Step ⅠStudy of Gasoline Vehicle and Fuel Influence on Emissions

Transcription

1 Japan Clean Air Program (JCAP) Step ⅠStudy of Gasoline Vehicle and Fuel Influence on Emissions JCAP Promotion Dept SAE International Spring Katsuhiko HIROSE Petroleum Energy Center JCAP Gasoline Working Group Minoru HAMASAKI Honda Motor R&D CO.LTD Mitsuo YAMAGUCHI Idemitsu Kosan CO.LTD

2 J a p a n C l e a n A i r P r o g r a m Contents 1. Objective 2. Test Method 3. Tail Pipe Emissions 4. Evaporative Emissions 5. Conclusion 6. Future

3 J a p a n C l e a n A i r P r o g r a m Objective Provide current emission technology data for the air quality model with the current vehicle/ current fuel. Provide the scientific data for the future fuel / vehicle regulation. Obtain the emission data with combination of advanced vehicle and fuel technologies.

4 J a p a n C l e a n A i r P r o g r a m Japanese Petrol Market Catalyst for the passenger car since `78 Sulfur level of gasoline kept as low as 30ppm average since `78 New technology such as lean burn and direct injection gasoline engine and NOx storage reduction catalyst have been developed and marketed under these back ground

5 Gasoline Emission test Matrix (STEP I) Test Vehicle 19 vehicles (15 current, 3 prototype, 1 LEV) Test Fuel RVP Aromatics Sulfur KPa vol.% ppm Tail-pipe Evaporative N/A N/A Benzene Test Mode vol.% Mode 11Mode N/A SHED (HSL,DBL,RL)

6 TEST Vehicles 1. Wide variety of vehicles are tested from motorcycle, mini(0.65l) to 3L 2. Gasoline direct injection and lean-burn engine included 3. As a reference LEV is tested at the Japanese driving cycle mode 80 Speed (km/h) Time(sec)

7 Gasoline Emission test Matrix Vehicles FUEL Measure STEP I STEP II Current Interim Future PFI(Stoic) + TWC PFI(Lean) + TWC PFI(Lean) + de-nox DFI (Lean) + de-nox DFI (Lean) + TWC + de-nox PFI (Stoic) + TWC LEV (Reference) DFI (Lean) + de-nox PFI(Stoic) + TWC + TBD RVP (Kpa) Aroma (Vol%) Sulfur (ppm) Bz (Vol.%) RFG II (Refer.) Sulfur:10-80 (ppm) + TBD :55-75 :20-40 : : Tail Pipe (10-15 & 11Mode) CO THC NOx CO2 CH4 Benzene 1-3,Butadiene B(a)p Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde NO2 NO Evaporative HSL DBL RNL

8 TEST Vehicles Current Vehicle Model LEV P V Truck Class Mini M S Mini Motorcycl e S P V Vehicle Class M cc Carb MPI-S. MPI-S MPI-S MPI-L MPI-L MPI-S DFI-L MPI-S DFI-L MPI-S MPI-S MPI-S MPI-S Carb-S Carb-S MPI-S MPI-S MPI-S MPI-S Emission System Cat. C - 3 -Pd/Rd C - 3 -Pd C - 3 -Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pt/Pd/Rd U - L -Pt/Rd U - 3 -Pt/Rd C/U- 3 -Pt/Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pt/Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pt/Rd U - 3 -Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pd C - 3 -Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pt/Rd C - 3 -Pt/Pd/Rd C/U- 3 -Pt/Rd C/U- 3 -Pt/Pd/Rd U - 3 -Pd VIN. GV50 GV51 GV03 GV52 GV06 GV01 GV53 GV08 GV07 GV02 GV54 GV55 GV04 GM02 GM01 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 1.Wide variety of vehicles are tested Mini to motorcycle 2.Gasoline direct injection and lean-burn engine included 3. As a reference LEV is tested with the Japanese fuel and driving cycle Regent MPI: Multi-point Injection DFI: Direct Fuel Injection -S: -L: Lean C: Closed copule U: Under Floor 3: 3way-catalyser L: Lean-NOx catalyser

9 Key Issues Emission characteristics of vehicle technologies How much fuel property influence for new technologies? Do we still need to cut sulfur from current low level? How behave unregulated emission by reduction of emission?

10 Japanese Driving Cycle for Emission Test mode Speed (km/h) Time(sec) mode Speed (km/h) Time(sec)

11 Emission variation 10-15mode 2.00 CO (g/km) GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 Current Vehicles Pprototype Vehicles Lean Burn DFI THC(g/km ) GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 current Vehicles Pprototype Vehicles Lean Burn DFI NOx(g/km) GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 Current Vehicles Pprototype Vehicles Lean Burn DFI Current Vehicles Proto Type Vehicles

12 Emission characteristics 10-15mode 2.0 All Stoichio Stoichio Lean Burn DFI CO(g/km) THC(g/km) All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio. Current Vehicles Prototype Current Vehicles Prototype Explanation of Charts: Maximum value on Y axis : '78 Regulation Interpretation of bars NOx(g/km) Data variation Number of test vehicles Current vehicles : 7 Lean Burn 4 DFI 2 Prototype vehicles: 3 Average 0.00 All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio. Current Vehicles Prototype

13 Emission variation 11-Mode CO (g/test) Stoichio Lean Burn DFI Stoichio GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 C urrent Vehicles P rototype Vehicles Lean Burn DFI THC (g/test) GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 C urrent GV01 Vehicles GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 PGV05 rototype GV61 Vehicles Lean Burn DFI NOx (g/test) GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 C urrent Vehicles P rototype Vehicles Lean Burn DFI Fig. 3 Emissions Levels of Test Vehicles with Market Average Fuel (11 Mode)

14 Emission characteristics 11-mode CO(g/test) THC(g/test) All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio. Current Vehicles Prototype 0 All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio. Current Vehicles Prototype NOx(g/test) Explanation of Charts: Maximum value on Y axis : '78 Regulation Interpretation of bars Data variation Average Number of test vehicles Current vehicles : 7 Lean Burn 4 DFI 2 Prototype vehicles: All Stoichio. Lean Burn DFI Stoichio. Current Vehicles Prototype

15 Effect of Aromatics on 11-mode THC THC (g/test) Aromatics 22% Aromatics 30% Aromatics 37% GV04 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 Curren Prototype Lean burn DFI NA THC Change 11 mode () GV51 GV08 GV02 GV03 GV01 GV Aromatics (vol%) THC Chang mode (Prototype) GV60 GV05 GV Aromatics (vol%) 11 mode () 10 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV mode (Prototype) THC Chan Aromatics (vol%) THC Cha GV60 GV05 GV Aromatics (vol%)

16 Effects of Aromatics on Emissions (10 15 mode THC) 0.25 THC (g/km) Aromatics 22% Aromatics 30% Aromatics 37% GV04 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 NA THC Change in g/km Current m o d e ( L e a n b u r n ) G V 5 2 G V A r o m a t i c s ( v o l % ) Lean burn THC Change in g/km DFI Prototype m o d e (D F I) G V 0 7 G V A r o m a t i c s ( v o l % ) m o d e ( L e a n b u r n ) m o d e ( D F I ) G V 5 2 G V G V 0 7 G V 5 3 THC Change in % THC Change in %) アロマ濃度 ( v o l % ) A r o m a t i c s ( v o l % )

17 Effects of Sulfur on Emissions (10 15mode THC) 0.25 THC(g/km) Sulfur 22ppm Sulfur 96ppm NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 Current Vehicles Prototype Vehicles S toichiom etric Lean DFI M ode( S to ic h io m e tric ) M ode( L e a n ) THC Amount change(g/km) G V 0 1 G V 5 4 THC Amount change(g/km) G V 5 2 G V ppm 96ppm ppm 96ppm M ode( S to ic h io m e tric ) M ode( L e a n ) 60% 60% 40% 40% THC Percent change 20% 0% -20% -40% G V 0 1 G V 5 4 THC Percent change 20% 0% -20% -40% G V 5 2 G V % -60% -80% 22ppm 96ppm -80% 22ppm 96ppm

18 Effects of Sulfur on Emissions (11mode THC) THC(g/test) Sulfur 22ppm Sulfur 96ppm NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 Current Vehicles Prototype Vehicles Lean DFI 1 1 M o d e ( L e a n ) 1 1 M o d e ( D F I ) THC Amount change(g/test) G V 5 2 G V 0 6 THC Amount change(g/test) G V 0 7 G V p p m 9 6 p p m p p m 9 6 p p m 1 1 M o d e ( L e a n ) 1 1 M o d e ( D F I ) 1 0 % 1 0 % 0 % 0 % THC Percent change % % % G V 5 2 G V 0 6 THC Percent change % % % G V 0 7 G V % 2 2 p p m 9 6 p p m % 2 2 p p m 9 6 p p m

19 Effects of Sulfur on Emissions (10 15mode Nox) 0.25 NOx(g/km) Sulfur 22ppm Sulfur 96ppm NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GV04 GV55 GV50 GV51 GV03 GV08 GV01 GV02 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 GV70 Current Vehicles Prototype Vehicles Lean DFI M o d e ( L e a n ) M o d e ( D F I ) NOx Amount change(g/km) G V 5 2 G V 0 6 NOx Amount change(g/km) G V 0 7 G V p p m 9 6 p p m p p m 9 6 p p m % M o d e ( L e a n ) % M o d e ( D F I ) % % NOx Percent change % % 5 0 % G V 5 2 G V 0 6 NOx Percent change % % 5 0 % G V 0 7 G V % 0 % % 2 2 p p m 9 6 p p m % 2 2 p p m 9 6 p p m

20 Effects of Sulfur on Direct-Injection and Lean Burn Engines (10 15 Mode NOx) NOx (g/km) Mode Mode(Lean Burning) Ave GV52 GV06 96ppm(Corrected) 22ppm NOx (g/km) Mode Mode(Direct Injection) Ave. GV07 GV53 96ppm(Corrected) 22ppm Change Rate(%) NOx Change Rate 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% 10 15Mode Mode(Lean Burning) Ave. GV52 GV06 96ppm(Corrected) 22ppm Change Rate(%) NOx Change Rate 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% 10 15Mode Mode(Direct Injection) Ave. GV07 GV53 96ppm(Corrected) 22ppm

21 NOx (g/km) Gasoline Tail-pipe EM (Influence of Aroma. and Sulfur) Aroma 10-15mode Aroma 22% Aroma 30% Aroma 37% 0.00 GV04 GV01 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 Current Vehicle λ =1 Lean DI 2000MY λ =1 NOx (g/km) Sulfur GV04 GV01 GV54 GV52 GV06 GV07 GV53 GV60 GV05 GV61 Current Vehicle 2000MY λ=1 Lean DI λ= mode Sulfur22ppm Sulfur96ppm

22 Gasoline Emission test Results - Within the current vehicles, Direct injection Engine emits more HC in cold and NOx in hot Lean-burn Engine emits more HC in cold than that of Milti-points Injection engine - Reduction of aromatic and Sulfur content in Gasoline are generally effective to reduce exhaust emissions. Reduction Hot-Start Mode(10-15mode) CO THC NOx Aroma. Cold-start mode (11mode) CO THC NOx Reduction Hot-Start Mode(10-15mode) CO THC NOx Sulfur Cold-start mode (11mode) CO THC NOx

23 Evaporative Emission (STEP I) Fuel Property Test Mode Emission Result Current Vehicle Prototype Vehicle Results of Existing Data Analysis RVP HSL No Tendency No Tendency Canister weight Decrease Decrease 75 55KPa DBL Decrease No Tendency Canister weight Decrease Decrease RNL Decrease Depends on vehicles Decrease

24 Starting time sec Emissions of Motor cycles

25 Gasoline Tail-pipe Emission (STEP I) : Increase : Decrease ~ : Depends Fuel Property Aromatic Contents vol.% Sulfur Contents ppm RVP 75 55KPa Benzene Contents vol..% Test Mode 11:cold 10-15:hot 11:cold 10-15:hot 11:cold 10-15:hot 11:cold 10-15:hot Emission Results / Existing Data CO HC NOx ~ ~ ~

26 Conclusion Sulfur Sulfur effect Influence is bigger for Lean burn and Influence Direct Injection is bigger for engine Lean than burn conventional and Direct Injection engine. engine For For the the cold cold mode(11mode) sulfur sulfur influences for influences light off. the catalyst light off. 2) 2) Proto-type Proto-type vehicle vehicle show very show low very emission low but emission ration of but influence ratio of is influence simular with is similar the current with the vehicles. current vehicles.

27 Conclusion 2 3) Unregulated Emissions Most of the emissions decrease with the reduction of THC. Measures to reduce THC is effective for the unregulated emissions. 4) Most of the data is consistent to the other auto/oil program even with the newest technologies such as lean burn, direct injection and NOx storage catalyst.

28 Future (STEP ll Program) Data of the Step1 is provided for the air quality calculation. Sulfur effect Sulfur level is very important for the lean burn Influence engine which is bigger supposed for Lean to burn be and the Direct technology Injection to cut CO2 engine emission. For the cold mode(11mode) sulfur influences For the next step, both CO2 and Emission for light off. consideration is necessary. 2) Decide Proto-type the sulfur vehicle level show for the very future low emission but ration of influence is simular with the current vehicles.

29 Future (STEP ll Program) 1. Advanced Sulfur effect technologies such as Direct injection engine aim to cut half of the current regulation Influence is emission bigger for Lean vehicles burn are and provided Direct for Injection the step engine ll test. For the cold mode(11mode) sulfur influences Tests for light are off. focused on sulfur influence with the mileage accumulation test. 2) Proto-type vehicle show very low emission but ration of influence is simular with the current vehicles.

30 Japan Clean Air Program (JCAP) Fin