CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL

DES MACHINES A COMBUSTION

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
ON COMBUSTION ENGINES

PAPER NO.: 43
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GE TIER 3
LOCOMOTIVE DIESEL ENGINE
Neil X. Blythe, General Electric, USA
W. Doug Glenn, GE Transportation, USA

Abstract: In response to the 1998 promulgation

of locomotive emissions regulations (effective in 2000)
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), GE embarked on the development of the GEVO
engine. This new engine platform was developed to
address future emissions requirements of the US EPA
and other regulatory agencies as well as address customer requirements for high reliability and low operating cost. With over 2000 Tier 2 Evolution Series Locomotives delivered since being launched in 2005, the
GEVO engine has proven to be a very reliable and efficient product.
Designed to meet Tier 2 emissions, the performance of this highly successful engine has recently
been extended to meet US EPA Tier 3 Locomotive
Emission requirements. Through a combination of improved injection strategies, reduced lube oil consumption and improved air handling, a 50% reduction in particulate matter has been demonstrated, while holding
NOx emissions constant and without a negative affect
on fuel economy.
The PM reduction was achieved through a combination of lube oil consumption reduction and injection

c
CIMAC
Congress 2010, Bergen

control strategies. The oil consumption reduction was

accomplished through the employment of a more aggressive piston ring pack and liner surface finish optimization. To quantify the impact of various power
assembly design features and down select to the final power assembly configuration, an instantaneous
lube oil consumption measurement system was employed. This system yielded significant insight into
the oil transport mechanisms associated with different operating conditions (i.e., low load, transient and
high load). Further reductions in particulate emissions
were achieved by implementing a new high pressure,
common rail fuel injection system that enabled greater
flexibility in the scheduling of fuel injection and control
of injection pressure.
Specific fuel consumptions penalties were offset
through a combination of turbocharger efficiency improvements, the adoption of early intake valve closure and optimization of injection strategies. The final configuration was validated through extensive test
bed and field endurance testing. This paper will discuss the development process and design features of
GEs next generation diesel locomotive engine.

INTRODUCTION
In 1998, the U.S. Environmentalal Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated the first emission
standards for Line Haul and Switcher duty cycle
locomotives. Published in 40CFR Part 92 [1], these
rules established progressively stricter emission
limits effective in 2000 (Tier 0), 2002 (Tier 1) and
2005 (Tier 2). In 2008, the US EPA revised these
rules under 40 CFR Part 1033 [2], tightening the
emission requirements for NOx and PM. The new
Tier 3 and Tier 4 rules are scheduled to go into
effect in 2012 and 2015, respectively. The Tier 3
rules drive a 50% reduction in PM emission without
calling for a reduction in NOx. While not requiring
aftertreatment, the Tier 3 limit does encourage
changes that will support the use of aftertreatment
technologies in the future, such as reduced lube oil
consumption and reduced ash oils. The Tier 4
levels push NOx emissions down by 76% and PM
emission down by an additional 70% below the Tier
3 limit. Part 1033 rules also reduce the allowable
emission levels for earlier Tier locomotives,
lowering NOx for T0 locomotives and PM for Tier 0,
1 & 2 locomotives. These emission Tiers are
illustrated in Figure 1 below.

EPA Line-haul NOx (g/hp-hr)

10.0
Tier 0 (1973-2001)

8.0

Tier 0+ Non-split Cooled

Tier 1+ Split Cooled

consumption, with a 50% reduction targeted

through improvements in liner surface technology
and piston ring design. A new valve timing strategy
was also employed, along with improvements in
turbocharger efficiency to improve mixing and
reduce combustion temperature. Engine out PM
emissions were reduced by approximately 50%,
without increasing NOx or BSFC. This paper
describes the key changes that were developed
with the Evolution engine to achieve the Tier 3
emission standards.

PM REDUCTION
Establishing T3 Performance Targets
When the first US EPA emission rules were being
promulgated for Locomotives in the late 1990s GE
recognized the need for a new engine platform that
could serve the demands of the future emissions
landscape,
while
enabling
improved
fuel
consumption and reliability. Consequently, GE
embarked on the development of a new 250mm
bore medium speed engine [3], the specifications of
which are shown in Table 1 and cross section
shown in Figure 2. Rated at 3360 kW at 1050 rpm,
the 12-cylinder Evolution engine represented a
significant improvement in fuel consumption, weight
and emissions over its Tier 0 and Tier 1
predecessor, the 16 cylinder 7FDL engine.

Tier 1 (2002-2004)

Table 1 Evolution V12 Engine

Specifications

6.0
4.0
2.0

Tier 2+ & 3
(12-14)

Tier-2
(05-11)

Tier-4
(15-Later)

Model
Bore
Stroke
V12 Displacement
Speed
Power
Number of Cyls
Bank Angle
Height
Width
Length
Weight

Part 92
Part 1033

0.0
0

0.1

0.2
0.3
0.4
EPA Line-haul PM (g/hp-hr)

0.5

0.6

Figure 1 Tier Levels for US EPA NOx and PM

limits

Extending the performance of the Tier 2 Evolution

engine to meet Tier 3 required a reduction in PM
emissions without negatively affecting other
emissions. Using Six Sigma Tools, a balance of
analysis techniques supported by component,
system level endurance and qualification testing,
the Tier 3 Locomotive engine was developed and
validated. It incorporated a new common rail fuel
system for improved injection characteristics,
enhancing combustion and lowering PM emissions.
Considerable focus was paid to lube oil
CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Specifications
250 mm
320 mm
188.5 liters
1050 rpm
3360 kW
12
45
2683
1958
4196
19,500 kg

The GE Tier 2 Evolution locomotive with the new

Evolution engine had been in production for 4 years
with over 2000 locomotives delivered when Part
1033 emission standards were legislated.
Therefore, the emissions capability of the Evolution
engine was well understood at Tier 2 levels. Since
Tier 3 was all about PM reduction a targeted
approach to reduce engine out PM was needed.

Paper No. 43

Engine Out PM
In order to reduce engine out PM, the sources of
the PM must be understood. Data collected by
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) during 2005,
2006 and 2007 In-Use testing [4] [5] [6] conducted
for the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
documented the soluble organic fraction (SOF) and
sulfate content (SO4) of PM samples collected
during in-use testing. Figure 4 summarizes the
Line Haul duty cycle results of 5 individual GE Tier
2 locomotive tests, three of which were conducted
with the same locomotive over the three year
period. This data indicates that approximately 50%
of the PM is SOF, while approximately 40% is SO4.

Contribution to Total PM over Line Haul Cycle

SwRI GEVO In-Use Results

70%

error bars = +/- 1 stdev

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SOOT

Figure 2 Evolution engine cross section

Mean and Standard

Deviation of Testing
New Locomotives in
Erie (sea level)

GE Ship
Limit
Ambient
Effect

EPA End of
Useful Life
Deterioration Limit
Factor

Figure 3 Factors affecting emission design

targets

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

SO4

Figure 4 Summary of PM filter analyses

As with previous EPA locomotive emission

standards, Part 1033 rules required compliance
over a wide ambient range: 15.5C (60F) to 40.5C
(105F) and altitudes from sea level to 2134 meters
(7000 ft). Furthermore, these limits must be met
through end of useful life (EOL) and demonstrated
through production line sampling (minimum of 1%)
and in-use testing (25% to 75% useful life).
Combined with GEs design practice of targeting 3
sigma margin, the EPA ambient and demonstration
requirements drives the need for significant margin
in the product. Hence, the target for engine out
emissions must include ambient effects of
temperature, altitude and humidity, deterioration,
and variation. A summary of these factors and how
they are applied is illustrated in Figure 3 and will be
addressed in further discussion.

Target 3
sigma

ORGANIC

While the exact source of the SOF could not be

determined, its origins are tied to a combination of
unburned fuel and lube oil [7]. The SO4 is derived
from sulfur in the fuel and sulfated ash from the oil.
The portion of the PM sample attributed to soot was
derived by subtracting the weight of the SOF and
SO4 from the total sample. Note that only 10% is
associated with soot. It is clear from this analysis
that the two areas needing to be addressed for PM
reduction are soluble organics and sulfur level of
the fuel and oil.
Impact of Fuel Sulfur
For Tier 0 through Tier 2, the fuel to be used for
testing must be in accordance with Part 92.113
(and most recently 1065.703), having a sulfur level
of 2000 to 4000 ppm. For Tier 3 and future
emission levels, the maximum allowable fuel sulfur
level is reduced to 15 ppm. Therefore, some
reduction in PM will come as a result of the lower
fuel sulfur. Testing conducted by SwRI [8] with
different fuel sulfur levels indicated that line haul
duty cycle engine out PM would be reduced by
approximately 0.023g/kWhr per 1000 ppm sulfur in
the fuel (Figure 5). Therefore, a reduction in fuel
sulfur from 3000 ppm to less that 15 ppm would be
expected to reduce PM by about 0.069 g/kWhr
(0.05gm/hp-hr).
However, independent testing
conducted by GE suggested the effect was less

Paper No. 43

ultimately selected for the Tier 3 engine. The error

bars represent 95% confidence bands on the data.

Valve Stem Seal LOC Results

0.40
EPA Freight DC Total PM (gm/kW-hr)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Production Seals
Zero Metering Seals
SwRI 2000 Results

0.35

GE's Data
Linear (SwRI 2000 Results)

0.30

Linear (GE's Data)

0.25
9

0.20

LOC normalized to
Notch 8

than half that reported by SwRI at 0.024g/kWhr

(0.018 g/bhp-hr). This level of PM sulfur effect is
supported by other independent studies [9]
suggesting a similar change for 3000 ppm sulfur
effect of 0.032 g/kW-hr (0.024 g/hp-hr).

Notch Position

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Figure 6 Comparison of lube oil consumption

measurements with production vs zero flow valve
stem seals.

Fuel Sulfur Content (ppm)

Tier 3 config

Figure 5 Correlation between Sulfur levels in fuel

vs Line Haul Duty Cycle PM

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6

PM Reduction through Lube Oil Consumption

Control

0.4
0.2
0.0

With 50% of the PM identified as being related to

SOF, lube oil consumption was a critical target in
the effort to reduce PM. The sources of engine
lube oil consumption had to be tracked down and
quantified in order to reduce same. To understand
and quantify these sources GE procured a DaVinci
Emission Services [10] DALOC-I near real time
lube oil consumption measurement system. This
equipment enables the determination of lube oil
consumption through a process involving the sulfur
mass balances on the engine system. By using this
system on a single cylinder engine (SCE) the lube
oil contribution from the piston rings and valve stem
seals could be quantified. Figure 6 shows SCE
results comparing production valve stem seals to a
set of specially produced zero oil metering valve
stem seals. The oil flow through the zero metering
valve stem seals were measured on the suppliers
test rig and confirmed to be at an undetectable
level. With the exception of notch 8, no change in
oil consumption could be detected between the
zero metering valve stem seals and the production
stem seals with 95% confidence on the SCE.
Based on this data, it was concluded that our
attention should focus on piston ring pack and liner
instead of valve stem seals to reduce lube oil
consumption.
After procurement and test of various ring packs
and liners a recipe for Tier 3 was selected. Figure
7 below illustrates the LOC reduction obtained with
the piston ring pack and liner combination that was

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

5
4
Notch Position

Normalized LOC by notch

SCE LOC Reduction Data

SCE Baseline

Figure 7 Comparison in lube oil consumption

between standard Tier 2 ring pack/liner surface and
Tier 3 ring pack/liner surface.
PM Impact of Crankcase Ventilation
To understand lube oil consumption associated with
the crankcase ventilation (CCV) system, direct oil
aerosol measurements were collected from the exit
of a coalescing filter of a production multi-cylinder
engine. The oil aerosol is normally vented into the
exhaust stack of the locomotive and is a direct
component of soluble organic fraction of the total
particulate matter measured during an emissions
test. Baseline measurements were collected from
current Tier 2 hardware. Figure 8 shows results of
this testing.
Two separate baseline current
production Tier 2 coalescer elements were
evaluated (BL Element #1 and BL Element #2) to
get a feel for piece-to-piece variation. As this
testing indicated, at least with the two baseline
elements tested, variation appears low.
Several other sample coalescer filters were also
evaluated. Sample A and B showed the most
promise in reducing crankcase ventilation
emissions. However, as illustrated in Figure 8, the
pressure drop across these samples were at least
an order of magnitude larger than current Tier 2
production system and would require much greater

Paper No. 43

pumping force than currently available to be

effective. The conclusion from this testing was that
the amount of oil aerosol in the ventilated
crankcase gasses was relatively small and not
contributing significantly to the overall total PM
mass at Tier 3 levels. However, at Tier 4 levels,
this source of PM will have to be addressed
1.2

reduced lube oil consumption and fuel sulfur

resulted in the soot portion of the sample becoming
much more significant.
Control of soot is
accomplished by improving combustion. While
overall air fuel ratio plays a major role in the control
of soot, the management of the fuel injection
process is critical to soot control. Consequently,
GE has invested in a new high-pressure common
rail fuel injection system, designed for 1800 bar rail
pressure and multiple injections per combustion
cycle. This system is illustrated in Figure 9.

12

Normalized CCV Oil PM

Coalescer Out PM
1.0

10

DP on Coalescer

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

A low pressure pump supplies fuel to three cam

driven high pressure pumps. The fuel flow and
system pressure is regulated by an inlet metering
valve which restricts the fuel flow to the high
pressure injection pumps, thus minimizing the
parasitic load of the pumps. To minimize the need
for a large common rail header, a small reservoir is
built into each injector, figure 10, and a larger
accumulator is mounted between the high pressure
pumps and the injectors. Consequently, the rail
consists of a series of jumper lines between each
cylinder. Located between the jumper line junction
block and injector is a flow limiter valve, which cuts
the flow of fuel off in the event of a stuck injector or
failed connection at the injector.

0
BL Element BL Element Sample A
#1
#2

Sample B

Sample C

Sample D

Sample E

Sample F

Figure 8 Oil consumption measured in the CCV

system and pressure drop across the CCV
coalescing filter.
Soot Control
Although the PM filter samples discussed above
indicated that only a small fraction of the PM mass
was derived from soot, PM reductions through

ENGINE SUBSUB-SYSTEM
1 & 2: Rail Pressure Sensors
3 : Overpressure Relief Valve
4 : Water-in-Fuel Sensor
5 : Engine Fuel Pressure Sensor
Water
Separator

To Fuel
Tank

Accumulator

HP Pumps

L6 Injectors

Water To
Engine Sump

Fine
Filter
Fuel Heater

Junction
Block

AMOT
IMV Block

Relief (150psi)
valve

LP-Pump

Zero Flow
Orifice

Pressure
regulating valve
Pump and
Injector Leak

Strainer

L1

Winter/Summer
valve
Fuel Bleed Restricted
Hot
Well

End Plug

Fuel Tank

Figure 9 High Pressure Common Rail System Schematic

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

Paper No. 43

Figure 10 HPCR
Injector

3000

UPS
CRS, 1200 bar, Single Injection
CRS, 1200 bar, 2-non-seating pilots

1.5

2500

1
2000

0.5
0

1500

-0.5

1000

-1
500

-1.5
-2

0
-40

-20

0
20
Crank Angle

40

Fuel Pressure [bar]

Normalized Needle Lift

As illustrated in Figure 11, the common rail system

provides nominally higher and more consistent
injection pressures at all loads than the legacy unit
pump system (UPS).
At lower loads, the high
injection pressure enables operation with lower A/F
ratio by improving atomization and mixing energy in
the combustion chamber that is not possible with
the UPS injection equipment. The flexibility of
multiple injections also provided another lever in the
reduction of PM. It was found that the application
of a small post injection, particularly at low loads,
was advantageous in reducing PM and proved
especially beneficial with the introduction of a Miller
inlet valve closing strategies discussed below.

fuel consumptions, 2% ash oil produces roughly

0.02 g/kWhr (0.015 g/bhp-hr) of ash emissions,
which contributes directly to PM emissions. This
equates to only 7.5% of the Tier 2 limit, but 15% of
the Tier 3 limit and 30% of the total engine out PM
when margin is taken into consideration. Reducing
the ash in the oil by 50%, combined with a 50%
reduction in oil consumption, results in a 75%
reduction in oil related ash in the exhaust. Hence,
the need to reduce oil consumption and ash levels
in the oil is not simply an aftertreatment concern.
Variation and Deterioration
Figure 12 illustrates the combined impact of the PM
reductions described above. Note that Tier 2
engine out PM level is already below the Tier 3
limit, and significant margin was achieved through
the reductions in lube oil consumption, fuel sulfur
and soot. However, it can be seen that consistently
achieving the Tier 3 PM limit would be a challenge
if the Tier 2 engine variation and deterioration factor
were to be applied. Reductions in variation and
deterioration, therefore, needed to be achieved.

1.4

60

T2
Det
Fctr

0.8

0.4

LOC

0.2

Impact of Reduced Ash Lube Oil

Fuel
Sulfur

Det
Fctr
Red

T3EngineOut Target
HPCR

T2
Std
Dev

Engine Out

0.6

Std
Dev
Red

Std Dev + DF

T3Limit

1.0

Tier 2 Engine Out

Figure 11 Comparison of injection pressures

between common rail and UPS injection
systems

BSPM Normalized to T3 Limit .

1.2

0.0

Over the past two decades, oil suppliers have been

forced to reformulate their crankcase oils to
accommodate changes in engine design along with
the application of exhaust aftertreatment equipment
to light and heavy duty diesel engine market. Not
only does the oil formulation affect oil consumption,
but it also contributes to PM emissions. Froeland,
et al, found that that lube oil accounts for 20% to
30% of the PM from heavy duty engines [10].
Consequently, oil suppliers have tended to switch
to
bright
stocks
having
lower
volatility
characteristics.
Additionally, the most recent
emissions regulations have driven the need to for
reduced ash oils as truck engine manufactures
have applied Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs).
While the use of aftertreatment equipment is not
expected for Tier 3 locomotives, the oil formulation
can have a significant effect on engine out PM of a
locomotive, especially as PM levels are reduced.
For example, at oil consumption rates of 0.5% of
CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

T2Eng

T3

Figure 12 T3 PM reduction strategy

While insufficient production data exists at the time
of this publishing to establish a final standard
deviation and deterioration factors for the Tier 3
engine, a conservative estimate can be made using
historical data. Since engine out PM emissions
were reduced by over 50%, it is fair to expect an
inherent reduction in standard deviation as well.
This has been demonstrated with previous Tier
engine families as illustrated in Figure 13. As the
engine out PM emission levels have decreased with
each successive emission family, so has the
standard deviation almost linearly. In addition,
changes in measurement practices specified by the
Tier 3 rules were intended to drive reductions in
test-to-test variation, such that a 50% reduction in
overall standard deviation may be expected.

Paper No. 43

Line Haul PM

aggressive early or late intake valve closure timings

require elaborate control strategies at part load
conditions to ensure acceptable A/F ratios over the
full operating range. The significant turbocharger
design changes and controls required for the higher
pressure ratio could not be justified given the short
production period associated with Tier 3 legislation,
therefore, a more moderate level of Miller valve
timing was adopted.

2.0
1.8

Tier 0

Normalized StDev

1.6

Tier 1

1.4
1.2
1.0

Tier 2

0.8
0.6
0.4

projected Tier 3

0.2
0.0
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Normalized Mean

Figure 13 Reduction in PM measurement Standard

Deviation with lower levels of Engine out PM.
The deterioration rate is controlled through careful
design of the injection equipment and appropriate
selection of maintenance intervals. Experience with
the Tier 2 Evolution engine has shown that unit
pump wear and injector hole wear are the leading
causes for deterioration of PM emissions. Both
wear mechanisms lead to a reduction in injection
pressure, resulting in poor atomization and an
increase in PM emissions. However, the common
rail fuel injection system offers the advantage of
being able to compensate for the normal
deteriorating effects associated with nozzle tip hole
and pump wear characteristic of the UPS injection
systems. Since the injection pressure of a common
rail injection system is independent of the nozzle
hole size, the deterioration in PM emission levels
should be minimal.

Even with moderate levels of Miller valve timing, the

resultant lower A/F ratio tends to produce an
increase in soot. The benefits of the common rail
system previously described serve to mitigate this
concern by providing improved atomization and
mixing energy. Post injections at low loads reduced
PM by increasing late cycle turbulence and
extending the burn duration for more complete
combustion. As illustrated in Figures 16, it was also
found that small pilot injections could be employed
at higher loads to reduce the premix spike with a
net result of more consistent heat release over the
entire cycle, thus avoiding high heat release rates
responsible for high NOx production rates. This
enables injection timing advance for further
reductions in PM emissions and better SFC at
constant NOx levels.
Therefore, optimizing
injection strategies at each notch load point, and
incorporating improvements in overall turbocharger
efficiency enabled these PM reductions without
negatively affecting duty cycle SFC.

3.9

4.2
4

4.1

4.2

3.8
3.9

4.1
4.2
4.3

4.4

4.1
4.2

3.7

3.6

4.3

4.1
4.2
4.3

4 .6

4.5
560

580

4.1

540

4.
5

4.3

3.8
3.9

0.9

4.4

Nozzle Ring Scale Factor

4.3

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

3.7

1.1

0.8

Modeling results indicated that both early and late

intake valve closure would reduce peak combustion
temperatures and, hence NOx (Figure 14). Since
Tier 3 NOx limits were unchanged from Tier 2, a
NOx improvement could be transferred into SFC
improvement simply by advancing the injection
timing. However, as illustrated in Figure 15, both
early and late intake valve closures have a negative
impact on volumetric efficiency, which requires
increased turbocharger pressure ratio to maintain
acceptable air/fuel ratios.
In addition, very

3.9
3.8

Reductions in emissions are typically associated

with an increase in specific fuel consumption (SFC)
due to the need to accept compromises in parasitic
losses and / or rate of heat release. However, GE
set a goal of achieving T3 emission levels without
negatively affecting fuel consumption and
conducted extensive modeling and testing to
ensure this goal was met.

3.6

FUEL CONSUMPTION IMPACT

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

4.3

BSNOX (g/hp-hr):
1.2

600

620

IVC

Figure 14 GT_Power analysis of NOx vs Intake

Valve Closure timing

Paper No. 43

Volumetric Efficiency:

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04

1.01

0.96

0.95

0.94
0.93

0.99

1.02
1.01
1.03

1.04

1.04

1.03
1.02

0.98

1.

0.96
0.95

01

7
0.9

0.94
0.93
0.92

0.9

0.87

0.92
0.91 0.9

540

0.97

0.95

0.96

1.01

1.0
2

0.99

3
1.0

1.02

0.98

0.94

0.88

0.8

0.

The ability to quickly and accurately assess the

impact of individual design changes on lube oil
consumptions enabled the rapid screening of
several ring design and liner surface finishes
combinations, with a final combination providing a
50% reduction in overall lube oil consumption.

0.98

1.01

0.97
0.93

0.9
0.89

0.9

0.99

0.97

0.96
0.95

0.92
0.91

Nozzle Ring Scale Factor

0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99

0.98

0.94
0.93

0.97

0.9

1.1

0.99

0.96

0.92
0.91

1.2

The new high pressure common rail fuel system

being introduced on the Tier 3 Evolution engine
enables air handling strategies, such as Miller
intake valve timings, by improving atomization and
mixing energy, especially at low and intermediate
loads where turbocharger boost pressures are low.
Post injections proved beneficial in the reduction of
PM, particulary at low loads.

99
0 .9

560

580

600

Finally, like previous EPA locomotive emission

standards, designing an engine to meet Tier 3
emission requires the ability to understand and
control variation and degradation over the useful life
of the locomotive engine. The Tier 3 Evolution
engine is designed to meet the EPA locomotive
emissions standards considering variation and
degradation over its entire useful life.

620

IVC

Figure 15 GT_Power analysis of Volumetric

Efficiency vs Intake Valve Closure timing

225

UPS has higher

peak HRR

150

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

175

225
175

125
100
75
50

Pilot injections
provide earlier start
of combustion
without NOx penalty.

125
75

25

25

-25
-40

Ap parent Heat Release [kJ/m3deg]

275

200

NOMENCLATURE
Notch

-25
-20

20
Crank Angle

40

60

Locomotives operate in descrete power

settings called Notches. In North America,
locomotive power levels vary from
minimum power at notch 1 (N1) to
maximum power at notch 8 (N8). Other
notch settings include idle, low idle and
dynamic braking.

Figure 16 Controlled injection rate provides

more consistent heat release for lower peak
combustion pressures and NOx emissions

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONCLUSIONS

The authors would like to thank General Electric

Company for permission to publish this work.
Additional contributors to this paper include Roy
Primus, Wole Akinyemi and David Walker of GE
Research Center and Paul Flynn, Christiane Lau,
Shawn Gallagher and Sandeep Banga of GE
Transportation.

In response to the new CFR Part 1033 locomotive

emission rules, GE has demonstrated over a 50%
reduction in PM emissions with the Evolution
engine through a combination of improved injection
strategies, reduced lube oil consumption and
improved air handling.
This reduction was
achieved while holding NOx emissions constant.

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

REFERENCES
[1]

Paper No. 43

EPA Federal Register, Part II, CFR Title 40,

Subchapter C, part 92, Control of Air
Pollution
From
Locomotives
and
Locomotive Engines, Final Rule.

[2]

EPA Federal Register, Part II, CFR Title 40,

Subchapter C, part 1033, Control of
Emissions From Locomotives Final Rule.

[3]

Flynn, P.L., Napierkowski, S., Hupperich,

P., Reichert, E., General Electric GEVO
Engine for Tier 2 Locomotive Applications,
ICEF2003-708,
2003
Fall Technical
Conference of the ASME Internal
Combustion Engine Division.

[4]

AAR Locomotive Emissions Testing 2005

Final Report, Smith, B and Sneed, B
Transportation Technology Center, Inc.,
Fritz, S - SwRI

[5]

AAR Locomotive Emissions Testing 2006

Final Report, Smith, B Transportation
Technology Center, Inc., Fritz, S and
Osborne, D - SwRI

[6]

AAR Locomotive Emissions Testing 2007

Final Report, Smith, B Transportation
Technology Center, Inc., Fritz, S and
Osborne, D. - SwRI

[7]

Froelund, K., Yilmaz, E., 2004. "Impact of

engine oil consumption on particulate
emissions", International Conference on
Automotive Technologies, ICAT 2004,
http://www.osd.org.tr/17.pdf

[8]

SwRI 2000 fuels study: Diesel Fuel Effects

on Locomotive Exhaust Emissions, SwRI
Proposal No. 08-23088C, Steve Fritz,
2000.

[9]

NRPM Comment: Summary and Analysis

of Comments: Control of Emissions of Air
Pollution from Locomotive Engines and
Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less
than 30 Liters Per Cylinder, EPA420-R006,
March
2008,
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420r08006.pdf

[10]

DaVinci
Reference:
limited.com, San Antonio, TX

CIMAC Congress 2010, Bergen

www.davini-

Paper No. 43