skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Engineering evaluation of the General Motors (GM) diesel rating and capabilities

Abstract

K-Reactor`s number one GM diesel (GM-lK) suffered recurrent, premature piston pin bushing failures between July 1990 and January 1991. These failures raised a concern that the engine`s original design capabilities were being exceeded. Were we asking old engines to do too much by powering 1200 kw (continuous) rated electrical generators? Was excessive wear of the piston pin bushings a result of having exceeded the engine`s capabilities (overload), or were the recent failures a direct result of poor quality, poor design, or defective replacement parts? Considering the engine`s overall performance for the past 30 years, during which an engine failure of this nature had never occurred, and the fact that 1200 kw was approximately 50% of the engine`s original tested capability, Reactor Engineering did not consider it likely that an overloaded engine caused bushing failures. What seemed more plausible was that the engine`s failure to perform was caused by deficiencies in, or poor quality of, replacement parts.The following report documents: (1) the results of K-Reactor EDG failure analysis; (2) correlation of P- and C-Reactor GM diesel teardowns; (3) the engine rebuild to blueprint specification; (4) how the engine was determined ready for test; (5) testing parameters that were developed; (6) amore » summary of test results and test insights; (7) how WSRC determined engine operation was acceptable; (8) independent review of 1200 kw operational data; (9) approval of the engines` 12OOkw continuous rating.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
10171007
Report Number(s):
WSRC-TR-92-42-011
ON: DE92019933
DOE Contract Number:
AC09-89SR18035
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: Apr 1992
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS; K REACTOR; DIESEL ENGINES; BUSHINGS; WEAR; REACTOR SAFETY; PISTONS; FAILURES; INVESTIGATIONS; EVALUATION; POWER RANGE 01-10 MW; 220900; 220600; 220200; RESEARCH, TEST, TRAINING, PRODUCTION, IRRADIATION, MATERIALS TESTING REACTORS; COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

Citation Formats

Gross, R.E.. Engineering evaluation of the General Motors (GM) diesel rating and capabilities. United States: N. p., 1992. Web. doi:10.2172/10171007.
Copy to clipboard
Gross, R.E.. Engineering evaluation of the General Motors (GM) diesel rating and capabilities. United States. doi:10.2172/10171007.
Copy to clipboard
Gross, R.E.. Wed . "Engineering evaluation of the General Motors (GM) diesel rating and capabilities". United States. doi:10.2172/10171007. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10171007.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_10171007,
title = {Engineering evaluation of the General Motors (GM) diesel rating and capabilities},
author = {Gross, R.E.},
abstractNote = {K-Reactor`s number one GM diesel (GM-lK) suffered recurrent, premature piston pin bushing failures between July 1990 and January 1991. These failures raised a concern that the engine`s original design capabilities were being exceeded. Were we asking old engines to do too much by powering 1200 kw (continuous) rated electrical generators? Was excessive wear of the piston pin bushings a result of having exceeded the engine`s capabilities (overload), or were the recent failures a direct result of poor quality, poor design, or defective replacement parts? Considering the engine`s overall performance for the past 30 years, during which an engine failure of this nature had never occurred, and the fact that 1200 kw was approximately 50% of the engine`s original tested capability, Reactor Engineering did not consider it likely that an overloaded engine caused bushing failures. What seemed more plausible was that the engine`s failure to perform was caused by deficiencies in, or poor quality of, replacement parts.The following report documents: (1) the results of K-Reactor EDG failure analysis; (2) correlation of P- and C-Reactor GM diesel teardowns; (3) the engine rebuild to blueprint specification; (4) how the engine was determined ready for test; (5) testing parameters that were developed; (6) a summary of test results and test insights; (7) how WSRC determined engine operation was acceptable; (8) independent review of 1200 kw operational data; (9) approval of the engines` 12OOkw continuous rating.},
doi = {10.2172/10171007},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Apr 01 00:00:00 EST 1992},
month = {Wed Apr 01 00:00:00 EST 1992}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (6.12 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/10171007
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • K-Reactor's number one GM diesel (GM-lK) suffered recurrent, premature piston pin bushing failures between July 1990 and January 1991. These failures raised a concern that the engine's original design capabilities were being exceeded. Were we asking old engines to do too much by powering 1200 kw (continuous) rated electrical generators Was excessive wear of the piston pin bushings a result of having exceeded the engine's capabilities (overload), or were the recent failures a direct result of poor quality, poor design, or defective replacement parts Considering the engine's overall performance for the past 30 years, during which an engine failure ofmore » this nature had never occurred, and the fact that 1200 kw was approximately 50% of the engine's original tested capability, Reactor Engineering did not consider it likely that an overloaded engine caused bushing failures. What seemed more plausible was that the engine's failure to perform was caused by deficiencies in, or poor quality of, replacement parts.The following report documents: (1) the results of K-Reactor EDG failure analysis; (2) correlation of P- and C-Reactor GM diesel teardowns; (3) the engine rebuild to blueprint specification; (4) how the engine was determined ready for test; (5) testing parameters that were developed; (6) a summary of test results and test insights; (7) how WSRC determined engine operation was acceptable; (8) independent review of 1200 kw operational data; (9) approval of the engines' 12OOkw continuous rating.« less

  • Energy conservation is not new to industry. The effective and efficient use of labor and materials including energy has been an important tool in cost control for many years. Today, an even greater emphasis must be placed on conserving energy while at the same time stimulating the longer term development of existing as well as new energy resources. Energy conservation in manufacturing can involve product material and/or finish specification changes, process changes or elimination, improved control of equipment, the installation of heat recovery devices and the consolidation of operations. GM's organization to meet these energy management challenges and some ofmore » the specific measures taken to improve the efficiency of manufacturing operations are presented.« less

  • Every year, each manufacturer of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, motorcycles, or heavy-duty engines submits to EPA an application for certification. In the application, the manufacturer gives a detailed technical description of the vehicles or engines he intends to market during the upcoming model year. These engineering data include explanations and/or drawings which describe engine/vehicle parameters such as basic engine design, fuel systems, ignition systems and exhaust and evaporative emission control systems. It also provides information on emission test procedures, service accumulation procedures, fuels to be used, and proposed maintenance requirements to be followed during testing. Section 16 of the applicationmore » contains the results of emission testing, a statement of compliance to the regulations, production engine parameters, and a Summary Sheet Input Form on which issuance of a Certificate of Conformity is based.« less

  • Every year, each manufacturer of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, motorcycles, or heavy-duty engines submits to EPA an application for certification. In the application, the manufacturer gives a detailed technical description of the vehicles or engines he intends to market during the upcoming model year. These engineering data include explanations and/or drawings which describe engine/vehicle parameters such as basic engine design, fuel systems, ignition systems and exhaust and evaporative emission control systems. It also provides information on emission test procedures, service accumulation procedures, fuels to be used, and proposed maintenance requirements to be followed during testing.