Search Results

As governmental agencies focus on low levels of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions compliance, new off-road applications are being reviewed for both regulated and unregulated emissions to understand the technological challenges and requirements for improved emissions performance. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has declared its intention to pursue more stringent NOX standards for the off-road market. As part of this effort, CARB initiated a program to provide a detailed characterization of emissions meeting the current Tier 4 off-road standards [1]. This work focused on understanding the off-road market, establishing a current technology emissions baseline, and performing initial modeling on potential low NOx solutions. This paper discusses a part of this effort, focuses on the emissions characterization from two non-road engine platforms, and compares the emissions species from different approaches designed to meet Tier 4 emissions regulations.

Despite considerable progress over the last several decades, California continues to face some of the most significant air quality problems in the United States. These continued issues highlight the need for further mobile source NOX reductions to help California and other areas meet ambient air quality targets mandated by the U.S. EPA. Beginning in 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) launched a program aimed at demonstrating technologies that could enable heavy-duty on-highway engines to reach tailpipe NOX levels up to 90% below the current standards, which were implemented in 2010. At the same time, mandated improvements to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) require that these NOX reductions be achieved without sacrificing fuel consumption and increasing GHG emissions.

As agencies and governing bodies evaluate the feasibility of reduced emission standards, additional focus has been placed on technology durability. This is seen in proposed updates, which would require Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to certify engine families utilizing a full useful life (FUL) aftertreatment system. These kinds of proposed rulings would place a heavy burden on the manufacturer to generate FUL components utilizing traditional engine aging methods. Complications in this process will also increase the product development effort and will likely limit the amount of aftertreatment durability testing. There is also uncertainty regarding the aging approach and the representative impact compared to field aged units. Existing methodologies have evolved to account for several deterioration mechanisms that, when controlled, can be utilized to create a flexible aging protocol. As a result, these methodologies provide the necessary foundation for continued development.