The Impact of Oil Consumption Mechanisms on Diesel Exhaust … · 2014-03-11 · heated filter intake surge tank exhaust surge tank charge amplifier strain gage amplifier electronic

John Stetter, Nate Forster Jaal Ghandhi, David Foster

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Impact of Oil Consumption Mechanisms on Diesel Exhaust

Particle Size Distributions and Detailed Exhaust Chemical Composition

DEER Conference, August 24, 2003, Newport RI

Acknowledgements

• Army Research Office (ARO)• Nippon-Mitsubishi Oil Co.• BP-Amoco Co.• Yanmar Co.• Cummins Engine Co.• Lubrizol Co.

Strategies for Reducing PMAftertreatment Systems

Catalytic Diesel Particulate TrapsParticulate oxidation rate depends on its composition

and historyFuel Composition

Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel FuelSynthetic Diesel Fuel (i.e. Fischer-Tropsch Fuel)Impact on EC, OC, trace metals, sulfates

Lubrication Oil Composition and VariablesViscosity, Volatility, and Sulfur Content

Engine DesignElectronic Engine ControlFuel Injection System Intake Air System (Turbo-charging, etc.)Combustion Chamber ModificationLubrication Oil Consumption Reduction

Introduction

Studies on the impact ofengine operating conditionson particulate characteristicsare underway

This study

Oil Consumption Mechanisms

1. Blowby Return – PCV (Effect not studied)

2. Migration of oil past valve stem seals

3. Migration of oil past piston rings

4. Turbocharger leakage (Effect not studied)

Adapted from SAE1999-01-3460.

Introduction

Test Engine

FUEL TANK

PUMP

FILTER

MICROMOTION

TANK PUMP

HEAT EXCHANGERH2O

ENGINE AND DYNAMOMETER

BUILDINGAIR

FILTER

REGULATOR

HEATER

CRITICAL FLOWORIFICES

TOFTIR

HEATEDFILTER

INTAKESURGETANK

EXHAUSTSURGETANK

CHARGEAMPLIFIER

STRAIN GAGEAMPLIFIER

ELECTRONICINJECTION CONTROL SYSTEM (SHAFT8)

ECM

FRO

MEN

CO

DER

FRO

MO

PTIC

AL IN

TER

RU

PTER

EXHAUST

BUILDINGAIR

ARROW PNEUMATICSLARGE CAPACITY FILTEROILESCER FILTER

REGULATOR

FLOW ORIFICE

FULL

DIL

UTI

ON

TUN

NEL

EXH

AU

ST

NI DAQ

152°Spray Angle

4.1Length/Diameter of holes (l/d)

8 ×Φ0.2 mmNozzle Dimension

Unit Injector, Direct Injection (DI)Injection System

NonePiston Pin Offset

304.8 mmConnection Rod Length

97.8 mmCombustion Chamber Diameter

152.4 mmStroke

139.7 mmBore

2336 ccDisplacement

1.4Swirl Ratio

13.1:1Compression Ratio

2Number of Exhaust Valves

2Number of Intake Valves

Shallow DishPiston Chamber

QuiescentCombustion Chamber

4-strokeCycle

Cummins N14 Single Cylinder DieselEngine Type

152°Spray Angle

4.1Length/Diameter of holes (l/d)

8 ×Φ0.2 mmNozzle Dimension

Unit Injector, Direct Injection (DI)Injection System

NonePiston Pin Offset

304.8 mmConnection Rod Length

97.8 mmCombustion Chamber Diameter

152.4 mmStroke

139.7 mmBore

2336 ccDisplacement

1.4Swirl Ratio

13.1:1Compression Ratio

2Number of Exhaust Valves

2Number of Intake Valves

Shallow DishPiston Chamber

QuiescentCombustion Chamber

4-strokeCycle

Cummins N14 Single Cylinder DieselEngine Type

Engine Bench Setup Engine Specification

Experimental Setup

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

(50% load)

(75% load)

(100% load)

(25% load)

(50% load)

(75% load)

(100% load)

Rated Speed

Peak Torque

Mode 3

Mode 2

Mode 1

Mode 5

Mode 6

Mode 4

Mode 7

Mode 8(Idling)

Eng

ine

Torq

ue/C

ylin

der [

Nm

]Engine Speed [rpm]

Experimental Operating Conditions

CARB 8-Mode Test PointsSteady-State Operation

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Speed [rpm] 1800 1800 1800 1200 1200 1200 1200 700

Load [%] 100 75 50 25 100 75 50 10 (idle)

Remark Rated speed Peak

torque

Intake T [°C] 46.48 46.48 46.48 46.11 45.93 45.74 46.30 45.74 Intake P [kPa] 148.05 148.97 143.00 160.46 152.87 157.01 162.07 164.37

Exhaust P [kPa] 181.91 195.54 160.23 162.41 152.94 202.67 182.18 151.52 SOI, CA aTDC

[degrees] -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -2.0 -11.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0

Experimental Design

Fuel was a 2006 EPA lowsulfur fuel, 14 PPM

LOC Rate Measurement Method

• Calcium: a viable LOC tracer (SAE 980523 and SAE 2003-01-0076)

• Calcium compounds are common additives

• Other metals in oil (Fe, Al, Cu, etc.) can also be attributed to engine wear.

• Ca and Zn show good agreement.

Experimental Results

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

LOC

Rat

e C

alcu

late

d by

Zin

c [g

/hr]

LOC Rate Calculated by Calcium [g/hr]

Lube Oil ConsumptionExperimental Results

Exhaust Lube Oil Consumption Variation from Base Condition

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

No IntakeVSS

No E or IVSS

No E or IVSS

NoExhaust

VSS

Base 50% OCR 50% OCR

Mode 5 - Peak Torque 1200 rpmMode 1 - Peak Power 1800 rpm

Lube Oil Consumption

• Measured LOC rates: 0.3 – 1.5 g/hr(Mode 4 LOC < 0.1 g/hr)

• Typical LOC (High Speed Diesels): 0.1-0.5% of full load fuel which would correspond to 7 – 40 g/hr

• Test points are steady state conditions


Transient Lube Oil Consumption

Experimental Results11

:47:

00

11:4

7:30

11:4

8:00

11:4

8:30

11:4

9:00

11:4

9:30

11:5

0:00

11:5

0:30

11:5

1:00

11:5

1:30

11:5

2:00

11:5

2:30

11:5

3:00

11:5

3:30

11:5

4:00

11:5

4:30

11:5

5:00

11:5

5:30

11:5

6:00

11:5

6:30

Mn+P-

Fe+Ca+

ECOC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

# of

par

ticle

s(C

a+, F

e+, M

n+, P

-, E

C)

Time

Timeline 31502m415TR

Mn+P-Fe+Ca+ECOC

BP-ARCO fuel

17:0

1:00

17:0

1:30

17:0

2:00

17:0

2:30

17:0

3:00

17:0

3:30

17:0

4:00

17:0

4:30

17:0

5:00

17:0

5:30

17:0

6:00

17:0

6:30

17:0

7:00

17:0

7:30

17:0

8:00

17:0

8:30

17:0

9:00

17:0

9:30

17:1

0:00

17:1

0:30

Mn+P-

Fe+Ca+

ECOC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

# of

par

ticle

s(C

a+, F

e+, M

n+, P

-, EC

)

Time

Timeline 31502m325TR

Mn+P-Fe+Ca+ECOC

BP-ARCO fuel

• “Transient” calcium spikes on order of 10x steady state operation from raw ATOFMS data

Ca Ca

Lube Oil Consumption

• Measured LOC rates: 0.3 – 1.5 g/hr• Typical LOC (High Speed Diesels):

0.1 – 0.5% of full load fuel which would correspond to 7 – 40 g/hr

• Test points are steady state conditions• Transient operation critical to

understanding overall LOC, but…• What can be learned from less complex,

fundamental steady state operation?


Engine Out PMExperimental Results

Engine Out Particulate Matter Variation from Base Condition

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

No IntakeVSS

No E or IVSS

No E or IVSS

NoExhaust

VSS

Base 50% OCR 50% OCR

Mode 5 - Peak Torque 1200 rpmMode 1 - Peak Power 1800 rpm

Reconstructed Mass vs.PM2.5 Mass

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1:1 Slope

Reconstructed Mass = EC+1.2*OC+sulfates

Rec

onst

ruct

ed M

ass

[mg/

m3]

Filter PM2.5 Mass [mg/m3]


• Very Good Agreement

• Recon > Measured for low loading

• This may be due to sorption of semi-volatile gas-phase organic compounds to the filter.

Particulate Matter Composition• Varying composition with

engine mode

• Fairly consistent (±5%) composition among variations in LOC for each engine mode


Mode 4 25% Load 1200 rpm

OM83%

EC16%

Ash0.01%

SO40.33%


OM38%

EC61%

Ash0.13%

SO40.13%


SO40.7%

Ash0.2%

EC85%

OM14%

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20

0.40.60.81.0

SulfateDetectionLimit

EC OC LOC SO4

Em

issi

on R

ate

[g/h

r] EC OC LOC SO4

No Intake VSS

No E or I VSS

No E or I VSS

No Exhaust VSS

Base

50% OCR

50% OCR

0.00

m4

No Intake VSS

No E or I VSS

No E or I VSS

No Exhaust VSS

Base

50% OCR

50% OCR

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

456789

1011

EC OC LOC SO4

Em

issi

on R

ate

[g/h

r]EC, OC, and Sulfates with LOC


No Intake VSS

No E or I VSS

No E or I VSS

No Exhaust VSS

Base

50% OCR

50% OCR

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

7

8

9

EC OC LOC SO4

Em

issi

on R

ate

[g/h

r]

m5 m1

• Modes 5 and 1 show significant differences in OC emissions

• Differences do not correspond with variations in lube oil consumption

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.80.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Org

anic

Car

bon,

OC

[g/h

r]Lube Oil Consumption, LOC [g/hr]

No EVSS

No IVSS

No E or I

No E or IBase

50% OCR 50% OCR

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.23.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Org

anic

Car

bon,

OC

[g/h

r]

Lube Oil Consumption, LOC [g/hr]

No E or I

No EVSS

No E or I

Base

No IVSS

50% OCR50% OCR

OC vs. LOC for Mode 5 and Mode 1

• No obvious relationship between Organic Carbon and Lube Oil Consumption for Modes 5 and 1


Mode 5 Mode 1

Lube Oil Contribution to OCExperimental Results

Potential Lube Oil Contribution to Organic Carbon(assuming no lube oil combustion)

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%180%200%

No

Inta

ke V

SS

- m

4

No

E o

r I V

SS

- m

4

No

E o

r I V

SS

- m

4

No

Exh

aust

VS

S -

m4

Bas

e - m

4

50%

OC

R -

m4

50%

OC

R -

m4

No

Inta

ke V

SS

- m

5

No

E o

r I V

SS

- m

5

No

Exh

aust

VS

S -

m5

No

Exh

aust

VS

S -

m5

Bas

e - m

5

50%

OC

R -

m5

50%

OC

R -

m5

No

Inta

ke V

SS

- m

1

No

E o

r I V

SS

- m

1

No

E o

r I V

SS

- m

1

No

Inta

ke V

SS

- m

1

Bas

e - m

1

50%

OC

R -

m1

50%

OC

R -

m1

LOC

[g/h

r]/O

C [g

/hr]

Mode 4Up to 42%

Mode 5Up to 32%

Mode 1Up to 100+%

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

17.

377.

918.

519.

149.

8210

.611

.312

.213

.114

.115

.116

.317

.518

.820

.221

.723

.3 2526

.928

.931

.133

.435

.938

.541

.444

.547

.851

.455

.259

.463

.868

.573

.779

.185

.191

.498

.210

611

312

213

114

115

116

317

518

820

221

723

325

026

928

9

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

PM [mg/m3]OC [mg/m3]EC [mg/m3]SO4 [mg/m3]Lube Oil [mg/m3]

Filter and SMPS CorrelationsExperimental Results

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

7.37

7.91

8.51

9.14

9.82

10.6

11.3

12.2

13.1

14.1

15.1

16.3

17.5

18.8

20.2

21.7

23.3 25

26.9

28.9

31.1

33.4

35.9

38.5

41.4

44.5

47.8

51.4

55.2

59.4

63.8

68.5

73.7

79.1

85.1

91.4

98.2

106

113

122

131

141

151

163

175

188

202

217

233

250

269

289

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1


No Clear Correlation


-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

17.

377.

918.

519.

149.

8210

.611

.312

.213

.114

.115

.116

.317

.518

.820

.221

.723

.3 2526

.928

.931

.133

.435

.938

.541

.444

.547

.851

.455

.259

.463

.868

.573

.779

.185

.191

.498

.210

611

312

213

114

115

116

317

518

820

221

723

325

026

928

9

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1




y = 1.18E+06x + 1.60E+06R2 = 0.954

9.0E+06

9.2E+06

9.4E+06

9.6E+06

9.8E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+07

1.0E+07

1.1E+07

6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6

Dilution Tunnel PM Concentration [mg/m3]

Part

icle

Con

c @

146

nm

dN/

dlog

(Dp)

[#/c

m3]

y = 1.07E+06x + 7.13E+06R2 = 0.955

9.0E+06

9.2E+06

9.4E+06

9.6E+06

9.8E+06

1.0E+07

1.0E+07

1.0E+07

1.1E+07

1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20

Dilution Tunnel OC Concentration [mg/m3]

Parti

cle

Con

c @

146

nm

dN/

dlog

(Dp)

[#/c

m3]


-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

17.

377.

918.

519.

149.

8210

.611

.312

.213

.114

.115

.116

.317

.518

.820

.221

.723

.3 2526

.928

.931

.133

.435

.938

.541

.444

.547

.851

.455

.259

.463

.868

.573

.779

.185

.191

.498

.210

611

312

213

114

115

116

317

518

820

221

723

325

026

928

9

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1



y = 8.17E+05x + 1.04E+06R2 = 0.947

3.7E+06

3.8E+06

3.8E+06

3.9E+06

3.9E+06

4.0E+06

4.0E+06

4.1E+06

4.1E+06

3.30 3.35 3.40 3.45 3.50 3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 3.75

Dilution Tunnel EC Concentration [mg/m3]

Par

ticle

Con

c @

209

nm

dN/

dlog

(Dp)

[#/c

m3]

y = 8.32E+05x + 2.02E+06R2 = 0.762

5.3E+06

5.4E+06

5.4E+06

5.5E+06

5.5E+06

5.6E+06

5.6E+06

5.7E+06

5.7E+06

5.8E+06

5.8E+06

4 4.05 4.1 4.15 4.2 4.25 4.3 4.35 4.4 4.45 4.5 4.55

Dilution Tunnel PM Concentration [mg/m3]

Parti

cle

Con

c @

181

nm

dN/

dlog

(Dp)

[#/c

m3]


-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

17.

377.

918.

519.

149.

8210

.611

.312

.213

.114

.115

.116

.317

.518

.820

.221

.723

.3 2526

.928

.931

.133

.435

.938

.541

.444

.547

.851

.455

.259

.463

.868

.573

.779

.185

.191

.498

.210

611

312

213

114

115

116

317

518

820

221

723

325

026

928

9

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1



y = -2.67E+05x + 1.57E+06R2 = 0.792

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.6E+06

1.6E+06

0.03 0.13 0.23 0.33 0.43 0.53 0.63 0.73 0.83

Dilution Tunnel Lube Oil Concentration [mg/m3]

Par

ticle

Con

c @

289

nm

dN

/dlo

g(D

p) [#

/cm

3]

y = -2.18E+07x + 2.12E+06R2 = 0.797

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.4E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.5E+06

1.6E+06

1.6E+06

0.025 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.03 0.031 0.032 0.033 0.034

Dilution Tunnel SO4 Concentration [mg/m3]

Par

ticle

Con

c @

289

nm

dN/

dlog

(Dp)

[#/c

m3]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

50 100 150 200 250 300Mobility Diameter, Dp [nm]

Effe

ctiv

e D

ensi

ty [g

/cm

3]

Mode 5 100% LoadMode 1 100% LoadDMA-ELPI 1998 1DMA-ELPI 1998 2DMA-ELPI 2000DMA-ELPI 2002DMA-APM 2002DMA-APM 2003 10% LoadDMA-APM 2003 50% LoadDMA-APM 2003 75% Load

Particulate Matter Effective Density

• Some effective density data available from various instruments

• Assume empirical density function of the similar functional form

• Spherical particles

• PM = Conc * Vol * ρeff


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

50 100 150 200 250 300Mobility Diameter, Dp [nm]

Effe

ctiv

e D

ensi

ty [g

/cm

3]

Mode 5 100% LoadMode 1 100% LoadDMA-ELPI 1998 1DMA-ELPI 1998 2DMA-ELPI 2000DMA-ELPI 2002DMA-APM 2002DMA-APM 2003 10% LoadDMA-APM 2003 50% LoadDMA-APM 2003 75% Load

Particulate Matter Effective Density


200 nm 200 nm

20030529m125 - 50% Oil Control Ring

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Midpoint Diameter, Dp [nm]

dN/d

logD

p [#

/cm

3]

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Mas

s C

once

ntra

tion

[mg/

m3]

Average Conc [#/cm3]Mass Conc p=var [mg/m3]Mass Conc p=1.2 [mg/m3]

20030529m530 - 50% Oil Control Ring

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Midpoint Diameter, Dp [nm]

dN/d

logD

p [#

/cm

3]

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Mas

s C

once

ntra

tion

[mg/

m3]

Average Conc [#/cm3]Mass Conc p=var [mg/m3]Mass Conc p=1.2 [mg/m3]

Experimental Results – SMPS Size Distributions

• Highest LOC but no significant nanoparticleformation (nuclei mode)

• Constant density (SMPS) overestimates filter mass

m5

m1• 12 samples shown for each hour test with average and 1 standard deviation shown

• Data for comparison to gravimetric filters

Conclusions (Stead State Operation)

• Lube oil consumption for steady state operation has insignificant effect on diesel particulate matter

• Engine operating conditions have significant effects on the detailed particulate matter composition

• Lube oil has a small contribution to overall organic carbon for some operating conditions

• Effective density calculations provide additional insight in understanding the details of diesel PM.

• No apparent changes in particle size distributions with changes in oil consumption

Questions?

Documents

The Impact of Oil Consumption Mechanisms on Diesel Exhaust … · 2014-03-11 · heated filter intake surge tank exhaust surge tank charge amplifier strain gage amplifier electronic