php.scripts.psu.eduphp.scripts.psu.edu/users/c/a/cad5694/final report ge.… · web viewcost: this...
TRANSCRIPT
Tier 4 Emissions Compliance Plan forGE and PittsadelphiaEDSGN 100 section 022
Dr. Ritter
12/14/15Notorious ENG
Charles Dimino [email protected] AlKhazraji [email protected] Ciotti [email protected] Lopez [email protected]
GE’s new Tier 4 Locomotive
Abstract/executive summary:
The problem in the GE Project was to successfully find a solution that will meet the
EPA’s Tier 4 requirements; in addition, the solution must not affect the amount of good that are
entering the city. This solution must not cost GE a significant amount of money; the company is
looking for a solution that offers a two year return on investment. The people of Pittsadelphia
must be content with the changes made, we have to find a way to not tamper with the
environment around them while keeping smog levels low. We had many solutions to start of
with, the first solution was to have the city become self-reliant of the resources that it needs. The
second solution was to transport any liquid goods by locomotives while all other goods by an
airplane because liquids are more difficult to transport by airplane. Our third solution involved
using different modes of transportation including trucks, planes, trains, and ships basically it
dealt with finding the most efficient route to take. Our main method and the method we stood by
was to sell all Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotives in order to buy new Tier 4 trains. We decided to do
this because Tier 4 locomotives already meet with the current EPA standards, and decided that
by doing this method we will get a return on investment in five years as well as it becoming the
most profitable of all solutions thought of. In conclusion, Tier 4 locomotives will now be used in
the city of Pittsadelphia as a way of staying in check with the EPA standards as well as it not
costing GE a significant amount of money.
Problem statement/intro:
This assignment was given to us by the company GE (General Electric) to help the
company find the best solution that will meet Tier 4 requirements provided by the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) in the city of Pittsadelphia. However, the chosen solution
must not cost GE a significant amount of money; the company is looking for a solution that
offers a two year return on investment. Other people that must be satisfied are the people who are
living in the city which would not want their city to be polluted nor to have a solution that will
change the beauty of the city.
The people of Pittsadelphia would like to have a complete fleet of locomotives that
passes through their city (provided by GE) that pass the Tier 4 standards provided by the EPA.
Currently GE has a fleet of Tier 3 and Tier 2 locomotives that produce a substantial amount of
emissions which affect the people of Pittsadelphia. In addition, in the process of development to
upgrade to Tier 4 locomotives the team will analyze the cost benefits of different ways of
upgrading, and choose the best solution that will help the different criteria of our stakeholders
mainly the people of the city. We are researching the benefits and drawbacks of our design, as
well as the environmental impacts on the city. Different means of transportation were considered
to be part of the final solution because they might prove to be more beneficial to the people of
the city which must be focused on in order to have the best possible solutions.
Background:
The new Tier 4 locomotives launches in 2015. It will be the cleanest, smartest and most
fuel- efficient diesel-electric Evolution Series Locomotive for heavy-haul freight and it will meet
EPA Tier 4 emission requirements. The locomotive will reduce NOx and PM emissions by 70%.
Since no after treatment is required it will save GE at least 1.5 billion in infrastructure and
operating cost (1). Currently in the city of Pittsadelphia approximately 165,000 tons of freight or
minerals per day travel in and out of the city via rail. The city of Pittsadelphia consists of 15
locomotives, 3 mineral and 12 freight. The mineral train can carry at least 12,000 tons of coal
with three locomotives, while the freight trains can carry 7,000 tons of freight with 2
locomotives.
Customer needs:
We needed different criteria in order to find the best solution that will satisfy our
stakeholders which consisted of the people of the city, the company, and the EPA. We tried to
come up with different criteria that will be in the interest of all of the people involved, hence we
came up with a set of specifications that had the customers in mind. In total we had eight
different customer needs to focus on:
1. Noise: This requirement focuses mainly on the people of the city that will have the
locomotives go through their city. Our specifications to this requirements will be placed
according to the average noise produced by a locomotive going at 45 mph which is 80
dB(2).
2. Efficiency: This mainly focuses on GE because they would like locomotives that are fuel
efficient, so they do not have to refuel them more often than the current fleet. In addition,
the fuel should not be more expensive than the locomotives they currently use. The ideal
specification to this requirements would be an engine that would be 10% more efficient
than that of the current fleet.
3. Less emissions: The EPA requires the emissions to follow Tier 4 standards of NOx (1.3)
(g/bhp-hr) and PM (0.03)(g/bhp-hr) (3)
4. Cost: This specification is very important because without financial incentive to work on
changing the fleet GE will not continue with the plans to better the economy. Hence our
specification for this requirements fall into one of GE’s requests of having a two year
return on investment.
5. Output: The locomotives will need to be able to carry at least the same amount of freight
and coal to pass this requirement. This will affect both the people who might not get their
requested goods and GE because they will be forced to have more locomotives go per
day which will cost them more money.
6. Maintenance: The average cost of yearly maintenance of locomotives is around 8.9
billion dollars which would be a good benchmark to that price.
7. Capacity: The capacity of the locomotives is important because the people and the
company because the people depend on the products that go through, and the company
would need to have more locomotives going through the city to keep up with the peoples’
demands.
8. NextFuel: This type of fuel is one that is very important for GE they introduced it and
have been planning to use it in their machinery (4).
Each specification we considered was important; nonetheless, they were not equal in
importance. We had to weigh the different specifications to better understand how important one
is compared to the rest. In order to do so we used the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) matrix.
Please refer to Figure 1 to see the specific numbers that were given to each of the metrics. The
highest ranked metric was the cost, and the reasoning behind it is that if the cost was too high
with little return the project will not be funded. Next having less emissions was the second most
important requirement because if we do not reach that requirement we would negatively impact
the people who live in the city and will not reach the EPA requirements.
Concept
Generation:
Many
solutions were
proposed to this
project by the team
members so the
process of choosing
the best solution was very difficult; to solve this
problem a very specific way of solution
generation was used to come up with the best
solution. The first step of this process was for each student to come up with every possible
solution he/she can think of and explain it in the best way it can be presented i.e. diagram,
drawing or description. Figure 2 displays one of those initial ideas written down that one of the
group members had made for the activity.
In the next step of the process we worked on an informal concept selection activity. The
main goal of this activity is to help the team narrow down the ideas that they have, or combine
some to come up with a better idea. This is not done using any type of metrics or numbers
Figure 1, this figure contains detailed information about how each requirement was weighed.
Figure 2, this is a sample from one member of
the team.
because of the sheer number of solutions we had to “weed out” the solutions that were not found
to be fit for the task he have at hand. In total we had about forty five ideas from the different
members, but after combining some and realizing that some were similar we were left with
twenty. We had discussions about each idea; the discussions were about how useful the idea is to
the problem? How easy it is to implement? And multiple other general questions. At the end of
that process we were left with the five solutions seem in Figure 3. The first solution seen in
figure 3.A was to have the city become self-reliant of the resources that it needs. The second
solution labeled 3.B was to transport any liquid goods by locomotives while all other goods by
an airplane because liquids are more difficult to transport by airplane. Figure 3.C involved using
different modes of transportation including trucks, planes, trains, and ships basically it dealt with
finding the most efficient route to take. Figures 3.D and 3.E had similar versions of the solutions
that are were displayed in figure 3.c. It was somewhat clear that trains, in our opinion, were the
best way to transport the goods to the city so we relied on the other part of our decision making
process was the cost analysis where we pinned different solutions, specific to trains, against each
other that will be discussed later in details in the research in the cost-benefit analysis section.
Concept Selection:
In order to have a solution that will benefit most of our stakeholders we had to develop a
set of requirements or specifications that were requested by our stakeholders. Some of our
customers/ stakeholders were the people that live in the city, GE and the EPA. After weighing
the different specifications/requirements that are in the interest of our stakeholders we rated our
different solutions on a scale from one to five and multiplied the weight of each requirement with
that rating. Please refer to Figure 4 for more information.
Furthermore, we understood that the cost of the solution was the most important
requirement because a solution that is very expensive and has a very low return on the
investment will not be properly funded by investors hence will not take place. That led us to
conduct a very thorough analysis of the costs which will be discussed in detail later in the report.
The analysis mainly consisted of how the different solutions will save the company money if
they were implemented for the next twenty years. Finally, we considered the matrix process of
finding the best solution, and the detailed cost analysis graph and our reasoning and educated
guesses to come up with the best solution which was buying new Tier 4 trains.
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
In our final conclusion we have decided to replace the old fleet with brand new Tier 4
locomotives. We will be selling all of the old fleet to help fund the purchasing of the new fleet. From our
Cost benefit graph, refer to Figure 5, GE would get a return on investment in year 2. Although
purchasing Tier 3 would yield a faster initial return on investment, buying Tier 4 would comply with EPA
emissions standards and Tier 4 would be more cost effective than purchasing Tier 3 at year 5. Buying Tier
3 alternative energy does not see a return on year 15 because of the large initial investment required for
new fueling station or fueling station overhaul. The use of alternative energy would mean less expensive
fuel and lower emissions. Buying Tier 4 locomotives would be the most conventional decision as it would
not require new fueling stations. Buying new Tier 4 locomotives would save 10 million in the second year
and would save 500 million in the course of twenty years.
Figure 5, shows the total cost of the different options over five years
Design Review:
We were given different types of feedback from the surveys we conducted in class to
further improve on our design. In general the requirements that we presented to the other teams
seemed to make sense to the viewers. In addition, they believed that we have met the minimum
requirements provided by the EPA, and helps the company when it comes to costs. More
importantly it helps our main customers who are the people of the city. The reviewers also
provide information about the cost graph that was provided and have provided feedback on how
to incorporate other elements to it; we were also informed that the return on investment might
not be within the desired timeline provided by GE. Finally a more improved systems diagram
was one issue that both teams that reviewed our project showed interest in. In summary the
comments we got for improvements in design were:
Do more research about the loses from the initial costs (find more factors that will affect
the final value.
Prepare a better systems diagram.
Prototype/model
The most important change that we will need to work on would be out prototype because
that is our greatest hindrance to move on with this project. More research needs to be done to
come up with a model and also more questions need to be asked on how to show our model in a
very creative way. Moreover, a new systems diagrams needs to be worked on because our
solution should be clearer. Finally, incorporating some other variables and factors will change
the final numbers in the graph and it would give a better understanding on how it will work.
Description of final design:
In our final design, we have decided that buying a new fleet of Tier 4 locomotives while
selling the Tier 2 locomotives would be the most economical and environmental sense to our
stakeholders. As seen in Figure 5, Buying Tier 4 locomotives breaks even at year 2 and at year
5 it becomes the most profitable option. Buying new Tier 4 would meet the EPA’s emissions
standard as well as not forgoing freight capacity or delaying deliveries. The public opinion of
Tier 4 locomotives is a positive one, as the general public will know that the new locomotives
are more economically friendly and new locomotives mean they will be more visually appealing
as opposed to a twenty year old locomotive. Our plan of buying Tier 4 trains for work
harmoniously with GE as it would not require new fueling stations, installations of additional
infrastructure, and would only need to sell their old Tier 2 locomotives and purchase new Tier 4
locomotives. The new locomotives will not sacrifice the time of delivery of the products because
the locomotives are capable of carrying the same amount of load as the old generations with
more power.
Other parts of our solution is how much will the locomotives produce regarding smog
and other toxins. The provided estimations put the NO x production at 70% less than the current
fleet. In addition, the solution will be easily implemented because it will not require an overhaul
to the system that GE has connected between different city and Pittsadelphia. According to GE
they have seen 3%-17% on fuel savings depending on what the train is transporting; moreover,
they have noted that there was a 10% decrease in emissions (5).
Systems Diagram:
Our systems diagram is fairly simple because it basically consists of the previous way GE
transported the goods to the city. The Tier four trains, our new solution, is at the bottom is put in
a green rectangle to show that it is the correct solution that we will be taking into consideration.
Both are connected on the other end
with the city of Pittsadelphia shown by
the arrows. In addition, to illustrate
further that the Tier 3 are not the write
answer we provided the cross. Figure 6
shows our representation of the solution.
CONOPS:
Our CONOPS is also a simple diagram where we illustrate that we will be selling the old
Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotives for a new fleet that consists of Tier 4 locomotives. The new fleet
will consist of the same number of
locomotives, and will have the same
number of locomotives to the city.
With less emissions the people of
Pittsadelphia will not satisfied because
their city will not be affected by the
locomotives.
Conclusions:
Our design is to buy a new fleet of locomotives that meet the EPA Tier 4 requirements; in
addition, it will not negatively affect the people of Pittsadelphia. The final design is buying a
new fleet of Tier 4 locomotives. The positive aspects of our design is it is the most cost effective
of the other solutions, more environmentally friendly, and will have the best positive public
opinion. Even though our final design harbors many positive aspects it does have some
Figure 6, this was the way we represented our solution.
Figure 7, this is our representation of the final solution.
drawbacks. First, the final design’ initial upfront cost of buying a new fleet; moreover, the
probability of the EPA to lower their requirements even further. The design would go into further
review as to how to implement it the fastest and most cost effective way. For example, finding
buyers for the old Tier 2 locomotives, starting the building process of the new Tier 4
locomotives, etc. Throughout this project we noticed this was as much of a business challenge as
it was an engineering one.
Sources:
(1) “GE Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotives”. General Electric Transportation. N.p., n.d.
Web. 28 Sept. 2015. <http://www.getransportation.com>.
(2) “NS Locomotives: An NS Competitive Advantage Norfolk Southern Investor and
Financial Analyst Conference”. Northfolk Southern. N.p., 8 June 2011. Web. 30 Sept.
2015. <http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en.html>.
(3) “ARB Freight Locomotive Advanced Technology Assessment”. California
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. N.p., 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 5 Sept.
2015. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm>.
(4) “NextFuel™ Natural Gas Retrofit Kit with Dual Fuel Technology”. General Electric
Transportation. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. <http://www.getransportation.com>.
(5) “GE Transportation Delivers Digital, Smart & Fuel Efficient Rail Technology”. General
Electric Transportation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.getransportation.com>.