Ricardo's ACTION Strategy: An Enabling Light Duty Diesel Technology … · 2014-03-10 · ©Ricardo...
Transcript of Ricardo's ACTION Strategy: An Enabling Light Duty Diesel Technology … · 2014-03-10 · ©Ricardo...
© Ricardo plc 2005 DEER 2005
Ricardo’s ACTION Strategy:An Enabling Light Duty Diesel Technology
for the US Market
11th Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction Conference21st – 25th August 2005
Palmer House Hilton, Chicago
Adrian Greaney – Chief Program Engineer, Light Duty Diesel, [email protected]
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Our industry has already made remarkable progress in light duty diesel technology…..
…..and developments continue to show significant potential for future US and global diesel products…….
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
EU3 EU4EU2
AVG. SPECIFIC TORQUE
AVG. SPECIFIC POWER
EU FLEET AVG. CO2
PM EMISSIONS
NOx EMISSIONS
Last significant US consumer experience in
early/mid 1980’s
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Contents
Critical challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US
Ricardo’s approach to meeting the US diesel challenge
Status update on minimum engine-out NOx development
Summary and conclusions
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Contents
Critical challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US
Ricardo’s approach to meeting the US diesel challenge
Status update on minimum engine-out NOx development
Summary and conclusions
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
There are many challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US market
Technology Strategy
Lowest system cost
Engine technology selection
Aftertreatment technology selection
Control approach & OBD
Emissions variability & durability
Retain diesel fuel economy benefit
Deliver performance & refinement
Commonality with Euro technology
Robustness to fuel quality
Market/Product Strategy
Diesel vehicle selection
US specific or shared EU platforms
Alignment to gasoline products
Alignment to hybrid products
Pricing strategy
45 States (Bin8) or 50 States (Bin5)
CAFE strategy
Market acceptance
ACHIEVE VIABLE BUSINESS CASE
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Contents
Critical challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US
Ricardo’s approach to meeting the US diesel challenge
Status update on minimum engine-out NOx development
Summary and conclusions
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Achieving a viable business case remains the most significant challenge to Light Duty Diesel growth in the US market, and is highly dependent on the selected emissions technology strategy
NOX REDUCTION RELATIVE TO TECHNOLOGY COSTFROM EURO 4 / BIN 10 TECHNOLOGY BASELINE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
NOx Reduction
Incr
ease
in E
ngin
e+A
ftert
reat
men
t Cos
t (%
)
Euro 4 + DPF+LNT
DPF & re-calibration
Level 1:Improved 16.5~17 CR Combustion System & multiple injection
Level 2:Advanced air/EGR control16~16.5 CR & cold start aid
Level 3:Advanced Low Temperature Combustion
Level 2 + SCRRicardo ACTION Strategy
Level 2 + LNT
BASELINE4-5L V8 HSDI
$4k - $4.5k variable cost
~100k unitsper year
Euro 4 / Bin10 technology with
oxidation catalyst only
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
ACTION is a diesel engine technology strategy to provide lowest cost robust emissions solutions through engine-out NOx reduction
Targets support Euro 5 and US
Tier 2 Bin 5 Requirements
Approach consists of a progressive roadmap of technology
development
Advanced Combustion Technology for Improved engine-Out NOx
Tech
nolo
gy M
atur
ity
SingleCylinder
MultiCylinder
VehicleDemo
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
REDUCED ENGINE-OUT NOxIMPROVED PERFORMANCERETAIN FUEL ECONOMY BENEFIT
ACTION Level 2Tier2 Bin8
Engine-Out NOx in 3500lb LDV
ACTION Level 3Tier2 Bin5 Engine-Out NOx in 3500lb LDV or
~0.1g/mi LDT4
ACTION Level 4?Tier2 Bin5 Engine-Out
NOx in LDT4?
Euro 4
SeriesProduction
Ready
ACTION Level 1Euro 5 Engine-Out NOx in 3500lb LDV
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Two approaches exist to lowering engine NOx and soot levels but both are often called “HCCI”
Partial HCCI or Highly Premixed Cool Combustion (HPCC)
Highly pre-mixed combustion achieved by injecting fuel during the ignition delay period
• Injection timings near TDC• Low [O2] to control RoHR• High rail pressures• High levels of swirl
• Very low NOx and soot emissions• Moderate increases in HC and CO emissions• Increase in fuel consumption if combustion too late• Application over wider operating zone• More practical control
Practical approach for near-term introduction
Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI)
Homogeneous. low temperature combustion achieved by early injection
• Injection timings before -30 °CA ATDC• Low [O2] to retard and control RoHR• Multiple injections• High levels of swirl
• Ultra-low NOx and soot emissions• Large increase in HC and CO emissions• Maximum load limited• Major control challenge due to mode switching• Combustion phasing challenge
Long-term option, but with many practical problems to solve?
Low NOx and soot diesel combustion strategies
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Progressive technology developments are enabling highly pre-mixed cool combustion (HPCC) to achieve T2 Bin 5 engine-out
Numbers indicate percentage of fuel injected before start of combustion of the main injection
100 %
85 %
70 %
100 %
85 %
70 %
100 %85 %
70 %
Euro 4 – O2 Concentration Map Level 2 – O2 Concentration Map Level 3 – O2 Concentration Map
ACTION ROADMAP(Advanced Combustion Technology to Improve engine-Out NOx)
Euro 4Baseline
(Engine-Out NOx)
LEVEL 2T2 Bin 8
(Engine-Out NOx)
LEVEL 3T2 Bin 5
(Engine-Out NOx)
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
The Ricardo ACTION engine technology roadmap uses an incremental approach to meet the future diesel challenges
Air System Developments
2005 20102007/8
NOx sensor In-Cycle Model-Based Control (ARTEMIS)
Lambda sensor
Variable swirlEGR cooler+bypass1 Stage VGT
Staged boostingAdvanced cooling strategiesLP EGR (app.specific)
Enhanced EGR cooling & temperature control
Reduced CR (~17:1)7 hole nozzles
Reduced CR (~16.5:1)+8 hole nozzlesCold start enablers
Reduced CR (~16:1)Highly Pre-mixed Combustion
Combustion System Developments
Closed Loop Control Development
LEVEL 1(T2 Bin 9 LDT, Euro 5
without NOx A/T)
LEVEL 2(T2 Bin 8 LDT
without NOx A/T)
LEVEL 3(T2 Bin 5 LDV, Euro 6?
without NOx A/T)
Increased multiple injection capabilityIncreased fuel injection performance
Combustion Feedback Control (CPEMS)
Variable Valve Actuation
LEVEL 4 (TBC)(T2 Bin 5 LDT?
without NOx A/T)
Variable nozzle technology
2012+
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Contents
Critical challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US
Ricardo’s approach to meeting the US diesel challenge
Status update on minimum engine-out NOx development
Summary and conclusions
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Engine Speed [rpm]
BM
EP [b
ar]
.
Preliminary assessment of Euro 5 vehicle on US cycles shows Bin 5 feasibility with ~60% aftertreatment deNOx requirement
0.136g/mi
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Time [s]
Cum
ulat
ive
NO
x [g
]
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Targ
et V
ehic
le S
peed
[mph
]
Engine Out (Test) Post SCR (Simulation)
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
CO/10 HC NOx PM
[g/m
ile]
.
(Bin 5 50k NMOG)
CO 3.4 g/mile
ENGINE-OUT
TAILPIPE
BIN 5 50k LIMIT
NOx
~2L 3500lb ITW vehicle75hp/liter specific ratingACTION Level 2 hardware with single stage VGT & enhanced EGR cooler with bypassNo US specific hardware optimizationMinimal calibration developmentExcludes Bin 5 combustion & air/EGR system developments
FTP-75
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
CO HC NOx PM
[g/m
ile]
.
CO 8.0 g/mile
ENGINE-OUT
TAILPIPE
US06 4k LIMIT
Preliminary assessment of Euro 5 vehicle on US cycles shows Bin 5 feasibility with ~60% aftertreatment deNOx requirement
0.29g/mi
US06 load increases to 20 bar BMEP4k Tier 2 NOx feasible with ~60% aftertreatment NOx reductionPotential for further improvements with re-optimization of combustion & air/EGR system for higher loadsFTP-75 fuel economy of 40.2mpgUS06 fuel economy of 43.2mpg -4
0
4
8
12
16
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Engine Speed [rpm]
BM
EP [b
ar]
.
US06
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Time [s]
Cum
ulat
ive
NO
x [g
]
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Vehi
cle
Spee
d [m
ph]
.
Engine-Out (test) Post SCR (simulation)US06 Cycle
NOx
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Single cylinder research tool has been used to investigate combustion fundamentals & define requirements for Tier2 Bin5
Research StatusNew single cylinder and optical engines establishedStrategy for ultra low NOx confirmedAir/EGR requirements for Bin 5 and US06 definedCombustion system hardware direction defined CFD design tools under developmentBin 5 emissions potential demonstratedNext generation fuel system technology not yet exploited
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Engine BMEP [bar]
NO
x [g
/kW
.h] Euro 4
Bin 5 & US06Target Map
(1590 kg/3500 lb)
Single cylinder test results at 2000 rev/min
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Engine Speed [rev/min]
BM
EP [b
ar]
EGR Map [%]
12.5
15
17.5
2022.
5
25
27.5
3032.
5
35
37.5
40
42.5
45 47.5
5052.555
57.560
62.5
65
67.5
70
72.572.577.5
72.5
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00Oxygen concentration (%)
NO
x (g
/kW
h)Oxygen concentration reduction by lowering air/fuel ratio and raising EGR rates is the key to lowering NOx emissions
Reducing O2 concentration leads to reduced maximum combustion temperatures and therefore NOx emissions
E4
ACTIONLevel 3
ACTIONLevel 2
Euro 4
Level 2
Level 3
Overview of ACTION trend at 4 steady state key points
17 bar
11 bar
3 bar
7 & 8 bar15.0 21.017.0 19.00
50
100
150
200 3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
NO
x (g
/h)
Flam
e te
mpe
ratu
re (k
)
Charge [O2]
Reference: Nakayama et al. SAE 2003-01-3181
Calculated flame temperature &calculated NOx emissions using
Zeldovich mechanism
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Part load / rated power trade-off at high EGR rate
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
BMEP achieved at 2000rpm with 42% EGR, bar
spec
ific
pow
er a
t 400
0rpm
, kW
/l
baseline:short route EGR, single VGT
short route EGR systemstwo stage TC / TC + SC
long route EGR systemstwo stage TC / TC +SC
long route EGR, single VGT
LPT
HPTHPCVGT
LPT LPC
HPTHPCHPC Bypass
HP Wastegate
LP Wastegate
LPT LPC
HPTHPCHPC Bypass
HP Wastegate
LP Wastegate
VGT
Extensive study of boost & EGR system concepts completed to assess alternative systems against Bin 5 requirements
12+ system configurations studied including the following:– Single stage VGT with and without wastegate– Variable compressor– Alternative two-stage configurations– Turbocharger and Supercharger arrangements– High pressure and low pressure EGR routings
Long route systems
decouple EGR and boost systems
allowing high EGR and high
rating
Short route systems cannot
be simultaneously optimized for high
EGR and high rating
PART LOAD/RATED POWER TRADE-OFF WITH HIGH EGR RATE
BMEP ACHIEVED AT 2000rpm & 42% EGR (bar)
SPEC
IFIC
PO
WER
AT
4000
rpm
(kW
/L)
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Ricardo target for ACTION Level 3 is Tier 2 Bin 5 without active NOx aftertreatment in a ~3500lb passenger car
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
EU4 ACTION 1 ACTION 2 ACTION 3 ACTION 4
US0
6 N
Ox,
g/m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
FTP7
5 N
Ox,
g/mUS06 Bin 10
FTP75 Bin 10
FTP75 Bin 5 (0.04)US06 Bin 5
US06
FTP75
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
EU4 ACTION 1 ACTION 2 ACTION 3 ACTION 4
A/T
deN
Ox
Req
'd.
% A/T deNOx for FTP75 Bin 5
% A/T deNOx for US06
ACTION NOx Reduction for Passenger Car (LDV)
Current vehicle capability
Current Single Cylinder Status
Lean feedgas NOx emissions
ACTION Level 3 consistent with FTP75 Bin 5 in LDV without NOxaftertreatment
ACTION Level 3 consistent with US06 Bin 5 in LDV without NOxaftertreatment
ACTION Projection
Aftertreatment deNOx quoted relative to lean feedgas calibration
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
US0
6 N
Ox,
g/m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
FTP7
5 N
Ox,
g/m
FTP-75 becomes more challenging for LDT4, but aftertreatment deNOx could be reduced to ~60% with ACTION Level 3
ACTION Level 3 consistent with US06 Bin 5 in LDT4 ACTION Level 3 consistent with FTP75 Bin 5 with ~60% NOx A/T
ACTION ProjectionUS06 Bin 10
FTP75 Bin 10
FTP75 Bin 5
LDT4 US06
US06 FTP75
ACTION NOx Reduction for LDT4 (~5L 6000lb ITW)Lean feedgas NOx emissions
Target for 6000-7000lb LDT4
0%
20%
40%60%
80%
100%
EU4 ACTION 1 ACTION 2 ACTION 3 ACTION 4
A/T
deN
Ox
Req
'd
% A/T deNOx for FTP75 Bin 5
% A/T deNOx for US06
Aftertreatment deNOx quoted relative to lean feedgas calibration
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Contents
Critical challenges in developing light duty diesel solutions for the US
Ricardo’s approach to meeting the US diesel challenge
Status update on minimum engine-out NOx development
Summary and conclusions
©R
icar
do p
lc 2
005
DEER 2005
Conclusions
Engine out NOx reduction combined with minimum NOx aftertreatment offers the most robust approach to Tier 2 Bin 5– Aftertreatment deNOx requirement reduced to <60%– Enables SCR solutions with service interval urea refill– Offers potential for robust LNT solutions and possible LNT cost reduction– NOx aftertreatment may be deleted for smaller vehicle applications
Robustness (emissions variability) is becoming the key challenge– Closed loop combustion control solutions are under development
Huge progress in diesel emissions reduction has been made over the last ~10 years
Highly Pre-mixed Cool Combustion offers a practical approach to further significant engine-out NOx reduction for Tier 2 Bin 5 applications
NOx Reduction Trend
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EU2
EU3
EU4ACTIO
N1ACTIO
N2ACTIO
N3ACTIO
N4
Rem
aini
ng N
Ox
%
.