhaust stream and the low-line coming from the air filter. These aspirators successfully
functioned as designed. Maintenance staff did not observe a need to increase air filter
replacement frequency.
5.5
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES
The particulate traps offered for use on this demonstration by JM and Engelhard were prototype
units fabricated specifically for this project. Likewise, the mounting brackets, piping, and
modified exhaust system designs were also unique to this project and required substantial “ad
hoc” engineering and reconfiguration. As noted in the text, the installation designs (trap
mounting locations and exhaust system routing) do not likely represent commercially viable
configurations. As such, developing estimates of actual (long term) production costs for
particulate traps and installation designs suitable for these construction equipment is very
difficult. Nevertheless, costs for the traps themselves as well as installation, maintenance and
other operating costs have been estimated for selected construction equipment types in an effort
to develop a very rough, high-level understanding of the total cost impacts on construction
equipment operators of installing and operating particulate traps. We have also estimated the
particulate emissions that would be reduced if traps were installed so that a rough “cost per ton”
of emissions reduced estimate can be developed. It should be understood that this cost/benefit
analyses is speculative since data was obtained from this single demonstration program—and the
equipment tested did not represent commercially available products.
To facilitate the analysis, we have selected the following two representative types of equipment:

657E scraper: (with a Caterpillar 3412 front engine and 3408 rear engine)
D9N dozer: (with a single Caterpillar 3408 engine)
The 657E and D9 represent newer model construction equipment (in contrast to the much older
651B scrappers and 824 series dozers), and therefore more likely to be candidates for retrofit.
Also, these units are typical of the scrapers and dozers used at several large construction sites in
California. Additionally, reliable emissions factors for the 3408 engine are available from the
testing done by WVU under this contract, thereby enhancing the reliability of the emission
inventory and emission reduction estimates needed to determine overall cost effectiveness. (The
emission factors for the 3412 engine can be reliably estimated since the overall engine design
and vintage is very similar to the 3408.)
5.5.1
Capital Costs
Particulate Traps: There were two principal sizes of traps used in this demonstration:

A 20″ diameter by 15″ length (20″ x 15″), and
A 15″ diameter by 15″ length (15″ x 15″)
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-6
The Caterpillar 3412 requires two of the larger filters while the 3408 uses a single large filter.
(The smaller filters are used principally by JM on selected dozer applications). The pricing for
both sizes of traps was very similar from both manufacturers at about $19,000 for the larger filter
and $12,000 for the smaller filter. However, these filters were uniquely fabricated for this Study
using largely manual prototype processes rather than production assembly techniques. The
quantity of filters used also was quite small and did not allow for any economies of scale.
Discussions with filter OEMs suggest that the cost of the filters is likely to be reduced by 30 to
40 percent when a commercial market develops that would allow for actual production quantities
of filters to be assembled. For purposes of this economic analyses, the cost of the large 20″ x 15″
filter is therefore estimated at $13,000, or about two-thirds of current pricing.
Installation. As noted, installation of these experimental units was quite difficult due to required
on-site fabrication of various brackets and piping—and is not representative of long-term costs.
For example, direct installation costs (from Shepherd alone) averaged about $5,500 for the 657E
scrapers and about $3,000 for the D9N dozers. This excludes the in-kind contribution costs of
LACSD maintenance staff that assisted with the installations. It also excludes that cost of the
brackets and hardware that were supplied by the trap OEMs.
Discussions with trap OEMs, host site operators and other stakeholders suggest that in the long
run (and if the installation designs were developed and refined for commercial application), the
brackets, special piping, clamps and other mounting hardware might average about $1000 for a
single trap, and about $1500 for a two-trap configuration (as is needed for the 3412). It should be
noted that mounting designs to mitigate vibration could be more costly, but are unknown at this
point. Further, stakeholders suggested that the average install time might be about 12 hours for 2
technicians for a single trap, and 16 hours for a double-trap configuration. Again, the actual
installation time will depend on the final outcome of the production installation designs,
therefore, the figures mentioned are rough estimates for the purposes of this analyses.
Finally, it will be important to equip all installations with some type of backpressure warning
system. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume $500 for an exhaust pressure warning
system including installation. Based on the above estimates, the total capital cost for trap
purchase and installation for the 657E and D9N dozer are estimated in Table 5-4.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-7
Table 5-4. Particulate Trap Capital Costs
(filters, brackets and installation)
657E Scraper
3412 engine
description
units
cost/unit
total
Filters
2
$13,000
$26,000
mounting hardware
1
$1,500
$1,500
Installation, two
technicians (labor hrs)
12
$100
$2,400
pressure warning sys.
1
$500
$500
Total 3412
3408 Engine
Filters
1
$13,000
$30,400
$13,000
mounting hardware
1
$1,000
$1,000
Installation, two
technicians (labor hrs)
8
$100
$1,600
pressure warning sys.
1
$500
$500
Total 3408
$16,100
Total 657E Capital Cost
$46,500
D9N Dozer
$16,100
Total D9N Capital Cost (same as '3408' engine)
Annualized capital costs can be estimated based on the anticipated useful life of the filters, and
the purchaser’s cost of capital. The useful life of the filters is unknown at this juncture since
application on equipment of this size and duty cycle is somewhat unique, (although traps have
been successfully applied to numerous other types of construction equipment). Experience with
traps on other types of construction equipment, as well as experience gained from on-road
applications, suggests that a 5 to 10 year useful life is a reasonable estimate. The actual useful
life will greatly depend on how well the engine is maintained and serviced, and on the duty cycle
and operating environment of a particular type of construction equipment. For purposes of this
analysis only, we will assume a 7-year useful life and an 8 percent cost of capital. Based on these
estimates, the annualized capital cost is shown in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Annualized Capital Costs for Particulate Traps
Trap life Expectancy
Cost of Capital Annualized Capital Cost
657 E
7
8%
($8,931)
D9N
7
8%
($3,092)
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-8
5.5.2
Operating Costs
The operating costs associated with particulate traps will consist of incremental fuel use, oil
consumption, engine maintenance, and of course direct maintenance on the trap itself. As noted
in Sections 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12, this field demonstration of particulate traps at LACSD and Poss
did not show any appreciable or identifiable impact on fuel consumption, oil consumption,
and/or engine maintenance requirements. The dynamometer testing at WVU (completed under
very controlled conditions) also showed no impacts of the traps on fuel economy. The
incremental fuel, oil, and/or engine maintenance costs are therefore assumed to have no
discernable impact.
However, throughout the demonstration the particulate traps themselves required significant
maintenance and repair. Traps experienced loose and failed seal rings and band clamps, torn flex
pipes, fractured brackets, loose or broken support brackets, and other installation-related
maintenance. Several of the filters experienced internal failures of the ceramic element support
system (i.e., the filter elements “shifted” within the canisters) and required subsequent
replacement. (Detailed descriptions of failures are presented in Chapter 3.) It is assumed
however, for purposes of this “long-term” cost impact analysis that such design, quality control
and installation issues would be addressed and corrected for commercial, production
applications. Indeed, if such design and installation deficiencies were not addressed, a viable
commercial market would not develop.
The remaining (long-term) operating cost associated with the traps would therefore be periodic
cleaning and servicing. Based on experience from other particulate trap demonstrations, and on
discussions with trap OEMs, it is reasonable to assume that the traps would need to be cleaned
once each year. Such cleaning may be required less frequently, and some fleets will only clean
traps if and when a high back pressure warning light comes on. However, for evaluation
purposes, we will assume a cleaning and adjustment process will be required once a year.
Cleaning entails removal of the trap from the canister and “reverse flowing” the unit using
compressed air. This process is conservatively estimated to take 2 technicians about 8 hours to
complete on a single trap installation (3408) and 12 hours to complete on dual-trap installation
(3412). This would include removal, cleaning, and reassembly of the trap. At a labor cost of
$75/hour, this would amount to $1,200 for a 3408 and $1,800 for a 3412.
In addition to direct cleaning, it is further assumed that at least some periodic inspections,
readjustments, and/or minor repairs would be required of the trap installations even if the
previous described installation issues were addressed. For planning purposes, we have allotted an
additional 8 hours and 12 hours on a 3408 and 3412 engine respectively for miscellaneous
inspection and repair. At $75/hour labor, this amounts to $600 and $900 for the 3408 and 3412
engines respectively. Based on the above assumptions, the annual operating costs for the
particulate traps on the 657E and D9N dozer are summarized in Table 5-6.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-9
Table 5-6. Annual Operating Costs for Particulate Trap Installations
Annual Operating Cost Element
3408
3412
Incremental Fuel and Oil Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
Incremental Engine Maintenance
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual trap cleaning
$1,200
$1,800
$3,000
$1,200
Annual inspection and maintenance
$600
$900
$1,500
$600
$4,500
$1,800
657E Total D9N Total
Total annual incremental operating cost
Total Annualized Costs. The total (long-term) annualized capital plus operating costs for
particulate trap installations on the 657E scraper and D9N dozers are estimated in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7. Total Annualized Capital plus Operating Costs for Trap Installations
657E
5.5.3
D9N
Annualized Capital Cost
$8,931
$3,092
Operating costs
Total
$4,500
$13,431
$1,800
$4,892
Emission Reduction Benefits
The reduction in annual emission inventories resulting from the particulate trap installation can
be estimated based on:

Results from the dynamometer emissions testing completed by WVU on a Caterpillar 3408
engine with and without a trap. (These results are presented in section 4.2). Essentially, we
have assumed a 90 percent reduction in particulate emissions over the life of the traps.
Further, we assume that the emission factors for a 3412 engine are the same (on a gram per
brake-horsepower basis) as for the 3408 engine. We have not assumed an explicit
deterioration factor. Rather, the 90 percent reduction represents the average throughout the
life of the traps. Testing at WVU showed that the initial particulate emission reduction
potential for the traps is even higher—closer to 98 percent.

Estimated annual run time for the various types of equipment. (We have assumed 1,600
annual hours of operation for both the 657E and the D9N. This estimate is probably a bit low
for operations at LACSD, but a bit high for normal commercial operations, e.g., Poss.)

Estimated average load factor (or duty cycle) on the engines, combined with the maximum
power rating in order to determine annual horsepower-hours for each engine and each type
of equipment. We have assumed a load factor of 55 and 60 percent for the 3408 and 3412
engines respectively as utilized in the D9N and 657E equipment. These load factors are
consistent with industry averages for similar types of heavy duty construction equipment.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-10
Based on the above assumptions, the annual emissions (and emission reductions with filters) for
the 657E scraper and D9N dozer are presented in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8. Annual Emission Inventory Reduction from Trap Installation
PM
NOX
HC
CO
Engine-out Emission Factors
(grams/bhp-hour)
0.34
6.25
0.29
2.08
Percentage reduction With Trap Installed
Emission Factors With Trap Installed
90%
0%
80%
80%
0.03
400
550
55%
60%
1600
352,000
528,000
352,000
880,000
6.25
400
550
55%
60%
1600
352,000
528,000
352,000
880,000
0.06
400
550
55%
60%
1600
352,000
528,000
352,000
880,000
0.42
400
550
55%
60%
1600
352,000
528,000
352,000
880,000
264
26
237
4850
4850
0
225
45
180
1614
323
1291
660
66
594
12125
12125
0
563
113
450
4035
807
3228
(grams/bhp-hour)
Maximum Engine horsepower (3408)
Maximum Engine horsepower (3412)
Load factor (3408)
Laod factor (3412)
Average annual equipment run time (hours)
Total annual horse-power hours (3408)
Total annual horse-power hours (3412)
Total annual horse-power hours D9N
Total annual horse-power hours 657E
Annual D9N Emissions (pounds)
Engine-out
With Particulate trap installed
Annual pounds reduced
Annual 657E Emissions (pounds)
Engine-out
With Particulate trap installed
Annual pounds reduced
5.5.4
Dollars per Ton of Emissions Reduced
The cost effectiveness of particulate filters as an emissions reduction control strategy for heavy
construction equipment can be calculated based on estimated annualized costs divided by the
annual pounds of PM reduced in order to arrive at a “dollars per pound of emissions reduced”
estimate. This calculation is shown for the 657E and D9N retrofits in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9. Cost Effectiveness of Particulate Trap Retrofits
Total Annualized Capital + Operating Cost
Pounds of PM reduced
Cost per pound of emissions reduced
Cost per ton of emissions reduced
657E
$13,431
594
$23
$45,250
D9N
$4,892
237
$21
$41,205
At $20 to $25 per pound of PM reduced, the particulate trap control strategy for heavy-duty
construction equipment is cost effective. For example, based on CARB’s August 2003 report,
Proposed Diesel PM Control Measures for On-road HD residential and commercial Solid Waste
Collection Vehicles, the calculated cost effectiveness of Best Available Control Technology
(specifically, diesel particulate filters), was approximately $32 per pound of PM reduced. It
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-11
should be recognized that HC and CO emissions are also reduced (by about 80 percent) with this
control strategy.
5.6
CONCLUSIONS
The prototype traps from one manufacturer (Engelhard) completed the demonstration with only a
single failure, (out of a total of 12 traps). Preliminary analysis by Engelhard suggested that the
failure was due to poor assembly quality rather than any inherent design issues—however, a full
failure mode investigation was not completed. The traps from Engelhard, as of this writing,
continue to operate successfully at LACSD, and several traps have accumulated over 2,000 hours
of operation. The Engelhard traps installed on the older, high PM emitting (pre-combustion
chamber) engines at Poss also performed very well with no instances of high backpressure and/or
failed filter elements. These results would indicate that duty cycles (and overall operating
conditions) of high horsepower diesel construction equipment are indeed sufficient to support
frequent regeneration—and therefore represent a reasonable application for retrofit with selfregenerating style particulate filters. It should be noted however, that the Engelhard traps on the
older Poss equipment were removed after about 1,000 hours, thus the durability/longevity of the
filters used in this older, high-PM emitting equipment is unknown.
The JM filters initially experienced failures associated with the ceramic trap elements “slipping”
inside the canister housings. Donaldson Company was contracted by JM to band the filter
element to the canister. The underestimation of vibration in these equipment coupled with design
flaws in the banding procedure caused these filter failures. However, the banding procedure was
re-evaluated and re-designed, and many of the filters elements were re-canned in new housings.
At the time of this report, the new filters with the new design have accumulated about 1,000
hours, and the original filters that have been re-canned have accumulated over 2,500 hours
without any failures.
While the basic particulate trap technology was validated for use on heavy-duty diesel
construction equipment, significant challenges still remain regarding installation and mounting
of the very large particulate filters on these types of equipment. The problem is exacerbated by
the fact that the higher horsepower engines (Caterpillar 3412s and D346s) require two of the
largest commercially available filters to adequately handle the high volume exhaust flow from
these engines. The installation designs and mounting configurations for this demonstration
proved to not be commercially viable. Exhaust leaks, safety issues (arising from loose filters as
well as mounting on the ROPS), operator visibility concerns, and other servicing issues need to
be addressed before such installations could be considered for widespread application on heavyduty construction equipment..
Various issues remain for future engineering and demonstration projects:
1. Where and how should PM filters be mounted? Factors that affect filter placement include:
impact on visual field, impact on access to other equipment, relocation of existing equipment
(height profile to go under bridges when transported on trailer), potential damage to retrofit
equipment from the total range of motion, heat damage to nearby electrical equipment,
obstruction of cooling if placed under the hood, modification of fiberglass hoods, contact
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-12
with other vehicles or equipment, and driver safety during a rollover. The retrofit installation
configuration will also affect the cost to clean filters and repair the brackets.
2. Retrofitted vehicles will need backpressure monitoring, and the drivers trained to understand
the meaning of these devices.
Although filter brackets and the mounting strategy need additional engineering, low-maintenance
brackets should be feasible. Bracket problems are likely to be greatly reduced if the filters can be
mounted closer to the original exhaust manifold, and, various “soft-mount” technologies are
utilized.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5-13
Glossary
BP
CARB
CE-CERT
CFR
CIAQC
CO
CRT
CRTdm
CSD
DEP
DPF
DPM
ECD1
ECM
EERL
EGR
FT
GTL
HC
Hg
HOCEV
Interam
LACSD
NEMA
OEM
OSHA
PAH
PC
PM
PNA
POSS
ppm
ROPS
SCR
SFC
British Petroleum (formerly ARCO), Also BP-Arco
California Air Resources Board
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
Code of Federal Regulations
Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Carbon Monoxide
Continuous Regenerating Trap
Type of data logger used to record exhaust pressure and temperature during
demonstration
County Sanitation District
Diesel Emission Particulate
Diesel Particulate Filter
Diesel Particulate Matter
Emission Control Diesel-1
Electronic Control Module
Engines and Emissions Research Laboratory
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Fischer-Tropsch diesel, also known as GTL
Gas-to-liquid diesel fuel, also known as Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel.
Hydrocarbons
Mercury, inches, 1” Hg =13.596 inches of water
Heavy-duty Off-road Construction Equipment Vehicles
Fiberglass-like mat material used to stabilize ceramic element within canister
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Original Equipment Manufacturer (Filter manufacturers Johnson-Matthey and
Engelhard)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Personal (portable) computer
Particulate Matter
Polynucleated (Polycyclic) Aromatics
C. W. POSS Construction, study equipment owner
parts per million
Roll-Over Protection Structure. Steel members prevent the cab from collapsing
in the event of a roll over. SCAQMD
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Supercritical Fluid Chromatography; a standard method to analyze aromatics in
diesel fuel
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1
SWRI
Transient
Cycle
ULEV
ULSD
USEPA
WVU
Southwest Research Institute
Test period in which engine speed and torque are varied according to a
predetermined set of values
Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle
Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel, diesel specified to have less than 15 ppm Sulfur
content.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2
Appendix A
CARB Trap Efficiency Verifier (TEV)
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3
Final Report
CARB On-Board Testing Equipment
PM Trap Efficiency Verifier (TEV)
Temperature
Mass Flow Controller #2
Pressure
Heated Sample Line @ 220 deg C
Temperature
Particulate
Matter
Trap
Temperature
> 1 sec delay
Exhaust after filter for PM recovery
Dilution Air
Exhaust
Torque
Fuel Rate
RPM
Throttle Position
M.F.C
Pressure
4
Temperature
Pressure
Temperature
INVERTER
Power to unit
Filter
Dilution Air
undiluted unfiltered exhaust
exiting heated sample line @ 220 deg C
Temperature
INVERTER
Mass Flow
Controller #4
Mass Flow
Controller #1
Temperature
> 1 sec delay
Exhaust from
engine exhaust
manifold
Engine
Filter
Exhaust
Ambient air
Ambient air
Drawing is not to scale
M.F.C
Pressure
3
Array used to capture and measure particulate
matter in unfiltered exhaust stream
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1
Mass Flow Controller #3
10
Final Report
% Efficiency
Trap
Manufacturer
Avg
RPM
Max
RPM
50%
Average
Exhaust
Temp
Max
Exhaust
Temp
50%
Average
Max
Back
Back
Pressure
Pressure 50%
Engine Exhaust
Backpressure in
Inches of H2O
(Min)
1/23/03
1
115
97.
4
Scraper 6604
Front Engine
1623
2182
165
0
562
774
440
12
32
12
1/24/03
2
207
98.
7
Scraper 6604
Front Engine
1667
2434
170
0
676
831
570
17
34
16
1/28/03
3
36
97.
5
Scraper 6604
Rear Engine
2597
2999
280
0
*
*
*
31
62
26
2/4/03
4
180
99.
0
Dozer 6655
1229
2114
120
0
569
822
320
13
31
8
1 hour Idle
9/9/03
5
129
94.
3
Scraper 6605
Front Engine
*
*
*
531
846
360
15
74
6
No RPM
9/10/03
6
103
94.
2
Scraper 6605
Rear Engine
*
*
*
552
943
340
14
43
10
No RPM
9/10/03
7
111
91.
1
Scraper 6606
Front Engine
*
*
*
649
896
440
22
72
18
No RPM
9/11/03
8
91
91.
3
Scraper 6606
Rear Engine
*
*
*
647
989
480
25
67
18
No RPM
Engelhard
Date
Johnson-Matthey
Test #
Test
Time
DATA FROM CARB TESTING OF PARTICULATE TRAP EFFICIENCIES
Revolutions Per
Minute (RPM)
Description
* == Data not available
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
2
Temperature in Degrees
Fahrenheit (F)
Comments
Low Battery
Final Report
Photos of CARB Trap Efficiency Verifier installed on a Caterpillar 657E Scraper
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3
Appendix B
Summary of Study Vehicle Maintenance and Service
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1
Final Report
657E Scraper #6604
Date
Material Used or Replaced
657E Scraper #6604
Date
657E Scraper #6604
Date
01/18/01
Replace leaking seal on steering valve
01/04/03
Grease/ service/ oil added
10/03/03
Daily service
01/29/01
Replace front brake cans
01/06/03
Rear engine starter wires replaced
10/04/03
Daily service
01/08/01
Replace right gear brake can
01/08/03
Daily service
10/07/03
No differential lock
01/20/01
rear transmission gear case - install new seals
01/15/03
Daily service
10/11/03
Daily service
01/30/01
Reseal transmission transfer gears
01/24/03
Install air monitor system
10/17/03
Daily service, remove rear trap
02/13/01
Repair leaking governor
Daily service
10/22/03
Grease Gooseneck
02/15/01
02/19/01
03/03/01
04/13/01
05/11/01
05/29/01
08/07/01
08/27/01
09/13/01
09/17/01
Clean Transmission
Repair dirt basket
Replace up shift / downshift solenoid
New seat & seat base
Replace broken window
Repair lower door
Fix leaking air hose to rear engine throttle
Hydraulic leaks at hydraulic trunk
A/C, front brake spring broken, replace Brakes
R&R ejector wear strips
01/29/03
01/31/03
02/04/03
02/06/03
02/06/03
02/08/03
02/11/03
02/13/03
02/17/03
02/20/03
10/27/03
10/29/03
10/31/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
11/08/03
11/10/03
11/11/03
11/13/03
11/18/03
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
2 gallons oil,
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
1 gal to each engine
Air leak for rear brakes
10/03/01
10/17/01
10/30/01
Replace retarder control
Screws on A/C, belly pan & clean
Scraper PM - Major PM
02/27/03
03/01/03
03/04/03
03/05/03
Daily service
Daily service
Oil Change
Repair air induction system
1 gallon to front engine, daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
2 gallons to front engine
11/20/03
11/24/03
12/01/03
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
11/13/01
11/26/01
Removed acc, repair ejector rollers
Brake Rt. Front hanging up
03/12/03
03/19/03
1 gallon to front engine, daily service
Hydraulic leak
Date
04/02/02
05/25/02
06/12/02
06/18/02
Broken hotwire
Front engine oil leak
1 gallon to rear engine
3 gallons to front engine
Air leak
04/01/03
04/26/03
05/08/03
05/17/03
05/21/03
Exhaust filter clogged
JD Smith
Broken grease lines
1 gallon to fron engine, daily service
Grease daily/ gooseneck
02/09/01
03/22/01
04/12/01
04/18/01
05/03/01
07/08/02
07/11/02
08/10/02
657E Scraper #6605
Replace alternator, mounting bunchets worn
Install new planetary assembly, brake shoes
leak btw rear transmission & transfer gear
Replace hydraulic lines on bail circuit
cushion hitch pump hose, retarder valve
Seat air ride needs repair
05/24/03
Seat pump repaired
05/07/01
Troubleshoot gear-shift problem
09/16/02
Rear diff. Oil added 50 wt
05/31/03
06/09/03
Daily service
Daily service
05/17/01
05/21/01
Cushion hitch pump seal replaced, look for leak
Wheel bearings replaced
09/17/02
Check high opacity reading
06/14/03
Daily service
03/29/01
Replace rear belts
09/23/02
Rear diff. And Transmission oil added
06/17/03
Daily service
04/09/01
Replace transmission
10/01/02
Daily service
06/23/03
Daily service
07/02/01
Remove wire debris on spindles
11/06/02
Daily service
06/30/03
Bail in bad order
09/04/01
PM per list
11/07/02
Daily service
07/08/03
Tuesday service
11/29/01
Check air system - air leak at draft tube
11/11/02
Daily service
07/19/03
Add transmission oil
04/05/02
Wheel seal leaking
11/15/02
Daily service
07/29/03
Daily service
05/15/02
1 gal to front engine
11/26/02
Daily service
07/30/03
Grease daily/ gooseneck
05/22/02
1 gal to rear engine
11/29/02
3 air filters
08/08/03
Daily service
05/22/02
12/02/02
Daily service
08/14/03
Grease rear rollers
06/13/02
Oil Change 30 gallons, oil and fuel filters
12/08/02
Lights flashing, shorted from greenwaste
08/19/03
Daily service, change air filter
06/29/02
A/C repair
12/11/02
Broken Door spring
09/04/03
Grease fittings
07/24/02
Oil Change
12/11/02
Boost pressure reading 15 psi
09/05/03
Change 3 primary air filters
08/13/02
Regular Maintenance
12/12/02
Daily service
09/30/03
Cushion hitch bracket on accumulator B/O
08/15/02
Regular Maintenance
12/19/02
3 Primary air filters
Engine performance below minimum
10/01/03
10/02/03
Daily service
Daily service
08/17/02
09/27/02
Regular Maintenance
Daily Service
12/19/02
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
1
657E Scraper #6605
Date
Final Report
10/02/02
10/25/02
10/30/02
11/06/02
11/06/02
11/14/02
11/21/02
11/26/02
11/30/02
12/06/02
12/17/02
Daily Service
Water leak on rear engine thermostat
Daily Service
Front, rear water filters. Cond (3) to front
Radiator leak
Oil Change
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
12/18/02
12/10/02
2 gallons to the rear engine
Debris in transmission area removed
12/31/02
01/28/03
02/04/03
02/13/03
03/08/03
03/13/03
03/14/03
03/18/03
03/21/03
03/26/03
03/28/03
04/01/03
04/26/03
05/08/03
06/09/03
06/11/03
Fuel pump racks shaking
1000 hour service
Daily Service
Seat to be fixed
Daily Service
Hydraulic Oil, Grease, daily service
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
150 hour oil change
1 gallon 30 weight
5 gallons of 10 weight
Daily Service
Ejector board roller bad
Daily Service
Stinger air leak
01/03/01
01/23/01
02/02/01
05/03/01
05/09/01
07/05/01
08/08/01
10/03/01
10/11/01
10/23/01
11/07/01
02/23/01
03/27/01
04/11/01
06/27/02
07/30/02
06/27/03
07/08/03
07/11/03
07/22/03
08/12/03
08/21/03
09/03/03
09/06/03
09/16/03
09/22/03
09/23/03
09/26/03
09/30/03
10/02/03
10/04/03
10/11/03
10/14/03
10/16/03
Opacity test
Door latch bad
Rear 1 gallon, Change 3 air filters
Front transmission overheating
Fix A/C
1 gallon to front engine
Grease fittings
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
1 gal to front engine, daily service
8 quarts of Hydraulic fluid, Daily service
1 gal to front engine, daily service
Daily Service
8 quarts of Hydraulic fluid, Daily service
Daily Service
Daily Service
10/22/03
10/24/03
Grease gooseneck
Check bent exhaust stack
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
657E Scraper #6605
Date
10/29/03
10/30/03
11/11/03
11/12/03
11/14/03
11/15/03
11/21/03
11/22/03
11/24/03
11/25/03
11/28/03
Grease gooseneck
Daily Service
Daily Service
Repair wipers, light
1 gal to each engine, Daily Service
Daily Service
Daily Service
Add hydraulic fluid, daily service
Daily Service
1 gal to each engine, Daily Service
Daily Service
Date
657E Scraper #6606
02/04/03
02/05/03
02/21/03
03/07/03
03/08/03
03/15/03
03/19/03
03/22/03
03/26/03
04/02/03
04/02/03
Daily service
Front engine fuel system clogged
No throttle-adjust cable
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Rear engine fuel pump repaired
Daily service
Daily service, grease gooseneck
Door stop strap repaired
04/05/03
04/11/03
5 gallons of hydraulic fluid
Repair rear bail hook, bail seals
Fix thermostat control, A/C
Fix A/C
Rear transmission switch replaced
Oil hose on rear engine, filter base to oil cooler
Main discharge hose, repair left fender skirt
Tractor bail pilot hose replaced
Wear plate on right side of scraper can
Replace drive ring. Rebuild converter & pump
Retarder valve. Install new air regulator,
Roll bearing in rear engine
Wipers, rear fan belt, tighten alternator belt
Leaking governor fixed (Low air pressure)
Install can on right front brake
Oil Change 30 gallons
04/30/03
05/03/03
05/07/03
05/30/03
06/02/03
07/31/03
08/20/03
08/21/03
08/22/03
08/25/03
09/03/03
09/08/03
09/09/03
09/20/03
09/26/03
09/26/03
Greas gooseneck, daily service
Daily Service
Front windshield replaced
Lost steering, oil leak
Daily Grease
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Engine door latch repaired
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Front engine governor repaired
Daily service
07/27/02
07/30/02
08/15/02
09/20/02
09/25/02
09/25/02
10/10/02
10/14/02
10/21/02
10/23/02
11/11/02
11/19/02
11/22/02
12/04/02
12/31/02
01/06/03
01/13/03
01/17/03
Repair ejector roller
1 gallon (front)
Rear engine exhaust leak
Cushion hitch inoperable
Air dryer door bolts broken
Check engine crankcase
Wednesday service
Daily service
1 gal to front engine, and daily service
1 gal to front engine, and daily service
Replace broken glass, damaged blade
No air pressure buildup
09/27/03
09/30/03
10/01/03
10/02/03
10/03/03
10/04/03
10/06/03
10/09/03
10/11/03
10/13/03
10/14/03
10/17/03
10/23/03
11/06/03
11/07/03
11/11/03
11/14/03
11/18/03
Daily service
5 qts hydraulic oil and daily service
Grease fittings
11 gals oil and 8 qts hydraulic oil
Daily service
5 qts oil to front, 3 qts to the back. Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
8 qts hydraulic fluid added
Add water conditioner to each radiator
Repairs to restore power to computer
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, grease rear, 50 wt to rear diff.
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, 3 air filters
Daily service
01/21/03
02/01/03
Oil leak
Clean hitch area
11/22/03
11/24/03
Daily service
Daily service
657E Scraper #6606
Date
2
657E Scraper #6607
Date
Final Report
657E Scraper #6607
Date
08/20/01
03/14/01
08/04/01
05/22/01
07/10/01
07/19/01
08/30/01
Fix A/C
Leaking pivot hydraulic
Replace seat
Remove trapped debris
Replace tilt hoses
Pivot Shaft leak fixed
Regrouser track pad (shoes)
07/19/02
07/22/02
08/23/02
09/02/02
09/04/02
09/09/02
09/12/02
Rear air leak
Add new top wear plates
Right front wheel seals broken
Daily maintenance
Change front tire
06/06/01
11/22/00
Tighten clamp on exhaust
Fix left front track roller
09/16/02
09/24/02
Daily maintenance
1 gal of 30wt to rear engine
02/08/01
10/27/00
09/27/01
10/24/00
09/16/00
08/23/00
08/09/00
12/11/00
08/12/00
04/13/00
04/30/01
01/02/01
01/11/01
01/16/01
01/20/01
02/07/01
02/14/01
02/22/01
03/07/01
11/06/00
11/11/00
11/20/00
12/20/00
01/17/01
02/05/01
12/02/01
12/12/01
03/20/02
06/28/01
08/01/01
08/14/01
08/17/01
09/14/01
03/29/02
04/24/02
04/30/02
05/14/02
06/05/02
06/27/02
07/06/02
Clean tracks
Fix coolant gauge
Belly pad guards replaced
Hydraulic leak fixed
Remove trapped debris
Rear lights replaced
Fix engine cover
Recondition blade
Coolent leak fixed
Clean left track
Temp gauge cleaneed to stop heating
New seat installed
Fan drive belts
Fix windshield
Clean tracks
Remove wire debris
Left door glass replaced
Rear engine bearings. oil pump, rod bearings
Thermostatic switch. Install new gauges
R&R hydraulic oil seals on hydraulic pump
Install new cover
Fix oil leak at fly-wheel housing
Tighten loose air hose
Fix bottom door window
Fix rear lights
Fuel rack sticking
Cut pipe from left front tire
R&R apron cylinder
Replace cover springs
Front brake shoes of oil, install new wheel seals
Replace one front oil filter & one rear oil filter
Clean hitch area
Air leak
Oil Change
Cushion hitch repaired
Hydraulic leak by left front tire
09/26/02
09/26/02
10/01/02
10/04/02
10/14/02
10/18/02
10/21/02
10/28/02
11/21/02
11/29/02
12/03/02
12/13/02
12/14/02
12/30/02
01/06/03
01/15/03
01/17/03
01/18/03
01/21/03
01/22/03
01/27/03
01/28/03
01/29/03
02/04/03
02/18/03
03/26/03
03/27/03
04/26/03
04/29/03
05/01/03
05/05/03
06/18/03
06/19/03
06/20/03
06/23/03
06/25/03
07/26/03
07/29/03
07/31/03
08/14/03
Reseal front engine governor
Front engine coolant leak
Loss of transmission shifting
Rear brakes not releasing
Rear brakes locked
Daily service
Door stuck
Tranmission locked up, oil leak
3 air filters
Leak in rear oil pan
3 gal
1 gal
2 gal
Repair bail pin
Daily service
2 gals to front engine
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Clean and drain oil.
Loss of transmission power
Replace fuel/air ratio diaphragm
Daily service
Daily service
Broken grease lines
Front engine overhaul.
Rear engine pressure oil light on
Daily grease
Daily grease
Daily service
Daily grease
Daily service
Rear engine overheating
Daily service
Daily service
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
3
Date
08/14/03
09/05/03
09/10/03
09/17/03
09/26/03
10/04/03
10/29/03
Date
01/11/01
02/17/01
02/21/01
04/23/01
06/21/01
07/10/01
08/02/01
10/06/01
10/15/01
10/19/01
10/24/01
11/06/01
11/16/01
11/24/01
11/29/01
09/03/00
09/16/00
09/26/00
10/06/00
12/01/00
12/08/00
12/13/00
12/22/00
05/21/01
07/05/01
07/10/01
07/23/01
09/19/01
11/26/01
07/16/01
07/18/01
08/17/01
04/04/02
07/15/02
07/24/02
08/15/02
08/19/02
09/30/02
10/29/02
11/12/02
657E Scraper #6607
Hydraulic and air leaks
Change 3 primary air filters
Rear engine won't start
Daily service
Add water to front engine
Daily service
Daily service
657E Scraper #6608
Fuel filters replaced
Fixed A/C
Backup alarm, lights, wipers fixed
Right side pivot shaft seal leak
Fan belt repaired
Engine oil leak fixed
Exhaust clamp to air cleaner fixed
Tilt line repaired
Repair side screens
Replace rear lights
Regrouse track pad
Remove debris
Fix light bracket
Repair brace on intake
Fix oil leak
Fix A/C
Fix A/C
Tilt cylinder leak fixed
Clean tracks
Roll-in bearings
Fan belts
Coolant temp gauge
Remove wire debris
Oil hose replaced to fix oil leak
Leak in belly pan, seals, batteries replaced
Bearings, oil pump, turbo & water pump
Hydraulic leak on cylinder valve
Replace wiring harness on timer
Pre-lube on front engine - Replace timer switch
Loose track pad
Fix A/C
Fan belt replaced and new guard
Adjust front and rear brakes
Rear engine coolant flow switch
Replaced oil filter
Rear brakes locked up
Rear transmission rebuilt
Air leak on brakes
2 gal to rear engine 30W
Rear engine coolant leak
657E Scraper #6608
Date
11/20/02
11/20/02
12/17/02
12/20/02
12/20/02
12/26/02
01/23/03
01/31/03
02/17/03
02/26/03
02/27/03
03/01/03
03/06/03
03/06/03
03/12/03
03/13/03
03/15/03
03/19/03
03/22/03
04/23/03
05/07/03
05/16/03
05/22/03
05/24/03
06/14/03
07/02/03
07/14/03
07/26/03
08/02/03
08/05/03
09/11/03
09/20/03
09/25/03
09/29/03
09/30/03
10/02/03
10/03/03
10/11/03
10/17/03
10/24/03
10/30/03
10/31/03
10/04/03
10/06/03
11/01/03
11/25/03
11/25/03
12/01/03
Rear transmission hot
Daily service
2 gallons to rear only
2 gal to rear engine 30W
Replaced ejector wear strips
Rear overheating
Daily service
Rear transmission shifting into neutral
Repair step
Daily service
Daily service
150 hour maintenance work
Radiator leaking from top seals
Grease daily/gooseneck
Daily service
Daily service
Grease daily/gooseneck
Daily service
Apron switch repaired, oil cooler leaking
1 gal to rear eng, daily svc, grease gooseneck
Daily Service, Primary air filter
2 qts Hydraulic fluid
Daily Service
Rear transmission overheating
Daily service/ grease gooseneck
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Transmission switch sticking
Clean air filter
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily Service, Primary air filter
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
3 air filters
Add water to front engine, daily service
Daily service
Replace 3 air filters
1 gal 30wt to front, 50wt to rear diff, daily serv
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, 6 gals to transmission
Daily service, 3 gals to transmission
Daily service
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Final Report
D9 Bulldozer #6620
Date
01/05/01
01/08/01
01/16/01
03/23/01
10/10/00
01/11/01
02/06/01
02/07/01
02/23/01
04/20/02
05/31/01
06/11/01
07/13/01
07/23/02
08/13/01
09/22/01
10/01/01
10/10/01
10/16/01
04/06/01
03/20/01
10/05/01
09/20/01
09/28/01
10/10/01
10/02/01
10/19/01
03/19/01
03/30/01
04/21/01
04/28/01
05/11/01
05/22/01
06/14/01
06/22/01
07/10/01
09/05/01
09/13/01
10/24/01
11/08/01
11/20/01
11/23/01
05/15/02
05/22/02
06/11/02
06/11/02
06/12/02
06/13/02
07/03/02
07/11/02
Transmission cooler
Sump, gasket, seal
Gaskets, seals, hose
Seals, valve
Replace seat
Replace air filters
Fix A/C
Remove debris
Replace seals
Tilt leak
Radiator grill fixed
Fix A/C
Fix A/C
Mag screen, cleaned bolt holes
Plug on inlet assembly replaced
Replace rear lights
Fix A/C
Replace lights and wipers
Replace light
Backup alarm fixed
Fix A/C
Fix Brake
Replace seals
Fix A/C
Replace lights & wipers
Fix A/C
Replace lights & wipers
Fix A/C
Fan belts
Pressure hoses
Battery cable
Batteries replaced
Coolant temperature gauge fixed
Fix A/C
Rebuilt radiator for leak
Pivot shaft seal
Belts replaced
Repair tilt line
Regrouser track pad
Fix A/C
Fix catwalk to the rear of the cab
Fix A/C
2 gal 50W at pivot
1 gal 50wt left side differential
1 gal 50wt pivot
1 gal 50wt pivot
Fix air conditioning
Replace track segments
4
Date
08/22/02
08/26/02
09/11/02
09/17/02
09/25/02
10/04/02
10/08/02
10/15/02
10/17/02
10/18/02
10/23/02
10/29/02
11/08/02
11/13/02
11/20/02
11/20/02
11/27/02
12/04/02
12/10/02
12/11/02
12/27/02
01/07/03
01/09/03
01/13/03
01/30/03
02/03/03
02/26/03
02/28/03
03/08/03
03/12/03
03/29/03
04/03/03
04/11/03
04/24/03
04/29/03
05/02/03
05/03/03
05/05/03
05/09/03
05/17/03
05/19/03
05/28/03
05/29/03
05/31/03
06/06/03
06/13/03
06/18/03
07/01/03
07/02/03
07/07/03
D9 Bulldozer #6620
Repair alarm, wipers, front lamps
Track pad bolts replaced
Changed oil
Investigate poor starting
Replace batteries
50? To pivot shaft reservoir
Pivot shaft seal leak
2 gallons oil
Adjust tracks, add oil to pivot shaft reservoir
1 gal oil to pivot, engine each
Replace broken glass
Add water, 50 to pivot shaft
Remove cable from treads
1 gallon oil
Oil changed
Repair track guides, grill
Remove wire debris
50 wt to PSR
50 wt to PSR
Daily service
Replace lost track guides
Oil changed, 12 gallons
Replace missing track guides
1 gallon
Change batteries
Oil changed, 12 gallons
Blade float repaired
1 gallon
Water temperature gauge
Repair tilt line leak
Recharge air conditioning
Repair lights
Filter piping repair
Repair broken glass
Replace one bad battery
Daily service
Fix seat cushion
Fix starter
Daily service
Repair right side track adjuster
Daily service
Daily service, 1 gallon oil
Daily service
Idler making noise
Replace broken hard bar, pivot
Add water, replace air filter
Daily service
Transmission suction chamber cleaned
D9 Bulldozer #6620
Date
07/07/03
07/14/03
07/16/03
07/30/03
08/04/03
08/10/03
08/14/03
08/20/03
08/21/03
09/05/03
09/06/03
09/11/03
09/12/03
09/15/03
09/17/03
10/04/03
10/08/03
10/18/03
10/21/03
10/29/03
11/03/03
D9 Bulldozer #6621
Date
Date
D9 Bulldozer #6621
Replace right front tire
Replace broken tilt lines
Replace alternator belt
Repair sensor line
Replace front grill
Reposition left track
Replace undergear, regrouser track pad
Fix alternator belt
Daily service
Repair air conditioner
Add 3 water conditioners
Daily service
Add 1 gallon of 30 wt engine oil
2 qts engine oil, 3 qts water, daily service
Check water leak, rear radiator
Daily service
Air filter changed, daily service
Daily service
Daily service
01/02/01
01/09/01
01/11/01
01/31/01
01/31/01
03/03/01
04/13/01
04/16/01
08/03/01
08/11/01
08/16/01
08/28/01
09/01/01
09/10/01
09/12/01
09/20/01
10/10/01
10/19/01
10/20/01
11/21/01
06/03/02
Fix A/C
Fan belts
Fix wiring
Replace belt
Fix hydraulic leak
Alternator
Clean & fix batteries
Oil leak-cylinders on blade
Roller cap
Fix A/C
Coolant leak checked
Clean belly pan
Fix A/C
Coolant leak
Fix A/C
Repair left track
Lights & wipers, A/C
Light replaced
Fix A/C
Fix A/C
2 gallons
12/18/02
12/24.02
12/26/02
12/31/02
01/03/03
01/04/03
01/14/03
01/23/03
02/22/03
03/03/03
03/05/03
03/10/03
03/19/03
03/20/03
03/27/03
03/28/03
04/08/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
Repair lights & wipers
Tuesday service
Weekly greasing
Adjust left track
Chage primary air filter
1 gal 30wt to engine, .5 gal 50 wt to PSR
Clean secondary air filter, adjust right hand track.
Support strap fatigued/brokeon on small tubing
Alternator belt replaced
Turbo housing leaking
Right front idler making noise
starting problems, batteries replaced
Exhaust stack repaired
1 gallon of 30 wt & Daily service
Daily, grease
Noise from bottom rollers, repair side screen
Replace radiator coolant
Adjust tracks, 50 wt to pivot reservoir
Clean tracks
Left fron idler serviced
Repair track idler
D9 Bulldozer #6621
06/10/02
06/17/02
Cut hole in track shoe
Replace twisted belt, headliner
05/12/03
05/16/03
Daily Service
2 gallons of 30 wt, Daily service
06/11/02
06/18/02
07/02/02
07/04/02
08/28/02
08/22/02
08/24/02
08/28/02
08/30/02
09/07/02
09/12/02
10/05/02
10/09/02
10/17/02
10/22/02
10/23/02
10/31/02
11/06/02
11/09/02
11/12/02
11/12/02
11/14/02
11/14/02
11/29/02
12/05/02
12/18/02
1 gallon
1 gallon 30 wt
Fix air conditioner
Add hydraulic fluid
Clean tracks
1 gallon 30 wt
2 gallons of hydraulic fluid
Replace glass
Tilt leak
1 gallon
2 gallons
START TESTING
A/C, Coolant leak, steering went out
Change oil and filter, clean primary air filter
Fix air conditioner
Check & mount electronics
CRT box broken off
Daily service for Saturday
Clear air filter
EWS light-bad switch replaced
Grease fan, idler
Cut cable from tracks
Daily service
Radiator leak, clean tracks
Daily service
05/20/03
05/22/03
06/07/03
06/10/03
06/26/03
07/04/03
07/07/03
07/09/03
07/15/03
07/29/03
08/02/03
08/04/03
08/08/03
08/14/03
08/15/03
08/20/03
08/21/03
09/11/03
09/12/03
09/13/03
09/20/03
09/22/03
10/01/03
10/24/03
10/31/03
11/01/03
Tuesday service
Grease
Saturday service
Right idle noisy
Replace seal suspension
Daily service
Daily service
Blade control jammed
Bogie pins replaced
A/C cleaned primary air
Daily service
Low batteries
Daily service
Grease, Daily service
Primary air filter
Daily service
Grease, adjust track
Clean air filter
Daily service
Grease
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Air filter, daily service
3 air filters, daily service
Down for gummed up fuel pump
Date
04/13/01
04/25/01
05/09/01
04/27/01
07/01/01
08/01/01
09/09/01
09/10/01
09/19/01
08/28/02
11/01/02
12/30/02
01/02/03
01/30/03
02/02/03
02/04/03
02/04/03
02/25/03
04/08/02
04/20/02
05/01/02
05/16/02
06/06/02
06/13/02
06/13/02
06/14/02
Final Report
Hose, seals
Cusshion, cap, gasket, seals, adapter
Wiring, brackets, bolt, backup alarm
Seal, hose, 2 hose lines
Turbocharger
Seals80
Grommet, clip, damper, tube, gasket
2 Tires
Left Front Tire
Right front Tire
Muffler, hose, tube, hose, clip
Seals
Broken wheel
Seal kit
Repair of split bellows pipe going to trap
Repair to hydraulic cylinder
Flex pipe
Rod pin
Swap out rollers
Replace glass
Hydraulic leak
Install wear track guards
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
5
D9 Bulldozer #6653
Date
Final Report
D9 Bulldozer #6653
Date
01/19/01
01/31/01
07/07/01
07/20/01
08/08/01
04/02/02
09/12/02
09/12/02
09/12/02
09/12/02
10/17/02
10/21/02
03/05/03
03/11/03
04/10/03
04/23/03
10/24/01
11/06/01
05/20/02
08/16/02
08/07/02
08/10/02
08/21/02
08/29/02
12/05/01
11/28/01
10/10/01
09/15/01
10/02/01
04/08/02
05/15/02
06/19/02
06/28/02
07/10/02
07/23/02
Gaskets, lock
Breaker, pump, gasket
Gasket & Seal kit
Guage
Battery
Brake shoes & drums
Drive gear for pump failure
Engine rebuilt, (Not repowered)
Torque converter and transmission oil pump
Transmission overhaul, seals and bearings
Bolts, washers, bracket, union, gaskets, hoses,
Hose
Steering cable
Seals
Brake job, alarm, switch
Radiator leak. Replaced
Regrouser track pad
Fix A/C
Oil Change
Oil Change, 12 gal
2 gallons
1 gal 30 wt
2 gallons
2 gallons
Repair tilt line
Replace rear glass
Fix Transmission leak
Fix throttle switch
Fix hydraulic leak
Swap rollers
Oil Change
Grease fittings
2 Gallons
Clean tracks
2 gallons
01/06/03
01/06/03
01/07/03
01/09/03
01/15/03
01/17/03
01/20/03
01/21/03
01/23/03
02/28/03
01/30/03
02/08/03
02/17/03
02/24/03
02/26/03
03/08/03
03/10/03
03/15/03
03/17/03
03/19/03
03/24/03
03/26/03
04/03/03
04/08/03
04/12/03
04/15/03
04/18/03
05/03/03
05/09/03
05/13/03
05/24/03
06/05/03
06/14/03
06/02/03
06/17/03
2 gallons, daily service
2 gallons
Right water temperature guage fixed
Daily service
1 Gallon
2 Gallons
Replace right door glass
12 gal oil change
fuel leak on tank
Tilt cylinder hose fixed, pivot shaft
1 gallon
4 gallons of transmission oil
Added 1 gal hydraulic oil
Pivot Shaft leak
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
1 Gallon 50W, 1 gallon Trans oil
1 gallon 50W, 2 Gallons Trans oil
12 Gallons for oil change
Fix air conditioner
1 gallon
5 gallons, 5 gals trans
Replace right door glass
Add hyd oil to pivot shaft reservoir
150 hour service
2 gals trans
2 gals of engine oil
Daily service
3 gallons of engine oil
1 gallon of engine oil
Daily service
Right hydraulic cylinder leaking
Pivot shaft & hydraulic leaks
07/29/02
08/06/02
Not starting
2 gallons
06/25/03
06/26/03
Recondition lift hoist cylinder
Daily grease and 1 gallon of engine oil
08/06/02
08/21/02
08/28/02
08/31/02
09/13/02
10/01/02
11/07/02
12/02/02
12/18/02
12/24/02
12/26/02
01/02/03
Regrouser track pad (shoes)
Repair alternator wiring
Replace tongue & hoses
Down 9/13/02 to 10/2/02
2 gallons
Fix Rear transmission cover
Replace left final drive
Left side screen replaced
New alternator belt
06/27/03
07/02/03
07/26/03
07/30/03
07/31/03
08/02/03
08/12/03
08/13/03
08/14/03
08/20/03
08/21/03
08/23/03
1 gallon of engine oil
Repair hand holds
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
1 gallon of engine oil, Daily service
Add water, replace air filter
Daily service, check fir extinguisher
Daily service, change oil, oil and water filters
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
6
Date
08/25/03
08/29/03
09/04/03
09/09/03
09/11/03
09/20/03
09/26/03
09/27/03
09/30/03
10/01/03
10/02/03
10/04/03
10/06/03
10/11/03
10/21/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
10/28/03
10/29/03
10/30/03
10/31/03
11/01/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
11/06/03
11/08/03
11/10/03
11/12/03
11/13/03
11/14/03
11/15/03
11/22/03
11/23/03
11/29/03
11/30/03
Date
01/11/01
02/17/01
02/21/01
04/23/01
06/21/01
07/10/01
08/02/01
10/06/01
10/15/01
10/19/01
10/24/01
11/06/01
D9 Bulldozer #6653
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, Change air filter, blow out A/C
Transmission leak
Daily service, grease.
Daily service, grease.
Daily service, add water
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, change air filters
2 qts, 8 qts H20
Daily service, air filter
Daily service
Daily service, Change air filter
Daily service, daily greasing, change air filter,
Daily service, Blow AC
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, Change filter, grease, blow AC
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, 2 gals engine oil
Daily service, 1 gal 30wt, 3 bottles H20 additive
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, 1 gal 40wt to engine
2 gallons
D9 Bulldozer #6654
Fuel filters replaced
Fixed A/C
Backup alarm, lights, wipers fixed
Right side pivot shaft seal leak
Fan belt repaired
Engine oil leak fixed
Exhaust clamp to air cleaner fixed
Tilt line repaired
Repair side screens
Replace rear lights
Regrouse track pad
Remove debris
D9 Bulldozer #6654
Date
Final Report
D9 Bulldozer #6654
Date
11/16/01
11/24/01
11/29/01
04/08/02
04/20/02
05/01/02
05/16/02
06/06/02
06/13/02
06/13/02
06/14/02
06/14/02
06/18/02
06/18/02
06/19/02
06/27/02
07/16/02
07/18/02
07/25/02
Fix light bracket
Repair brace on intake
Fix oil leak
Swap out rollers
Replace glass
Hydraulic leak
Install wear track guards
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Change air filter
Change air filter
Grease fittings
Replace sprocket segment
Oil Change
Left blade lift cylider repaired
Bad backup alarm
01/11/03
01/12/03
01/20/03
01/22/03
02/04/03
02/08/03
02/13/03
02/18/03
02/20/03
02/26/03
03/06/03
03/20/03
03/20/03
03/27/03
04/05/03
04/08/03
04/09/03
04/14/03
04/15/03
Not used
Not used
1 gallon, Daily Service
Dozer arm bolts loose
Daily service
Daily service
Clean belly pans
Daily service
Mount exhaust filter
Repair air conditioning
Daily service
Exhaust repaired
Repair ejector turbo
1 qt 30W
1qt 30W
1qt 30W
1 gal 50W
1 gal 50W
07/26/02
1 gallon
04/29/03
07/27/02
5 gallons
05/03/03
07/31/02
1 gallon
08/08/02
Date
D9 Bulldozer #6654
Tilt line repaired
10/03/03
10/04/03
10/16/03
10/17/03
10/21/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
10/27/03
10/28/03
11/05/03
11/06/03
11/08/03
11/10/03
11/11/03
11/12/03
11/13/03
11/14/03
11/15/03
11/18/03
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added
Daily service
Daily service
Coolant loss. Replace alternator belt
Daily service
Daily service
Repair engine oil leaks
11/19/03
1 gal 50W
11/20/03
05/05/03
Fix coolant light
11/25/03
1 gallon
05/06/03
Tighten water hose clamps
11/26/03
Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil, 1 gal 15-40wt
08/16/02
1 gallon
05/14/03
1 gal 50W
11/28/03
08/17/02
Regular service
05/22/03
Complete under gear swing frames
1 gallon
Repair bent grill
Oil pressure light on
06/11/03
07/01/03
07/25/03
07/26/03
Repair exhaust filter
Coolant leak
Change air filter
Daily service
11/19/03
08/21/02
08/23/02
09/02/02
09/03/02
11/20/03
11/25/03
11/26/03
11/28/03
Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil, 1 gal 15-40wt
09/05/02
09/10/02
2 gallons
07/31/03
08/05/03
Exhaust elbow loose
Steering clutch control valve repaired
10/09/02
10/22/02
11/02/02
11/04/02
11/07/02
11/08/02
11/11/02
11/19/02
11/22/02
11/27/02
11/30/02
12/10/02
12/13/02
12/17/02
12/18/02
12/19/02
12/21/02
01/10/03
Repair left front final leak
1 gallon
2 gallons
Not used
Down 11/7/02 to 11/19/02
Caught fire in belly pan
Clean from debris fire
2 gallons
1 gallon
1 gallon
Exhaust to intake bracket repaired
Not used
Arm broke off, repaired
2 gallons
Water separator cleaned
1 gallon
08/07/03
08/15/03
08/18/03
08/20/03
08/23/03
08/28/03
09/06/03
09/08/03
09/10/03
09/17/03
09/18/03
09/19/03
09/20/03
09/22/03
09/25/03
09/29/03
09/30/03
Daily service, grease
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Add 50 wt oil & pivot shaft oil
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service, air filter
1 gal hydraulic oil & 1 gal 50 wt
Replace left door handle
1 gal engine oil added
Daily service, Primary air filter changed
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
7
Date
03/08/01
03/23/01
03/20/01
03/26/01
04/02/01
04/19/01
07/05/01
07/09/01
07/09/01
07/10/01
07/12/01
07/13/01
07/25/01
08/03/01
08/15/01
08/20/01
08/20/01
D9 Bulldozer #6655
Block bolt
Gasket, nut, rod, seal
Install lift Cylinder
Cap, bolt, trunion
Cartridge, shaft, bearing, wiper, seal
Turbopump
Seal
Seals
Radiator
Tube seal, screen
hydraulic hose
Gaskets, seal
Hose, shaft, seals, bearings
Tube, fittings, nut
Seal
Gasket, bolt, seal glow plugs
Replace head, wter on #2 piston right side
D9 Bulldozer #6655
Date
Final Report
D9 Bulldozer #6655
Date
651B Scraper #605
Date
09/06/02
09/07/02
05/29/02
06/12/02
06/19/02
06/26/02
07/04/02
07/09/02
1 gallon
2 gallons
2 gallons
2 gallons
Oil Change
2 gallons
2 gallons
2 gallons
07/14/03
07/18/03
08/01/03
08/02/03
08/08/03
08/09/03
08/16/03
08/18/03
Daily service
Coolant temp light on
Replace air filters
Daily service
Daily service
Oil added to pivot shaft reservoir
Add conditioner to radiator
07/10/02
07/17/02
Repair tilt line
09/02/03
09/10/03
Install clean air filter, add 1 gallon oil
Daily service
07/23/02
08/15/02
09/18/02
09/23/02
10/11/02
10/19/02
10/25/02
10/31/02
11/12/02
Mag screen, cleaned bolt holes
1 gallon 30 wt
1 gallon
2 gallons
2 gallons
1 gallon
2 gallons
Hydraulic control fixed
09/24/03
09/26/03
09/27/03
10/02/03
10/03/03
10/08/03
10/18/03
10/22/03
10/31/03
Add 50 wt engine oil
150 hour service protocol
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
03/22/00
12/19/00
12/19/00
01/19/01
01/31/01
04/03/01
05/16/01
06/05/01
07/09/01
About 30 parts
Seal, gasket
Gasket, seal, pin
Gaskets, lock
Breaker, pump, gasket
Edge, bit, nut
2 "bits", 20 nuts, "edge"
Rebuild alternator
Spring, seal, piston, disc, plate
12/30/02
Check water leak
11/01/03
Daily service
07/09/01
Engine installed- disk, seal, spring
01/22/03
Sediment in fuel filter
11/05/03
Daily service
07/10/01
Torque converter seals
01/31/03
11/06/03
Daily service
07/13/01
Gasket kit
02/03/03
11/12/03
Daily service
07/16/01
D343 parts
02/17/03
Daily service
11/14/03
Daily service, air filter, water conditioner
07/24/01
Gasket, damper, belt, cap
02/19/03
Hydraulic cylinder broken, blade won't go up.
11/15/03
2 gals engine oil, 1 qt 50wt
07/25/01
Seals, bearings & hose
03/11/03
B/O engine compartment
11/17/03
1 gal engine oil
07/25/01
Seal kit
03/12/03
03/18/03
Daily service
Replace door glass
11/24/03
12/01/03
1 gal 50 wt
1 gal 50 wt
07/30/01
07/31/01
Seal kit
Rings replaced
03/20/03
03/22/03
Daily service
Daily service
08/02/01
08/08/01
Rebuild fan
Injector pump
04/01/03
04/03/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
04/08/03
04/14/03
05/06/03
05/22/03
06/03/03
06/06/03
06/12/03
06/13/03
06/16/03
06/17/03
06/26/03
07/08/03
07/09/03
07/11/03
1 gallon 30 wt
1 gallon 30 wt
1 gallon 50 wt
Daily service
Daily service
Air fuel filters changed
Check hydraulic fluids
1 gallon 40 wt
Fix A/C, adjust tracks
Change air filter
Daily grease
Air cleaner
Daily service
Daily service
Daily service
Tuesday service
Daily service
Repair grill
08/10/01
08/15/01
08/02/02
08/15/02
09/17/02
10/22/02
10/28/02
11/04/02
11/24/02
12/02/02
12/30/02
01/10/03
03/10/03
04/23/03
Fittings, seals, hose, gasket
Elbow
Rebuild fan, ring
Spring, shim, o-rings
Washer, pivot
R-front tire
Gasket & seals
Gasket & seals
Nut, bolt, washer
Kit, drum, seal, tube
2 indicators
Seal kit
2 tires
Transmission failure
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
651B Scraper #605
Date
07/18/00
01/05/01
01/08/01
01/16/01
03/23/01
04/27/01
07/01/01
08/01/01
09/09/01
09/10/01
09/19/01
08/28/02
10/22/02
10/28/02
11/01/02
11/04/02
12/30/02
Fan Drive
Transmission cooler
Sump, gasket, seal
Gaskets, seals, hose
Seals, valve
Seal, hose, 2 hose lines
Turbocharger
Seals80
Grommet, clip, damper, tube, gasket
2 Tires
Left Front Tire
Right front Tire
R-front tire
Gasket & seals
Muffler, hose, tube, hose, clip
Gasket & seals
Seals
8
01/02/03
01/30/03
02/02/03
02/04/03
02/04/03
02/25/03
03/10/03
04/10/03
Broken wheel
Seal kit
Repair of split bellows pipe going to trap
Repair to hydraulic cylinder
Flex pipe
Rod pin
Rod pin
Stinger
834B Bulldozer #407
Date
834B Bulldozer #409
Date
04/03/99
05/26/00
04/13/01
04/25/01
05/09/01
07/07/01
07/20/01
08/08/01
04/02/02
09/12/02
Cleaned, resealed, new bearings
Hydraulic pump
Hose, seals
Cusshion, cap, gasket, seals, adapter
Wiring, brackets, bolt, backup alarm
Gasket & Seal kit
Guage
Battery
Brake shoes & drums
Drive gear for pump failure
09/12/02
09/12/02
Engine rebuilt (Not repowered)
Torque converter and transmission oil pump
09/12/02
10/17/02
10/21/02
03/05/03
03/11/03
04/10/03
04/23/03
Transmission overhaul, seals and bearings
Stem, bolts, washers, bracket, gaskets, hoses,
Hose
Steering cable
Seals
Brake job, alarm, switch
Radiator leak. Replaced
651B Scraper #625
Date
09/18/00
12/21/00
12/29/00
03/09/01
03/14/01
03/20/01
03/26/01
04/02/01
04/19/01
07/05/01
07/09/01
07/09/01
Drop valve, Install head piston liner & turbo
Gear, seal kit, washers
Gear, washers
Head
Fuel pump
Install lift Cylinder
Cap, bolt, trunion
Cartridge, shaft, bearing, wiper, seal
Turbopump
Seal
Seals
Radiator
07/10/01
07/12/01
Tube seal, screen
hydraulic hose
07/13/01
07/25/01
08/03/01
08/15/01
08/20/01
08/20/01
08/27/01
05/31/02
08/20/02
08/21/02
Gaskets, seal
Hose, shaft, seals, bearings
Tube, fittings, nut
Seal
Gasket, bolt, seal glow plugs
Replace head, wter on #2 piston right side
Knob bolt, washer
Rebuilt Steering
Left steering hydraulic cylinder
Tube, gaskets, seals, clamps
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Final Report
651B Scraper #625
Date
08/26/02
10/03/02
10/07/02
10/10/02
10/18/02
12/03/02
12/30/02
01/09/03
03/25/03
04/08/03
Clamp, bolt, washer
Seals, gaskets, hoses, clamp
Radiator, after cooler, transmission cooler
Hose Gasket, block, seals
Union, cable, governor, bolt, washer vent
Regulator, gasket
Seals
Repair leak
Seals
Rebuild 2 D346 heads
651B Scraper #628
Date
12/15/99
03/13/00
08/22/00
03/08/01
03/23/01
04/25/01
05/09/01
Unit bought at auction- 6 cylinders bad
Gearbox repaired
Rebuilt engine installed
Block bolt
Gasket, nut, rod, seal
Slide, washer, screw
Gasket, seal, bearings
05/11/01
05/14/01
Repair retarder cooler
Tachometer, pump, lockwaher, gaskets
07/16/01
07/23/01
08/09/01
08/12/02
09/10/02
09/18/02
11/19/02
11/27/02
01/17/03
01/28/03
02/05/03
09/20/03
Seal, cam
Seal kit, seals
Seal kit
Transmission rebuild
Gasket, silicone
Bolt, nut, washer
Spring
Gasket
Tire
Rebuild Alternator
Indicator
Repairs to fuel tank
825C Bulldozer #415
Date
09/07/99
02/21/00
12/19/00
01/19/01
06/07/01
06/26/01
07/06/01
08/02/01
08/17/01
08/20/01
Reskin wheels, rebuild cylinders
Seals, gaskets, guard, back cylinder,
Switch
Gasket, starter
Bolt, hut, washer
Seal, bearing
Seal kit
Transmission overhaul
Install Transmission
Cushion, tube, hose
9
Date
09/10/02
09/19/02
10/04/02
10/24/02
10/28/02
11/01/02
11/05/02
11/06/02
11/21/02
12/06/02
825C Bulldozer #415
Hoses
Finger, bolt, nut, washer, bar
Bar, belt, bolt, washer, nut
Tubes, harness & hose assemblies
Support, retainer, bolts, nut, washer, cushion
Bearings, bolts
Radiator
Battery
Engine repower, radiator repair
Kit
Appendix C
Detailed Description of Dynamometer Emissions Testing
Completed by
(provided under separate cover)