scaqmd trap study v11 edited lm

SCAQMD Construction Off-Road Trap Study

BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON i

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 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES ............................................................................. 1-2 1.3 STUDY SCOPE AND DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 1-3

2.0 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 iii

3.9 OPERATOR INTERVIEWS.............................................................................................. 3-30 3.10 FUEL QUALITY SAMPLING DATA ................................................................................ 3-31

4.0 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 iv

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 v

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 -ES–1-

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.



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).



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.



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



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



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



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 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 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.



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:

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.

1.2 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES

Table 1-1 lists the project participants and their roles.



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, co-sponsor

• Frank Caponi, Engineering Supervisor • Monet Wong, Engineer, • Patrick Feenan, Sr. Mechanic for all LACSD sites • Larry Isenberg, Puente Hills Maintenance Manager

C. W. Poss Construction, Inc., Gen. Eng. Contractor

Heavy equipment owner-operator

• Charlie Poss, Owner • Wayne Kriehn, Purchaser • Bob Ischerwood, Lead Mechanic, Newport Coast

Sukut Construction 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

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.



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.

3. Baseline Dynamometer Testing

• 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.

4. Retrofit Equipment with PM filters

• Obtain operating permits for modified equipment. • Coordinate retrofit of vehicles.

5. On-Board PM Emission Testing

• CARB staff installs equipment to measure PM emission reductions during vehicle operation.

• Opacity testing completed periodically.

6. Demonstration Monitoring

• 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.

7. Final Dynamometer Test

• 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 determinetrap 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.



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? How well do the traps and brackets stand up to the rigors of heavy-duty equipment operation?

Problems with the installations were logged as they occurred. Traps and installations were periodically inspected during the demonstration.



2. PRE-DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES

2.1 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 older-style 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.



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 # Rig Yr. Engine Trap 6621 1996 3408 MUI JM 6654 2000 3408 EUI ENG 6655 2000 3408 EUI JM 6620 1998 3408 MUI none 6653 2000 3408 EUI 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



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 Equip # Rig Yr. Engine Trap 824B 407 1977 D343 MUI JM 825C 415 1983 3406 EUI ENG 834B 409 1971 3408 MUI 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



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 # Rig Yr. Engine Trap

6604 1996 3408 MUI, 3412 MUI JM 6605 1996 3408 MUI, 3412 MUI ENG 6606 1996 3408 MUI, 3412 MUI ENG 6607 1996 3408 MUI, 3412 MUI none 6608 1996 3408 MUI, 3412 MUI 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 # Rig Yr. Engine Trap

605 1973 D346 JM 625 1973 D346 ENG 628 1976 D346 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.



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 RigWeight Trap Fuel used

6604 657E scraper 1996 167,270 lbs JM ULSD6605 657E scraper 1996 167,270 lbs Eng ULSD6606 657E scraper 1996 167,270 lbs Eng ULSD6607 657E scraper 1996 167,270 lbs Control CARB6608 657E scraper 1996 167,270 lbs Control ULSD6655 D9N dozer EUI 2000 109,180 lbs JM ULSD6621 D9N dozer MUI 1996 109,180 lbs JM ULSD6654 D9N dozer EUI 2000 109,180 lbs Eng ULSD6620 D9N dozer MUI 1998 109,180 lbs Control CARB6653 D9N dozer EUI 2000 109,180 lbs Control ULSD

407 824B dozer 1977 66,975 lbs JM ULSD409 834 dozer 1971 102,195 lbs JM ULSD415 825C dozer 1983 66,975 lbs Eng ULSD605 651B scraper 1973 126,880 lbs JM ULSD625 651B scraper 1973 126,880 lbs Eng ULSD628 651B scraper 1976 126,880 lbs Eng ULSD

vehicles retrofitted with traps

POSS

CSD



Table 2-6: Engine Statistics

Eq# Equip Type Engine Type Filter Type of fuel

injection

Year engine rebuilt

Engine Hrs at start of

Demo

Rated HP

Rated RPM

Displ. (cubic

inches)Notes

6604 657E scraper 3412 (F) JM MUI 1996 12,124 550 2100 1649 Original engine. 3408 (R) JM MUI 1996 12,124 400 2100 1098 Original engine.

6605 657E scraper 3412 (F) ENG MUI 1996 12,991 550 2100 1649 Original engine. 3408 (R) ENG MUI 1996 12,991 400 2100 1098 Original engine.

6606 657E scraper 3412 (F) ENG MUI 1996 12,818 550 2100 1649 Original engine. 3408 (R) ENG MUI 1996 12,818 400 2100 1098 Original engine.

6607 657E scraper 3412 (F) none MUI 1996 12,542 550 2100 1649 Original engine. 3408 (R) none MUI 1996 12,542 400 2100 1098 Original engine.

6608 657E scraper 3412 (F) none MUI 1996 13,538 550 2100 1649 Original engine. 3408 (R) none MUI 1996 13,538 400 2100 1098 Original engine.

6655 D9N dozer 3408 JM EUI 2000 4,864 405 2100 1098 Original engine. 6621 D9N dozer 3408 JM MUI 1996 9,158 400 2100 1098 Certified rebuilt 6654 D9N dozer 3408 ENG EUI 2000 5,456 405 2100 1098 Certified rebuilt 6620 D9N dozer 3408 none MUI 1998 9,401 400 2100 1098 Certified Rebuilt 9/976653 D9N dozer 3408 none EUI 2000 4,598 405 2100 1098 Certified rebuilt

407 824B dozer D343 JM pre-chamber 2001 NA 315 2100 893 Rebuilt. no aftercooler409 834 dozer 3408 JM MUI 2002 NA 450 2100 1098 Certified rebuilt 415 825C dozer 3406 Eng EUI 2002 NA 375 2100 893 Repowered with EUI605 651B scraper D346 JM pre-chamber 2000 NA 575 2000 1649 Rebuilt625 651B scraper D346 ENG pre-chamber 2002 NA 575 2000 1649 Rebuilt628 651B scraper D346 ENG pre-chamber 2001 NA 575 2000 1649 Rebuilt

Dyna 657E scraper 3408 (R) MUI 2002 -- 418 2100 1098 Rebuilt, 1st WVU testDyna 657E scraper 3408 (R) MUI 2003 -- 418 2100 1098 Rebuilt, 2nd WVU test

vehicles retrofitted with traps

CSD

POSS

SUKUT

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.



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).



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 BP-Arco 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



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



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 followed by the soot collection/combustion process in the second. As shown in the 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 the NO for soot combustion, the catalyst also oxidizes CO, HC and the SOF portion of the PM. 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

InletHead

CatalystSection

Filter Section

OutletHead

Oxidation Catalyst

Wall-flowFilter

Figure 2-6: JM Filter



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

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

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

Equip Type Eq# Engine Type Trap DPF Type

657E scraper 6604 3412 (Front) JM 15X15 CRT (2)3408 (Rear) JM 20X15 CRT

657E scraper 6605 3412 (Front) Eng DPX 20X15 (2)3408 (Rear) Eng DPX 20X15

657E scraper 6606 3412 (Front) Eng DPX 20X15 (2)3408 (Rear) Eng DPX 20X15

D9N dozer elec 6655 3408 JM 20X15 CRTD9N dozer mech 6621 3408 JM 20X15 CRTD9N dozer elec 6654 3408 Eng DPX 20X15

824B dozer 407 D343 JM 15X15 CRT834B dozer 409 3408 JM 15X15 CRT825C dozer 415 D3406 Eng DPX 15X15651B scraper 605 D346 JM 20X15 CRT (2)651B scraper 625 D346 Eng DPX 20X15 (2)651B scraper 628 D346 Eng DPX 20X15 (2)

POSS

CSD

Figure 2-7: Filter Section



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 vehicle-specific 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. Low-line 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



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



d. Piston-ring-liner wear e. Fatigue cracking of exhaust system components including exhaust valves f. Loss of fuel economy by approximately 0.5 percent per 1 inch Hg (13.6 inches of water) g. Soot deposits or smoke from exhaust joints

2.5.2 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



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

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.

Equip Type Eq# Engine Type Trap DPF Type Filter Location

657E scraper 6604 3412 (Front) JM 15X15 CRT (2) rt. front fender3408 (Rear) JM 20X15 CRT left rear fender

657E scraper 6605 3412 (Front) Eng DPX 20X15 (2) rt. front fender3408 (Rear) Eng DPX 20X15 left rear fender

657E scraper 6606 3412 (Front) Eng DPX 20X15 (2) rt. front fender3408 (Rear) Eng DPX 20X15 left rear fender

D9N dozer 6655 3408 EUI JM 20X15 CRT ROPSD9N dozer 6621 3408 MUI JM 20X15 CRT ROPSD9N dozer 6654 3408 EUI Eng DPX 20X15 ROPS

824B dozer 407 D343 JM 15X15 CRT ROPS834B dozer 409 3408 MUI JM 15X15 CRT ROPS825C dozer 415 3406 EUI Eng DPX 15X15 ROPS651B scraper 605 D346 JM 20X15 CRT (2) ROPS651B scraper 625 D346 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) ROPS651B scraper 628 D346 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) ROPS

POSS

CSD



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).



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.



3. DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

3.1 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.



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 pre-chamber 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.



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 Remaining POSS study vehicles are fueled with CARB diesel instead of ULSD.

September 2003 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 WVU performs second round of dynamometer emission testing.



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

[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.

Opr Equip Type Eq#Engine Type/ Installation

Engine year Trap DPF Type

Installation Date (Reinstalled)

Trap Hours as of 12/1/03

Avg Hours per week

CSD 657E scraper 6604 3412 (Front) 1996 JM 15X15 CRT (2) 10/7/02 1403 23.4CSD 657E scraper 6604 3408 (Rear) 1996 JM 20X15 CRT 10/7/02 1179 23.4CSD 657E scraper 6605 3412 (Front) 1996 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 1134 29.6CSD 657E scraper 6605 3408 (Rear) 1996 Eng DPX 20X15 3/11/03 1134 29.6CSD 657E scraper 6606 3412 (Front) 1996 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03 1086 28.3CSD 657E scraper 6606 3408 (Rear) 1996 Eng DPX 20X15 3/7/03 1086 28.3CSD 657E scraper 6607 3412 (Front) 1996 None Control (CARB) 10/2/02 1277 21.0CSD 657E scraper 6607 3408 (Rear) 1996 None Control (CARB) 10/2/02 1277 21.0CSD 657E scraper 6608 3412 (Front) 1996 None Control (ULSD) 10/8/02 1414 23.6CSD 657E scraper 6608 3408 (Rear) 1996 None Control (ULSD) 10/8/02 1414 23.6CSD D9N dozer elec 6655 3408 2000 JM 20X15 CRT 5/23/03 877 32.0CSD D9N dozer elec 6654 3408 2000 Eng DPX 20X15 3/8/03 (381 by 5/22) 31.0CSD D9N dozer elec 6653 3408 2000 None Control (ULSD) 10/1/02 2123 27.5CSD D9N dozer mec 6620 3408 1998 None Control (CARB) 10/17/02 1847 33.0CSD D9N dozer mech 6621 3408 1996 JM 20X15 CRT 6/17/03 556 28.6Poss 651B scraper 605 D346 2000 JM 20X15 CRT (2) 11/25/02 (386 by 4/22) 18.2Poss 651B scraper 625 D346 2002 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 856 25.6Poss 651B scraper 628 D346 2001 Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 699 20.9Poss 824B dozer 407 D343 2001rb JM 15X15 CRT 11/21/02 (766 by 6/26) 25.2Poss 825C dozer 415 D3406 2002 Eng DPX 15X15 4/26/03 977 36.4Poss 834B dozer 409 3408 2002rb JM 15X15 CRT 11/25/02 (675 by 6/26) 17.7



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 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,

657E scraper #6604 rear engine trap element



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.

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

651B scraper with Johnson-Matthey filter



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. 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.

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

651B Scraper, #605 Trap Elements

D9 dozer #6621 trap element



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 center-body and visual inspection revealed that the substrate had become dislodged from the center-body 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 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

D9 dozer #6654 trap element



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 burning-through 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.

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.

824B dozer with JM filter



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 825C dozer filter close-up

3.2.5 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.



Table 3-3: Summary of Filter Durability-Related Incidents (as of 12/1/2003)

Location Unit # Vehicle Type Engine EngYr. Trap Hours Major Filter Durability IncidentsCSD 6604 R 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 571 Trap element shfited" " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1397 Cannister gasket torn

" " 6604 F " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 15x15 1400 No incidents (both traps shifted 5 months after end of demo)

CSD 6621 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 898 Trap and DOC elements shfitedCSD 6655 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 774 Trap element shfited

POSS 605 651E scraper D346 1973 (2) 20x15 386 Both Traps "shfited"POSS 407 824B dozer D343 1977 15x15 377 slight burn through of trap element

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " 766 trap shifted; damagesPOSS 409 834 dozer 3408 2002* 15x15 561 trap shifted; damages

* rebuilt

Location Unit # Vehicle Type Engine EngYr. Trap Hours Major Filter Durability IncidentsCSD 6605 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 No incidents" " " " " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 20x15 No incidents

CSD 6606 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 No incidents" " " " " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 20x15 No incidents

CSD 6654 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 381 Trap element shfited; fracturedPOSS 625 651E scraper D346 1973 (2) 20x15 No incidentsPOSS 628 651E scraper D346 1976 (2) 20x15 No incidentsPOSS 415 825C dozer 3406 1983* 15x15 No incidents

* rebuilt in 2002 with EUI

Johnson Matthey

Englehard

~1150

~1100

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.



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

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.

657E scraper #6604



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.



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.

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

D9 dozer #6654 torn seal clamp



On April 21, 2003, inspection of the dozer revealed an unusually large vibration in the low-pressure 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



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 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; D9 dozer #6655 with leaking seal clamp

Aspirator indentations form Venturi constriction

Poss Dozers #407, 409, and 415.

No significant installation incidents occurred on any dozers at Poss.

D9 dozer #6655 broken ring clamp on stack



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 Description

LASCD 6604 657E scraper JMLow pressure return line crimped. Exhaust leaks found on rear engine installation. Exhaust elbow disconnected.

LASCD 6605 657E scraper Engelhard No Installation IncidentsLASCD 6606 657E scraper Engelhard No Installation Incidents

LASCD 6654 D9N dozer Engelhard Leaks at exhaust elbows; broken seal and flange clamps; low pressure line failures.

LASCD 6621 D9N dozer JMFlex line torn; seal clamp failures; numerous exhaust leaks; copper tubing return line loose, replaced connector.

LASCD 6655 D9N dozer JMRing clamp failures; flex line torn; leaking seal clamps; exhaust stack weld failures; copper tubing return line loose/leaks.

POSS 407 824B dozer JM No Installation IncidentsPOSS 409 834 dozer JM No Installation IncidentsPOSS 415 825 dozer Engelhard No Installation Incidents

POSS 605 651B scraper JM Torn flex pipe; leaks at elbows, flange seal POSS 625 651B scraper Engelhard Fractures in mounting bracket support struts.

POSS 628 651B scraper Engelhard Fractures in mounting bracket support struts. 3.4 OTHER INCIDENTS

3.4.1 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



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.



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.



Table 3-5: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E SCRAPERS

Unit # 6604Vehicle Type 657E Scraper

Location LACSDFilters Johnson-Matthey

Date Approx. hours on vehicle Incident Description: Rear Engine

10/7/2002 0 A single 20x15 CRT filter was installed for the rear engine

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 571Ceramic 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 1397WVU 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 Incident Description: Front Engine

10/7/2002 0

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.

12/23/2002 239 Low-pressure return line found partially crimped by yoke.

12/1/2003 1397 Filters functioning properly at the end of demonstration.

Unit # 6605

Vehicle Type 657E ScraperLocation CSD

Filters Engelhard


3/7/2003 0 A single DPX 20x15 filter installed on the rear engine.

8/22/2003 681 Exhaust stack bent backwards 6 inches after contacting another piece of equipment.

9/9/2003 742 CARB on-board testing completing: PM reduction efficiency measured above 90 %.

12/1/2003 1117 Filter functioning properly at the end of the demonstration.


3/7/2003 0 Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the right fender for the front engine.

9/9/2003 742 CARB on-board testing completing: PM reduction efficiency measured above 90 %.




Table 3-6: Incident Summary: LACSD 657E Scraper

Table 3-7: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers

Unit # 6621Vehicle Type D9 Bulldozer

Location CSDFilters Johnson-Matthey

Date Approx. hours on vehicle Incident Description:

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 898CSD 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.



Location CSDFilters Engelhard


3/7/2003 0 A single DPX 20x15 filter installed.

9/11/2003 759 CARB on-board testing completing. More than 90 % PM reduction efficiency measured.

12/1/2003 1086 Filter functioning properly at end of demonstration.


3/7/2003 0 Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the right fender for the front engine.

9/11/2003 759 CARB on-board testing completing. More than 90 % PM reduction efficiency measured.

12/1/2003 1086 Filters functioning properly at end of demonstration.



Table 3-8: Incident Summary: LACSD D9 Dozers


Location LACSDFilters Engelhard


2/27/2003 0 A single DPX 20x15 filter installed on the ROPS above the driver cab roof.

3/1/2003 - Flexible tubing connecting aspirator with low pressure return line falls off twice in March.

3/20/2003 88 Flexible tubing falls off a third time. LACSD staff detect tear in 6" flex piping.

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.


Location CSDFilters Johnson-Matthey


12/2/2002 0 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.

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 reduction efficiency measured.

2/20/2003 146 Exhaust stack clips telephone lines.

2/24/2003 158 Fuelers find 9 gallons of water in fuel tank.

2/27/2003 167 Fuelers an addition gallon of water in fuel tank.

4/8/2003 384 Backpressure warning light lit.

4/10/2003 398CSD 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.




Table 3-9: Incident Summary: Poss 651 Scrapers


Location Poss-NewportFilters Johnson-Matthey


11/25/2002 0 Two parallel 20x15 CRT filters mounted to driver cab ROPS.

12/13/2002 83 Backpressure increasing past 4 inches of Hg.

12/26/2002 90Backpressure 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 complains of lagging performance. Backpressure back up to 5 inches of Hg.

2/20/2003 264 Traps and exhaust lines insulated to improve regeneration.

2/26/2003 271 Flex pipe portion of the exhaust line torn open.

2/28/2003 271 Operator complains 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 manifold.

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 removed.


Location Poss-NewportFilters Engelhard


3/11/2003 0 Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the driver cab roof ROPS.

5/28/2003 221 Richard Zurbey of Engelhard conducts temperature and backpressure testing.

6/19/2003 324 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 Rig fueled with CARB diesel instead of ULSD.

11/7/2003 771 Filters removed prior to sale of vehicle.




3/11/2003 0 Two DPX 20x15 filters installed in parallel on the driver cab roof ROPS.

6/19/2003 330 Strut support bars for filter brackets found to be detached due to failed welds. Shepherd makes repairs on 6/21/03.


11/5/2003 661 Filters removed prior to sale of vehicle.



Table 3-10: Incident Summary: Poss 824/825/834 Dozers

Unit # 407Vehicle Type 824B Bulldozer



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 Check of trap element reveals slight burn-through of trap element. Trap element reinstalled in reverse direction.

6/26/2003 766 Trap retrofit is removed after significant burnthrough and slippage found.

Unit # 409Vehicle Type 834 Bulldozer



11/25/2002 0 A single 15x15 CRT filter installed on driver cab ROPS.

1/17/2003 113 Backpressure begins to rise from 2.5 inches Hg to 4-5 inches of Hg.

3/6/2003 253 High backpressure warning light lit. Backpressure spikes to a high level, but it drops in subsequent days.

4/22/2003 405Trap 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 # 415Vehicle Type 825C Bulldozer



4/26/2003 0 One DPX 15x15 filter installed in parallel on the cab roof ROPS.


12/1/2003 1184 Filter performing well at end of demo. Filter remains installed.



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

Opr Eq# Equipment Type Trap Nov, 02

Dec, 02

Jan, 03

Feb, 03

Mar, 03

Apr, 03

May, 03

Jun, 03

Jul, 03

Aug, 03

Sep, 03

Oct, 03

Nov, 03

CSD 6604F 657E scraper JM - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2CSD 6604R 657E scraper JM - - 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2CSD 6605F 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2CSD 6605R 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2CSD 6606F 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -CSD 6606R 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 3 2CSD 6621 D9N dozer mec JM - - - 2 3 5 8 - - - 3 1 1CSD 6654 D9N dozer elec Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -CSD 6655 D9N dozer elec JM 1 1 1 2 3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 1 1Poss 407 824B dozer JM 2 2 2 6 5 3 4 5 - - - - -Poss 409 834 dozer JM 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 - - - - -Poss 605 651B scraper JM 2 3 4 4 5 5 - - - - - - -Poss 415 825C dozer Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -Poss 625 651B scraper Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -Poss 628 651B scraper Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -"-" mean no data available

Approximate Average Exhaust Pressure in inches of Hg (mercury)

Table 3-12. Average Exhaust Temperatures During Demonstration

Opr Eq# Equipment Type TrapNov, 02

Dec, 02

Jan, 03

Feb, 03

Mar, 03

Apr, 03

May, 03

Jun, 03

Jul, 03

Aug, 03

Sep, 03

Oct, 03

Nov, 03

CSD 6604F 657E scraper JM - - - 360 430 440 410 410 430 - - - 400CSD 6604R 657E scraper JM - - - 500 530 410 390 440 440 450 470 470 -CSD 6605F 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - (400) (400) (380) - - (380)CSD 6605R 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - (460) (460) (430) (420) (460) (440)CSD 6606F 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - 400 - - - - -CSD 6606R 657E scraper Eng - - - - - - - 470 - - - - -CSD 6621 D9N dozer mec JM - - - 460 470 480 520 450 - - (480) (520) (510)CSD 6654 D9N dozer elec Eng - - - - - - - - - - - - -CSD 6655 D9N dozer elec JM - (360) (360) (360) (400) 400 - 360 400 370 380 390 370Poss 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approximate Average Exhaust Temperature in Degrees Centigrade

Note: Parenthesis indicate data is questionable based on quality of recorded data 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.



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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Temperature Degrees Fahrenheit

Pressure in inches of water

Inchesof

Water

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.



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 four-and-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.



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:

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.

Daily fuel economy Distribution (CSD D9 Bulldozer #6655)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hours Used Per Day

Gal

lons

/Hou

r



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)

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.

Test Phase Fuel Type Trap Fuel

consumption (lb/bhp-hr)

Pre Demo CARB no 0.41Pre Demo EDC1 no 0.41Pre Demo FT no 0.437Pre Demo ECD1 Englehard 0.406Pre Demo ECD1 JM 0.402Pre Demo FT JM 0.412

Post Demo ECD1 no 0.393Post Demo ECD1 Englehard 0.397Post Demo ECD1 JM 0.397



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.



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

Table 3-16. Fuel Sample Results ( sulfur content ppm)

Date that fuel was sampled-->

10/7

/02

10/1

8/02

11/1

/02

11/2

1/02

11/2

5/02

1/3/

03

1/10

/03

1/27

/03

2/10

/03

2/27

/03

3/28

/03

4/8/

03

6/4/

03

10/1

7/03

Vehicle DescriptionCSD 657E scraper #6604 JM 8 7 6 11 10 11 7CSD 657E scraper #6606 Eng 9 7 6 7 6 10 7CSD D9N dozer elec #6655 JM 8 7 7 7 6 10 7CSD D9N dozer mec #6621 JM 8 7 6 6 5 10 7CSD 657E scraper #6605 Eng 8 7 6 7 6 13 7CSD D9N dozer elec #6654 Eng 8 7 7 16 6 10 7CSD 657E scraper #6608 None 7 7 6 6 10 7CSD D9N dozer elec #6653 None 7 7 6 7 6 10 8CSD 657E scraper #6607 None 25 46CSD D9N dozer mec #6620 None 18 51Poss 651B scraper #605 JM 7 8 7 5 4 5Poss 824B dozer #407 JM 28 8 7 5 5 5 182Poss 834B dozer #409 JM 7 7 5 5 5 183Poss 651B scraper #625 Eng 5 182Poss 651B scraper #628 Eng 5 183Poss 825C dozer #415 Eng 182Poss CARB diesel 126 126

Diesel fuel sulfur content in parts per million (ppm)



4. EMISSIONS TESTING

4.1 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.



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)

Emission Type Fuel Type

8-mode Weighted Average

(g/bhp-hr)

Transient Cycle

(g/bhp-hr)

% Reduction in Transient Test

emissions versus ECD1 Baseline

CARB Baseline 0.19 0.32 5.9%ECD1 Baseline 0.20 0.34 0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.01 0.006 98.2%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.01 0.005 98.5%GTL - JM (CRT) 0.00 0.004 98.8%CARB Baseline 7.43 6.98 -11.7%ECD1 Baseline 7.18 6.25 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 9.21 7.00 -12.0%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 8.24 6.33 -1.3%GTL - JM (CRT) 8.78 6.54 -4.6%CARB Baseline 1.14 0.21 27.6%ECD1 Baseline 0.23 0.29 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.11 0.02 93.1%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.14 0.06 79.3%GTL - JM (CRT) 0.09 0.02 93.1%CARB Baseline 1.26 1.99 4.3%ECD1 Baseline 1.23 2.08 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.16 0.07 96.6%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.07 0.73 64.9%GTL - JM (CRT) 0.14 0.04 98.1%

PM

NOX

HC

CO

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.



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.



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 Fuel Type

8-mode Weighted Average

(g/bhp-hr)

Transient Cycle

(g/bhp-hr)

% Reduction versus ECD1

Baseline (Transient Test)

ECD1 Baseline 0.17 0.33 0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.01 0.00 > 99%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.01 0.03 90.9%ECD1 Baseline 6.52 6.40 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 6.14 6.05 5.5%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 5.96 5.96 6.9%ECD1 Baseline 4.06 5.99 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 3.66 3.98 33.6%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 3.19 4.40 26.5%ECD1 Baseline 2.46 0.41 0.0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 2.48 2.07 -404.9%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 2.77 1.56 -280.5%ECD1 Baseline 0.12 0.30 0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.00 0.00 > 99%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.00 0.00 > 99%ECD1 Baseline 1.31 2.10 0%EDC1- JM (CRT) 0.24 0.16 92.4%EDC1- Eng (DPX) 0.03 0.21 90.0%

HC

CO

PM

NOX

NO

NO2 (by difference)

Table 4-3: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Demo Dynamometer Emission Testing

pre-demo post demo pre-demo post demoBaseline (no filter) 0.20 0.17 0.34 0.33Johnson Matthey 0.01 0.01 0.006 0.001Englehard 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.03Baseline (no filter) 7.18 6.52 6.25 6.40Johnson Matthey 9.21 6.14 7.00 6.05Englehard 8.24 5.96 6.33 5.96Baseline (no filter) (1) 4.06 (1) 5.99Johnson Matthey (1) 3.66 (1) 3.98Englehard (1) 3.19 (1) 4.40Baseline (no filter) (1) 2.46 (1) 0.40Johnson Matthey (1) 2.48 (1) 2.07Englehard (1) 2.77 (1) 1.56Baseline (no filter) 0.23 0.12 0.29 0.30Johnson Matthey 0.11 0 0.021 0.001Englehard 0.14 0 0.06 0.001Baseline (no filter) 1.23 1.31 2.10 2.10Johnson Matthey 0.16 0.24 0.066 0.16Englehard 0.07 0.03 0.72 0.21

(1) NOx speciation provided for post demo testing onlyCO

8-mode Transient

PM

NOX

Emission Test Results (grams/ hp-hr) (all tests completed with ECD1 fuel)

NO

NO2 difference

HC



4.3 IN-USE EMISSION TESTING

4.3.1 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.



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 burn-through. 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 Trap DPF TypeDate Trap Installed

Opacity Test Date

Opacity Reading Comment

4/12/02 40.59/11/02 28.1

JM 15X15 CRT (2) 10/7/02 11/12/02 0.0 FilteredJM 15X15 CRT (2) 10/7/02 10/10/03 0.0 Filtered

4/12/02 39.89/11/02 44.7

JM 20X15 CRT 10/7/02 10/10/03 0.0 Filtered10/10/03 22.0 Removed for WVU4/9/02 45.19/11/02 45.2

JM 20X15 CRT 10/18/02 10/24/02 0.0 Filtered, 1st TrapJM 20X15 CRT 11/12/02 0.0 Filtered, 1st TrapJM 20X15 CRT 6/17/03 10/10/03 0.0 Filtered, 2nd install

4/9/02 1.69/11/02 4.910/17/02 3.3

JM 20X15 CRT 5/23/03 5/27/03 0.0 FilteredJM 20X15 CRT 5/23/03 10/10/03 0.3 Filtered

11/19/02 21.2JM 15X15 CRT 11/21/02 1/28/03 0.2 FilteredJM 15X15 CRT 11/21/02 4/22/03 0.0 FilteredJM 15X15 CRT 11/21/02 6/21/03 0.3 FilteredJM 15" DOC 6/28/03 9/20/03 98.5 DOC only

11/19/02 11.7JM 15X15 CRT 11/25/02 11/27/03 5.6 FilteredJM 15X15 CRT 11/25/02 1/28/03 4.4 Filtered

15X15 CRT 11/25/02 6/21/03 6.7 FilteredJM 10/10/03 99.9 DOC only

5/15/02 90.69/14/02 79.111/1/02 85.511/1/02 65.7 Fuel Adjusted

JM 20X15 CRT (2) 11/25/02 1/28/03 4.6 Filtered4/23/03 63.4 No filter

657E scraper CSD 19963412 F 6604

1996

1996CSDD9N bulldozer mechanical ignition

6621 3408

CSD 657E scraper 6604 3408 R

2000

Poss 824B bulldozer 407 D343 2001

CSDD9 bulldozer electronic ignition

6655 3408

1971

Poss 651B scraper 605 D346 1973

Poss 834 bulldozer 409 3408



Table 4-5. Exhaust Opacity Readings Summary, Part 2 of 2

Opr Equip Type Eq# EngineEngine

year Trap DPF TypeDate Trap Installed

Opacity Test Date

Opacity Reading Comment

4/12/02 77.69/11/02 73.410/24/02 59.2

Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 3/28/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 6/17/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 10/10/03 0.0 Filtered

4/12/02 35.39/11/02 55.110/24/02 38.7

Eng DPX 20X15 3/11/03 3/24/03 0.5 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 3/11/03 6/18/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 3/11/03 10/10/03 0.0 Filtered

4/12/02 11.49/11/02 15.4

Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03 3/24/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03 6/18/03 0.5 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/7/03 10/10/03 1.7 Filtered

4/12/02 58.79/11/02 23.5

Eng DPX 20X15 3/7/03 3/24/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 20X15 3/7/03 10/10/03 2.0 Filtered

4/9/02 4.09/11/02 12.910/17/02 8.0

Eng DPX 20X15 3/8/03 3/24/03 0.0 Filtered10/10/03 14.7 No filter3/6/03 99 Estimated3/6/03 65 Est after fuel adjusted

Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 4/23/03 0.2Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 6/18/03 0.0Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 9/20/03 0.0

3/6/03 99 Estimated3/6/03 65 Est after fuel adjusted

Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 4/23/03 0.0Eng DPX 20X15 (2) 3/11/03 6/18/03 0.2

4/26/03 20.2Eng DPX 15X15 4/26/03 6/21/03 0.0 FilteredEng DPX 15X15 4/26/03 9/20/03 0.0 FilteredNone Control (CARB) 10/2/02 4/12/02 44.6

9/10/02 26.610/10/03 17.4

None Control (CARB) 10/2/02 4/12/02 31.39/10/02 34.210/10/03 32.7

None Control (ULSD) 10/8/02 4/12/02 28.09/11/02 19.710/10/03 42.2

None Control (ULSD) 10/8/02 4/12/02 86.79/11/02 80.89/11/02 12.0 After fuel adjusted10/10/03 58.9

None Control (CARB) 10/17/02 4/9/02 55.99/11/02 46.810/24/02 65.010/10/03 68.0

None Control (ULSD) 10/1/02 4/9/02 1.49/11/02 4.510/17/02 5.110/10/03 7.0

None Control (ULSD) - 9/14/02 99.411/1/02 56.5

-Poss 651B scraper 629 D346

1989

CSDD9N bulldozer elec

6653 3408

CSDD9N bulldozer mechanical

6620 3408

2000

1996

CSD 657E scraper 6608 3408 R 1996

CSD 657E scraper 6608 3412 F

1996

CSD 657E scraper 6607 3408 R 1996


2001

Poss825C bulldozer electronic ignition

415 D3406 2002

Poss 651B scraper 628 D346

Poss 651B scraper 625 D346 2002

1996

CSDD9N bulldozer electronic ignition

6654 3408 2000


1996



1996

CSD 657E scraper 6606 3412 F 1996



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 on-board 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 PM Removal Efficiency

Hours of filter use

Front 97.4 %, 98.7 % 313 LACSD 657E Scraper #6604 Johnson-Matthey

Rear 97.5 % 313

LACSD D9N dozer #6655 Johnson-Matthey - 98.9 % 102

Front 94.3 % 739 LACSD 657E Scraper #6605 Engelhard

Rear 94.2 % 739

Front 91.1 % 757 LACSD 657E Scraper #6606 Engelhard

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 post-demonstration 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

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

Location Unit # Vehicle Type Engine EngYr. Trap Hours Major Filter IncidentsCSD 6604 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 571 Trap element shfited" " " " " " " " " " " " " " 1397 Cannister gasket torn

" " " " " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 15x15 ?? No incidents (both traps shifted 5 months after end of demo)

CSD 6621 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 898 Trap and DOC elements shfitedCSD 6655 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 398 Trap element shfited

POSS 605 651E scraper D346 1973 (2) 20x15 386 Both Traps "shfited"POSS 407 824B dozer D343 1977 15x15 377 slight burn through of trap element

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " 766 trap shifted; damagesPOSS 409 834 dozer 3408 2002* 15x15 561 trap shifted; damages

* rebuilt



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.



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

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.

Location Unit # Vehicle Type Engine EngYr. Trap Hours Major Filter IncidentsCSD 6605 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 No incidents" " " " " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 20x15 No incidents

CSD 6606 657E scraper 3408 1996 20x15 No incidents" " " " " " " " 3412 1996 (2) 20x15 No incidents

CSD 6654 D9 dozer 3408 1996 20x15 381 Trap element shfited; fracturedPOSS 625 651E scraper D346 1973 (2) 20x15 No incidentsPOSS 628 651E scraper D346 1976 (2) 20x15 No incidentsPOSS 415 825C dozer 3406 1983* 15x15 No incidents

* rebuilt in 2002 with EUI



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 Description

LASCD 6604 657E scraper JMLow pressure return line crimped. Exhaust leaks found on rear engine installation. Exhaust elbow disconnected.

LASCD 6605 657E scraper Engelhard No Installation IncidentsLASCD 6606 657E scraper Engelhard No Installation Incidents

LASCD 6654 D9N dozer Engelhard Leaks at exhaust elbows; broken seal and flange clamps; low pressure line failures.

LASCD 6621 D9N dozer JMFlex line torn; seal clamp failures; numerous exhaust leaks; copper tubing return line loose, replaced connector.

LASCD 6655 D9N dozer JMRing clamp failures; flex line torn; leaking seal clamps; exhaust stack weld failures; copper tubing return line loose/leaks.

POSS 407 824B dozer JM No Installation IncidentsPOSS 409 834 dozer JM No Installation IncidentsPOSS 415 825 dozer Engelhard No Installation Incidents

POSS 605 651B scraper JM Torn flex pipe; leaks at elbows, flange seal POSS 625 651B scraper Engelhard Fractures in mounting bracket support struts.

POSS 628 651B scraper Engelhard Fractures in mounting bracket support struts. 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.



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.



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″)



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.



Table 5-4. Particulate Trap Capital Costs (filters, brackets and installation)

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

description units cost/unit totalFilters 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 $500Total 3412 $30,400

Filters 1 $13,000 $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

Total D9N Capital Cost (same as '3408' engine) $16,100

3412 engine

657E Scraper

3408 Engine

D9N Dozer

Trap life Expectancy Cost of Capital

657 E 7 8%

D9N 7 8%

($8,931)

($3,092)

Annualized Capital Cost



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.



Table 5-6. Annual Operating Costs for Particulate Trap Installations

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

5.5.3 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.

Annual Operating Cost Element 3408 3412 657E Total D9N Total

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 $1,800Total annual incremental operating cost

657E D9N Annualized Capital Cost $8,931 $3,092

Operating costs $4,500 $1,800Total $13,431 $4,892



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

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

657E D9N

Total Annualized Capital + Operating Cost $13,431 $4,892Pounds of PM reduced 594 237Cost per pound of emissions reduced $23 $21Cost per ton of emissions reduced $45,250 $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

PM NOX HC COEngine-out Emission Factors

(grams/bhp-hour) 0.34 6.25 0.29 2.08Percentage reduction With Trap Installed 90% 0% 80% 80%

Emission Factors With Trap Installed (grams/bhp-hour) 0.03 6.25 0.06 0.42

Maximum Engine horsepower (3408) 400 400 400 400Maximum Engine horsepower (3412) 550 550 550 550

Load factor (3408) 55% 55% 55% 55%Laod factor (3412) 60% 60% 60% 60%

Average annual equipment run time (hours) 1600 1600 1600 1600Total annual horse-power hours (3408) 352,000 352,000 352,000 352,000 Total annual horse-power hours (3412) 528,000 528,000 528,000 528,000 Total annual horse-power hours D9N 352,000 352,000 352,000 352,000 Total annual horse-power hours 657E 880,000 880,000 880,000 880,000

Annual D9N Emissions (pounds)Engine-out 264 4850 225 1614

With Particulate trap installed 26 4850 45 323Annual pounds reduced 237 0 180 1291

Annual 657E Emissions (pounds)Engine-out 660 12125 563 4035

With Particulate trap installed 66 12125 113 807Annual pounds reduced 594 0 450 3228



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 self-regenerating 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 heavy-duty 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



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 1

Glossary BP British Petroleum (formerly ARCO), Also BP-Arco CARB California Air Resources Board CE-CERT Center for Environmental Research and Technology CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIAQC Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition CO Carbon Monoxide CRT Continuous Regenerating Trap CRTdm Type of data logger used to record exhaust pressure and temperature during demonstration CSD County Sanitation District DEP Diesel Emission Particulate DPF Diesel Particulate Filter DPM Diesel Particulate Matter ECD1 Emission Control Diesel-1 ECM Electronic Control Module EERL Engines and Emissions Research Laboratory EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation FT Fischer-Tropsch diesel, also known as GTL GTL Gas-to-liquid diesel fuel, also known as Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel. HC Hydrocarbons Hg Mercury, inches, 1” Hg =13.596 inches of water HOCEV Heavy-duty Off-road Construction Equipment Vehicles Interam Fiberglass-like mat material used to stabilize ceramic element within canister LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer (Filter manufacturers Johnson-Matthey and Engelhard) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PC Personal (portable) computer PM Particulate Matter PNA Polynucleated (Polycyclic) Aromatics POSS C. W. POSS Construction, study equipment owner ppm parts per million ROPS Roll-Over Protection Structure. Steel members prevent the cab from collapsing

in the event of a roll over. SCAQMD SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SFC Supercritical Fluid Chromatography; a standard method to analyze aromatics in

diesel fuel



SWRI Southwest Research Institute Transient Cycle Test period in which engine speed and torque are varied according to a

predetermined set of values ULEV Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle ULSD Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel, diesel specified to have less than 15 ppm Sulfur content. USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WVU West Virginia University



Appendix A CARB Trap Efficiency Verifier (TEV)

SCAQMD Construction Off-Road Trap Study Final Report


CARB On-Board Testing Equipment PM Trap Efficiency Verifier (TEV)

10

Filter

RPM

TorqueFuel Rate

INVERTER

Throttle Position

Heated Sample Line @ 220 deg C

M.F

.C

3

Filter

Drawing is not to scale

Particulate Matter Trap

Dilution Air

Dilution Air

M.F

.C

4

TemperatureTemperature

Pressure

PressureTemperature

Temperature Temperature Temperature

Pressure

> 1

sec

dela

y

> 1

sec

dela

y

Exhaust

Exhaust

INVERTER

Mass Flow Controller #2

Array used to capture and measure particulate matter in unfiltered exhaust stream


Engine



Ambient airundiluted unfiltered exhaustexiting heated sample line @ 220 deg C

Pressure

Temperature

Exhaust after filter for PM recovery

Power to unit

Ambient airExhaust from

engine exhaust manifold



DATA FROM CARB TESTING OF PARTICULATE TRAP EFFICIENCIES

Test

T

ime Avg

RPM Max RPM 50%

Average Exhaust Temp

Max Exhaust Temp 50%

Average Back Pressure

Max Back

Pressure 50%

Date Test

#

(Min) Trap

M

anuf

actu

rer

% E

ffici

ency

Description Revolutions Per Minute (RPM)

Temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit (F)

Engine Exhaust Backpressure in Inches of H2O Comments

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 Low Battery

2/4/03 4 180

John

son-

Mat

they

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

Eng

elha

rd

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

* == Data not available



Photos of CARB Trap Efficiency Verifier installed on a Caterpillar 657E Scraper



Appendix B Summary of Study Vehicle Maintenance and Service



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced01/18/01 Replace leaking seal on steering valve 01/04/03 Grease/ service/ oil added 10/03/03 Daily service01/29/01 Replace front brake cans 01/06/03 Rear engine starter wires replaced 10/04/03 Daily service01/08/01 Replace right gear brake can 01/08/03 Daily service 10/07/03 No differential lock01/20/01 rear transmission gear case - install new seals 01/15/03 Daily service 10/11/03 Daily service01/30/01 Reseal transmission transfer gears 01/24/03 Install air monitor system 10/17/03 Daily service, remove rear trap02/13/01 Repair leaking governor 01/29/03 Daily service 10/22/03 Grease Gooseneck02/15/01 Clean Transmission 01/31/03 Daily service 10/27/03 Daily service02/19/01 Repair dirt basket 02/04/03 Daily service 10/29/03 Daily service03/03/01 Replace up shift / downshift solenoid 02/06/03 Oil Change 10/31/03 Daily service04/13/01 New seat & seat base 02/06/03 Repair air induction system 11/04/03 Daily service05/11/01 Replace broken window 02/08/03 1 gallon to front engine, daily service 11/05/03 2 gallons oil, 05/29/01 Repair lower door 02/11/03 Daily service 11/08/03 Daily service08/07/01 Fix leaking air hose to rear engine throttle 02/13/03 Daily service 11/10/03 Daily service08/27/01 Hydraulic leaks at hydraulic trunk 02/17/03 Daily service 11/11/03 Daily service09/13/01 A/C, front brake spring broken, replace Brakes 02/20/03 Daily service 11/13/03 1 gal to each engine09/17/01 R&R ejector wear strips 02/27/03 Daily service 11/18/03 Air leak for rear brakes10/03/01 Replace retarder control 03/01/03 Daily service 11/20/03 Daily service10/17/01 Screws on A/C, belly pan & clean 03/04/03 Daily service 11/24/03 Daily service10/30/01 Scraper PM - Major PM 03/05/03 2 gallons to front engine 12/01/03 Daily service

11/13/01 Removed acc, repair ejector rollers 03/12/03 1 gallon to front engine, daily service11/26/01 Brake Rt. Front hanging up 03/19/03 Hydraulic leak Date Material Used or Replaced04/02/02 Broken hotwire 04/01/03 Exhaust filter clogged 02/09/01 Replace alternator, mounting bunchets worn05/25/02 Front engine oil leak 04/26/03 JD Smith 03/22/01 Install new planetary assembly, brake shoes06/12/02 1 gallon to rear engine 05/08/03 Broken grease lines 04/12/01 leak btw rear transmission & transfer gear06/18/02 3 gallons to front engine 05/17/03 1 gallon to fron engine, daily service 04/18/01 Replace hydraulic lines on bail circuit07/08/02 Air leak 05/21/03 Grease daily/ gooseneck 05/03/01 cushion hitch pump hose, retarder valve

07/11/02 Seat air ride needs repair 05/24/03 Seat pump repaired 05/07/01 Troubleshoot gear-shift problem08/10/02 1 gallon to rear engine 05/31/03 Daily service 05/17/01 Cushion hitch pump seal replaced, look for leak09/16/02 Rear diff. Oil added 50 wt 06/09/03 Daily service 05/21/01 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 1 gal to front engine

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 10/01/03 Daily service 08/17/02 Regular Maintenance

12/19/02 Engine performance below minimum 10/02/03 Daily service 09/27/02 Daily Service

657E Scraper #6604 657E Scraper #6604 657E Scraper #6604

657E Scraper #6605



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced10/02/02 Daily Service 10/29/03 Grease gooseneck 02/04/03 Daily service10/25/02 Water leak on rear engine thermostat 10/30/03 Daily Service 02/05/03 Front engine fuel system clogged10/30/02 Daily Service 11/11/03 Daily Service 02/21/03 No throttle-adjust cable11/06/02 Front, rear water filters. Cond (3) to front 11/12/03 Repair wipers, light 03/07/03 1 gal to rear engine11/06/02 Radiator leak 11/14/03 1 gal to each engine, Daily Service 03/08/03 Daily service11/14/02 Oil Change 11/15/03 Daily Service 03/15/03 Daily service11/21/02 Daily Service 11/21/03 Daily Service 03/19/03 Daily service11/26/02 Daily Service 11/22/03 Add hydraulic fluid, daily service 03/22/03 Rear engine fuel pump repaired11/30/02 Daily Service 11/24/03 Daily Service 03/26/03 Daily service12/06/02 Daily Service 11/25/03 1 gal to each engine, Daily Service 04/02/03 Daily service, grease gooseneck12/17/02 Daily Service 11/28/03 Daily Service 04/02/03 Door stop strap repaired12/18/02 2 gallons to the rear engine 04/05/03 1 gallon to front engine12/10/02 Debris in transmission area removed Date Material Used or Replaced 04/11/03 5 gallons of hydraulic fluid12/31/02 Fuel pump racks shaking 01/03/01 Repair rear bail hook, bail seals 04/30/03 Greas gooseneck, daily service01/28/03 1000 hour service 01/23/01 Fix thermostat control, A/C 05/03/03 Daily Service02/04/03 Daily Service 02/02/01 Fix A/C 05/07/03 Front windshield replaced02/13/03 Seat to be fixed 05/03/01 Rear transmission switch replaced 05/30/03 Lost steering, oil leak03/08/03 Daily Service 05/09/01 Oil hose on rear engine, filter base to oil cooler 06/02/03 1 gallon to front engine03/13/03 Hydraulic Oil, Grease, daily service 07/05/01 Main discharge hose, repair left fender skirt 07/31/03 Daily Grease03/14/03 Daily Service 08/08/01 Tractor bail pilot hose replaced 08/20/03 Daily service03/18/03 Daily Service 10/03/01 Wear plate on right side of scraper can 08/21/03 Daily service03/21/03 Daily Service 10/11/01 Replace drive ring. Rebuild converter & pump 08/22/03 Daily service, change air filter03/26/03 150 hour oil change 10/23/01 Retarder valve. Install new air regulator, 08/25/03 Daily service03/28/03 1 gallon 30 weight 11/07/01 Roll bearing in rear engine 09/03/03 Engine door latch repaired04/01/03 5 gallons of 10 weight 02/23/01 Wipers, rear fan belt, tighten alternator belt 09/08/03 Daily service04/26/03 Daily Service 03/27/01 Leaking governor fixed (Low air pressure) 09/09/03 Daily service05/08/03 Ejector board roller bad 04/11/01 Install can on right front brake 09/20/03 Daily service06/09/03 Daily Service 06/27/02 Oil Change 30 gallons 09/26/03 Front engine governor repaired06/11/03 Stinger air leak 07/30/02 Oil Change 30 gallons 09/26/03 Daily service

06/27/03 Opacity test 07/27/02 3 gal to front engine 09/27/03 Daily service07/08/03 Door latch bad 07/30/02 Oil Change 30 gallons 09/30/03 5 qts hydraulic oil and daily service07/11/03 Rear 1 gallon, Change 3 air filters 08/15/02 Repair ejector roller 10/01/03 Grease fittings07/22/03 Front transmission overheating 09/20/02 1 gallon (front) 10/02/03 11 gals oil and 8 qts hydraulic oil08/12/03 Fix A/C 09/25/02 Rear engine exhaust leak 10/03/03 Daily service08/21/03 1 gallon to front engine 09/25/02 Cushion hitch inoperable 10/04/03 5 qts oil to front, 3 qts to the back. Daily service09/03/03 Grease fittings 10/10/02 Oil Change 30 gallons 10/06/03 Daily service09/06/03 Daily Service 10/14/02 Air dryer door bolts broken 10/09/03 Daily service09/16/03 Daily Service 10/21/02 Check engine crankcase 10/11/03 8 qts hydraulic fluid added09/22/03 Daily Service 10/23/02 Wednesday service 10/13/03 Add water conditioner to each radiator09/23/03 Daily Service 11/11/02 1 gal to front engine 10/14/03 Repairs to restore power to computer09/26/03 1 gal to front engine, daily service 11/19/02 Daily service 10/17/03 Daily service09/30/03 8 quarts of Hydraulic fluid, Daily service 11/22/02 1 gal to front engine, and daily service 10/23/03 Daily service10/02/03 1 gal to front engine, daily service 12/04/02 1 gal to front engine, and daily service 11/06/03 Daily service, grease rear, 50 wt to rear diff.10/04/03 Daily Service 12/31/02 Replace broken glass, damaged blade 11/07/03 Daily service10/11/03 8 quarts of Hydraulic fluid, Daily service 01/06/03 No air pressure buildup 11/11/03 Daily service10/14/03 Daily Service 01/13/03 1 gal to front engine 11/14/03 Daily service, 3 air filters10/16/03 Daily Service 01/17/03 1 gal to front engine 11/18/03 Daily service10/22/03 Grease gooseneck 01/21/03 Oil leak 11/22/03 Daily service10/24/03 Check bent exhaust stack 02/01/03 Clean hitch area 11/24/03 Daily service

657E Scraper #6605

657E Scraper #6606

657E Scraper #6606657E Scraper #6605



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced08/20/01 Fix A/C 07/19/02 1 gal to rear engine 08/14/03 Hydraulic and air leaks03/14/01 Leaking pivot hydraulic 07/22/02 2 gal to rear engine 09/05/03 Change 3 primary air filters08/04/01 Replace seat 08/23/02 Rear air leak 09/10/03 Rear engine won't start05/22/01 Remove trapped debris 09/02/02 Add new top wear plates 09/17/03 Daily service07/10/01 Replace tilt hoses 09/04/02 Right front wheel seals broken 09/26/03 Add water to front engine07/19/01 Pivot Shaft leak fixed 09/09/02 Daily maintenance 10/04/03 Daily service08/30/01 Regrouser track pad (shoes) 09/12/02 Change front tire 10/29/03 Daily service

06/06/01 Tighten clamp on exhaust 09/16/02 Daily maintenance11/22/00 Fix left front track roller 09/24/02 1 gal of 30wt to rear engine Date Material Used or Replaced

02/08/01 Clean tracks 09/26/02 Reseal front engine governor 01/11/01 Fuel filters replaced10/27/00 Fix coolant gauge 09/26/02 Front engine coolant leak 02/17/01 Fixed A/C09/27/01 Belly pad guards replaced 10/01/02 Loss of transmission shifting 02/21/01 Backup alarm, lights, wipers fixed10/24/00 Hydraulic leak fixed 10/04/02 Rear brakes not releasing 04/23/01 Right side pivot shaft seal leak09/16/00 Hydraulic leak fixed 10/14/02 Rear brakes locked 06/21/01 Fan belt repaired08/23/00 Remove trapped debris 10/18/02 Daily service 07/10/01 Engine oil leak fixed08/09/00 Rear lights replaced 10/21/02 Door stuck 08/02/01 Exhaust clamp to air cleaner fixed12/11/00 Fix engine cover 10/28/02 2 gal to rear engine 10/06/01 Tilt line repaired08/12/00 Hydraulic leak fixed 11/21/02 Tranmission locked up, oil leak 10/15/01 Repair side screens04/13/00 Recondition blade 11/29/02 3 air filters 10/19/01 Replace rear lights04/30/01 Coolent leak fixed 12/03/02 Leak in rear oil pan 10/24/01 Regrouse track pad01/02/01 Clean left track 12/13/02 3 gal 11/06/01 Remove debris01/11/01 Temp gauge cleaneed to stop heating 12/14/02 1 gal 11/16/01 Fix light bracket01/16/01 New seat installed 12/30/02 2 gal 11/24/01 Repair brace on intake01/20/01 Fan drive belts 01/06/03 Repair bail pin 11/29/01 Fix oil leak02/07/01 Fix windshield 01/15/03 Daily service 09/03/00 Fix A/C02/14/01 Clean tracks 01/17/03 2 gals to front engine 09/16/00 Fix A/C02/22/01 Remove wire debris 01/18/03 Daily service 09/26/00 Tilt cylinder leak fixed03/07/01 Left door glass replaced 01/21/03 Daily service 10/06/00 Clean tracks11/06/00 Rear engine bearings. oil pump, rod bearings 01/22/03 Daily service 12/01/00 Roll-in bearings11/11/00 Thermostatic switch. Install new gauges 01/27/03 Daily service 12/08/00 Fan belts11/20/00 R&R hydraulic oil seals on hydraulic pump 01/28/03 Daily service 12/13/00 Coolant temp gauge12/20/00 Install new cover 01/29/03 Daily service 12/22/00 Remove wire debris01/17/01 Fix oil leak at fly-wheel housing 02/04/03 Daily service 05/21/01 Oil hose replaced to fix oil leak02/05/01 Tighten loose air hose 02/18/03 Clean and drain oil. 07/05/01 Leak in belly pan, seals, batteries replaced12/02/01 Fix bottom door window 03/26/03 Loss of transmission power 07/10/01 Bearings, oil pump, turbo & water pump12/12/01 Fix rear lights 03/27/03 Replace fuel/air ratio diaphragm 07/23/01 Hydraulic leak on cylinder valve03/20/02 Fuel rack sticking 04/26/03 Daily service 09/19/01 Replace wiring harness on timer06/28/01 Cut pipe from left front tire 04/29/03 Daily service 11/26/01 Pre-lube on front engine - Replace timer switch08/01/01 R&R apron cylinder 05/01/03 Broken grease lines 07/16/01 Loose track pad08/14/01 Replace cover springs 05/05/03 Front engine overhaul. 07/18/01 Fix A/C08/17/01 Front brake shoes of oil, install new wheel seals 06/18/03 Rear engine pressure oil light on 08/17/01 Fan belt replaced and new guard09/14/01 Replace one front oil filter & one rear oil filter 06/19/03 Daily grease 04/04/02 Adjust front and rear brakes03/29/02 Clean hitch area 06/20/03 Daily grease 07/15/02 Rear engine coolant flow switch04/24/02 Air leak 06/23/03 Daily service 07/24/02 Replaced oil filter04/30/02 Oil Change 06/25/03 Daily grease 08/15/02 Rear brakes locked up05/14/02 Cushion hitch repaired 07/26/03 Daily service 08/19/02 Rear transmission rebuilt06/05/02 Hydraulic leak by left front tire 07/29/03 Rear engine overheating 09/30/02 Air leak on brakes06/27/02 2 gal to front engine 07/31/03 Daily service 10/29/02 2 gal to rear engine 30W07/06/02 2 gal to rear engine 08/14/03 Daily service 11/12/02 Rear engine coolant leak

657E Scraper #6608

657E Scraper #6607 657E Scraper #6607657E Scraper #6607



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced11/20/02 1 gal to rear engine 01/05/01 Transmission cooler 08/22/02 Repair alarm, wipers, front lamps11/20/02 Rear transmission hot 01/08/01 Sump, gasket, seal 08/26/02 Track pad bolts replaced12/17/02 Daily service 01/16/01 Gaskets, seals, hose 09/11/02 Changed oil12/20/02 2 gallons to rear only 03/23/01 Seals, valve 09/17/02 Investigate poor starting12/20/02 2 gal to rear engine 30W 10/10/00 Replace seat 09/25/02 Replace batteries12/26/02 Replaced ejector wear strips 01/11/01 Replace air filters 10/04/02 50? To pivot shaft reservoir01/23/03 Rear overheating 02/06/01 Fix A/C 10/08/02 Pivot shaft seal leak01/31/03 Daily service 02/07/01 Remove debris 10/15/02 2 gallons oil02/17/03 Rear transmission shifting into neutral 02/23/01 Replace seals 10/17/02 Adjust tracks, add oil to pivot shaft reservoir02/26/03 Repair step 04/20/02 Tilt leak 10/18/02 1 gal oil to pivot, engine each02/27/03 Daily service 05/31/01 Radiator grill fixed 10/23/02 Replace broken glass03/01/03 Daily service 06/11/01 Fix A/C 10/29/02 Add water, 50 to pivot shaft03/06/03 150 hour maintenance work 07/13/01 Fix A/C 11/08/02 Remove cable from treads03/06/03 Radiator leaking from top seals 07/23/02 Mag screen, cleaned bolt holes 11/13/02 1 gallon oil03/12/03 Grease daily/gooseneck 08/13/01 Plug on inlet assembly replaced 11/20/02 Oil changed03/13/03 Daily service 09/22/01 Replace rear lights 11/20/02 Repair track guides, grill03/15/03 Daily service 10/01/01 Fix A/C 11/27/02 Remove wire debris03/19/03 Grease daily/gooseneck 10/10/01 Replace lights and wipers 12/04/02 50 wt to PSR03/22/03 Daily service 10/16/01 Replace light 12/10/02 50 wt to PSR04/23/03 Apron switch repaired, oil cooler leaking 04/06/01 Backup alarm fixed 12/11/02 Daily service05/07/03 1 gal to rear eng, daily svc, grease gooseneck 03/20/01 Fix A/C 12/27/02 Replace lost track guides05/16/03 Daily Service, Primary air filter 10/05/01 Fix Brake 01/07/03 Oil changed, 12 gallons05/22/03 2 qts Hydraulic fluid 09/20/01 Replace seals 01/09/03 Replace missing track guides05/24/03 Daily Service 09/28/01 Fix A/C 01/13/03 1 gallon06/14/03 Rear transmission overheating 10/10/01 Replace lights & wipers 01/30/03 Change batteries07/02/03 Daily service/ grease gooseneck 10/02/01 Fix A/C 02/03/03 Fix air conditioning07/14/03 Daily service 10/19/01 Replace lights & wipers 02/26/03 Oil changed, 12 gallons07/26/03 Daily service 03/19/01 Fix A/C 02/28/03 Blade float repaired08/02/03 Daily service 03/30/01 Fan belts 03/08/03 1 gallon08/05/03 Transmission switch sticking 04/21/01 Pressure hoses 03/12/03 Fix air conditioning09/11/03 Clean air filter 04/28/01 Battery cable 03/29/03 Water temperature gauge09/20/03 Daily service 05/11/01 Batteries replaced 04/03/03 Repair tilt line leak09/25/03 Daily service 05/22/01 Coolant temperature gauge fixed 04/11/03 Recharge air conditioning09/29/03 Daily service 06/14/01 Fix A/C 04/24/03 Repair lights09/30/03 Daily Service, Primary air filter 06/22/01 Rebuilt radiator for leak 04/29/03 Filter piping repair10/02/03 Daily service 07/10/01 Pivot shaft seal 05/02/03 Repair broken glass10/03/03 Daily service 09/05/01 Belts replaced 05/03/03 Replace one bad battery10/11/03 Daily service 09/13/01 Repair tilt line 05/05/03 Daily service10/17/03 3 air filters 10/24/01 Regrouser track pad 05/09/03 Fix seat cushion10/24/03 Add water to front engine, daily service 11/08/01 Fix A/C 05/17/03 Fix starter10/30/03 Daily service 11/20/01 Fix catwalk to the rear of the cab 05/19/03 Daily service10/31/03 Replace 3 air filters 11/23/01 Fix A/C 05/28/03 Repair right side track adjuster10/04/03 1 gal 30wt to front, 50wt to rear diff, daily serv 05/15/02 1 gallon to front engine 05/29/03 Daily service10/06/03 Daily service 05/22/02 1 gallon to rear engine 05/31/03 Daily service, 1 gallon oil11/01/03 Daily service 06/11/02 2 gal 50W at pivot 06/06/03 Daily service11/25/03 Daily service, 6 gals to transmission 06/11/02 1 gal 50wt left side differential 06/13/03 Idler making noise11/25/03 Daily service, 3 gals to transmission 06/12/02 1 gal 50wt pivot 06/18/03 Replace broken hard bar, pivot12/01/03 Daily service 06/13/02 1 gal 50wt pivot 07/01/03 Add water, replace air filter

07/03/02 Fix air conditioning 07/02/03 Daily service07/11/02 Replace track segments 07/07/03 Transmission suction chamber cleaned

657E Scraper #6608 D9 Bulldozer #6620 D9 Bulldozer #6620



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced07/07/03 Fix air conditioning 01/02/01 Fix A/C 12/18/02 Repair lights & wipers07/14/03 Replace right front tire 01/09/01 Fan belts 12/24.02 Tuesday service07/16/03 Replace broken tilt lines 01/11/01 Fix wiring 12/26/02 Weekly greasing07/30/03 Replace alternator belt 01/31/01 Replace belt 12/31/02 Adjust left track08/04/03 Repair sensor line 01/31/01 Fix hydraulic leak 01/03/03 Chage primary air filter08/10/03 Replace front grill 03/03/01 Alternator 01/04/03 1 gal 30wt to engine, .5 gal 50 wt to PSR08/14/03 Fix air conditioning 04/13/01 Clean & fix batteries 01/14/03 Clean secondary air filter, adjust right hand track.08/20/03 Reposition left track 04/16/01 Oil leak-cylinders on blade 01/23/03 Support strap fatigued/brokeon on small tubing08/21/03 Replace undergear, regrouser track pad 08/03/01 Roller cap 02/22/03 Alternator belt replaced09/05/03 Fix alternator belt 08/11/01 Fix A/C 03/03/03 Turbo housing leaking09/06/03 Daily service 08/16/01 Coolant leak checked 03/05/03 Right front idler making noise09/11/03 Repair air conditioner 08/28/01 Clean belly pan 03/10/03 starting problems, batteries replaced09/12/03 Add 3 water conditioners 09/01/01 Fix A/C 03/19/03 Exhaust stack repaired09/15/03 Daily service 09/10/01 Coolant leak 03/20/03 1 gallon of 30 wt & Daily service09/17/03 Add 1 gallon of 30 wt engine oil 09/12/01 Fix A/C 03/27/03 Daily, grease10/04/03 2 qts engine oil, 3 qts water, daily service 09/20/01 Repair left track 03/28/03 Noise from bottom rollers, repair side screen10/08/03 Check water leak, rear radiator 10/10/01 Lights & wipers, A/C 04/08/03 Replace radiator coolant10/18/03 Daily service 10/19/01 Light replaced 04/23/03 Adjust tracks, 50 wt to pivot reservoir10/21/03 Air filter changed, daily service 10/20/01 Fix A/C 04/24/03 Clean tracks10/29/03 Daily service 11/21/01 Fix A/C 05/05/03 Left fron idler serviced11/03/03 Daily service 06/03/02 2 gallons 05/06/03 Repair track idler

06/10/02 Cut hole in track shoe 05/12/03 Daily ServiceDate Material Used or Replaced 06/17/02 Replace twisted belt, headliner 05/16/03 2 gallons of 30 wt, Daily service

04/13/01 Hose, seals 06/11/02 1 gallon 05/20/03 Tuesday service04/25/01 Cusshion, cap, gasket, seals, adapter 06/18/02 Oil Change 12 gallons 05/22/03 Grease 05/09/01 Wiring, brackets, bolt, backup alarm 07/02/02 1 gallon 30 wt 06/07/03 Saturday service04/27/01 Seal, hose, 2 hose lines 07/04/02 Fix air conditioner 06/10/03 Right idle noisy07/01/01 Turbocharger 08/28/02 Add hydraulic fluid 06/26/03 Replace seal suspension08/01/01 Seals80 08/22/02 Clean tracks 07/04/03 Daily service09/09/01 Grommet, clip, damper, tube, gasket 08/24/02 1 gallon 30 wt 07/07/03 Daily service09/10/01 2 Tires 08/28/02 2 gallons of hydraulic fluid 07/09/03 Blade control jammed09/19/01 Left Front Tire 08/30/02 Replace glass 07/15/03 Bogie pins replaced08/28/02 Right front Tire 09/07/02 Tilt leak 07/29/03 A/C cleaned primary air11/01/02 Muffler, hose, tube, hose, clip 09/12/02 1 gallon 08/02/03 Daily service12/30/02 Seals 10/05/02 2 gallons 08/04/03 Low batteries01/02/03 Broken wheel 10/09/02 START TESTING 08/08/03 Daily service01/30/03 Seal kit 10/17/02 A/C, Coolant leak, steering went out 08/14/03 Grease, Daily service02/02/03 Repair of split bellows pipe going to trap 10/22/02 Change oil and filter, clean primary air filter 08/15/03 Primary air filter02/04/03 Repair to hydraulic cylinder 10/23/02 Fix air conditioner 08/20/03 Daily service02/04/03 Flex pipe 10/31/02 Check & mount electronics 08/21/03 Grease, adjust track02/25/03 Rod pin 11/06/02 CRT box broken off 09/11/03 Clean air filter04/08/02 Swap out rollers 11/09/02 Daily service for Saturday 09/12/03 Daily service04/20/02 Replace glass 11/12/02 Clear air filter 09/13/03 Grease05/01/02 Hydraulic leak 11/12/02 EWS light-bad switch replaced 09/20/03 Daily service05/16/02 Install wear track guards 11/14/02 Grease fan, idler 09/22/03 Daily service06/06/02 Fix air conditioning 11/14/02 Cut cable from tracks 10/01/03 Daily service06/13/02 Daily service 11/29/02 Daily service 10/24/03 Air filter, daily service06/13/02 Daily service 12/05/02 Radiator leak, clean tracks 10/31/03 3 air filters, daily service06/14/02 Daily service 12/18/02 Daily service 11/01/03 Down for gummed up fuel pump

D9 Bulldozer #6621

D9 Bulldozer #6621

D9 Bulldozer #6621D9 Bulldozer #6620



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced01/19/01 Gaskets, lock 01/06/03 2 gallons, daily service 08/25/03 Daily service01/31/01 Breaker, pump, gasket 01/06/03 2 gallons 08/29/03 Daily service07/07/01 Gasket & Seal kit 01/07/03 Right water temperature guage fixed 09/04/03 Daily service07/20/01 Guage 01/09/03 Daily service 09/09/03 Daily service, Change air filter, blow out A/C08/08/01 Battery 01/15/03 1 Gallon 09/11/03 Transmission leak04/02/02 Brake shoes & drums 01/17/03 2 Gallons 09/20/03 Daily service, grease.09/12/02 Drive gear for pump failure 01/20/03 Replace right door glass 09/26/03 Daily service, grease.09/12/02 Engine rebuilt, (Not repowered) 01/21/03 12 gal oil change 09/27/03 Daily service, add water09/12/02 Torque converter and transmission oil pump 01/23/03 fuel leak on tank 09/30/03 Daily service09/12/02 Transmission overhaul, seals and bearings 02/28/03 Tilt cylinder hose fixed, pivot shaft 10/01/03 Daily service10/17/02 Bolts, washers, bracket, union, gaskets, hoses, 01/30/03 1 gallon 10/02/03 Daily service10/21/02 Hose 02/08/03 4 gallons of transmission oil 10/04/03 Daily service03/05/03 Steering cable 02/17/03 Added 1 gal hydraulic oil 10/06/03 Daily service, change air filters03/11/03 Seals 02/24/03 Pivot Shaft leak 10/11/03 2 qts, 8 qts H2004/10/03 Brake job, alarm, switch 02/26/03 Daily service 10/21/03 Daily service, air filter04/23/03 Radiator leak. Replaced 03/08/03 Daily service 10/23/03 Daily service10/24/01 Regrouser track pad 03/10/03 Daily service 10/24/03 Daily service, Change air filter11/06/01 Fix A/C 03/15/03 1 Gallon 50W, 1 gallon Trans oil 10/28/03 Daily service, daily greasing, change air filter,05/20/02 Oil Change 03/17/03 1 gallon 50W, 2 Gallons Trans oil 10/29/03 Daily service, Blow AC08/16/02 Oil Change, 12 gal 03/19/03 12 Gallons for oil change 10/30/03 Daily service08/07/02 2 gallons 03/24/03 Fix air conditioner 10/31/03 Daily service08/10/02 1 gal 30 wt 03/26/03 1 gallon 11/01/03 Daily service08/21/02 2 gallons 04/03/03 5 gallons, 5 gals trans 11/04/03 Daily service, Change filter, grease, blow AC08/29/02 2 gallons 04/08/03 Replace right door glass 11/05/03 Daily service12/05/01 Repair tilt line 04/12/03 Add hyd oil to pivot shaft reservoir 11/06/03 Daily service11/28/01 Replace rear glass 04/15/03 150 hour service 11/08/03 Daily service, 2 gals engine oil10/10/01 Fix Transmission leak 04/18/03 2 gals trans 11/10/03 Daily service, 1 gal 30wt, 3 bottles H20 additive09/15/01 Fix throttle switch 05/03/03 2 gals of engine oil 11/12/03 Daily service10/02/01 Fix hydraulic leak 05/09/03 Daily service 11/13/03 Daily service04/08/02 Swap rollers 05/13/03 Repair air conditioner 11/14/03 Daily service05/15/02 Oil Change 05/24/03 3 gallons of engine oil 11/15/03 Daily service06/19/02 Grease fittings 06/05/03 1 gallon of engine oil 11/22/03 Daily service06/28/02 2 Gallons 06/14/03 Daily service 11/23/03 Daily service07/10/02 Clean tracks 06/02/03 Right hydraulic cylinder leaking 11/29/03 Daily service, 1 gal 40wt to engine07/23/02 2 gallons 06/17/03 Pivot shaft & hydraulic leaks 11/30/03 2 gallons

07/29/02 Not starting 06/25/03 Recondition lift hoist cylinder08/06/02 2 gallons 06/26/03 Daily grease and 1 gallon of engine oil Date Material Used or Replaced08/06/02 Regrouser track pad (shoes) 06/27/03 1 gallon of engine oil 01/11/01 Fuel filters replaced08/21/02 Repair alternator wiring 07/02/03 Repair hand holds 02/17/01 Fixed A/C08/28/02 Replace tongue & hoses 07/26/03 Daily service 02/21/01 Backup alarm, lights, wipers fixed08/31/02 Repair air conditioner 07/30/03 Daily service 04/23/01 Right side pivot shaft seal leak09/13/02 Down 9/13/02 to 10/2/02 07/31/03 Daily service 06/21/01 Fan belt repaired10/01/02 2 gallons 08/02/03 1 gallon of engine oil, Daily service 07/10/01 Engine oil leak fixed11/07/02 Fix Rear transmission cover 08/12/03 Add water, replace air filter 08/02/01 Exhaust clamp to air cleaner fixed12/02/02 Replace left final drive 08/13/03 Daily service, check fir extinguisher 10/06/01 Tilt line repaired12/18/02 Oil Change 12 gallons 08/14/03 Daily service, change oil, oil and water filters 10/15/01 Repair side screens12/24/02 Left side screen replaced 08/20/03 Daily service 10/19/01 Replace rear lights12/26/02 Hydraulic leak fixed 08/21/03 Daily service 10/24/01 Regrouse track pad01/02/03 New alternator belt 08/23/03 Daily service 11/06/01 Remove debris

D9 Bulldozer #6653 D9 Bulldozer #6653 D9 Bulldozer #6653

D9 Bulldozer #6654



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced11/16/01 Fix light bracket 01/11/03 Not used 10/03/03 Daily service11/24/01 Repair brace on intake 01/12/03 Not used 10/04/03 Daily service11/29/01 Fix oil leak 01/20/03 1 gallon, Daily Service 10/16/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added04/08/02 Swap out rollers 01/22/03 Dozer arm bolts loose 10/17/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added04/20/02 Replace glass 02/04/03 Daily service 10/21/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added05/01/02 Hydraulic leak 02/08/03 Daily service 10/23/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added05/16/02 Install wear track guards 02/13/03 Clean belly pans 10/24/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added06/06/02 Fix air conditioning 02/18/03 Daily service 10/27/03 Daily service06/13/02 Daily service 02/20/03 Mount exhaust filter 10/28/03 Daily service06/13/02 Daily service 02/26/03 Repair air conditioning 11/05/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added06/14/02 Daily service 03/06/03 Daily service 11/06/03 Coolant loss. Replace alternator belt06/14/02 Daily service 03/20/03 Exhaust repaired 11/08/03 Daily service06/18/02 Change air filter 03/20/03 Repair ejector turbo 11/10/03 Daily service06/18/02 Change air filter 03/27/03 1 qt 30W 11/11/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added06/19/02 Grease fittings 04/05/03 1qt 30W 11/12/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added06/27/02 Replace sprocket segment 04/08/03 1qt 30W 11/13/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/16/02 Oil Change 04/09/03 1 gal 50W 11/14/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/18/02 Left blade lift cylider repaired 04/14/03 1 gal 50W 11/15/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/25/02 Bad backup alarm 04/15/03 Tilt line repaired 11/18/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/26/02 1 gallon 04/29/03 Repair engine oil leaks 11/19/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/27/02 5 gallons 05/03/03 1 gal 50W 11/20/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added07/31/02 1 gallon 05/05/03 Fix coolant light 11/25/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added08/08/02 1 gallon 05/06/03 Tighten water hose clamps 11/26/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil, 1 gal 15-40wt08/16/02 1 gallon 05/14/03 1 gal 50W 11/28/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added08/17/02 Regular service 05/22/03 Repair exhaust filter 11/19/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added08/21/02 Complete under gear swing frames 06/11/03 Fix air conditioning 11/20/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added08/23/02 1 gallon 07/01/03 Coolant leak 11/25/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added09/02/02 Repair bent grill 07/25/03 Change air filter 11/26/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil, 1 gal 15-40wt09/03/02 Oil pressure light on 07/26/03 Daily service 11/28/03 Daily service, 1 gal 50 wt oil added

09/05/02 2 gallons 07/31/03 Exhaust elbow loose09/10/02 Oil Change 12 gallons 08/05/03 Steering clutch control valve repaired Date Material Used or Replaced10/09/02 Repair left front final leak 08/07/03 Daily service, grease 03/08/01 Block bolt10/22/02 1 gallon 08/15/03 Daily service 03/23/01 Gasket, nut, rod, seal11/02/02 2 gallons 08/18/03 Fix air conditioning 03/20/01 Install lift Cylinder11/04/02 Not used 08/20/03 Daily service 03/26/01 Cap, bolt, trunion11/07/02 Down 11/7/02 to 11/19/02 08/23/03 Daily service 04/02/01 Cartridge, shaft, bearing, wiper, seal11/08/02 Caught fire in belly pan 08/28/03 Daily service 04/19/01 Turbopump11/11/02 Clean from debris fire 09/06/03 Daily service 07/05/01 Seal11/19/02 Oil Change 12 gallons 09/08/03 Daily service 07/09/01 Seals11/22/02 2 gallons 09/10/03 Add 50 wt oil & pivot shaft oil 07/09/01 Radiator11/27/02 Repair air conditioning 09/17/03 Daily service 07/10/01 Tube seal, screen11/30/02 1 gallon 09/18/03 Daily service 07/12/01 hydraulic hose12/10/02 1 gallon 09/19/03 Daily service, air filter 07/13/01 Gaskets, seal12/13/02 Exhaust to intake bracket repaired 09/20/03 1 gal hydraulic oil & 1 gal 50 wt 07/25/01 Hose, shaft, seals, bearings12/17/02 Not used 09/22/03 Replace left door handle 08/03/01 Tube, fittings, nut12/18/02 Arm broke off, repaired 09/25/03 1 gal engine oil added 08/15/01 Seal12/19/02 2 gallons 09/29/03 Daily service, 1 gal 30 wt oil added 08/20/01 Gasket, bolt, seal glow plugs12/21/02 Water separator cleaned 09/30/03 Daily service, Primary air filter changed 08/20/01 Replace head, wter on #2 piston right side01/10/03 1 gallon

D9 Bulldozer #6655

D9 Bulldozer #6654 D9 Bulldozer #6654 D9 Bulldozer #6654



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced09/06/02 1 gallon 07/14/03 Daily service 01/02/03 Broken wheel09/07/02 2 gallons 07/18/03 Coolant temp light on 01/30/03 Seal kit05/29/02 2 gallons 08/01/03 Replace air filters 02/02/03 Repair of split bellows pipe going to trap06/12/02 2 gallons 08/02/03 Daily service 02/04/03 Repair to hydraulic cylinder06/19/02 Oil Change 08/08/03 Daily service, change air filter 02/04/03 Flex pipe06/26/02 2 gallons 08/09/03 Daily service 02/25/03 Rod pin07/04/02 2 gallons 08/16/03 Oil added to pivot shaft reservoir 03/10/03 Rod pin07/09/02 2 gallons 08/18/03 Add conditioner to radiator 04/10/03 Stinger

07/10/02 Fix air conditioning 09/02/03 Install clean air filter, add 1 gallon oil07/17/02 Repair tilt line 09/10/03 Daily service Date Material Used or Replaced07/23/02 Mag screen, cleaned bolt holes 09/24/03 Add 50 wt engine oil 03/22/00 About 30 parts08/15/02 Fix air conditioning 09/26/03 150 hour service protocol 12/19/00 Seal, gasket09/18/02 1 gallon 30 wt 09/27/03 Daily service 12/19/00 Gasket, seal, pin09/23/02 1 gallon 10/02/03 Daily service 01/19/01 Gaskets, lock10/11/02 2 gallons 10/03/03 Daily service 01/31/01 Breaker, pump, gasket10/19/02 2 gallons 10/08/03 Fix air conditioning 04/03/01 Edge, bit, nut10/25/02 1 gallon 10/18/03 Daily service 05/16/01 2 "bits", 20 nuts, "edge"10/31/02 2 gallons 10/22/03 Daily service 06/05/01 Rebuild alternator11/12/02 Hydraulic control fixed 10/31/03 Daily service 07/09/01 Spring, seal, piston, disc, plate12/30/02 Check water leak 11/01/03 Daily service 07/09/01 Engine installed- disk, seal, spring01/22/03 Sediment in fuel filter 11/05/03 Daily service 07/10/01 Torque converter seals01/31/03 Oil Change 12 gallons 11/06/03 Daily service 07/13/01 Gasket kit02/03/03 Repair air conditioning 11/12/03 Daily service 07/16/01 D343 parts02/17/03 Daily service 11/14/03 Daily service, air filter, water conditioner 07/24/01 Gasket, damper, belt, cap02/19/03 Hydraulic cylinder broken, blade won't go up. 11/15/03 2 gals engine oil, 1 qt 50wt 07/25/01 Seals, bearings & hose03/11/03 B/O engine compartment 11/17/03 1 gal engine oil 07/25/01 Seal kit03/12/03 Daily service 11/24/03 1 gal 50 wt 07/30/01 Seal kit03/18/03 Replace door glass 12/01/03 1 gal 50 wt 07/31/01 Rings replaced

03/20/03 Daily service 08/02/01 Rebuild fan03/22/03 Daily service Date Material Used or Replaced 08/08/01 Injector pump04/01/03 1 gallon 30 wt 07/18/00 Fan Drive 08/10/01 Fittings, seals, hose, gasket04/03/03 1 gallon 30 wt 01/05/01 Transmission cooler 08/15/01 Elbow04/04/03 1 gallon 50 wt 01/08/01 Sump, gasket, seal 08/02/02 Rebuild fan, ring04/05/03 Daily service 01/16/01 Gaskets, seals, hose 08/15/02 Spring, shim, o-rings04/08/03 Daily service 03/23/01 Seals, valve 09/17/02 Washer, pivot04/14/03 Air fuel filters changed 04/27/01 Seal, hose, 2 hose lines 10/22/02 R-front tire05/06/03 Check hydraulic fluids 07/01/01 Turbocharger 10/28/02 Gasket & seals05/22/03 1 gallon 40 wt 08/01/01 Seals80 11/04/02 Gasket & seals06/03/03 Fix A/C, adjust tracks 09/09/01 Grommet, clip, damper, tube, gasket 11/24/02 Nut, bolt, washer06/06/03 Change air filter 09/10/01 2 Tires 12/02/02 Kit, drum, seal, tube06/12/03 Daily grease 09/19/01 Left Front Tire 12/30/02 2 indicators06/13/03 Air cleaner 08/28/02 Right front Tire 01/10/03 Seal kit06/16/03 Daily service 10/22/02 R-front tire 03/10/03 2 tires06/17/03 Daily service 10/28/02 Gasket & seals 04/23/03 Transmission failure06/26/03 Daily service 11/01/02 Muffler, hose, tube, hose, clip07/08/03 Tuesday service 11/04/02 Gasket & seals07/09/03 Daily service 12/30/02 Seals07/11/03 Repair grill

651B Scraper #605

651B Scraper #605

834B Bulldozer #407

D9 Bulldozer #6655 D9 Bulldozer #6655



Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced Date Material Used or Replaced04/03/99 Cleaned, resealed, new bearings 08/26/02 Clamp, bolt, washer 09/10/02 Hoses05/26/00 Hydraulic pump 10/03/02 Seals, gaskets, hoses, clamp 09/19/02 Finger, bolt, nut, washer, bar04/13/01 Hose, seals 10/07/02 Radiator, after cooler, transmission cooler 10/04/02 Bar, belt, bolt, washer, nut04/25/01 Cusshion, cap, gasket, seals, adapter 10/10/02 Hose Gasket, block, seals 10/24/02 Tubes, harness & hose assemblies05/09/01 Wiring, brackets, bolt, backup alarm 10/18/02 Union, cable, governor, bolt, washer vent 10/28/02 Support, retainer, bolts, nut, washer, cushion07/07/01 Gasket & Seal kit 12/03/02 Regulator, gasket 11/01/02 Bearings, bolts07/20/01 Guage 12/30/02 Seals 11/05/02 Radiator08/08/01 Battery 01/09/03 Repair leak 11/06/02 Battery04/02/02 Brake shoes & drums 03/25/03 Seals 11/21/02 Engine repower, radiator repair09/12/02 Drive gear for pump failure 04/08/03 Rebuild 2 D346 heads 12/06/02 Kit

09/12/02 Engine rebuilt (Not repowered)09/12/02 Torque converter and transmission oil pump Date Material Used or Replaced09/12/02 Transmission overhaul, seals and bearings 12/15/99 Unit bought at auction- 6 cylinders bad10/17/02 Stem, bolts, washers, bracket, gaskets, hoses, 03/13/00 Gearbox repaired10/21/02 Hose 08/22/00 Rebuilt engine installed03/05/03 Steering cable 03/08/01 Block bolt03/11/03 Seals 03/23/01 Gasket, nut, rod, seal04/10/03 Brake job, alarm, switch 04/25/01 Slide, washer, screw04/23/03 Radiator leak. Replaced 05/09/01 Gasket, seal, bearings

05/11/01 Repair retarder coolerDate Material Used or Replaced 05/14/01 Tachometer, pump, lockwaher, gaskets

09/18/00 Drop valve, Install head piston liner & turbo 07/16/01 Seal, cam12/21/00 Gear, seal kit, washers 07/23/01 Seal kit, seals12/29/00 Gear, washers 08/09/01 Seal kit03/09/01 Head 08/12/02 Transmission rebuild03/14/01 Fuel pump 09/10/02 Gasket, silicone03/20/01 Install lift Cylinder 09/18/02 Bolt, nut, washer03/26/01 Cap, bolt, trunion 11/19/02 Spring04/02/01 Cartridge, shaft, bearing, wiper, seal 11/27/02 Gasket04/19/01 Turbopump 01/17/03 Tire07/05/01 Seal 01/28/03 Rebuild Alternator07/09/01 Seals 02/05/03 Indicator07/09/01 Radiator 09/20/03 Repairs to fuel tank

07/10/01 Tube seal, screen07/12/01 hydraulic hose Date Material Used or Replaced07/13/01 Gaskets, seal 09/07/99 Reskin wheels, rebuild cylinders07/25/01 Hose, shaft, seals, bearings 02/21/00 Seals, gaskets, guard, back cylinder, 08/03/01 Tube, fittings, nut 12/19/00 Switch08/15/01 Seal 01/19/01 Gasket, starter08/20/01 Gasket, bolt, seal glow plugs 06/07/01 Bolt, hut, washer08/20/01 Replace head, wter on #2 piston right side 06/26/01 Seal, bearing08/27/01 Knob bolt, washer 07/06/01 Seal kit05/31/02 Rebuilt Steering 08/02/01 Transmission overhaul08/20/02 Left steering hydraulic cylinder 08/17/01 Install Transmission08/21/02 Tube, gaskets, seals, clamps 08/20/01 Cushion, tube, hose

651B Scraper #628

825C Bulldozer #415

825C Bulldozer #415834B Bulldozer #409

651B Scraper #625

651B Scraper #625

Appendix C

Detailed Description of Dynamometer Emissions Testing Completed by

West Virginia University

(provided under separate cover)

scaqmd trap study v11 edited lm

Documents