Low Emissions Potential ofEGR-SCR-DPF and Advanced Fuel Formulations-A Progress Report

Low Emissions Potential ofEGR-SCR-DPF and Advanced Fuel Formulations-A Progress Report

Department of Emissions ResearchAutomotive Products and Emissions

Research DivisionAugust 2003

Department of Emissions ResearchAutomotive Products and Emissions

Research DivisionAugust 2003

Southwest Research InstituteTM

Southwest Research InstituteTM

RR

OutlineOutline

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

RR

To Evaluate Sensitivities of The Control System Performance To Fuel Variables

To Determine The Regulated And Unregulated Emissions W. &W/O Emission Controls

To Examine The Emission Control System Durability

To Sample Toxic Emissions For Analysis By Outside Lab

RR

ObjectivesObjectives

* Low Pressure Loop EGR* Low Pressure Loop EGR

To Demonstrate Low Emissions Performance of Advanced Diesels+LPL EGR*+Urea SCR+DPF (2 Different Systems)

OutlineOutline

RR

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

Technical Approach--Development (φ 1)Technical Approach--Development (φ 1)

CorrelationCorrelation Characterization Characterization

EngineEngineBaselineBaseline4.0 NO4.0 NOxx

2D Fuel2D Fuel500 ppm500 ppm

SwRISwRICaterpillarCaterpillar

2D Fuel2D FuelDECSE 3DECSE 3

SteadySteady--StateState+Transient+Transient

DesignDesign DevelopmentDevelopment

EGREGRand Controland Control

2.0 NO2.0 NOxx

PartsPartsProcurementProcurement

FabricationFabrication Engine Engine InstallationInstallation

Test & Test & ControlControl

CBCB--DPFDPFAdaptationAdaptation

DesignDesign DevelopmentDevelopment

TotalTotalSystemSystem

IntegrationIntegration

EGR EGR OptimizedOptimized

UreaUreaInjectionInjection

Engine Engine InstallationInstallation

Test & Test & ControlControl

3 Fuels3 Fuels Test ProtocolTest Protocol

DECSE3 + 8, 15,DECSE3 + 8, 15,30 30 ppmppm & BP15& BP15

[10[10--100100--200]200]--Hrs.Hrs.

C+3HsC+3Hs 2 OICAs2 OICAs

2007 System2007 SystemCharacterization Characterization

RR

RR

Technical Approach--Durability (φ 2)Technical Approach--Durability (φ 2)

2000 Hours2000 Hours 2000 Hours2000 Hours 2000 Hours2000 Hours

C+3Hs & 2 OICAsC+3Hs & 2 OICAsC+3Hs & 2 OICAsC+3Hs & 2 OICAs C+3Hs & 2 OICAsC+3Hs & 2 OICAs C+3Hs & 2 OICAsC+3Hs & 2 OICAs

EngineEngine

CBCB--DPFDPF SCRSCR

CBCB--DPFDPF SCRSCR

UreaUrea

UreaUrea

FlowFlowControlControlValvesValves

BPBP

DamperDamperExhaustExhaustAA

EngineEngine

CBCB--DPFDPF SCRSCR

CBCB--DPFDPF SCRSCR

UreaUrea

UreaUrea

FlowFlowControlControlValvesValves

BPBP

DamperDamperExhaustExhaustBB

OutlineOutline

RR

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

RR

In both Systems NH3 slip < 2 ppm raw (10-15 ppm peaks) All PM Results Were < 0.01 g/bhp-hr (Except When DPF Failed)

Major Accomplishments - 10-Hour & All DECSE FuelsMajor Accomplishments - 10-Hour & All DECSE Fuels

LPL EGR Calibration Yielded the Following:- 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOx in Transient Cycle

- 2.3 g/bhp-hr NOx in OICA Composite Test (ESC)

System A Calibrated Yielded the Following:- 0.22 to 0.24 g/bhp-hr Transient Composite

- 0.14 to 0.18 g/bhp-hr OICA Composite

System B Calibration Yielded the Following:- 0.33 to 0.38 g/bhp-hr in Transient Composite

- 0.23 to 0.24 g/bhp-hr OICA Composite

OutlineOutline

RR

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

Test Setup - SchematicTest Setup - Schematic

INTAKE MANIFOLD

MANIFOLD

ATA

A

FTER

CO

OLE

R

C12 DIESEL ENGINE

EXHAUST

AIR FILTER

FLOW BALANCING

VALVES

EXHAUST

EXHAUST FLOW

SENSORS

CB-DPF AR

CB-DPF AL

SCR AL

SCR AR

UREA INJECTION

UREA INJECTION

EXHAUST DAMPER

CLEANUP CATALYST

LPL EGR PICKUP

INTA

KE

THR

OTT

LE

T (IMP)

N

TPS

PRESSURE CONTROL

UREA PUMP

UREA INJECTION CONTROLUREA

EGR COOLER

EGR VALVE

LPL EGR

RR

Test Setup - EGR SystemTest Setup - EGR System

RR

OutlineOutline

RR

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

Aftertreatment Systems - Systems A & BAftertreatment Systems - Systems A & B

CBCB--DPFDPF--LL

CBCB--DPFDPF--RR

SCRSCR--LLSCRSCR--RR

ExhExh. Flow. FlowBalancingBalancing

Urea Urea InjInj..ECUsECUs

Urea Urea InjInj..ECUsECUs

EGREGRPickupPickupAA

CBCB--DPFDPF--LL

SCRSCR--LL

Urea Urea InjInj..ECUsECUs

Urea Urea InjInj..ECUsECUs

EGREGRPipePipe SCRSCR--RR BB

No. of UnitsNo. of Units Volume, LVolume, L SystSyst. Vol./Eng. . Vol./Eng. DisplDispl..

DPFDPF

SCRSCR

CUCCUC

SystemSystem

22

22

11

AA

45.645.6

39.439.4

8.58.5

93.593.5

3.83.8

3.33.3

0.70.7

7.87.8

22

44

11

BB AA BB AA BBRemarksRemarks

AA BB

34.134.1

31.031.0

8.58.5

73.573.5

2.82.8

2.62.6

0.70.7

6.16.1

10.5X1210.5X12””11.25X1411.25X14””

-- --

-- ---- --

-- --

OutlineOutline

RR

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

0.00 0.02 0.010.29

2.32

4.63

0.005 0.0260.342 0.328

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

g/bh

p-hr

BSHC BSCO BSNOx BSPM BSFC

W. EGR As-Received

Steady-State Emissions Comparison--As-Received Vs. W.EGR*--DECSE 3ppm FuelSteady-State Emissions Comparison--As-Received Vs. W.EGR*--DECSE 3ppm FuelFuel

EGR* : Low Pressure Loop EGR With CBEGR* : Low Pressure Loop EGR With CB--DPFDPFRR

0.02 0.08

8

0.18

3

0.95

8

1.46

3.55

0.00

7

0.05

7 0.36

7

0.36

7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

g/bh

p-hr

BSHC BSCO BSNOx BSPM BSFC

W. EGR As-Received

RREGR* : Low Pressure Loop EGR With CBEGR* : Low Pressure Loop EGR With CB--DPFDPF

Transient Emissions Comparison--As-Received Vs. W.EGR*--DECSE 3ppm Fuel -- Hot StartsTransient Emissions Comparison--As-Received Vs. W.EGR*--DECSE 3ppm Fuel Fuel ---- Hot StartsHot Starts

0.00

0.02

0.00 0.04 0.

29

0.03 0.

15

4.63

0.24

0.00

5

0.02

6

0.00

6 0.34

0.32

8

0.33

4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

g/bh

p-hr

BSHC BSCO BSNOx BSPM BSFC

System A As-Received System B

Steady-State Emissions Comparison--As Received Vs. Systems A & B -- DECSE 8 ppm Fuel at 10 Hours CompositeSteady-State Emissions Comparison--As Received Vs. Systems A & B -- DECSE 8 ppm Fuel at 10 Hours Fuel at 10 Hours CompositeComposite

Results Are Averages of Two OICA TestsResults Are Averages of Two OICA Tests

RR

0.02

7

0.08

8

0.02

2 0.34

2

0.95

8

0.15

7

0.22

3.55

0.37

1

0.00

4

0.05

7

0.00

8 0.36

7

0.36

7

0.36

8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

g/bh

p-hr

BSHC BSCO BSNOx BSPM BSFC

System A As-Received System B

RR

Transient Emissions Comparison--As Received Vs. Systems A & B --DECSE 8 ppm Fuel -- 10 Hours CompositeTransient Emissions Comparison--As Received Vs. Systems A & B --DECSE 8 ppm Fuel Fuel ---- 10 Hours 10 Hours CompositeComposite

* Composite Based on Cold + First Hot-Start EPA Transient Tests

RR

0.00

5

0.00

7

0.00

5 0.00

9

0.00

5

0.00

6

0.00

7 0.01

2

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020g/

bhp-

hr

3 ppm 8 ppm 15 ppm 30 ppmSulfur Content

2007 PM Limit

Sensitivity To Fuel Sulfur--Steady-State Composite Emissions -- Average of 2 OICA Tests at 10 HoursSensitivity To Fuel Sulfur--Steady-State Composite Emissions -- Average of 2 OICA Tests at 10 Hours

0.18

0.24

0.15 0.

23

0.15 0.

24

0.14 0.

240

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

g/bh

p-hr

3 ppm 8 ppm 15 ppm 30 ppmSulfur Content

Target NOx Limit

System ASystem ASystem A

System BSystem BSystem B

RR

0.00

8

0.00

5

0.00

4 0.00

8

0.00

4

0.00

5

0.00

4

0.00

6

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020g/

bhp-

hr

3 ppm 8 ppm 15 ppm 30 ppmSulfur Content

2007 PM Limit

* Composite Based on Cold + First Hot-Start EPA Transient Tests

Sensitivity To Fuel Sulfur--Transient Emissions -- Cold and first Hot Composite at 10 HoursSensitivity To Fuel Sulfur--Transient Emissions -- Cold and first Hot Composite at 10 Hours

0.23

2

0.34

8

0.22

0

0.37

1

0.24

0

0.38

3

0.23

7 0.32

9

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.40

g/bh

p-hr

3 ppm 8 ppm 15 ppm 30 ppmSulfur Content

Target NOx Limit

System ASystem ASystem A

System BSystem BSystem B

RR

Ammonia Slip--Steady-State & Transient --At the 10-hour PointAmmonia Slip--Steady-State & Transient --At the 10-hour Point

0.4

3.5

0.0 0.00.9

13.0

0.0 0.00

3

6

9

12

15 Average Peak

Steady-State (OICA/ESC)

Transient

Raw

NH

3, pp

m

AA AABB BB

RR

Nitrous oxide--Steady-State & Transient --At the 10-hour PointNitrous oxide--Steady-State & Transient --At the 10-hour Point

1

96

35

1

23

3

45

0

10

20

30

40

50 Average Peak

AA AABB BBSteady-State (OICA/ESC)

Transient

N2O

, ppm

RR

OutlineOutline

ObjectivesTechnical Approach Major AccomplishmentsTest Setup Systems A and BResultsSummary & Conclusions

Summary and ConclusionsSummary and ConclusionsThe LPL EGR system was installed and calibrated to yield:

−over 50% NOx reduction and,

− about 90%PM reduction

System A was optimized and yielded an average of 0.16/0.006 g/bhp-hr NOx/PM for all fuels in the OICA test.

System B was optimized and yielded an average of 0.24/0.009 g/bhp-hr NOx/PM for all fuels in the OICA test.

System A calibration for the EPA transient test cycle yielded composite average for all fuels of 0.232/0.005 g/bhp-hr NOx/PM.

System B calibration for the EPA transient test cycle yielded composite average for all fuels of 0.358/0.008 g/bhp-hr NOx/PM.

Fuel sulfur content did not appear to have a discernable effect on emissions at the 10-hour test point.

RR