Search Results

Increasing fuel costs and the desire for reduced dependence on foreign oil has brought the diesel engine to the forefront of future medium-duty vehicle applications in the United States due to its higher thermal efficiency and superior durability. The main obstacle to the increased use of diesel engines in this platform is the upcoming extremely stringent, Tier 2 emission standard. In order to succeed, diesel vehicles must comply with emissions standards while maintaining their excellent fuel economy. The availability of technologies such as common rail fuel injection systems, low sulfur diesel fuel, NOX adsorber catalysts (NAC), and diesel particle filters (DPFs) allow the development of powertrain systems that have the potential to comply with these future requirements. In meeting the Tier 2 emissions standards, the heavy light-duty trucks (HLDTs) and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) will face the greatest technological challenges. In support of this, the U.S.

Increasing fuel costs and the desire for reduced dependence on foreign oil have brought the diesel engine to the forefront of future medium-duty vehicle applications in the United States due to its higher thermal efficiency and superior durability. One of the obstacles to the increased use of diesel engines in this platform is the Tier 2 emission standards. In order to succeed, diesel vehicles must comply with emissions standards while maintaining their excellent fuel economy. The availability of technologies-such as common rail fuel injection systems, low-sulfur diesel fuel, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) adsorber catalysts or NACs, and diesel particle filters (DPFs)-allows for the development of powertrain systems that have the potential to comply with these future requirements. In support of this, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has engaged in several test projects under the Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels-Diesel Emission Control (APBF-DEC) activity [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

A 1991 Toyota Camry equipped with an electrically-heated catalyst (EHC) system was evaluated in duplicate over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) with three different fuels. Evaluations were conducted with the EHC in place but without any external heating, and with the EHC operated with a post-crank heating strategy. The EHC system was placed immediately upstream of an original production catalyst, which was then moved to a location 40.6 cm from the exhaust manifold. The three test fuels were: 1) the Auto/Oil industry average gasoline, RF-A; 2) a fuel meeting California's Phase II gasoline specifications; and 3) a paraffinic test fuel. Non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emission rates with the EHC active were similiar with all three fuels, with absolute levels less than or equal to California's 50,000 mile Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standard. Substantial differences, however were observed in the ozone forming potential of these fuels with the EHC active.

Improved designs of extruded metal electrically heated catalysts (EHC) in combination with a traditional converter achieved the California ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) standard utilizing 50% less electrical energy than previous prototypes. This energy reduction is largely achieved by reducing the mass of the EHC. In addition to energy reduction, the battery voltage is reduced from 24 volts to 12 volts, and the power is reduced from 12 kilowatts to 3 kilowatts. Also discussed is the impact EHC mass, EHC catalytic activity, and no EHC preheating has on non-methane hydrocarbon emissions, energy requirements, and power requirements.

Emission performance of a late model vehicle equipped with an electrically-heated catalytic converter (EHC) system was evaluated after extended vehicle soak periods that ranged from 30 to 180 minutes. As soak periods lengthened, NMHC and CO emissions measured in hot transient driving cycles increased by 125 percent and 345 percent, respectively. These tests were baseline operations which had no resistance heating or secondary air injection to the converter system. Sources of increased NMHC and CO emissions as a function of vehicle soak time were both the converter system cool-down characteristics and engine restart calibration strategy. For soak periods of 30 and 60 minutes, EHC resistance heating without secondary air injection resulted in large improvements in NMHC and CO emission performance (i.e., 74 percent and 54 percent lower NMHC emissions versus no heat, no air operation after a 30- and 60-minute period, respectively).

A program to demonstrate the performance of advanced emission control systems in light of the California LEV II light-duty vehicle standards and the EPA's consideration of Tier II emission standards was conducted. Two passenger cars and one light-duty pick-up truck were selected for testing, modification, and emission system performance tuning. All vehicles were 1997 Federal Tier I compliant. The advanced emission control technologies evaluated in this program included advanced three-way catalysts, high cell density substrates, and advanced thermally insulated exhaust components. Using these engine-aged advanced emission control technologies and modified stock engine control strategies (control modifications were made using an ERIC computer intercept/control system), each of the three test vehicles demonstrated FTP emission levels below the proposed California LEV II 193,000 km (120,000 mile) ULEV levels.

The emission and flow restriction characteristics of three different ceramic substrates with varying wall thickness and cell density (400 cpsi/6.5 mil, 600/4.3, and 600/3.5) are compared. These 106mm diameter substrates were catalyzed with similar amounts of washcoat and fabricated into catalytic converters having a total volume of 2.0 liters. A Pd/Rh catalyst technology was applied at a concentration of 6.65 g/l and a ratio of 20/1. Three sets of converters (two of each type) were aged for 100 hours on an engine dynamometer stand. After aging, the FTP performance of these converters were evaluated on an auto-driver FTP stand using a 2.4L, four-cylinder prototype engine and on a 2.4L, four-cylinder prototype vehicle. A third set of unaged converters was used for cold flow restriction measurements and vehicle acceleration tests.

This paper describes the results of a study that examined the mechanism of phased perturbation as an emissions control technique. Phased perturbation involves independently controlling the fuel delivered to each bank of a dual bank engine (or each cylinder of a single manifold engine), which allows the two banks to have an adjustable, relative Air/Fuel (A/F) perturbation phase-shift from one another. The phase shifted exhaust is then recombined to achieve a near stoichiometric mixture prior to entering a single underbody catalyst. Phase shifting the exhaust Air/Fuel ratio creates a situation in which both rich exhaust constituents (unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide) and lean exhaust constituents (oxygen and oxides of nitrogen) arrive at the catalyst at the same time. The results of the study showed that phased perturbation produced a significant effect on A/F control and catalyst THC, CO, and NOx efficiency.