INGAS Sub Project A3 „Boosted Lean Burn Gas Engine“ Review Meeting 07- 08 /04/2011 Brussels

INGAS INtegrated GAS PowertrainINGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain

1B. Hüchtebrock, FEVB. Hüchtebrock, FEV

INGAS Sub Project A3

„Boosted Lean Burn Gas Engine“

Review Meeting

07-08/04/2011 Brussels

FEV Motorentechnik, Bertold Hüchtebrock


2B. Hüchtebrock, FEVB. Hüchtebrock, FEV 2

Review meeting Period 2 – Brussels, 8 April 2011

Time Item Name (Company)

09:00 Answers to general comments / questions

General status of the project

Coordinator Massimo Ferrera (CRF)

PM Stefania Zandiri (CRF)

10:00 SPA1: answers to reviewers comments/questions Andrea Gerini (CRF)

10:45 SPA2: answers to reviewers comments/questions Alois Fuerhapter (AVL), Harry Schüle (CONTI)

11:30 SPA3: answers to reviewers comments/questions Christoph Bollig (FEV), Bertold Hüchtebrock (FEV), Kenth Johansson (SAPT), Martin Müther (RWTH)

12:30 Lunch

13:00 SPB0: answers to reviewers comments/questions Manfred Hoppe (EON), Michal Takats (CVUT)

Micheline Montero (GDF SUEZ)

13:45 SPB1: answers to reviewers comments/questions David Storer (CRF), Volker Strubel (Xperion)

15:00 SPB2: answers to reviewers comments/questions Michel Weibel (DAI), Matthias Rink (USTUTT), Kauko Kallinen (ECOCAT), Alois Fuerhapter (AVL)

16:30 End of reviewers meeting

17:30 Feedback of the reviewers & PO to the Core Group



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Review aspects (SP A3)

Content

Remarks / answers to general comments

Remarks / answers to reviewed deliverables



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Review aspects (SP A3)

Discussed during separate meeting (7th april).Updated 24MPR covers Task A3.3.5.

Conclusion (A1-A2-A3) in 06/2010:Comparison will be performed. Linked to WP A3.4.3 [M33…] (potential evaluation)

Updated DA3.5 contains cost aspects

Future ownership to FEV does not provoke any problem @ Opel!



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Cost aspects SCR

Revision 2.0: The additional cost for above presented system is estimated to be as follows: Gen 1: estimated price increase compared to a stoichiometric CNG engine Preconveter: no major change in price Mainconverter additional 30-40 € SCR 230 € NOx-sensors 200-300 € Amminex system prototype system, the price is expected to be lower than for the

urea sytem

Gen 2: estimated price increase compared to Gen 1 Preconveter: 254 € Mainconverter 508 € SCR see Gen 1 NOx-sensors see Gen 1 Amminex system see Gen 1

Extract of revised DA3.5 from SAPT:



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011CO2/Fuel efficiency comparison within A(1..2..3)-Subprojects

Conclusions of CG Meeting, 06/2010

A CO2-comparison within the A(1..2..3) approaches will be performed

Proposal for INGAS project: Extended NEDC cycle (CRF)

ARTEMIS (by simulation!)

Regarding SP A3: Linked to WP A3.4.3 (Potential evaluation) starting from M33



CO2 emissions comparison



CO2 emission comparison

A possible comparison is expressed by the g CO2 / ton vehicle which is an index of the specific energy associated to the technology

Ref. Weight [kg] CO2 on NEDC [g/km]Specific CO2

[g CO2 / t]

SPA1 SoA Dow 1470 150 102,0

SPA2 SoA Dow 1765 171 96,9

SPA3 SoA Dow 1700 140 82,3

Ref. Weight [kg] CO2 on NEDC [g/km]Specific CO2

[g CO2 / t]

SPA1Target 1420 128 90,1

SPA2 Target 1765 139 78,7

SPA3 Target 1700 124 72,9

CONFIRMED BY FEV



CO2 emission comparison

SoA

Target



Additional test over NEDC for CO2 evaluation



Additional test over NEDC

Needs to adopt an additional test cycle to complete NEDC evaluationThe new test cycle must be in measure• to represent real life operating conditions of typical CNG applications• to be easily shared among partners (both in terms of simulation and experiments) • put on evidence the benefit coming from the technologies developed within INGAS project

Homologation

Real life




NEDC

ARTEMIS

Artemis appears to be not suitable:• because of the typical operating points are too much balanced on high speed/load• the actuation of the cycle at the chassis dyno is very complex with different strategies for the gear ratio management that depend on the vehicle weight




Real life test cycle

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

time [s]

Veh

icle

sp

eed

[kp

h]

60% 30% 10%

URBAN EXTRAURBAN HIGHWAY

Weight factor

Proposal for INGAS project – Extended NEDC cycle




NEDC

ARTEMIS

The proposal appears to be more suitable:• the engine operating field is wider compared to NEDC• the weight factors allow to better balance the real mission profile of the vehicles • the actuation of the cycle at the chassis dyno is very similar to NEDC (good repeatability/reproducibility)

Proposal



CO2 EVALUATION – DECISION from SP A1 – A2 – A3

Driving cycle Scope Approach

NEDC Homologation reference cycle Experimental on vehicle chassis dyno

Extended NEDC Real life cycleExperimental on vehicle chassis dyno – Results on the 3 different cycle phases (no weighting factors)

Artemis Real life cycle Only engine dynamic test bench or simulation

1) Results in terms of CO2 emissions will be compared as g/(km x kgvehicle) and positionned with regard to 443 EU regulation (for NEDC test cycle);

2) A tentative to scale up the 3 engines in order to have a homogeneous comparison on a same common vehicle will also be performed by simulation.



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Ownership SP A3 vehicle

Statement from OPEL towards INGAS engagement:

Opel, one of Europe’s largest automakers, was founded 1862 in Rüsselsheim, Germany. The company with its headquarters in Rüsselsheim operates 13 plants in eight countries and employs around 47,000 people (as of December 2009). Opel and its sister brand in the U.K., Vauxhall, sell vehicles in more than 35 markets in Europe. Opel vehicles are characterized by their outstanding design, innovative technologies and environmental friendliness. The development and sale of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles is one important pillar of this approach. Consequently Opel / GMPT-G continue their efforts to develop efficient and clean natural gas engines with a technical approach close to InGas workstream A3 and supports the project to the best possible extent.

Conclusion: Future ownership to FEV does not provoke any problem @ Opel!



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Clarification of resources allocation by FEV and RWTH (P1 & P2)

WP Task DescriptionStart [month]

Dur. [months]

End [month]

Plan Y1 Y2 Y3Open MM

Completion [%]


Completion

WP A3.1Concept phase and design specifications

WP A3.1 A3.1.1Definition of base engine and vehicle with fuel consumption and performance

0 4 4 1 1 0 0 100 1.6 1.6 0 0 100

WP A3.1 A3.1.2Design specifications of the power train and draft lay out

0 12 12 11 9 0 2 100 9.6 9.6 0 0 100

WP A3.1 A3.1.3 Support for gas storage system 5 31 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WP A3.1 A3.1.4Draft packaging of power train and fuel system 3 10 13 2 1 0.4 0.6 100 0.8 0.8 0 0 100

WP A3.1 A3.1.5 Definition of the aftertreatment system 4 5 9 1 1 0 0 100 0 0 0 0

WP A3.1 A3.1.6 First lay out of the control strategy 0 12 12 2.5 2 0 0.5 100 2.4 2 0.5 -0.1 100

WP A3.2Components, Engine Design and Procurement

WP A3.2 A3.2.1Modelling, design, procurement and rig test of the boosting device 7 9 16 12.5 1 6 5.5 100 8 4 4 0 75

WP A3.2 A3.2.2Modelling, design and rig testing of the aftertreatment system 7 6 13 1 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0

WP A3.2 A3.2.3Modelling, design and rig testing of lean burn combustion 7 12 19 15.5 0 4 11.5 75 3.2 1 3 -0.8 100

WP A3.2 A3.2.4Design of the power train and gas system packaging 7 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Clarification of resources allocation by FEV and RWTH (P1 & P2)

WP Task DescriptionStart [month]

Dur. [months]

End [month]


Completion [%]


Completion

WP A3.3Component, Engine and Power Train Testing

WP A3.3 A3.3.1Testing and improvement of the boosting system on a test rig 13 8 21 5.5 1 4 0.5 100 0 0 0 0

WP A3.3 A3.3.2Testing and improvement of the aftertreatment system 13 12 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WP A3.3 A3.3.3

Single cylinder testing of the lean burn combustion process for DI stratified charge and port fuelinjection w/o EGR, decision of the combustion chamber design

12 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WP A3.3 A3.3.4

Multicylinder testing under steady state and transient conditions on a test bench and improvementof the engine

17 14 31 14 0 7 7 75 12.6 0 9 3.6 75

WP A3.3 A3.3.5Design of the power train control strategy 12 19 31 7.5 0 3 4.5 75 0 0 0 0

WP A3.3 A3.3.6Testing of the influence of NG / H2 mixture an combustion 28 7 35 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

WP A3.4Vehicle Testing and Potential Evaluation

WP A3.4 A3.4.1 Vehicle procurement 24 5 29 1.5 0 0 1.5 100 0 0 0 0WP A3.4 A3.4.2 Vehicle calibration and testing 29 5 34 24 0 0 24 0 2.4 0 0 2.4 0

WP A3.4 A3.4.3Potential evaluation and comparison with state of the art technology 33 4 37 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Task A3.2.3: Modelling, design and rig testing of lean burn combustion

Task 3.2.3: Modelling, design and rig testing of lean burn combustion

Simulation work reasonably can support the understanding of engine test results / phenomenons and promote further improvement of the engine.

This way purposeful simulation work requires as input results of the previous test campaign.

In SP A3 due to different reasons effective MCE testing started retarded (main reason: difficulties in EMS startup). The limited availability of personal and hardware resources did not allow to regain the delay.

In conclusion the spent MM’s in simulation are behind the plan (4/15.5) and have to be continued in the last year.

Reviewer remark: Missing CFD meshes respective CFD calculation:With month 29 (Feb. 2011) initial CFD calculations on the homogenisation quality are finished. Intentionally the intermediate results have not been reported in the P2 periodic report (ongoing result analysis).



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Task A3.3.5: Design of the power train control strategy

Task 3.3.5: Design of the power train control strategy Deviating from the P1 periodic report the EMS related activities (Task A3.3.5) are not

mentioned in the P2 periodic report (first version).[The EMS more or less is a means to an end and does not represent the development mainstream in SP A3]

OPEL contribution (A3.3.5): Informations on sensor-/actuator specifications

Description of activities and results within Task A3.3.5 are covered by the updated P2 periodic report:

In continuation of the activities of the first period (Task A3.1.6) the list of required sensors and actuators has been updated (hardware components documentation). Especially during engine testing required troubleshooting regarding refinement of software continously has been documented (software revision compilation). In example the proper functionality of the air-/fuel ratio controller required multiple adjustments within the parametrisation of the control path.

On the other hand studies on possible SCR functionalities have been started. Focus here is the NH3 dosing modelling considering the ammonia storage behaviour in the catalyst. Furthermore the setup of a modul dealing with the 2-stage boosting has started. In opposite to the single stage turbocharger the 2-stage boosting device requires the actuation of two actuators. These actuators are the waste gate on the second turbine and the exhaust gas bypass valve between turbine 1 (high pressure) and turbine 2 (low pressure). These functionalities have to be integrated into the engine management system (EMS) and reasonable maps have to be created during engine testing in the third period.



Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011Deliverable DA3.2




DA3.2: Report on components and power train ready to test

If this objection refers to possible investigations on the 1.6 l gasoline engine based A3 approach (side study), it can be clearly stated, that all activities described in the P2 periodic report refer to the 1.9 l diesel engine based approach!Adequate remarks within the revised DA3.2 report hopefully will avoid further misunderstanding.

Regarding the reported investigations I would like to comment, that due to pending MCE testing the final hardware configuration is not known yet!




No objections (report accepted) !




Especially on low engine out NOx-level there is a strong gradient FC vs. NOx.

The demanding CO2 target most probably does not allow engine operation on NICE NOx level!

See above




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

NOx [g/km]

HC [g/km]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

NOx [g/km]

CO [g/km]

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

NOx [g/km]

Fuel [kg/(100*k

m)]LAM=1 w/o EGR

LAM=1.3 w/o EGR

LAM=1.4 w/o EGR

LAM=1.5 w/o EGR

LAM=1.6 w/o EGR

NEDC / LAM=1

NEDC / Lean (1.4...1.5)

Steady-State Replacement-Test

Vehicle Test (w/o EGR)

NICE result (Ford TRANSIT [2040 kg] & 2 l lean CNG operation)




No objections !

Documents

INGAS Sub Project A3 „Boosted Lean Burn Gas Engine“ Review Meeting 07- 08 /04/2011 Brussels