Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« FuelCell Energy Receives $2.5 Million Contract to Advance Shipboard Fuel Cell Power Plant | Main | Azure Dynamics Formalizes Contract with StarTrans for First Commercially-Produced Hybrid Shuttle Bus »

Print this post

Ricardo Developing SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2 Advanced Diesel

17 August 2006

Ricardoaction1
Ricardo’s separate, internal ACTION development is targeting low-emission diesels. Click to enlarge. Source: Ricardo (DEER 2005)

Ricardo announced today that the company is working in collaboration with a global manufacturer to develop and to demonstrate an advanced diesel technology capable of achieving US Super Ultra-Low Emission (SULEV) and Tier 2 Bin 2 requirements.

Started in late 2005, early project focus has been on developing technologies to deliver engine-out exhaust emissions (without NOx aftertreatment) that achieve stringent Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements (0.07 g/mi NOx), delivering NOx levels approximately one-sixth those currently proposed for Euro 5. These technologies include advanced air handling systems, two-stage boosting, advanced exhaust gas recirculation and application of closed-loop cylinder pressure-based engine controls.

Tier 2 Bin 5 is the “50-state diesel” standard—matching California requirements—for light duty vehicles.

In parallel, work is being carried out to develop an advanced exhaust aftertreatment system. Combining advanced aftertreatment with engine optimization will allow demonstration of a system capable of meeting the requirements of US SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2 (0.02 g/mi NOx), thereby achieving NOx levels less than one-tenth of currently proposed Euro 5 levels.

Tier 2 Emission Standards, Bins 5 and Below, g/mi
Bin#50,000 miles (Intermediate life)120,000 miles (Full life)
NMOGCONOxPMHCHONMOGCONOx*PMHCHO
* Average manufacturer fleet NOx standard is 0.07 g/mi
5 0.075 3.4 0.05 - 0.015 0.090 4.2 0.07 0.01 0.018
4 - - - - - 0.070 2.1 0.04 0.01 0.011
3 - - - - - 0.055 2.1 0.03 0.01 0.011
2 - - - - - 0.010 2.1 0.02 0.01 0.004
1 - - - - - 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000

Throughout the project, a major emphasis has been placed on achieving low emissions under transient conditions to maintain or improve the “fun to drive” responsiveness of the engine without deteriorating emissions performance. The engine is being developed with a competitive power rating of 65kW/liter to meet US emissions regulations for both sea level and altitude compliance.

These advanced diesel technologies will be integrated into a vehicle capable of meeting the lowest current worldwide exhaust emissions standard (SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2) without compromising customer appeal, while maintaining significant fuel efficiency (therefore CO2) advantage over current US equivalent gasoline products.

By applying a systems engineering approach, combining engine-out optimization with advanced aftertreatment, Ricardo and its partner expect to deliver a highly cost-effective.

Ricardoaction2
Ricardo’s ACTION Level 3 engine corresponds to the engine-out emissions target for the current engine under development. Click to enlarge. Source: Ricardo (DEER 2005)

Ricardo has been working on its own internal ACTION (Advanced Combustion Technology to Improve engine-Out NOx) for several years already. A Tier 2 Bin engine-out NOx level as described in the project above maps to Ricardo’s internal ACTION Level 3 engine applied in a <3,500-pound passenger car.

Through the ACTION work, Ricardo has determined that highly pre-mixed cool combustion offers a practical approach to significant engine-out NOx reduction.

Ricardo is a global deep-content engineering and management consulting partner for automotive, commercial vehicle and related industry sectors. The company provides complete engineering services from strategy through product concept, design release and validation, and all phases of the product lifecycle. Ricardo technical expertise lies in powertrain and driveline, vehicle engineering, hybrid and fuel cell technologies, controls and electronics, niche volume manufacturing and advanced simulation software.

Ricardo and GM have been developing an advanced diesel engine control (ADEC) system designed to enable consistent achievement of very low emissions levels through closed loop control of the combustion process. An EGR Cooler with bypass is part of that development, which the partners will demonstrate on a 1.9-liter engine. (Earlier post.)

Ricardo recently worked with JCB on the DIESELMAX breaking the 200mph barrier in UK testing in preparation for a run on the Bonneville Salt Flats. JCB designed the 750hp engines of the DIESELMAX in partnership with Ricardo during the course of the past 18 months.

Ricardo also recently announced a partnership with Bosch on developing an advanced turbo-charged, direct injection gasoline engine system. The prototype system, DI BOOST, will offer superior performance and fuel economy while also being capable of achieving super ultra low emission vehicle (SULEV) standards. (Earlier post.)

Resources:

August 17, 2006 in Diesel, Emissions, Engines | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834e22f9e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ricardo Developing SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2 Advanced Diesel:

Comments

A lot of words, little detail ... but this may also be valuable for modern gasoline direct injection engines in lean-burn mode, where they have the same NOx issues as diesel does.

Invaluable press with no mention of costs.
(SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2) without compromising customer appeal- sounds like a GM partnership, e.g. we really can restore our manhood buying a Hummer

Hmm. Aren't Ricardo also doing diesel-hybrid work? I'd love to see a SULEV biodiesel plugin hybrid!

Yes, Ricardo worked with QinetiQ and PSA Peugeot Citroën on the Efficient-C project in the UK (a parallel hybrid-electric diesel demonstrator), along with other ongoing hybrid work...

There is still plenty room for reducing engine emissions and specific fuel consumption (sfc) of the reciprocating internal combustion engines. Randolph Diesel invented Diesel engine to remove the cause of pre-ignition of Otto cycle gasoline engine such that compression ratio can be greatly increased for much higher fuel efficiency. For reducinh engine-out emission,I have created new overexpanded two-stroke cycle engines with the same piston-cylinder assembly of four-stroke engines without ports on cylinder wall. It is a two-stroke Miller cycle engine without the need of a supercharge and an inter cooler. An overexpanded two-stroke engine without the shortcomings of the traditional two-stroke engines could double the power output to achieve low emissions and sfc. Anyone interested in the overexpanded two-stroke engine can contact me. My email address is paopien@hotmail.com.

This could prove to be very significant for light-duty diesel engines in the U.S. if true. A diesel engine that meets SULEV emission levels should be eligible for PZEV credit in California since diesels inherently have virtually zero evaporative emissions.

This could prove to be very significant for light-duty diesel engines in the U.S. if true. A diesel engine that meets SULEV emission levels should be eligible for PZEV credit in California since diesels inherently have virtually zero evaporative emissions.

This could prove to be very significant for light-duty diesel engines in the U.S. if true. A diesel engine that meets SULEV emission levels should be eligible for PZEV credit in California since diesels inherently have virtually zero evaporative emissions.

King Pao Chicken, the diesel engine was not created to avoid auto-ignition, it was designed to utilize auto-ignition. In order to assure auto-ignition, you run a much higher compression ratio. Also, there is no need to peddle your snake oil products on here, thanks.

King Pao Chicken

Uh, that's pretty racist. Is that necessary, Sid?

Ditto

also note Pao Chi mentioned pre-ignition not auto-ignition and there is at least a contextual big difference between the two

Yeah, that was uncalled for. An apology would look good.

This is great, But I think Ford already made a PZEV diesel back in january 2005.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/01/more_details_on.html

The needed engine cycle is the multifuel capable HCCI in my view. Because it is a synthetic fuel, HCCI can likely burn syncrude directly and cleanly and be capable of being equipped with self-cleaning particulate filter and catalytic converter. We will come to rely on syncrude and mixed alcohols in the U.S. as manufactured from gasification processes, even if the carbon source is the biomass fraction of household trash. Thus, we are going in the wrong direction with R&D trying to doctor up the diesel compression ignition cycle. Compression ignition yes, but do it HCCI and really achieve something. Like so much R&D these days, this announced work is not innovative enough; it’s same-old same-old.

The needed engine cycle is the multifuel capable HCCI in my view. Because it is a synthetic fuel, HCCI can likely burn syncrude directly and cleanly and be capable of being equipped with self-cleaning particulate filter and catalytic converter. We will come to rely on syncrude and mixed alcohols in the U.S. as manufactured from gasification processes, even if the carbon source is the biomass fraction of household trash. Thus, we are going in the wrong direction with R&D trying to doctor up the diesel compression ignition cycle. Compression ignition yes, but do it HCCI and really achieve something. Like so much R&D these days, this announced work is not innovative enough; it’s same-old same-old.

Sid,

To minimize engine emissions and maximize fuel efficiency, a low-temperature combustion process without EGR is required. High fuel efficiency requires high thermal and mechanical efficiencies. High thermal efficiency without high combustion temperature requires an expansion ratio much greater than the compression ratio. High mechanical efficiency requires high power density such that mechanical losses per unit power output is reduced. For meeting all of there requirements, an overexpanded two-stoke engine has been created. Existing four-stroke engine has absolutely no possibility to meet all these requirements because expansion ratio is equal to or less than the compression ratio instead of much greater.

What is to keep one from increasing the compression to 25-30 or 50:1 for diesel? Compression ignition is the name of the game right, apart of course from the edicts of the EPA. But if you can totally burn the fuel, that is the main requirement, right? Any feed back would be appreciated-Don Cochran, cochrandonald@hotmail.com

Don, the recent trend in diesel engines is towards *lower* compression ratios. It may seem counter-intuitive, but very high compression ratios result in high thermal losses in the combustion chamber and add greatly to the stresses imposed on the engine block, etc. It seems like there is an "optimum" compression ratio somewhere in the 14:1 - 16:1 range if you want best efficiency in the real world. Higher than this results in diminishing returns from the theoretical-cycle-efficiency point of view, but exponentially higher heat losses and stresses on the engine's mechanical components.

Lowering the compression ratio from the historical diesel "standard" in the 20:1 range does the following:

- Increases ignition delay, which facilitates not-quite-HCCI operation. (True HCCI operation gives extremely high noise level and stress on the engine to be useful anywhere outside the laboratory, but plenty of the newer diesels are taking advantage of the concept, albeit not taking it to the extreme.)
- Reduces peak cylinder pressure. This facilitates increasing turbo boost pressure to keep peak cylinder pressure the same. *That* allows better power output from the engine to satisfy consumer demands, and allows more dilution of the charge at part-load for emission reasons (reduces peak combustion temperature).
- Tends to give smoother operation on engines with not too many cylinders. On a 4-banger, the variation in crankshaft speed through each revolution at idle is significant.

It's worth noting that modern diesel engines don't really operate on the official "diesel" cycle (constant pressure combustion over a certain duration of crank rotation), just as gasoline engines have never really operated on the official "Otto" cycle (constant volume, i.e. instantaneous, combustion). For the same compression ratio, the theoretical Otto cycle is more efficient. The faster you can burn the fuel closer to top-dead-center on the power stroke, the more efficient it will be ... the tough part is making the engine not blow itself to smithereens when you do that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2014 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group