Technical Information
Proposal For Testing
Distributed By: Syntek Global Inc. 12382 South Gateway Park Place Suite B800 Draper, UT 84020 801-386-5007
Document SSDE-1FK-3202709
Proposal for Testing a Dynamometer Study in Conjunction with the CMB Evaluation to Determine Dynamic Fuel Consumption Changes and Mass Emissions Reductions In Highly Efficient Slow-Stroke Diesel Engine Applications The contents contained herein are considered confidential and proprietary and are intended only for permitted and specified testing purposes. Any unauthorized use, application, consideration, replication and/or modification will void the original intent of this proposal and process. March 26, 2009
Proposal For Testing
1
Contents Preface.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 3 Testing and Notification.......................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 4 Specific Requirements for Testing..................................................................................................................................................................................Page 4 Statistical Error............................................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 5 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 5 Data Collection Requirements.........................................................................................................................................................................................Page 7 Schedule and Format Parameters.................................................................................................................................................................................Page 8 CMB Equation............................................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 9 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 11 Explanation of Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................................................................Page 11
Proposal For Testing
2
Preface This proposal includes pertinent documentation particular to the Carbon Mass Balance test procedure. Further, to the utilization of the CMB in this proposal is the necessity of performing the proposed CMB evaluation in conjunction with a dynamometer study. This study is to be conducted on a B&W Mann generator set. The dynamometer study and its proposed correlation to the CMB will be further discussed in the body of this proposal. As an introduction, the CMB test is a fundamental part of the Australian Standards AS2077-1982. Further, the CMB test procedure has proven to be an intricate part of the United States EPA, FTP and HFET Fuel Economy Tests. Also, Ford Motor Company characterized the CMB test procedure as being “at least as accurate as any other method of volumetric-gravimetric testing.” (SAE Paper No. 750002 Bruce Simpson, Ford Motor Company) Finally, the CMB procedure is incorporated in the Federal Register Voluntary Fuel Economy Labeling Program, Volume 39. To accurately determine fuel consumption and monitor exhaust emissions in large, slow-stroke diesel engines, it is necessary that sound fundamentals of testing be implemented and followed. The engine configuration largely determines the scope of the evaluation. In this case, the test cell configuration consists of an engine-generator combination. This scenario is ideal in that the test cell configuration is nothing more than a large scale dynamometer. Dynamometer studies are essential to the success of the CMB in that many of the federal test procedures utilize a dynamometer when acquiring data to be incorporated into the CMB equation. For example, the railroad industry utilizes a very similar process using “load box” technology, which is nothing more than a controlled electrical load on the locomotive generator, to determine engine, wheel motor and generator efficiency. The AAR RP 503 is such an evaluation; written by the American Association of Railroads, it includes a “load box” evaluation in conjunction with the CMB to determine engine efficiency and/or fuel consumption. This same process can be easily established as the mode of testing in the power generation industry with little or no derivation. Engine/generator load can be held at a constant level, with little or no variation in the data acquired during the testing process. This is a factor that has heretofore been documented. Once engine load has been established the attributes mentioned under the heading “Specification Requirements” must be ascertained and repeated as a cursory requirement for a successful evaluation. Once again, the ability to control many of the variables has heretofore been documented. Finally, when engine load and the direct and indirect processes have been considered, data is acquired through the use of sophisticated emissions equipment. In short, an emission “snapshot” is taken of the engine exhaust at a very specific load under controlled conditions. This process is repeated until such time as sufficient data is compiled to provide sound, statistical confirmation. Ie. baseline.
Proposal For Testing
3
Testing and Notification Cursory to any CMB evaluation, an understanding of the most fundamental element of the process must be ascertained. The basic fuel oil is replete with inherent impurities and contaminates. It is imperative that the fuel oil be fully examined in an attempt to unveil any unwanted or unwarranted contributors to the CMB process. Contaminates such as sulfur are contained in large quantities in heavy bunker fuels and are viewed as nothing more than a pass through contaminate. Although an excellent lubricant, there is really no other benefit derived from the existence of sulfur. Comparing sulfur emission levels from a heavy grade National bunker fuel oil to a lighter grade Ecologica fuel oil is not only illogical, but unreasonable. Specific gravity differences create a significant amount of unnecessary confusion when trying to correlate incomprehensible data from an unknown fuel entity or change. Understanding that there are unknown quantities of harmful contaminants in the fuel oil; fuel tests must be conducted during all major phases of the evaluation. This process is fundamental to the success of the evaluation in that fuel constituents create unexpected results. As such, fuel tests must be conducted prior to baseline testing (before day one (1)), midway through the evaluation (about day fifteen (15)) and prior to catalyst treated testing (about day twentyeight (28)). All parties will be notified regarding the results of all qualifying tests performed. The following model will identify the procedure for fuels testing as it equates to this proposed evaluation: Baseline Period
*Week 1
*Week 2
*Week 3
*Week 4
*Week 5
1
Fuel Conditioning Period (Treated fuel)
1
Treated Period
1
* one (1) week equates to seven (7) days
At minimum, the fuel should be tested for sulfur, specific gravity, cetane and BTU. Origin supplied C of A’s detail in a range only, and do not specify exact fuel properties of the fuel being delivered. Preferably, the tests will be conducted at two separate laboratories to verify the accuracy and validity of each sample. Only ASTM certified laboratories are to be contracted to perform this type of fuel oil analysis.
Specific Requirements for Testing The CMB evaluation is inherently accurate due to the labor intensive prerequisite requirements necessary to perform the evaluation precisely and accurately. Every measure is met to ensure the accuracy of this evaluation, which includes the following model: Fuel type Fuel specific gravity Fuel temperature Outside ambient temp. Exhaust temperature Engine load Proposal For Testing
Barometric Pressure Air inlet velocity Air inlet temperature Oil pressure Exhaust velocity Exhaust particulates
Oil temperature Engine operating temp. Exhaust manifold temp. Engine rpm Emissions levels General engine maint. 4
The aforementioned ancillary list is a significant part of the detail necessary to perform an effective CMB evaluation. Complete and effective documentation allows for concise, accurate, specific information when performing any type of efficiency evaluation. Detail, as previously suggested, asserts authenticity and professionalism in performing precise field testing with large slow-stroke diesel engines. Eliminating the elements of preparation, as previously described, would promote a process propagating more misinformation than quality information. Finally, the prescribed steps and monitored elements must be recorded on the data sheet, in sequence with the data recorded for the emissions levels. Each individual point of data validates the entire sequence of data, which in turn validates the process. (see section “Data Collection Requirements).
Statistical Error All data collected must fall within the statistical error or repeatability of the equipment utilized to validate the emissions readings. For instance, the Bacharach ECA 450 has an acknowledged repeatability of + or – 5% of the established reading. As such, the emissions data being collected cannot fall outside of the statistical range of + or - 5%. If in fact this occurs, a load, environmental, or similar factor has effected the data being accrued, which negates the reading making it invalid to the data collecting process. The data falling outside of the statistical range of the emissions equipment will be considered an “outlier” and will be eliminated from the evaluation. Finally, a certificate of calibration must be acquired for the emission equipment prior to testing. This certificate must be underwritten by a credible source such as the NIST (National Institute of Standards Technology) and must provide a clear and documented calibration stream of pre and post calibration readings. The calibration must be sufficient to provide adequate range of reliability for the entirety of the evaluation (35 days).
Methodology The organo-metallic fuel catalyst proposed for this evaluation is incorporated into the combustion process at the molecular level. This sub-micron chemistry adheres to microscopic fuel droplets much the same way magnets adhere to each other. At such sub-micron levels the fuel catalyst can only augment the combustion process, not detract. The catalyst does not change fuel specifications, so it can not therefore reduce the available energy (BTU) of the fuel. As such, dramatic downward changes in fuel consumption can only occur if a change in operation occurs; i.e. fuel change, equipment failure, environmental change, etc. Knowing this, the methodology for testing is incumbent on the ability to redundantly duplicate the characteristics of the process fully and completely. The data being collected is merely a snapshot of the exhaust stream under a required and repeatable load. In this case, the engine/generator load will be established and data taken at 32 Mw and 37 Mw outputs. All mechanical and environmental conditions must be monitored to enhance the reliability of the evaluation and ensure that as many direct and indirect functions of the procedure are confirmed, validated and accounted for.
Proposal For Testing
5
The process for evaluating the engine stack emissions will utilize the following model:
*Week 1
Baseline Data
Collect data 32 Mw 37 Mw Once daily Ten data points each load Same time each day
*Week 5
Treated Data
Collect Data 32 Mw 37 Mw Once daily Ten data points each load Same time each day
* one (1) week equates to seven (7) days
Emission Side Additional to the aforementioned methodology, a concurrent photographic emissions summary will be executed to document stack emissions from an environmental and appearance perspective. An abbreviated form of a process utilized in the EPA AERMOD procedure will be utilized to document changes in stack emissions as a result of increased engine efficiency and the effects of ground level convectional currents. The obvious appearance of dark air-borne exhaust emissions reflects directly on the organization producing the emissions. A visual reduction in air-borne particulates decreases public and governmental intervention and places any company, choosing to voluntarily reduce these emissions and harmful air-borne pollutants, in good standing with all local, federal and regulatory agencies. As important, reductions in harmful air-borne pollutants place any company in a position of attainment with new and more stringent air quality regulations. Again, this photographic data will be compiled using the following model:
Proposal For Testing
6
*Week 1 Baseline Period
*Week 2
*Week 3
*Week 4
*Week 5
1
Fuel Conditioning Period (Treated fuel)
1
1
1
Treated Period
1
*one (1) week equates to seven (7) days
The aforementioned photographic data will be utilized to document critical environmental changes from a visual perspective only. This data will be collected at the same time each day, one day per week during the entirety of the evaluation. Emmission reductions can be documented for carbon footprint
Data Collection Requirements All data must be collected and documented on a form that is understandable and easily identifies pertinent information. The data needs to be collected in the presence of a viable witness so as to authenticate and substantiate the data as it is accumulated. In the absence of a witness, a printed copy of the data, supplied from the printer option in the emissions analyzer will suffice. The attached form identifies a typical method utilized for field testing wherein all prerequisite information pursuant to the evaluation is collected and documented. Such a document will be completed for each data point to and including the number of data points suggested previously in this proposal. The data entered into the field document, while testing, would be similar to that, which is already entered in to the document in the following example: CMB Field Data Form Company:__________________________________Location:_______________________________________________Date:________________ Water Temp:_____________ Oil Pres:_____________ Fan Clutch:____________ Smoke No:__________ Exhaust Diameter:______________ mm Test Portion:
Baseline:__________Treated:___________Engine Make/Model:___________________________Air Inlet velocity:___________Pas
Exhaust Manifold Temp:____________________________Miles/Hours:_______________ID#:________________ Fuel Specific Gravity:_________ Type of Equipment:___________________________________________Exhaust Side:
______ Barometric Pressure:________Pas
RPM:____________Load:_____________________________________________________________ Oil Pressure Temp._____________________
Proposal For Testing
7
Instrument Calibration And Date Yes 3-25-09
Time Begin To Time End
02
Ambient Temp. C.
4.55
15.1
25.3 deg. C.
650
4.57
15.3
10:12 a.m.
.65
655
4.56
15.0
10:14 a.m.
.50
.65
650
4.55
15.2
10:16 a.m.
.51
.65
655
4.56
15.1
Fuel Type
Exhaust Temp °C
P Inches Of H2O
Bunker
187 deg. C.
.50
.65
650
Bunker
186 deg. C.
.50
.65
Bunker
188 deg. C.
.51
Bunker
187 deg. C.
Bunker
188 deg. C.
CO
HC PPM
CO2
25.5 deg. C.
Observer Dave David
10:10 a.m.
10:18 a.m.
For the purpose of the CMB equation, ambient pressure measurements must be in millibars, exhaust pressure in Pascal’s and stack diameter in millimeters (or meters). It is more accurate than conversions. However, if conversions are necessary the following conversions should be helpful: The conversion for inches of water to Pascal’s (pa) is inches H2O x 249. The conversion for inches in diameter to millimeters in diameter is inches x 24.75. The data will then be totaled, averaged, and entered into the CMB equation attached to this proposal. A performance factor will be calculated identifying the rate of carbon use in g/sec.
Schedule and Format Parameters Federally approved fuel consumption and emissions studies have proven that Organo-metallic fuel catalysts require a conditioning period to optimize engine performance. To best understand the mode of operation behind the fuel catalyst, one would need to understand the nature of catalytic chemistry. At a treatment ratio of 1 to 10,000 the catalyst performs in concert with the normal combustion cycle of the engine. The catalyst is not a detergent or solvent that is used in high saturation levels to alter fuel specifications. Rather, it is a soluble organo-metallic site propagator that reacts at the molecular level to involve and expand spark or pressure related ignition to areas of the combustion chamber that are normally considered quench zones. By doing so, more of the unused fuel is incorporated into the combustion process, which helps to improve engine power, torque and fuel usage. As important, harmful environmental elements such as solid particulates (smoke), Nox, Hc, C02, C0 etc., are significantly reduced with the corresponding increase in combustion activity. The random catalytic nature of the catalyst also re-involves established carbon into the combustion process, which helps to return internal combustion related components to like-new conditions. During this process, engine fuel economy can diminish slightly in that fuel energy is being absorbed by the non-reactive carbon as it is removed from combustion surfaces. This phenomenon is generally short in duration and is limited to the amount of time necessary to completely re-involve the pertinent, non-reactive carbon. Understanding the mode of action and the responsive nature of the fuel catalyst, a successful evaluation would require a minimum of 600 hours of engine operation with catalyst treated fuel. As such, the following proposal for implementing a thirty-five (35) day evaluation would be strongly recommended: The longer the test period the more benefits may be seen.
Proposal For Testing
8
*Week 1 Baseline Data
*Week 2
*Week 3
*Week 4
*Week 5
x
Fuel Conditioning (Treated fuel)
x
x
Treated Data
x x
* one (1) week equates to seven (7) days
Catalyst fuel treatment will continue through week five (5), or until the completion of the treated data segment of the evaluation.
Carbon Mass Balance Equation At the completion of the evaluation, the attached CMB formula can be utilized to calculate a performance factor for both the baseline and treated segments of the dynamometer/CMB evaluation. This equation is a standard balancing equation, which is typical for analytical testing irregardless of the industry. Balancing equations are constantly utilized in chemical formulations, methane, coal and wood computations, hydrogen computations, and many, many, more. The calculated difference between the pf1 and pf2 factors is the difference in fuel consumed in grams per second. Assumptions: C8H15 and SG = 0.78 Time is Constant Load is Constant
Proposal For Testing
9
Data
Assumptions:
C8H15 and SG = 0.78 Time is Constant Load is Constant
Data:
Mwt
= Molecular Weight
pf1 pf2
= Calculated Performance Factor (baseline) = Calculated Performance Factor (treated)
T F SG
= Temperature (°F) = Flow (exhaust CFM) = Specific Gravity
F
= Volume Fraction VFC02 VF02 VFHC VFCO
= "reading" / 100 = "reading" / 100 = "reading" / 1,000,000 = "reading" / 100
Equations Equations: Mwt = (VFHC)(86)+(VFCO)(28)+(VFCO2)(44)+(VFO2)(32)+[(1-VFHC-VFCOVFO2- VFCO2)(28)] pf1 or PF1
= ___________2952.3 x Mwt___________ 89(VFHC)+13.89(VFCO)+13.89(VFCO2)
PF1 or PF2
= pf x (T+460) F
Fuel Economy: Percent Increase (or Decrease)
=
(PF2 - PF1 ) x 100 PF1
Emmission savings will also be shown adding to the carbon foot print.
Proposal For Testing
10
Ancillary Testing Concurrent with the CMB fuel and emissions reductions evaluation, a corresponding assessment needs to be conducted to determine the trial engine thermal efficiency factor for the baseline (untreated) period, and again at the conclusion of the catalyst treated segment of the evaluation. Engine efficiency increases are dramatic to the performance of the engine, as well as billable goods produced as a result of the increases in engine efficiency. As such, thermal calculations should be conducted to determine equipment efficiency gains as a result of the organo-metallic fuel catalyst. A local university should be contracted to establish and write the procedure for the thermal efficiency calculations so as to accurately demonstrate net efficiency gains and off-set there costs to the current operational costs. At the present time, assumptions are the basis for extrapolating engine efficiency levels, since a process for boiler thermic efficiency is the standard of testing for internal combustion engine efficiency. It is well known that a boiler procedure predicated on excess oxygen and AFR control has no valid comparison to an internal combustion engine wherein there is little control over Lambda conditions; excess oxygen and AFR. Knowing this, the local university needs to be involved with this evaluation to determine actual, calculated thermal efficiencies; electrical and mechanical.
Conclusion The protocol for testing, outlined in this document, is utilized worldwide as a means for accurate and reliable emissions and performance evaluations. The demonstrated strength of a standard of testing is in the utilization and acceptance of that process throughout the engineering world. This process has not only been accepted, but placed at the forefront for testing. This process is utilized to develop relative EPA fuel guidelines as posted in the window of all new vehicles. As previously mentioned, it is a mandatory staple in the wood/pulp, coal, gaseous chemical, oil, and many other industries throughout the world. The CMB has become the standard for which all modern day federal and state procedures are written. Incorporating this process as part of a governmental or local evaluation paradigm, places any country, entity, or business at the forefront of informational and environmental technology.
Explanation of Acronyms EPA: Environmental Protection Agency HFET: Highway Fuel Economy Test FTP: Federal Test Procedure CMB: Carbon Mass Balance NIST: National Institute of Standards C of A: Certificate of Analysis BTU: British Thermal Units AERMOD: EPA Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling AFR: Air Fuel Ration: ideally 14.7:1 ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
Proposal For Testing
11