evaluation of the european pmp methodologies during on ... · pdf fileevaluation of the...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of the European PMP Methodologies during On-Road Testing
Heejung Jung, Kent C. Johnson, Thomas D. Durbin, Ajay Chaudhary, and David R. Cocker IIICollege of Engineering-Center for Environmental Research and Technology
(CE-CERT), University of California, Riverside
Jorn D. Herner, William H. Robertson,Tao Huai and Alberto AyalaCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB)
David KittelsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota
Overview Diesel particle size distribution Background Objectives Experimental setup Results Conclusion
www.cert.ucr.edu
Typical diesel particle size distributionsNumber, surface area, and mass weightings are shown.
Courtesy of David Kittelson
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Diameter (nm)
No
rmal
ized
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
1/C
tota
l)dC
/dlo
gD
p
Number Surface Mass
Fine ParticlesDp < 2.5 m
Ultrafine ParticlesDp < 100 nm
NanoparticlesDp < 50 nm
Nuclei Mode - Usually forms from volatile precursors as exhaust dilutes and cools
Accumulation Mode - Usually consists of carbonaceous agglomerates and adsorbed material
Coarse Mode - Usually consists of reentrained particles, crankcase fumes
PM10Dp < 10 m
In some cases this mode may consist of very small particles below the range of conventional instruments, Dp < 10 nm
PM2.5
Background
Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) is essential to meet current diesel PM (Particulate Matter)regulation.
Current gravimetric method will have increasing difficulty quantifying PM mass emissions.
Background Particle Measurement Programme (PMP) is
an extensive multi-nation research initiativeunder the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Driving forces for PMP arehealth effects and measurement.
Sensitivity and transient response.
Objectives
Critical evaluation of the proposed European PMP method for determining particle emissions from heavy-duty diesels and its potential in California for PM measurement and in-use screening.
Particle mass vs particle number.
CE-CERTs Mobile Emisssion Lab (MEL)
Diluted Exhaust: Temperature, Absolute Pressure, Throat P, Flow.
Gas Sample Probe.
Secondary Dilution System* PM (size, Mass).
Drivers Aid.
CVS Turbine: 1000-4000 SCFM, Variable Dilution.
Gas Measurements: CO2 %, O2 %, CO ppm, NOx ppm, THC ppm, CH4 ppm. Other Sensor: Dew Point, Ambient Temperature, Control room temperature, Ambient Baro, Trailer Speed (rpm), CVS Inlet Temperature.
Engine Broadcast: Intake Temperature, Coolant Temperature, Boost Pressure, Baro Pressure, Vehicle Speed (mph), Engine Speed (rpm), Throttle Position, Load (% of rated).
Dilution Air: Temperature, Absolute Pressure, Throat P, Baro (Ambient), Flow, Dew Point (Ambient).
Secondary Probe.
GPS: Pat, Long, Elevation, # Satellite Precision.
Exhaust: Temperature, P (Exhaust-Ambient), Flow.
www.cert.ucr.edu
Gravimetric vs PMP measurements
CVSBlower
2.5 um size cut
Secondary dilution
Pump
Filter sampling system
2.5 um size cut
Primary dilutionat PMP (150C)
Secondary dilutionat PMP
Evaporation tube(300C)
Condensation particle counter(cut-off at 20nm)
Vehicleexhaust
Courtesy of W. Robertson for MD-19 diagram
www.cert.ucr.edu
MEL CVS MEL secondary diluter Filter sampling train (gravimetric)
PMP diluter TSI 3790 CPC (20nm)TSI 3760 CPC (11nm)TSI 3025 CPC (3nm)
MEL PMP TSI 3760 CPC (11nm) TSI 3025 CPC (3nm)
TSI 3022 CPC (7nm)TSI DusTrakTSI-EEPS (5.6nm)Dekati Mass Monitorf-SMPS (10nm)
Primarydilution
Secondarydilution
Sampling & Measurement
MEL CVS MEL secondary diluter Filter sampling train (gravimetric)
PMP diluter TSI 3790 CPC (20nm)TSI 3760 CPC (11nm)TSI 3025 CPC (3nm)
MEL PMP TSI 3760 CPC (11nm) TSI 3025 CPC (3nm)
TSI 3022 CPC (7nm)TSI DusTrakTSI-EEPS (5.6nm)Dekati Mass Monitorf-SMPS (10nm)
Primarydilution
Secondarydilution
Sampling & Measurement
Flow diagram of PM measurement system off the CVS tunnel
PMP system
mass
Experimental condition
Chassis: Freightliner
Engine: 2000 EPA Certif CAT C15 475 Hp
Certification NOx: 3.7 g/bhp-hr (US EPA)
Certification PM: 0.08 g/bhp-hr (US EPA)
PM Control: JM CRT retrofit
NOx Control: No Catalyst
Old 86 (1 mile)
62nd St. (2.8 miles) A-B
Polk St.Tyler St.
60th St. (0.95 miles)60th St. (1.9 miles)
Farm Roads
AB
C D E
Fillmore St. (1 mile)
Old State St. ?
F
A1
62nd St. (3.4 miles) A1-B
F
111
On Road Indio to Blyth
On Road Transient Cycles
Riverside (CE-CERT)
On Road Cruise Cycle (I10)
Location
PM mass results on mg/bhp-hr
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
OnRoadHills
OnRoadFlat
ETCURBAN
AB
ETCURBAN
BA
ETCCRUISE
West
ETCCRUISE
East
ARBCREEP
CD
ARBCREEP
ED
UDDSABCD
UDDSEDCB
PM
(m
g/b
hp
-hr)
Gravimetric
TSI Dustrak
Dekati DMM
2007 Emission Standard 10 mg/bhp-hrfor an FTP Engine Dyno Test
2007 In-Use Emission NTE 30 mg/bhp-hr
PM mass results on filter weight basis
-0.020
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
OnRoadHills
OnRoadFlat
ETCURBAN AB
ETCURBAN BA
ETCCRUISE
West
ETCCRUISE
East
ARBCREEP CD
ARBCREEP ED
UDDSABCD
UDDSEDCB
Fil
ter
Wei
gh
t (m
g)
220 ug
PMP testing 3 Sigma * Ref Filter Stdev (2.5 * 3 = 7.5ug)
Current improved operationRef Filter Stdev = (1.5 * 3 = 4.5 ug)
Time
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Par
ticl
e S
ize,
Dp
(n
m)
89
20
30
40
50
60
70
8090
10
100
1e+4 1e+5 1e+6 1e+7
Particle size distribution
Fast-SMPS data
Urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS)
Particle number rate (#/mile) on driving cycles
1.E+08
1.E+09
1.E+10
1.E+11
1.E+12
1.E+13
1.E+14
1.E+15
1.E+16
OnRoad Hills OnRoad Flat ETC URBAN ETC CRUISE ARB CREEP UDDS
Par
ticle
s C
ount
(#/
mi)
MD 3790 MD 3025 MD 3760 MEL 3025 MEL 3760 CVS 3022
EURO # Standard 8E11 #/mi (light duty)
20nm (PMP)
3nm 11nm 7nm3nm 11nmCut-off diameter
Coefficient of variation for all CPCs and PM mass on driving cycles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ETC URBAN ETC CRUISE ARB CREEP UDDS
CO
V P
erce
nt (
%)
MD_3790 MD_3025 MD_3760 MEL_3025 MEL_3760 CVS_3022 NOx PM
CPC data COV Based On #/mi
Cut-off diameter
20nm 3nm 3nm 11nm11nm 7nm(PMP) mass
Conclusion Gravimetric PM filter mass measurements were near detection limits
for most of driving cycle, which makes it desirable to explore new PM measurement protocol.
The CPC particle number count levels follow a trend that is consistent with the size cuts of the respective instruments. The 3022 CPC, which was connected to the primary tunnel as opposed to below the PMP system, also showed higher counts than the other CPCs below the PMP system when volatile nucleation particles formed.
The particle number measurements using PMP method showed a lower coefficient of variation than the PM filter mass measurements. One potential advantage of particle number measurements is better repeatability at low mass levels.
www.cert.ucr.edu
Acknowledgements
The funding for this research is from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under contract No. 05-320.
Dr. Marcus Kasper of Matter Engineering Inc. Mr. Jon Andersson of Ricardo Dr. Andreas Mayer of Technik Thermischer Maschinen (TTM). for their assistance in developing the test plan procedures, in
carrying out the experiments, and in analysis of the data. Mr. Donald Pacocha, for his contribution in setting up and
executing this field project, the data collection and quality control.
Joint Research Center (JRC) of the European Commission
Thank you!
Questions?
Backup slides
Driving cycle (UDDS)
UDDS (Schedule D)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Time - seconds
Veh
icle
Sp
eed
- m
ph
ETC (European Transient Cycle)
ARB Creep cycle
HHDDT Creep mode cycle
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101
111
121
131
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
211
221
231
241
251
Time - seconds
Spe
ed -
mph
Courtesy of W. Robertson at CARB
Particle health effects
PM mass will continue to be an important metric.
Ultrafine P