Tier 4 Emissions Compliance Plan forGE and PittsadelphiaEDSGN 100 section 022

Dr. Ritter  

12/14/15Notorious ENG

Charles Dimino                    cad5694@psu.eduMohammad AlKhazraji   mma5444@psu.eduGiuseppe Ciotti                    gzc5139@psu.eduDavid Lopez                          dsl5173@psu.edu

  GE’s new Tier 4 Locomotive

Abstract/executive summary:

The problem in the GE Project was to successfully find a solution that will meet the

EPA’s Tier 4 requirements; in addition, the solution must not affect the amount of good that are

entering the city. This solution must not cost GE a significant amount of money; the company is

looking for a solution that offers a two year return on investment. The people of Pittsadelphia

must be content with the changes made, we have to find a way to not tamper with the

environment around them while keeping smog levels low. We had many solutions to start of

with, the first solution was to have the city become self-reliant of the resources that it needs. The

second solution was to transport any liquid goods by locomotives while all other goods by an

airplane because liquids are more difficult to transport by airplane. Our third solution involved

using different modes of transportation including trucks, planes, trains, and ships basically it

dealt with finding the most efficient route to take. Our main method and the method we stood by

was to sell all Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotives in order to buy new Tier 4 trains. We decided to do

this because Tier 4 locomotives already meet with the current EPA standards, and decided that

by doing this method we will get a return on investment in five years as well as it becoming the

most profitable of all solutions thought of. In conclusion, Tier 4 locomotives will now be used in

the city of Pittsadelphia as a way of staying in check with the EPA standards as well as it not

costing GE a significant amount of money.

Problem statement/intro:

This assignment was given to us by the company GE (General Electric) to help the

company find the best solution that will meet Tier 4 requirements provided by the EPA

(Environmental Protection Agency) in the city of Pittsadelphia. However, the chosen solution

must not cost GE a significant amount of money; the company is looking for a solution that

offers a two year return on investment. Other people that must be satisfied are the people who are

living in the city which would not want their city to be polluted nor to have a solution that will

change the beauty of the city.

The people of Pittsadelphia would like to have a complete fleet of locomotives that

passes through their city (provided by GE) that pass the Tier 4 standards provided by the EPA.

Currently GE has a fleet of Tier 3 and Tier 2 locomotives that produce a substantial amount of

emissions which affect the people of Pittsadelphia. In addition, in the process of development to

upgrade to Tier 4 locomotives the team will analyze the cost benefits of different ways of

upgrading, and choose the best solution that will help the different criteria of our stakeholders

mainly the people of the city. We are researching the benefits and drawbacks of our design, as

well as the environmental impacts on the city. Different means of transportation were considered

to be part of the final solution because they might prove to be more beneficial to the people of

the city which must be focused on in order to have the best possible solutions.

Background:

The new Tier 4 locomotives launches in 2015. It will be the cleanest, smartest and most

fuel- efficient diesel-electric Evolution Series Locomotive for heavy-haul freight and it will meet

EPA Tier 4 emission requirements. The locomotive will reduce NOx and PM emissions by 70%.

Since no after treatment is required it will save GE at least 1.5 billion in infrastructure and

operating cost (1). Currently in the city of Pittsadelphia approximately 165,000 tons of freight or

minerals per day travel in and out of the city via rail. The city of Pittsadelphia consists of 15

locomotives, 3 mineral and 12 freight. The mineral train can carry at least 12,000 tons of coal

with three locomotives, while the freight trains can carry 7,000 tons of freight with 2

locomotives.

Customer needs:

We needed different criteria in order to find the best solution that will satisfy our

stakeholders which consisted of the people of the city, the company, and the EPA. We tried to

come up with different criteria that will be in the interest of all of the people involved, hence we

came up with a set of specifications that had the customers in mind. In total we had eight

different customer needs to focus on:

1. Noise: This requirement focuses mainly on the people of the city that will have the

locomotives go through their city. Our specifications to this requirements will be placed

according to the average noise produced by a locomotive going at 45 mph which is 80

dB(2).

2. Efficiency: This mainly focuses on GE because they would like locomotives that are fuel

efficient, so they do not have to refuel them more often than the current fleet. In addition,

the fuel should not be more expensive than the locomotives they currently use. The ideal

specification to this requirements would be an engine that would be 10% more efficient

than that of the current fleet.

3. Less emissions: The EPA requires the emissions to follow Tier 4 standards of NOx (1.3)

(g/bhp-hr) and PM (0.03)(g/bhp-hr) (3)

4. Cost: This specification is very important because without financial incentive to work on

changing the fleet GE will not continue with the plans to better the economy. Hence our

specification for this requirements fall into one of GE’s requests of having a two year

return on investment.

5. Output: The locomotives will need to be able to carry at least the same amount of freight

and coal to pass this requirement. This will affect both the people who might not get their

requested goods and GE because they will be forced to have more locomotives go per

day which will cost them more money.

6. Maintenance: The average cost of yearly maintenance of locomotives is around 8.9

billion dollars which would be a good benchmark to that price.

7. Capacity: The capacity of the locomotives is important because the people and the

company because the people depend on the products that go through, and the company

would need to have more locomotives going through the city to keep up with the peoples’

demands.

8. NextFuel: This type of fuel is one that is very important for GE they introduced it and

have been planning to use it in their machinery (4).

Each specification we considered was important; nonetheless, they were not equal in

importance. We had to weigh the different specifications to better understand how important one

is compared to the rest. In order to do so we used the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) matrix.

Please refer to Figure 1 to see the specific numbers that were given to each of the metrics. The

highest ranked metric was the cost, and the reasoning behind it is that if the cost was too high

with little return the project will not be funded. Next having less emissions was the second most

important requirement because if we do not reach that requirement we would negatively impact

the people who live in the city and will not reach the EPA requirements.

Concept

Generation:

        Many

solutions were

proposed to this

project by the team

members so the

process of choosing

the best solution was very difficult; to solve this

problem a very specific way of solution

generation was used to come up with the best

solution. The first step of this process was for each student to come up with every possible

solution he/she can think of and explain it in the best way it can be presented i.e. diagram,

drawing or description. Figure 2 displays one of those initial ideas written down that one of the

group members had made for the activity.

In the next step of the process we worked on an informal concept selection activity. The

main goal of this activity is to help the team narrow down the ideas that they have, or combine

some to come up with a better idea. This is not done using any type of metrics or numbers

Figure 1, this figure contains detailed information about how each requirement was weighed.

Figure 2, this is a sample from one member of

the team.

because of the sheer number of solutions we had to “weed out” the solutions that were not found

to be fit for the task he have at hand. In total we had about forty five ideas from the different

members, but after combining some and realizing that some were similar we were left with

twenty. We had discussions about each idea; the discussions were about how useful the idea is to

the problem? How easy it is to implement? And multiple other general questions. At the end of

that process we were left with the five solutions seem in Figure 3. The first solution seen in

figure 3.A was to have the city become self-reliant of the resources that it needs. The second

solution labeled 3.B was to transport any liquid goods by locomotives while all other goods by

an airplane because liquids are more difficult to transport by airplane. Figure 3.C involved using

different modes of transportation including trucks, planes, trains, and ships basically it dealt with

finding the most efficient route to take. Figures 3.D and 3.E had similar versions of the solutions

that are were displayed in figure 3.c. It was somewhat clear that trains, in our opinion, were the

best way to transport the goods to the city so we relied on the other part of our decision making

process was the cost analysis where we pinned different solutions, specific to trains, against each

other that will be discussed later in details in the research in the cost-benefit analysis section.

Concept Selection:

In order to have a solution that will benefit most of our stakeholders we had to develop a

set of requirements or specifications that were requested by our stakeholders. Some of our

customers/ stakeholders were the people that live in the city, GE and the EPA. After weighing

the different specifications/requirements that are in the interest of our stakeholders we rated our

different solutions on a scale from one to five and multiplied the weight of each requirement with

that rating. Please refer to Figure 4 for more information.

Furthermore, we understood that the cost of the solution was the most important

requirement because a solution that is very expensive and has a very low return on the

investment will not be properly funded by investors hence will not take place. That led us to

conduct a very thorough analysis of the costs which will be discussed in detail later in the report.

The analysis mainly consisted of how the different solutions will save the company money if

they were implemented for the next twenty years. Finally, we considered the matrix process of

finding the best solution, and the detailed cost analysis graph and our reasoning and educated

guesses to come up with the best solution which was buying new Tier 4 trains.

Cost-Benefit Analysis:

In our final conclusion we have decided to replace the old fleet with brand new Tier 4

locomotives. We will be selling all of the old fleet to help fund the purchasing of the new fleet. From our

Cost benefit graph, refer to Figure 5, GE would get a return on investment in year 2. Although

purchasing Tier 3 would yield a faster initial return on investment, buying Tier 4 would comply with EPA

emissions standards and Tier 4 would be more cost effective than purchasing Tier 3 at year 5. Buying Tier

3 alternative energy does not see a return on year 15 because of the large initial investment required for

new fueling station or fueling station overhaul. The use of alternative energy would mean less expensive

fuel and lower emissions. Buying Tier 4 locomotives would be the most conventional decision as it would

not require new fueling stations. Buying new Tier 4 locomotives would save 10 million in the second year

and would save 500 million in the course of twenty years.

Figure 5, shows the total cost of the different options over five years

Design Review:

We were given different types of feedback from the surveys we conducted in class to

further improve on our design. In general the requirements that we presented to the other teams

seemed to make sense to the viewers. In addition, they believed that we have met the minimum

requirements provided by the EPA, and helps the company when it comes to costs. More

importantly it helps our main customers who are the people of the city. The reviewers also

provide information about the cost graph that was provided and have provided feedback on how

to incorporate other elements to it; we were also informed that the return on investment might

not be within the desired timeline provided by GE. Finally a more improved systems diagram

was one issue that both teams that reviewed our project showed interest in. In summary the

comments we got for improvements in design were:

Do more research about the loses from the initial costs (find more factors that will affect

the final value.

Prepare a better systems diagram.

Prototype/model

The most important change that we will need to work on would be out prototype because

that is our greatest hindrance to move on with this project. More research needs to be done to

come up with a model and also more questions need to be asked on how to show our model in a

very creative way. Moreover, a new systems diagrams needs to be worked on because our

solution should be clearer. Finally, incorporating some other variables and factors will change

the final numbers in the graph and it would give a better understanding on how it will work.

Description of final design:

In our final design, we have decided that buying a new fleet of Tier 4 locomotives while

selling the Tier 2 locomotives would be the most economical  and environmental sense to our

stakeholders.  As seen in Figure 5, Buying Tier 4 locomotives breaks even at year 2 and at year

5 it becomes the most profitable option.  Buying new Tier 4 would meet the EPA’s emissions

standard as well as not forgoing freight capacity or delaying deliveries.  The public opinion of

Tier 4 locomotives is a positive one, as the general public will know that the new locomotives

are more economically friendly and new locomotives mean they will be more visually appealing

as opposed to a twenty year old locomotive.  Our plan of buying Tier 4 trains for work

harmoniously with GE as it would not require new fueling stations, installations of additional

infrastructure, and would only need to sell their old Tier 2 locomotives and purchase new Tier 4

locomotives. The new locomotives will not sacrifice the time of delivery of the products because

the locomotives are capable of carrying the same amount of load as the old generations with

more power.

Other parts of our solution is how much will the locomotives produce regarding smog

and other toxins. The provided estimations put the NO x production at 70% less than the current

fleet. In addition, the solution will be easily implemented because it will not require an overhaul

to the system that GE has connected between different city and Pittsadelphia. According to GE

they have seen 3%-17% on fuel savings depending on what the train is transporting; moreover,

they have noted that there was a 10% decrease in emissions (5).

Systems Diagram:

Our systems diagram is fairly simple because it basically consists of the previous way GE

transported the goods to the city. The Tier four trains, our new solution, is at the bottom is put in

a green rectangle to show that it is the correct solution that we will be taking into consideration.

Both are connected on the other end

with the city of Pittsadelphia shown by

the arrows. In addition, to illustrate

further that the Tier 3 are not the write

answer we provided the cross. Figure 6

shows our representation of the solution.

CONOPS:

Our CONOPS is also a simple diagram where we illustrate that we will be selling the old

Tier 2 and Tier 3 locomotives for a new fleet that consists of Tier 4 locomotives. The new fleet

will consist of the same number of

locomotives, and will have the same

number of locomotives to the city.

With less emissions the people of

Pittsadelphia will not satisfied because

their city will not be affected by the

locomotives.

Conclusions:

Our design is to buy a new fleet of locomotives that meet the EPA Tier 4 requirements; in

addition, it will not negatively affect the people of Pittsadelphia. The final design is buying a

new fleet of Tier 4 locomotives. The positive aspects of our design is it is the most cost effective

of the other solutions, more environmentally friendly, and will have the best positive public

opinion. Even though our final design harbors many positive aspects it does have some

Figure 6, this was the way we represented our solution.

Figure 7, this is our representation of the final solution.

drawbacks. First, the final design’ initial upfront cost of buying a new fleet; moreover, the

probability of the EPA to lower their requirements even further. The design would go into further

review as to how to implement it the fastest and most cost effective way. For example, finding

buyers for the old Tier 2 locomotives, starting the building process of the new Tier 4

locomotives, etc. Throughout this project we noticed this was as much of a business challenge as

it was an engineering one.

Sources:

(1) “GE Evolution Series Tier 4 Locomotives”. General Electric Transportation. N.p., n.d.

Web. 28 Sept. 2015. <http://www.getransportation.com>.

(2) “NS Locomotives: An NS Competitive Advantage Norfolk Southern Investor and

Financial Analyst Conference”. Northfolk Southern. N.p., 8 June 2011. Web. 30 Sept.

2015. <http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en.html>.

(3) “ARB Freight Locomotive Advanced Technology Assessment”. California

Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. N.p., 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 5 Sept.

2015. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm>.

(4) “NextFuel™ Natural Gas Retrofit Kit with Dual Fuel Technology”. General Electric

Transportation. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. <http://www.getransportation.com>.

(5) “GE Transportation Delivers Digital, Smart & Fuel Efficient Rail Technology”. General

Electric Transportation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.

<http://www.getransportation.com>.