Search Results

Although designed for the purpose of reducing engine-out Particulate Matter (PM) emissions to meet or exceed mandated emissions regulations, the particulate filter also incurs a fuel economy penalty. This fuel penalty is due to the increased exhaust flow restriction attributed to the PM accumulated in the filter, in addition to fuel consumed for active regeneration. Unlike the soot which may be oxidized through the regeneration process, incombustible material or ash continues to build-up in the filter following each regeneration event. Currently pressure- and model-based controls are used to provide an indirect estimate of the loading state of the particulate filter, in order to manage the filter operation and determine when to regenerate the filter. The challenges associated with pressure- and model-based particulate filter control over real-world operating conditions are well-known.

Over the past few years, both global warming and rising oil prices led to a significantly increased demand for low fuel consumption in passenger cars. However, the necessity to also meet the limits of today's and future emission regulations makes it more and more difficult to maintain a high engine efficiency without the use of an expensive external exhaust gas after-treatment system. Therefore, new technologies that simultaneously prevent emission formation and reduce fuel consumption inside the internal combustion engine during the combustion process itself are of highest interest. This paper analyzes the influence of a catalytic coating of the combustion chamber on combustion, emission formation and fuel consumption. For this purpose, test runs with a production 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder, 4-valve, double overhead camshaft (DOHC), port fuel injection (PFI) gasoline engine were performed.

Stringent global emissions legislation demands effective NOx reduction strategies, particularly for the aftertreatment, and current typical liquid urea SCR systems achieve efficiencies greater than 90% [1]. However, with such high-performing systems comes the trade-off of requiring a tank of reductant (urea water solution) to be filled regularly, usually as soon as the fuel fillings or as far as oil changes. Advantages of solid reductants, particularly ammonium carbamate, include greater ammonia densities, enabling the reductant refill interval to be extended several multiples versus a given reductant volume of urea, or diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) [2]. An additional advantage is direct gaseous ammonia dosing, enabling reductant injection at lower exhaust temperatures to widen its operational coverage achieving greater emissions reduction potential [3], as well as eliminating deposits, reducing mixing lengths, and avoiding freeze/thaw risks and investments.