ee ee : Applied. Energy BP ta gateCHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL Brent K. Bailey Ethanol has long been recognized as a high-quality ransportation fuel. It can be used in low-level gasoline blends (E10) for unmodified vehicles designed to run on gaso- line, or in higher-level blends (E85, E95, or even approved E100 with a suitable enaturant) for dedicated or flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). Because ethanol has not been used extensively in high-level blends, the technology to fully ake advantage of its excellent fuel properties has not yet been developed to a mature state, Significant improvements in ethanol utilization technology are expected in the near future. Etha- nol’s advantages in power, energy efficiency, and emission performance are recognized ‘when compared to conventional diesel or gasoline fuels now used predominantly for transportation. A combination of new cellulosic biomass production technology with advanced uilization technology for ethanol vehicles may result in ethanol's developing a significant market share inthe global transportation fuel market 3.1 INTRODUCTION Recent advances in lignocellulosic feedstock processing technology may give ethanol a stronger cost postion relative to other alternative fuels {1]. Biomass as a raw mate- al resource for producing ethanol offers the possibilty of replacing @ large fraction of gasoline or diesel fuel now being used. Therefore, vehicle performance of blends and of near neat ethanol formulations has gained renewed interest. Ethanol offers high-octane quality for spark-ignition (SI) applications and has other favorable attr- butes as an alternative transportation fuel. As a renewable energy source, ethanol is, ‘expected to significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO) emissions when the entire fuel ‘ycle is considered. Ethanol can also replace diesel fuel in compression ignition (C1) engines. se ape3 HANDBOOK ON BIOETHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 3.2, ETHANOL FUEL SPECIFICATIONS Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) and General Motors Corporation (GM) have issued ethanol fuel specifications for light-duty SI vehicles and heavy-duty Cl engines (see Tables 3.1, 32a, and 3.26). The GM light-duty engine specification is for denatured cthanol (,) blended with 15 vol % gasoline, designated E,85. Requirements for this specification include limits on acetic acid, chloride ions, total chlorine, conductivity, ‘tum, particulates, lead, phosphorus, sulfur, water, and denaturant type. GM specifies ‘minimum requirements in the specifications for ethanol percentage, cold stating per formance, and amount of corrosion inhibitor additive. A cold starting performance index —a function of vapor pressure and the content of butane and pentanes in the fuel rnixture—is defined as part ofthe specification. The DDC heavy-duty engine specifi- cation for E9S (denatured ethanol) limits the presence of other alcohols or ethers, enaturants, acetic acid, total chlorine, copper, lead, phosphorus, sulfur, gum, particu lates, and water. Minimum standards are set for ethanol content. 3.3. ETHANOL PROPERTIES AND EFFECTS ON ENGINE EFFICIENCY Each fuel has its own set of intrinsic properties that play a major role in determining performance in an engine. Most engines are designed to take advantage ofthe in- tended fuel, so ifa fuel other than the design fuel is used in an engine, performance will probably be less than optimal. A well-known example of engine performance dependence on fuel quality isthe relationship between compression ratio and fuel oc- tane quality. For 2 given compression ratio, fels with an adequate octane number will perform well, but performance will drop for fuels with less than design octane quality. Other intrinsic chemical and physical properties such as energy density, heat of vaporization, molecular rato of reactants to combustion products, specific energy, flammability limits, flame speed and temperature, and hydrogen and carbon content, directly affect engine performance. Ethano!'s unique set of fuel properties may be compared to similar properties for gasoline and diesel fuel, and the relative perform ance of these fuels may be theoretically appraised. Actual differences must be as- sessed through empirical investigations, Both approaches may be use to evaluate the relative performance of ethanol as a transportation ful A list of transportation fuel properties that compares ethanol and conven- tional fuels is given in Teble3 3 (2). As a pure compound, ethanol has # fixed boiling Point, specific gravity heat of vaporization, and heat of combustion, By contrast, gas- oline is 8 mixture of many compounds; thus, an ethanol-to-gasoline comparison depends on the gasoline sample usedPERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL 39 Tables, Detroit Diesel Speciication for F-9S Ethanel Fuel ‘Specification Value ‘Test Method Ethanol 92 Vol% (min) ASTM D 3595.90 ‘Denatured Fuel Ethanol 98 Vol (in) See Note Other Alsoolsand «Mass 4 (max) ASTM D 4815.89 Bier, Hydrocarbons (HCS), 5 Mass %o(max) ASTM D 4815.89, then subuact ‘Gasoline or Diese Fuel concentration of acho, ethers, and Derived ater rom 100 to obtain percent Cs Asiiy ae Actc Acid 0.007 Mase % (max) ASTM D 1613-85 “Total Chlorine as 0.0008 Mass (max) ASTM 3120.87 modified forthe Chive ‘zcmization of organic chlorides, and ASTM D 2988-6, Copper 0.07 mg (max) ASTM D 1688-90 as modified in ASTM Dt06-88 Led 2 mp (max) asTMD 323790 Phosphor 0.2 mgt (max) ASTM D3231-89 Sur 0.01 Mass %(max) ASTMD 312047 (Gum, Heptane Washed $ mp/L (max) ASTMD 381-86 ‘Total Panculates Simp (max) ASTM D 227649 ‘Wate Content 0.5 Mass %6(max) ASTM £20375 Appearance ‘reco turbidity suspended Visually determined a 25°C by Procedure mater, nd sediment Aof ASTMD 4176.86 Note: Musimeatibe ASTM D 4806-88 specification fr denatured fel ethanol, exept the denaturant stb eerie of ude asline that is commercially avilable blended a maximum _ ‘of #10 5 pars gasoline te 100 pars by viume fel ethanol (including water) to form the denatured fuel etanol. The ial bind specifications for E100 fuel take precedence over the ‘ASTM D 4805-88 specication ‘Reprinted by permission of Detroit Diesel Corporation, Detroit, Mt [4 ‘Measurements of intrinsic chemical and physical properties should, regard- less of the experimental approach, yield the same results. However, many ways of ‘measuring the performance of fuels in engines depend on experimental procedure Getails and are not precisely reproducible. Engine data are particularly subject to large variations from engine test to engine test. Conclusions based on limited engine test data must be drawn cautiously.*” HANDBOOK ON BIOETHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Table3.2a GM Specification for Fuel Ethanol-E,85 as Dispensed to the Vehicle (GM472990) Specification Value Test Method Ambient High Int Cool Cold ‘Temperature Range ASTM Volatility A,AB, BIC.CB,C, DDE, E Chsses(ee BAB CD.DIC ED ASTMD 4814) Ethanol, min. 79 » ” 69 © ASTMD2 vol % Proposal P 232 (annex AL) Hes, vol%! 19-21 18421 19-26 19-81 Ditference ‘between 100 and sum of (ethanol + water) VaporPressure 38-59 48-65 ASTRO KPA 55-85 7-95 Cold Staring ~ . - 80 66-93 AST a <==" \__ Conventional gasoline 1990 1895) 2000) 2005 2010 Figure 3.4. Achievable new car energy efficiencies. Reprinted with permission from SAE Technical Paper No. 930376 © 1993 Society of Automotive Engineers, ne. [2] ‘An alternative case for heavy-duty trucks was constructed as follows. An all projection for highway freight vehicles is presented in Table 3.6 {10}. An 8% mpg increase is expected between 1990 and 2000, and a 15% increase by 2010, ‘These increases were applied to the average mpg (5.3) for combination tractor-trailer vehicles reported for 1990 by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States [11]. The results are shown in Table 3.6 and in Figures 3.5 and 3.6 as. the Alternate Heavy-Duty Case, 3.5 FUEL AND ENGINE INTERFACE 3.5.1 Materials Compatibility for Near Neat Ethanol ‘The use of methanol or ethanol in engine and fuel systems requires fuel compatibility ‘with all materials in the system, including all metals, composite, or elastomeric com-PERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL ASA TRANSPORTATIONFUEL $1 ‘ponents, to be considered. Ethanol fuel specifications were designed to limit compati- bility problems; however, the fuel composition alone cannot prevent all material interface problems. Metals corrode under some circumstances inthe fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel pump, and inside the engine. Corrosion can be a function of buik metal composition, fuel formulation, water contamination, presence of electrolytes from contamination, utilization temperature, denaturant, and material surface preperation ‘These complex interactions are not compietely understood. Predicting compatibility {is dificult; therefore, i is safest to rely on materials that have been tested and proven in the field under conditions of expected use 20° Medium-duty, diesel fuel, 15 o f Medium-duty, ethanol fb Heavy-duty, diesel fuel clomete cee j-ethar Heavy-duty, ethanol bo Heavyeduty, ethanol, ali _ altemate case : 1350 2000 2010 Figure 3.5, Potential diesel tek mileage efiiencies (11)2 {ANDECOK ON BIOETHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Table3.6. Potential Diesel Truck Efficiencies for Ethanol and Diesel Fuet 1990-2000 2010 Base Case Medium-Duty Trucks, mi/gal Diesel 156 ws 8 E100 91 na 133 Heavy-Duty Trucks, mi/gal Diesel 58 65 G E100 34 40 43 Medium-Duty Trucks, mi/MMBtu Diesel 120 142 168 E100 120 150 175 Heavy-Duty Trucks, mi/MMBtu Diesel 45 50 35 E100 45 3 Alternate Heavy-Duty Case Heavy-Duty Trucks, migal Diesel 53 57 6a E100 3a 3837 Heavy-Duty Trucks, mi/MMBeu Diesel ai “4 E100 41 46 49 Reprinted wih permision rom SAE Technical Paper No, 930376 © 1993 Society of Automotive Engineers, in 2)PERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL ASATRANSPORTATION FUEL S5 180 : 160 | Medium-cuty, ethanol H v40F Medium-duty, diesel fuel |= 5 woh 8 oot = eo Heavy-duty ethanol seavy-duty, diesel fuel oF 407 “Heavy-duty, ethafol, Heavy-duty, diesel fuel, 20 [alternate case alternate case . 7980 2000 2010 Figure 3.6. Potential dese truck efficiencies for ethanol and diesel (11] In general, ethanol compatibility problems are considered to be less severe than those encountered with methanol. Most compatibility solutions for methanol also ‘work well for ethanol applications. Manufacturers of methanol vehicles generally allow the use of ethanol inthe same vehicles without component material adjustments in most areas. There has been less study of material compatibility with ethanol, but in general, the same potential problems that exist for methanol also exist for ethanol, only to a lesser degree, Fuel system parts of concem include the fuel filler cap, fuel tank filler tube, fuel filters, fuel lines, fuel tank, fuel pump. fuel vapor vaive, fact pressure regulator, and fuel injectors. These parts have seals, coatings, and o-rings, fas well asthe base materials that may be sensitive to ethanol, and these may swell, harden, or even dissolve into the fuel stream. Inexpensive materials for these applica- tions have been found and are used by the automobile manufacturers in FFVs and ‘variable fuel vehicles. Comosion inside the methanol engine combustion chamber has been attributed to combustion products and not directly to the alcohol itself. Owens (13]St HANDBOOK ONBIOBTHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION documented extremely high wear rates for methanol engines at low lubricating oil temperatures, Ryan etal. {14 identified several combustion product that, when com- bined, were responsible forthe accelerated wear rates. They have suggested solutions, including reformulating the lubricating oi to provide a special protective barrier in alcobel engines. Schwarz tal 15] reported that methanol is retained in the engine lubricating oil during short driving periods when the engine isnot fully warmed to a normal operating temperature, Significant quantities of fuel, water, and metals were cbserved. The immiscible aleohol formed a thiek emulsion with the oil during these tests. This may be yet another mechanism for increased wearin alcohol engines that has been demonstrated in methanol engines, but may also be @ potential problem for ethanol engines used under repeated cold start driving conditions, 3.6 ETHANOL BLENDS [Ethanol is used in blends with gasoline, usually at 10 vol % (E10). E10 contains about 3.5 wt % oxygen, and is usually prepared by "splash" blending cthanol with. gasoline already in the distribution system. If blended wit regular unleaded gasoline, the fuel can meet octane requirements for @higher-grade gasoline, Ethanol has also bbeen approved for use in RFG up to the 2.0 wt % oxygen level, but the final fuel formula must meet all the other fuel specifications —including vapor pressure—for REG. Ethanol has been blended in diesel fuel, but mainly in laboratory experiments, “Ethanol must ether be perfectly dry to blend with diesel fuel, o an emulsifying agent ‘must be added to maintain solubility. Ethanol degrades the combustion quality or ‘cetane number of diesel fuel and can result ina blend with dangerous flammability properties with respect to ash point. 3.6.1 Blend Volatility ‘Adding 10 vol % ethanol to gasoline increases the RVP of the base gasoline of about Ops. This sllusrated in Figure 3.7, where the effect of ethanol blending on vapor pressure is compared against other oxygenates including methanol, gasoline grade tertiary but aloobol, meth tertiary butyl ether (MBE), and ethyl tertiary butyl ether 15}. This means that the final blend may be beyond specification limits for vapor pressure, Splash blending of ethanol by independent marketers during the summer is constrained to meet iocal, state, or federal vapor pressure requirements. Where there {are strict vapor pressure controls, ethanol blending will be limited to base gasolines specially prepared with low vapor pressure. The increase in vapor pressure for low- level blends of ethanol is caused by dilution of hydrogen bonding between ethanol ‘molecules in the final blend. In pure ethanol, the hvdroxyl group on the ethanol mole cule causes a polar intermolecular attraction. When ethanol is diluted in gasoline, the Invdrogen bonding effect is reduced and the ethanol molecules behave more like theirPERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL ASA TRANSPORTATIONFUEL 55 low molecular weight would indicate, resulting in increased volatility. Adding ethanol also modifies the distillation curve of the gasoline. Ethanol forms a minimum boiling -azeotrope with gasoline, causing the distillation curve to be depressed between the 10 ‘and 50 vol % distilled points. 3.6.2 Distribution of Ethanol Blends E10 is widely used as a commercial gasoline, but itis not fungible in pipelines. Ethanol blends must be specially handled because they are sensitive to water in the normal gasoline distribution system, and underground storage tanks must be thor- oughly ied tohandle ethanol blends.’ Water is immiscible in gasoline, but fully mis- cible in ethanol; thus, if ethanol blends contact water, the phases may separate, causing the ethanol to enter the water phase in pipelines or large storage tanks. The solubility of water in gasohol-type blends depends on the blend temperature and base gasoline composition. Water solubility increases with increasing storage temperature and increasing aromatics content in the base gasoline. Toxicity of ethanol in blended gasoline is not considered a problem, as ctha- nol is biodegradable. If E10 is spilled into the environment, the ethanol component will separate from the HC components in the gasoline, The remaining gasoline will stay above any water inthe environment and is not biodegradable. Material compatibility of low-level ethanol blends is generally less ofa prob- Jem than high-concentration blends of ethanot in gasoline. Even in blends, however, roaterals such as tere (leadtin), ahuminum, and caste zine (which are incompatible ‘with neat ethanol) should be avoided in fuel handling systems. Iron also has acceler sted corrosion rates with ethanol blends compared to neat gasoline. Corrosion inhibi- tors are typically added to E10 to reduce these potential problems. Fuel intake systems deposits (such as gums tat form around injector tips and intake valves) are considered to be higher with ethanol blends than with comparable unblended gasolines. This problem is recognized and usually handled by using detergent additives that reduce deposit formation. Higher quantities of such additives are typically used in ethanol blends, as ther effectiveness is somewhat reduced by the competing polanity of the ethanol molecule. Gum formation in vehicle and storage tanks can sometimes be loosened by ethanol blends. Partially dissolved or loosened gum with associated rust or other pantioalates may plug filters faster than with unblended gasolines. Filters may have to be changed more frequently ntl the fel system is flushed of the soluble gums and associated debris, 3.6.3 Vehicle Performance on Ethanol Blends ‘The blending octane value of ethanol in blends can be much higher than the octane value ofneat ethanol. Blending octane value increases with lower octane base gaso- lines. Ethanol is therefore an excellent additive for preventing engine knock and im-proving engine performance where high octane requirements exist, Despite the improved octane performance for ethanol blends, vehicle driveability is generally degraded. Cold suring is more difficult because of the added heat of vaporization in blends. Hot starting is complicated because of increased volatility, which leads to potential vapor locking conditions. The degradation in driveability is, however, not Getectable to the average driver under normal temperature conditions, 13 is _Methanct B nek 7 is 50/50 MEQH/GTBA @ | Sub Increased 2 voltity = Ethanol t 310 3 TButanol g°9 —_>S = TBE ETBE : Decreased @ Maximum allowable oxygen Wvolatiity 1 2 3 4 ‘Weight percent oxygen in fuel mixture Figure 3.7. RVP effects of adding oxygenates to nine RVP samples [12]. Reprinted by permission of Arco Chemical Co., Newton Square, PA. 3.7 EMISSIONS FROM ETHANOL FUELS Data from the technical literature indicate the empirical emission differences between ‘ethanol fuels and conventional petroleum fuels. Comparative emissions data are con- founded by a host of factors such as engine fuel metering technology, exhaust control technology, vehicle age, maintenance history, test procedure, and test conditions, that may have greater effects than the differences between fuels. Single vehicle tests and tests performed without well-defined baseline gasoline performance are therefore of limited value. Sinor and Bailey [2] categorized literature data into three groups: (1)PERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL ASA TRANSPORTATIONFUEL 57 E10 in STengines, (2) higher ethanol blends in SI engines, (3) and ethanol fuels in CI engines. These data show trends in ethanol fuel emissions compared to conventional fuels. Although a wide variation is found in the literature, the following discussion ‘summarizes the averages observed 3.7.1 STEngines Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO emissions for E10 show a decrease of approximately 20% in lder vehicles fueled with conventional gasoline. RFG that contains oxygen- tes also significantly reduces CO emissions. Much of this decrease may be attributed tothe enleanment effect ofthe oxygenated fuels. Closed loop contro! systems in newer vehicles would show less effect. High ethanol biends do not indicate further advan- tages for deereasing CO emissions beyond the nominal 20% level ‘NO, Extensive data on NO, emissions for E10 indicate an average increase of about 3% over conventional gasoline. Beyond 10% ethanol, they apparently decrease— perhaps approaching as much as 20%—when blends of 85% or 95% ethanol are used, Exhaust Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The available data on exhaust VOC emissions fiom E10-fueled engines indicate an overall decrease of 7%, Exclud- ing some data considered as oullers where VOC emissions increased substantially ‘over a baseline gasoline performance level, there appears to be significant potential {for higher alcohol blends to reduce VOC emissions es much as 30% or more. Evaporative Emissions. Because of higher vapor pressure of splash-blended E10, ‘evaporative emissions are clearly higher. Evaporative emissions from high-ethanol ‘lends may be lower than from gasoline because of lower vapor pressure, Ifthe vapor pressure is adjusted to provide similar starting characteristis, the evaporative emis- sions are more nearly comparable. Aldehydes. A msjor environmental concer about the increased use of ethanol fuels is the increase in exhaust emissions of reactive aldehydes. Acctaldehyde (a primary decomposition product of ethanol), and formaldehyde (a secondary decomposition proxluct), are detected in the exhaust at considerably higher levels than in gasoline engine exhaust. Data from E10 tests indicate acetaldehyde levels slightly more than twice as high as from gasoline engines. Formaldehyde levels are about 30% higher. High-ethanol blend data suggest that acetaldehyde levels could be several times higher. Thus, a key factor with respect to possible ethanol effects on urban air quality will be the durability and effectiveness of eatalyst systems fr aldehyde conul58 HANDBOOK ON BIOETHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Other Emissions. Relative concentrations of aromatics such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and other Hs are clearly lower with ethanol fuels. Extremely limited cata suggest that emissions ofthese compounds would be reduced by more than half for E85. This sless than would be expected from a straight dilution effect. Because E100 contains no benzene, toluene, or xylene (unless a denaturant is added), these toxic emissions are essentially eliminated. However, even if an engine is developed to effectively use E100, commercial ethanol controls will demand the use of some Type of denaturant REG and E10. The EPA published relative emission levels for fuels that contain 11% MTBE and 10% ethanol, respectively [16]. The closed loop control vehicles were operated on 10% ethanol and on 15% MTBE. The Auto/Oil Air Quality Im- provement Research Program [17] reported emission levels operating on 10% ethanol and on 15% MTBE. The program data indicated large standard deviations. With respect to RFG, E10 exhibited the following average differences. . A4.1% to 4.6% decrease in CO emissions . A.1.1% increase to 2 2.0% decrease in VOCs . 1.5% to 2.9% increase in NO, 3.7.2 CTEngines Emissions data from ethanolfueled compression ignition engines are very limited, and are generally not for engines optimized for ethanol use, No firm conclusions may be Grawn, but the data indicate that for ethanol-fueled CI engines, CO, VOC, and aldehyde emissions are considerably higher. On the other hand, emissions of NO,, particulates, and aromatic HCs are considerably lower. 3.8 REFERENCES 1 Lynd, LR; 1H Cushman; RJ. Nichols; CE, Wyman. 1991. “Fuel Ethanol fom Cellulosic Biomass,” Science 15 March, Volume 251, pp. 1318-1323. Sinor, 1; Bailey, B. 1993. Current and Potential Future Performance of Ethanol Fuels, SAE Paper #930376, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. 3. Powell, T. 1975. Racing Experiences with Methanol and Ethanol Based Motor Fuels, SAE Paper #750124, Society of Avtomotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.10, UL. 12 PERFORMANCE OF ETHANOL AS ATRANSPORTATION FUEL 59 Detroit Diesel Alcohol-Fueled Engines: Oil, Fuel, and Filter Recommenda- tions. 1992. Detroit, Mi. Owen, K. 1990. Automotive Fuels Handbook, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. General Motors Specifications for Fuel Ethanol, 1994, Detroit, MI Hardenberg, H.O.; A.J. Schaefer. 1981, The Use of Ethanol as a Fuel for Compression Ignition Engines, SAE Paper #811211, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Mintz, MM. AD. Vyas. 1991, Forecast of Transportation Energy Demand through the Year 2010, ANLIESD-9, April. Center for Transpor- tation Resources, Argonne National Laboratory. Energy Information Administration, 1990. Energy Consumption and Conservation Potential: Supporting Anaiysis for the National Energy Strategy, SRINES/90-02, Washington, DC. United States Department of Energy. 1991. Integrated Analysis Supporting the National Energy Strategy: Methodology. Assumptions and Result, First Edition, Technical Annex 2, DOESL-OO86P, 1991/1992. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. 1990. MVMA Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures '90, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Ine., Detroit, MI. Arco Chemical Company. 1989, Presentation to the Department of Energy. (Owens, E.C. 1985. "Methanol Engine Wear—Solutions to the Problem," in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Automotive Technology Development Contractors’ Coordination Meeting, Published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Ryan, T1W. TI Bond; R.D. Schieman. 1986, Understanding the Mechan- ism of Cylinder Bore and Ring Wear in Methanol Fueled SI Engines, SAE Paper #861591, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Schwarz, SE.; DJ. Smolenski; SL. Clark. 1988. Entry and Retention of ‘Methanol Fuel in Engine Oil, SAE Paper #880040, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.16. V7, HANDBOOK ON BIOETHANOL: PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidance on Esti~ ‘mating Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions from the Use of Alternate Fuels and Fuel Blends, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI Reuter, RM, 1992, Effects of Oxygenated Fuels and RVP on Automotive Emission—Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Program, SAE Paper #920326, Special Publication SP 920, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.