1
4th JCAP Conference
Further Challenge in Automobile and Fuel Technologies
For Better Air Quality
Gasoline WG Report
-Focusing on Sulfur and Octane Number -
June 1, 2005
2
ContentsI OutlineII Outline of Research PlanIII Fuel Matrix TestsIV Long Driving TestsV Octane Number Study 1VI Octane Number Study 2VII Future Plans
3
I Outline
4
Purpose of JCAP IITo comprehend the fuel technology potential for
making a cleaner environment necessary for automobile technology to aim at zero emissions and fuel economy improvement
Based on the trend of regulations in Japan and results from the JCAP I study on the influence on air quality, we defined ‘zero emissions from gasoline vehicles’ as ‘the exhaust emissions equivalent to J-ULEV(*)’ before starting our research.
(*) J-ULEV stands for Japan Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. This vehicle must reduce emissions by 75% from the 2000 regulations applicable to domestic gasoline passenger cars.
5
Targeted Outcome• In circumstances that both low emissions and fuel economy
improvement (reduction of CO2) are socially expected, we should study what is to be improved in fuel technology area to support the progress of automobile technology based on sound science.
• In particular, we should aim at providing discussions for low emissions, automobile fuel economy improvement and comprehensive CO2 suppression with usable technical data from a fair point of view by focusing on the evaluation of following items: 1) Influence of sulfur content on exhaust gases and fuel economy in driving test2) T50 and T90 in fuel matrix tests and influence of aromatic content on exhaust gases3) Influence of octane number (RON) on CO2 and fuel economy to be determined through engine bench tests and simulation of actual vehicle fuel economy
6Outline of Test Plan at Gasoline WGNo.
1
2
2amended
3
4
A study of fuel property influence on exhaust emissions using the most advanced gasoline vehicle
Evaluation of emission reduction potential using themost advanced gasoline vehicle combined with ideal fuel
Combustion analysis based on fuel matrix test results, etc.
Evaluation of effect of deposits from DI gasoline engine, fuel properties and additives on exhaust emissions
A study for optimum octane number aiming at CO2reduction
Theme
7
II Outline of Research Plan-Focusing on Theme No.1 and No.4
8
Items Test fuel and test vehicleSchedule
◆ThemeInfluence of fuel properties on emissions using the most advancedgasoline vehicles◆Expected Output・To comprehend emission level of the most advanced vehicles・To comprehend the fuel properties affecting exhaust emissions
and the degree of influence ⇒Fuel matrix tests・To comprehend the influence of fuel sulfur on fuel economyand emissions ⇒Driving test
2002 2003 2004 20052006
Emission Level
Influence of Fuel
Long DrivingTests
Test fuel:Aromatic, T50 & T90/three levels each and standard fuel
Test vehicles:MPI: 3 typesSIDI: 3 types (including lean-burn)
☆Interim Report
Test fuel:3 levels of sulfurTest vehicles:2 types of SIDI (including lean-burn)
Gasoline WG Research Plan (Theme No.1)
To be studied through fuel matrix tests
(Fuel MatrixTests)
9
Items Test fuel/Test engineSchedule
◆ThemeTo comprehend optimum octane number for reducing CO2
◆Expected Output To clarify the optimum octane number from the comprehensiveview point of CO2 emissions ranging from refineries to vehicle engines
2002 2003 2004 20052006
☆Interim Report
Test fuel・Octane Number(RON) 90,93,97,100Test engine・Engines in the market (3 types) ・Compression Ratio (3 levels)
Engine Tests
Collect, summarize and investigate existing Data
Fuel Economy Performance
on engine bench
Fuel Economy Performance on vehicles(Fuel economy simulation)
Gasoline WG Research Plan (Theme No.4)
10
III Fuel Matrix Tests
11Summary of Activities (Fuel Matrix Tests)Phase 1 (2002FY)・We conducted preliminary tests using J-ULEV and C/D emission
evaluation techniques.(We updated test procedures, established an evaluation scheme and
set the criteria for data adoption)Phase 2 (2003-2005FY)・We conducted fuel matrix tests using six J‐ULEVs focusing on T50,
T90 and aromatic contents. ・ In these tests, deteriorated catalysts obtained from high mileage
vehicles were used to increase the sensitivity. ・ The significant differences at 75% and 95% confidence limits were
studied using various statistical techniques to summarize the results. ・We have obtained some knowledge about aromatic substances and
CO2 (fuel economy). We will further conduct data analysis and quantitative examinations in FY 2005.
12
Fuel Matrix Tests
Test Vehicle SpecificationsTest Fuel Properties
T90
T50
Aromatics85℃
95℃105℃
125℃
145℃
160℃
39%
47%
31%
J2GVA J2GVB J2GVC J2GVD J2GVE J2GVF
0.66 1.8 2.0 1.8 3.0 2.5
CC
UB -
Engine System
Catalyst
MPIStoichio
SIDILean Burn
TWC TWC
NSRTWC
Vehicle
Emission
Displacement (L)
J-ULEV
13
IV Long Driving Tests
14
Summary of Activity (Long Driving Tests)
Phase 1 (2003 FY)・We conducted evaluation tests for advanced technology (at an
outside lab) and found that the fuel economy in the 10-15 mode test improved by approximately 5% by reducing the sulfur contentfrom 50PPM to 10PPM. (This information was forwarded to the CO2 Investigation WG as a result obtained in 2003.)
Phase 2 (2004 FY)・We conducted driving tests to study the influence of sulfur using
an OEM passenger vehicle powered by a direct injection gasoline engine, which is different from the evaluation test for advancedtechnology. It was found that the difference in fuel economy deterioration was 5.8% between 10PPM and 50PPM sulfur contents. In both cases, NOx emissions were adjusted to J-ULEV level in the CD34-Hot mode test.
15Investigation of Influence of fuel sulfur on DI gasoline engine system
PurposeTo investigate the influence of different frequencies of recovery control from sulfur poisoning (hereafter referred to as “S” recovery frequency) on fuel consumption while maintaining the emissions at the same level, using a direct injection gasoline engine system. Also, to investigate the influence of different sulfur contents in the fuel on exhaust emissions.Items investigated
1)To verify that the emissions (primarily NOx) will stay at J-ULEV level at 80,000km by conducting 40,000km durability test with the S recovery frequency
adjusted to the sulfur content in the fuel. 2) To calculate deterioration of fuel consumption at each S recovery frequency
derived in the tests mentioned above. 3) To investigate the influence on the exhaust emissions by adjusting the sulfur
content to 10ppm and 50ppm.Test vehicle
Direct injection gasoline engine of 1.8L (Prototype vehicle aiming at J-ULEV)
Test fuel2 levels of sulfur, 10ppm and 50ppm(Low sulfur oil was used)
Phase 2 (2004FY)
Durability test mode11 laps x 40,000km
Exhaust emission test modeCD34 mode
(Combined value:Coldx0.25+Hotx0.75)Fuel economy evaluation mode
CD34 mode(Hot)
16
Average fuel economy in the case where vehicle is driven continuously in each mode and regeneration controls are conducted every time the vehicle reaches each sulfur poisoning criterion
Fuel economy without regeneration control1-
Fuel Economy DeteriorationRate
※ Influence on FE in CD34 mode is for reference only, since it is not yet known if this mode is suitable for fuel economy evaluation.
Sulfur poisoning criteria A(10-15M)
Sulfur poisoning criteria B(CD34)
Influence on FE in 10-15M Influence on FE in CD34(Ref.: ※)
34
210
5
76
89
10
FED
R (%
)
S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
Δ6.1%(S=50→10ppm)
34
210
5
76
89
10S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
FED
R (%
)
Δ5.1%(S=50→10ppm)
34
210
5
76
89
10S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
FED
R (%
)
Δ2.9%(S=50→10ppm)
34
210
5
76
89
10S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
FED
R (%
)
Δ1.8%(S=50→10ppm)
Conditions: 10Conditions: 10--15 mode 15 mode && CD34 mode CD34 mode ×× S poisoning criteria A & BS poisoning criteria A & BSensitivity obtained: S=Sensitivity obtained: S=11<10<50ppm, CD34<10<10<50ppm, CD34<10--15M, Criterion A < B15M, Criterion A < B
Phase 1 (2003 FY)Test Results (with the influence on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions maintained at the same level)
=
FEDR: Fuel Economy Deterioration Rate
17
F.E.
Pen
alty
(%)
16.0
14.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
8.0
1.00 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Desulfation frequency (sec/km)
12.0
10.0
CD34-Hot mode
10ppmS
5.8%
50ppmS
F.E.
Pen
alty
(%)
16.0
14.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
8.0
1.00 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Desulfation frequency (sec/km)
12.0
10.0
CD34-Hot mode
10ppmS
5.8%
50ppmS
Regeneration control according to sulfur content and influence on fuel economy
Difference in FE deterioration rate between 10 and 50ppm sulfur levels was 5.8%. In each case, NOx emissions were adjusted to J-ULEV standard.
Phase 2 (2004FY)
18
V Octane Number Study 1
19
OutlineIn order to comprehend the influence of RON on CO2 balancing, the relationship between RON and fuel economy (CO2 from vehicles) was studied through simulations using three types of MPI engines with different compression ratios and fuels of RON 90, 93, 97 and 100.
It is an important future task to study anti knock properties from the grass roots. However, on this occasion we focused on the relationship between the compression ratio and RON and carried out tests from the view point of CO2 reduction.
Test fuels were prepared as follows:Series 1: Regular and premium gasoline blendedSeries 2: Fuel with constant aromatic content (±2%)
Tests were also conducted using E10 fuel which uses ethanol and ETBE-blended fuel in FY2004.
20
Summary of Activities ( Octane Number Study)
Phase 1 (2003FY)・We checked in advance if it is appropriate to use simulation
technique.・We conducted engine tests using Engines A and B and
commenced trial simulation.
Phase 2 (2004FY)・We reviewed test data from Engines A and B and evaluated
the results of simulation for fuel economy improvements.・We carried out engine tests using Engine C and conducted
simulation.・We tested the fuel containing oxygenate using Engine A and
conducted simulation as well.
21
Step 1Verify if vehicle CO2 simulation is suitable for evaluation using existing data and modify the simulation procedure so that the data will be reflected properly.
Theme Scheme - Role of Engine Tests/VehicleSimulation
Engine test data
Obtain test data from the test engines (2 engines in 2003) with varied CR (3 levels) and with the fuels having different RONs (4 levels). Based on this data, simulate FE (vehicle CO2 emissions).
Step 2
Step 3Verify total CO2 balance by combining vehicle CO2 emissions reduction attributed by higher CR with the increment of CO2 at refineries.(Work at CO2 Investigation WG)
22Fuels for Octane StudyFuels
RON (Target) 100 97 (95) 93 90 100 97 (95) 93 90
RON 99.5 97.0 (95.0) 93.3 90.0 99.5 97.4 (95.0) 93.5 90.4
MON 87.1 85.4 - 83.4 81.7 87.9 86.7 - 84.6 83.0
Density (g/cm3@15℃) 0.7524 0.7458 (0.7418)0.7367 0.7307 0.7385 0.7390 (0.7390)0.7391 0.7389
50 vol% (℃) 93.0 93.5 - 91.0 90.0 93.5 94.0 - 97.0 94.5
90 vol% (℃) 162.0 168.0 - 169.0 170.5 163.0 159.0 - 158.5 149.5
NCT (J/g) 42430 42640 (42757) 42890 43080 42720 42720 (42730) 42740 42770
H/C 1.702 1.765 (1.800) 1.844 1.892 1.812 1.828 (1.828) 1.828 1.846
Carbon (mass%) 87.5 87.1 (86.9) 86.6 86.3 86.8 86.7 (86.7) 86.7 86.5
Hydrogen (mass%) 12.5 12.9 (13.1) 13.4 13.7 13.2 13.3 (13.3) 13.3 13.4
Aromatics (mass%) 49.1 44.3 - 38.2 33.8 43.0 42.8 - 42.5 41.6
Series 1 (Blended market gasoline) Series 2 (Aromatics constant)
Octane
Numbers
Dist.
Properties at RON 95 are estimated figures for both fuels.
23
Test Engines for Octane StudyEngine A Engine B Engine C
(GEA) (GEB) (GEC) ・Engine type L4MPI L4MPI L3MPI・Displacement 1298cc 1998cc 659cc・CR(Mid value)(*) 10.5 9.8 10.5
(*) :Three levels of compression ratios are to be tested bymanufacturing and supplying pistons providing mid point ±1 CR.
> Using non-turbo MPI engine> Manual Transmission
24Impact on Fuel Economy and CO2
Fuel: market gasolineblended
Fuel economy km/L 14.55Fuel economy km/MJ 0.462CO2 g/km 158.7
15.160.478155.9
+ 4.15%+ 3.35%-1.76%
Engine B2000cc
Engine A1300cc
Fuel economy km/L 19.84Fuel economy km/MJ 0.630CO2 g/km 116.5
20.540.648115.0
Change rate of FEChange rate of CO2
+ 3.51%+ 2.80% -1.29%
RON 90 RON 95CR:0.07*5=0.35up
CR 9.8 10.15 -
CR 10.5 10.85 -
CR: Compression Ratio
25Fuel: Aromatics content isadjusted to a certain levelImpact on Fuel Economy and CO2
CR :0.07*5=0.35up
+ 5.42%+ 5.21% - 4.85%
Engine C650cc
Fuel economy km/LFuel economy km/MJ
CO2 g/km
Change rate of FEChange rate of CO2
+ 3.21%+ 3.33%- 2.85%
RON 90 RON 95
24.15 25.46
96.9 92.20-400m(*)acceleration
40-80Km/hacceleration
23.81 24.575
98.3 95.5
0.764 0.806
0.753 0.779
Engine C650cc
))*The results from 40-80 km/h acceleration test on Engine C which is for a mini car differ from the results from other engines.
The 0-400 acceleration test is considered too severe for this engine (i.e. it can not catch up to the speed) and is therefore considered not appropriate as a test condition from the point of view of this study, which aims at allocating the surplus of acceleration performance to CO2 reduction.
CR 10.5 10.85 -
CR 10.5 10.85 -
Fuel economy km/LFuel economy km/MJ
CO2 g/km
26
Technical Thoughts on Study Results Based on Past Knowledge and Survey of Engine
・In this simulation, the increment of comp. ratio per 1 RON is assumed to be 0.07/RON in the range of 90 to 97 RON based on the information from the engine design engineers of the companies that belong to JAMA.・It was found that the knowledge of fuel economy obtained from the assumptions of this study and the results of simulation are consistent and agree with the following:① Actual increase of comp. ratio corresponding to the increase of RON in the market (engine survey data by 6 companies in JAMA and data from 20 European companies) ② Past knowledge on fuel economy improvement (paper by Toyota)・ Fuel economy improvement is considered to be attributed by (a) effect of compression ratio increment due to increase in RON, (b) change in fuel properties (energy density and ratio of carbon to hydrogen) and (c) change of final gear ratios (i.e. effect of allocation of surplus acceleration performance to fuel economy and CO2). Further studies has been conducted based on these findings.
• Compression ratio and improvement in theoretical thermal efficiency(VG27)
• Actual data of RON- compression ratio in Japan and Europe (VG28)• Past knowledge of RON and fuel economy improvement (VG29)• Study on breakdown of fuel economy improvement (VG30-31)
27Assumption of Investigation
Influence of CR on fuel economy is assumed to be saturated (Nissan Tech. Report in 1982)
CR
Fuel
Eco
nom
y In
crea
se
Mechanical loss & thermal loss
Fuel economy increase in partial load
Fig. 1 Improvement in Fuel Consumption by increasing Compression Ratio
Engine: Nissan 4-cyl 1595 ccTest conditions:
Improvement in TTE (Specific heat of mixture:
(TTE) CR
TTE: Theoretical ThermalEfficiency
FE(10.8)/FE(9.8) = {1-(1/10.8)^0.3}/{1-(1/9.8)^0.3)}= 1.0292 (+2.92%)FE(10.155)/FE(9.8) = {1-(1/10.155)^0.3}/{1-(1/9.8)^0.3)}= 1. 0107 (+1.07%)
28
オクタン価と圧縮比(国内、EU調査)
9.8
10
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
89 91 93 95 97 99 101
オクタン価
圧縮比
圧縮比
0.075/RON
Domestic regular Avg.:9.94
European regular(95RON)Avg.: 10.37
Domestic premiumAvg.: 10.71
Data supplied by JAMA(European data is of 20 European automakers and was supplied by JAMA)
Octane Number and Compression Ratio (Survey in Japan and Europe)
Comp. ratio
Comp. ratio
Octane number (RON)
29Comparison with Past Studies
20.8%
9.6%3.9%
0.5%4.7%
12.6%
8.2%
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102
RON
10・1
5モード燃費
(km
/L)
ε=9.5ε=10.5ε=11.5
10-1
5 M
ode
Fuel
Con
sum
ptio
n, k
m/L
● ε=9.5▲ ε=10.5◆ ε=11.5
In the case that CR increases by 0.355 with RON95, improvement is calculated as 5.1 (%) x 0.355/0.5=3.6 (%), assuming that the relation between CR and FE is linear. This is equivalent to the result (3.5%) of this simulation.
In order to compare with the results of Engine A, FE improvement is calculatedassuming CR increases by 0.5 with RON 95 fuel. The base line is RON90 - CR 9.5.JSAE20025515
1298ccIn-Line 40-400 acc. time kept constant
5.1%
30
Method to Separate Influential Factors for FE Improvement (Draft)
Case of Engine B
FC
ε=10.8
ε=10.15
ε=9.8
FC(90/9.8)
FC(95/9.8)
FC(95/10.15)
FC(95/10.8)
1) Final gear ratio: constantFE improvement due to efficiency improvement attained by CR increase: η1η1=FC(95/10.15)/FC(95/9.8)
FE improvement due to efficiency improvement attained by fuel improvement:η2η2=FC(95/9.8)/FC(90/9.8)
Final gear ratio: constant
η1η2
90 95RON
FC
RON
ε=10.8
ε=10.15
ε=9.8
FC’(90/9.8)
FC’(95/9.8)
FC’(95/10.15)
FC’(95/10.8)
Final gear ratio: variable (Acc. time constant)
2) Final gear ratio: variable (Acc. time constant)FE improvement due to all factors: η3η3=FC’(95/10.15)/FC’(90/9.8)
FE improvement due to differential gear ratio: ηdiffηdiff=η3- (η1 + η2)
η3
90 95
31
Breaking Down of Fuel Economy Increase - the influence of compression ratio/ fuel/ final gear ratioon fuel economy increase in terms of Engines A and B
Conditions: Fuel/ RON from 90 through 95Compression ratio/ baseline +0.35 (0.07/1 RON)10.15 mode basis
Engine A Engine B Engine C40-80km/hr Accel.
Compression Ratio
Fuel Properties
Final Gear Ratio
In Total
+1.62%
+1.63%
+0.26%
+1.25%
+1.34%
+1.61%
Reference
+3.51% +4.15%
+1.59%
+0.47%
+1.15%
+3.21%
32Summary• We have found that the improvement (km/L) in fuel economy is in the range
of 3.21% to 4.15% in the case of regular/premium blend whose octane No. is increased from RON 90 to 95, including the effect of the change in fuel properties. The improvement on heat amount basis (km/MJ) is somewhere around 2.80% to 3.35%.(The CO2 Investigation WG has been informed of these figures )
• We have studied the breakdown of fuel economy improvement. This has led us to find some consistency with theoretical improvement as far as the influence of compression ratio is concerned (increase of compression ratio as a result of RON increase from 90 to 95 is approx. 1.1 %). Further study of quantitative evaluation will continue.
• We have found that the fuel properties have a large influence even if the fuel has the same octane number. We suppose that comprehensive evaluation of production methods, fuel properties and automobile performance (exhaust emissions, fuel economy and practicality) will be necessary in the future.
33
VI Octane Number Study 2*
*Oxygenated blended gasoline was tested using the technique of Octane Number Study 1
34Evaluation of influence of oxygenated-blended
gasoline on vehicle performance
y = 0.9985xR2 = 0.9999
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9HC_95 Calorific FE (MJ/20sec)
Oxy
Cal
orifi
c FE
(M
J/20
sec)
Oxy_95Linear (Oxy_95)
y = 1.033xR2 = 0.9999
y = 1.010xR2 = 0.9999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30HC_95 Volumetric FE(ml/20sec)
Oxy
Vol
umet
ric F
E(m
l/20s
ec)
EtOH 95ETBE 95Linear (EtOH 95)Linear(ETBE 95)
1) On the scale of volume-based FE, ethanol has an inclination of 1.033 and ETBE of 1.010 (both of them are obtained using oxygenated-blended fuel) against ordinary hydrocarbon-based fuel HC_95.2) As for the heat value-based FE, 20 data are plotted on the line of 0.9985 inclination as is shown in the right figure. This result suggests that use of heat value of the fuel can arrange the data from both oxygenated-blended fuel and hydrocarbon-based fuel HC_95 without contradiction so long as the blend of oxygenate stays in the range of 10%.
35
VII Future Plans
36
Outline of 2005 FY Plan・Evaluation of oxygenated-blended fuel (ETBE-blended gasoline)
– We are planning to acquire technical knowledge on ETBE which is currently attracting attention.
– 8% ETBE is equivalent to 1.3 wt% oxygenated blend. 17% ETBE is equivalent to 2.7 wt% oxygenated blend.
•Other themes– We are currently discussing how we should tackle
and deal with JCAPII’s theme for the latter half of the year through the investigation of technologies for new engines. (As for HCCI, we have a plan to continue to obtain basic knowledge through meetings and surveys together with the Diesel WG.)
37Plan to Study ETBE Influence (2005 FY)◆Theme of Study
Under the circumstance that demand for oxygenated-blended fuel is increasing, possibilities include the marketing of either ethanol or ETBE. We investigate the applicability of the fuel, ETBE in particular, with vehicles and we summarize the positioning and the effect of the oxygenated-blended fuels.
◆Expected outcomeOfficial test results are available for ethanol but not for ETBE. Therefore, we aim to grasp its influence on exhaust emissions through this study.
1
Influence on exhaust emissions (including unregulated substances)
RegularETBE 8%ETBE 17%
4 vehicles4 Motorcycles
2ETBE 8%ETBE 17%
Influence on exhaust and evaporative emissions (durability test)
Low temperature startability
4 Material tests Metal, plastic and rubber Bench test
2005 2006Items of evaluation test Test fuel
Test vehicle
ETBE8 %(*)
ETBE17%(**)
Summary
Startability and other tests
3 (2 expected)ETBE 8%ETBE 17%
2 vehicles
Schedule
Summary
Summary
SummarySummary
Summary
38
End of presentation
39
[Attachment]
Fuel Matrix Tests
40
Properties of Test Fuel for Fuel and VehicleMatrix Tests
T90 T50 AromaticsBaseRVP(kPa) 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Benzene(vol%) 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or lessSulfur (mass ppm) 10 or less 10 or less 10 or less 10 or less 10 or less 10 or less 10 or less
T50(degree C) 95 95 95 102 85 95 95
T90(degree C) 145 160 125 145 145 145 145AromaticsCompound
(vol%)39 39 39 39 39 47 31
Olefin (vol%) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20RON 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Washed gum(mg/100ml) 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less 1.0 or less
the date for delivery May in 2002Volume 14DM
June in 20024 DM for each test gasoline, 24DM
Test fuel properties in 2002-2003
Fuel properties are designed and adjusted by changing T50, T90 and aromatics content independently as much as possible, centering around the base fuel which has properties averaging those found in the Japanese market.
41
J2GVA
StoichiometricMPICC
TWC
N.A
Type
Type
Vehicle
Location
Location
Engine system
Emission
Catalyst 1
Catalyst 2
J2GVBJ-ULEV
UB
TWC
J-ULEV
StoichiometricMPI
TWC
CC
Test Vehicle for Fuel Matrix Test -1
J2GVCJ-ULEV
StoichiometricMPI
0.66 1.8 2.0
MPI vehicle
CC
TWC
UB
TWC
Displacement L
Three advanced MPI vehicles (prototype) in the level of J-ULEV and three SIDI vehicles (prototype) were used for these tests.
42
Test Vehicle for Fuel Matrix Test -2
J2GVD
CC
TWCType
Type
Vehicle
Location
Location
Engine system
Emission
Catalyst 1
Catalyst 2
J2GVEJ-ULEV
UB
TWC
J-ULEV
NSR
CC
J2GVFJ-ULEV
SIDILean/Burn
SIDILean/Burn
SIDILean/Burn
1.8 3.0 2.5
UB
SIDI vehicle
CC
TWC
UB
NSRNSR*
Displacement L
*NOx Storage & Reduction
43
Analysis of Matrix Test Results
Arrangement method for data from fuel matrix tests
Judge abnormal valuesCheck the following against the values :・C/D test equipment・Vehicle・Environment conditionsNormality Test/Cochran’s Test
All test data from exhaust emission tests on chassis
dynamo
Check changes over time in each block (BL). Check and compensate missing data
All test data sets for study of fuel influence
(two-dimensional data of Fuel x BL)
44
Data Analysis Method
Calculate average and confidence interval(two-dimensional data of Fuel x BL)Confidence limit:95%, 75%
Judge significant difference(confidence limit: 95 and 75%)→Judge tendency with confidence
limit 75%List up results (express by arrows)Visualize by graphs
All test data sets for study of fuel influence
(two-dimensional data of Fuel x BL)
Analyze influential factors of fuel properties(Not conducted in preliminary tests)
45Fuel Matrix Tests
Summarized Results of Data Analysis and Variance Analysis on J2GVC Vehicle (Example 1)
Examination of Data Set1) Compensation for change over time・Compensate change of CO emission in 10・15 mode over time with
exponential functions・ Compensate change of CO emission in CD34(H) mode over time with
exponential functions ・ Compensate change of THC emission in CD34(C) mode over time with
exponential functions2) Cochran’s Test・ One NOx data from 10・15 mode is eliminated because of abnormality.
Results of Variance AnalysisThe following are the data showing significant tendency at 95% confidence limit:
・ Aromatics and CO2 in 10・15 mode・ T90 and CO2 in CD34(H) mode・ Aromatics and CO2 in CD34(H) mode・ T90 and CO in CD34(C) mode・ Aromatics and CO in CD34(C) mode・ T90 and CO2 in CD34(C) mode・ Aromatics and CO2 in CD34(C) mode
46
Fuel Matrix TestsSummarized Results of Data Analysis and Variance
Analysis on J2GVD Vehicle (Example 2)
Examination of Data Set1) Compensation for change over time・ Compensate change of CO2 emission in CD34(H) mode over time with
logarithmic functions・ Compensate change of THC emission in CD34(C) mode over time with
logarithmic functions・Compensated change of CO2 emission in CD34(C) mode over time with
exponential functions2) Cochran’s Test・One THC data from 10・15 mode is eliminated because of abnormality. ・One CO data from CD34(H) mode is eliminated because of abnormality.Results of Variance Analysis
The following are the data showing significant tendency at 95% confidence limit:
・ T90 and CO2 in CD34(H) mode・ Aromaics and CO2 in CD34(H) mode・T90 and CO2 in CD34(C) mode・Aromatics and CO2 in CD34(C) mode
47
Results of Fuel Matrix Tests: Aromatic Compounds
10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34CJ2GVA ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVB ↓↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVC ↑↑ ↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVD ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVE ↑↑ ↓↓ ↑↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVF ↓ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑ ↓ ↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVA ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
J2GVB ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
J2GVC ↓ ↓ ↓↓
J2GVD ↓
J2GVE ↑ ↓ ↓↓
J2GVF ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↓
J2GVA ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVB ↓↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVC ↑↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↓ ↓↓
J2GVD ↓ ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVE ↑ ↓↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓↓
J2GVF ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑↑ ↓↓ ↓
CO THC NOx CO2
H→L
H→M
M→L
↑,↓:Significant difference at 75% confidence limit ↑↑,↓↓: Significant difference at 95% confidence limit
48
Results of Fuel Matrix Tests: T50
10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34CJ2GVA ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓↓ ↓
J2GVB ↓↓ ↓↓
J2GVC ↑ ↑
J2GVD ↑ ↑
J2GVE ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
J2GVF ↑ ↑ ↑
J2GVA ↓ ↓
J2GVB ↓↓
J2GVC ↓
J2GVDJ2GVE ↓ ↓ ↑
J2GVF ↑
J2GVA ↓ ↓ ↓
J2GVB ↓
J2GVC ↑
J2GVD ↓
J2GVE ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑
J2GVF
H→L
H→M
M→L
CO THC NOx CO2
↑,↓:Significant difference at 75% confidence limit ↑↑,↓↓: Significant difference at 95% confidence limit
49
Results of Fuel Matrix Tests: T90
10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34C 10・15 CD34H CD34CJ2GVA ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓↓ ↑↑ ↑ ↑
J2GVB ↓ ↑ ↓↓ ↑↑
J2GVC ↑↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑↑ ↑↑
J2GVDJ2GVE ↓↓ ↑
J2GVF ↑↑ ↑ ↓
J2GVA ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓↓ ↑ ↑
J2GVB ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑
J2GVC ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑↑
J2GVD ↑ ↑↑
J2GVE ↓ ↑
J2GVF ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
J2GVA ↓↓ ↑
J2GVB ↑
J2GVC ↑↑
J2GVD ↓↓ ↓
J2GVE ↓ ↓
J2GVF ↑
M→L
H→L
H→M
CO THC NOx CO2
↑,↓:Significant difference at 75% confidence limit ↑↑,↓↓: Significant difference at 95% confidence limit
50
[Attachment]
Driving Tests
51
Summary of the results1) It is possible to meet the J-ULEV regulations if regeneration is controlled according to the sulfur content. 2) In the case where regeneration is optimized for 10ppm sulfur although the test fuel actually contains 50ppm
sulfur, durability test results indicate that NOx emissions exceed J-ULEV target at 20,000 km.
-Data shown above are exhaust emissions in JAMA2 durability test (CD34 Cold & CD34 Hot Combined)-20,000km data are for reference purposes only.
NM
HC
(g/k
m)
0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
NMHC
0.05
Target
CO
(g/k
m)
0
0.40
1.20
1.60
0.80
CO
Target
NO
x (g
/km
)
0
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.02
NOx
Target
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0.03
0.04
0.05
NM
HC
(g/k
m)
0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
NMHCNMHC
0.05
Target
CO
(g/k
m)
0
0.40
1.20
1.60
0.80
COCO
Target
NO
x (g
/km
)
0
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.02
NOxNOx
Target
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0 20 40 60 80Aging Duration (kkm)
0.03
0.04
0.05
S10ppm, Control : S10ppmS50ppm, Control : S50ppmS50ppm, Control : S10ppm
Sulfur Content and Exhaust Emissions in Driving Tests
52
Test PlanTest PlanTest Plan[Purpose][Purpose]
[Plan][Plan]
To investigate the influence of sulfur content of fuel on exhaust emissions using direct injection gasoline engine system, and to investigate the influence of the frequency of regeneration control for sulfur poisoning on fuel consumption while maintaining exhaust emissions at the same level.
FY2002 to FY2004 :Investigation of influence on fuel consumption while maintaining exhaust emissions at the same level・ Optimize the frequency of regeneration control for sulfur poisoning according to the sulfur content of fuel (S=1,10 and 50ppm) and to verify that the emissions meet the target (equivalent level to J-ULEV) after durability test. ・Evaluate the influence of different frequencies of regeneration control for sulfur poisoning on fuel consumption while maintaining exhaust emissions at the same level in the Evaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab) and Joint Test Program.FY2003 to FY2004 : Investigate the influence on exhaust emissions while fuel consumption is maintained at the same level.・Conduct durability tests with high sulfur fuel (S=10 and 50ppm) but at a regeneration control frequency suitable for low sulfur (S=1ppm) to investigate the influence on exhaust emissions.
Influence on exhaust emissions(●)
Influence on fuel consumption
(○)
Evaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab)
Evaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab)
1ppm 10ppm 50ppmFor 1ppm
For 10ppm
For 50ppmReg
ener
atio
n co
ntro
l for
su
lfur
pois
onin
g
Sulfur content of fuel
● ●
- ○ -
- - ○
○
53
NO
x(g/
km)
NM
HC
(g/k
m)
CO
(g/k
m)
NO
x(g/
km)
NO
x(g/
km)
Test Results <Exhaust Emissions>Test ResultsTest Results <<Exhaust EmissionsExhaust Emissions>>Same level of emissions were obtained after driving 11 LAP Same level of emissions were obtained after driving 11 LAP for 40,000 km by adjusting regeneration control frequency for 40,000 km by adjusting regeneration control frequency (1,10 and 50 times) to the sulfur content (1 to 50ppm). (1,10 and 50 times) to the sulfur content (1 to 50ppm).
0.02
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
New long term standard
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
00 2 4
New long term standard
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
00 2 4
Driving distance (x 10k km)0 2 4
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0
New long term standard(=target equivalent to J-ULEV)
↑95%confidence interval
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
New long term standard
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
00 2 4
New long term mode(2005 to 2007)[11M×0.12+1015M×0.88]
New long term mode(2008 to 2010)[CD34 cold ×0.25+1015M×0.75]
New long term mode(2011 and after)[CD34 cold ×0.25+CD34 hot ×0.75]
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
New long term standard
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
00 2 4
S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
S=50ppm Criterion B
Criterion A
Sulfur poisoning Sulfur poisoning criterion needs to criterion needs to be changed from be changed from A to B to meet A to B to meet exhaust emission exhaust emission targets in New targets in New Long Term Mode.Long Term Mode.
Evaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab)
Driving distance (x 10k km)Driving distance (x 10k km)
Driving distance (x 10k km)Driving distance (x 10k km)
54Test Results <Influence on exhaust emissions
while fuel consumption is maintained at the same level>
Test ResultsTest Results <<Influence on exhaust emissions Influence on exhaust emissions
while fuel consumption is maintained at the same levelwhile fuel consumption is maintained at the same level>>NoxNox emissions deteriorated approx. 5 to 30 times (with S in fuel =1emissions deteriorated approx. 5 to 30 times (with S in fuel =1⇒⇒10 to 50ppm)10 to 50ppm)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 2 4N
MH
C(g
/km)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4
CO
(g/k
m)
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.60
0 2 4
NO
x(g/
km)
0.50
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
0.12
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.40
0 2 4
NO
x(g/
km)
0.300.06
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.50
0 2 4
NO
x(g/
km)
0.400.12
S=1ppmS=10ppmS=50ppm
Regeneration control frequency
for sulfur poisoning is set to Criterion B.
Evaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab)
Driving distance (x 10k km)
Driving distance (x 10k km)Driving distance (x 10k km)
Driving distance (x 10k km)Driving distance (x 10k km)
New long term mode(2011 and after)[CD34 cold ×0.25+CD34 hot ×0.75]
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
Target equivalent to J-ULEV
New long term mode(2005 to 2007)[11M×0.12+1015M×0.88]
New long term mode(2008 to 2010)[CD34 cold ×0.25+1015M×0.75]
55
SummarySummarySummary Phase1 2003FYEvaluation of Advanced Technology (at outside lab)*
Investigations were carried out to observe the effect of sulfur content of fuel on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions using a lean-burn direct injection gasoline engine system with advanced controls and catalysts designed for future low emissions regulations and with fuels containing 3 levels of sulfur (1,10 and 50 ppm). The following results were obtained:
・ Fuel economy deteriorates by sulfur in fuel in the New Long Term Mode for up to 2010 while the exhaust emissions are maintained at the same level with the combination of Criterion A which satisfies J-ULEV level emissions and 10-15 mode:
S = 1ppm : 0.2 %S = 10ppm : 2.4 %S = 50ppm : 7.5 %
・The influence of sulfur in fuel on exhaust emissions while fuel consumption is maintained at the same level is that only NOx emissions deteriorated in proportion to the sulfur content of fuel as follows:
S = 1→10ppm : Approx. 5 timesS = 1→50ppm : Approx. 25 to 35 times
* This is an interim test result from the outside lab test consigned to one automobilecompany and one oil company.
56
[Attachment]
Octane Number Tests
57
Flow of Fuel Simulation
Engine test data[ Input ]
Engine:A: Displacement 1.3LB: Displacement 2.0LC: Displacement 0.66L
SimulationAVL JapanSoftware:CRUISEVehicle Spec.: (Manual Trans.)Driving mode data, etc.
Fuel: ① Regular and hi-octane blend② Aromaics content kept constant③ Oxygenated blend
RON:90, 93, 97 and 100 (4 levels)
Compression ratio:Standard±1 (3 levels)
Results of simulation[ Output ]
① Improvement in driving performancedue to change in CR and octane No.
0-400m standing start acc. time10・15 mode FE&CO2
② To verify FE improvements by changing finalgear ratio, which is made possible thanks to the improvement in driving performance mentioned above (Base line: Low CR and 90 RON)
10・15 mode FE&CO2
58
Method for Engine Evaluation TestMake engine maps (*) using test engines having different CRs and with fuels having different RONs and measure fuel consumption of the engine. Make simulations for vehicle FE using the resulting data.
(*) Prepare a map by setting ignition timing listening to the point where engine starts knocking. The number of measurement points necessary to make maps are expected to be approx. 100, although these may vary from engine to engine.
▽▼
▽
▽
▽
▽
▽
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
θig(deg)
トルク
1000rpm
2000rpm
3000rpm
4000rpm
5000rpm
6000rpm
θig(deg)
トルク
▼▽
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▽
▽
▽
▽
▽
WOT Partial
2000rpm
WOT
-10kPa
-30kPa
-40kPa
-50kPa
▼ :MBT ▽:Knocking
-60kPa
Data for Mapping (MBT&Knocking Characteristics)
Engine Torque
Engine Torque
59Number of measurements necessary to predict vehicle FE by simulation (3)
Large contribution to FE
Small contribution→Reduce points in FE mapReduce measurement points to a feasible number by checking the influence on FE (sensitivity) based on the data from preliminary tests.
60
Engine Operating Conditions for Evaluation of Oxygenated-blended Gasoline
-10Nm 0Nm 20Nm 40Nm 60Nm
800rpm ○ ○ ○
1200rpm ○ ○ ○ ○
1600rpm ○ ○ ○ ○
2000rpm ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2400rpm ○ ○ ○ ○
Engine operating conditions are selected from the range of 10-15 mode driving.
61
Properties of Oxygenated-blended Fuel for Evaluation Test
HC_95 EtOH_95 ETBE_95RON 95.2 94.8 95.2Density g/cm3 0.7391 0.7443 0.7395C Mass% 86.7 83.09 85.13H Mass% 13.3 13.19 13.29O Mass% 0 3.71 1.58
J/g 42730 41007 42223-4.00% -1.20%
J/cm3 31580 30519 31224-3.40% -1.10%
14.55 13.94 14.30
True heat value
Theoretical MR
In order to study the influence of oxygenated compounds on fuel economy, fuels were prepared by blending EtOH and ETBE by 10% and by adjusting each octane number to approx. 95 RON.
62Test Results
Comparison of fuel economy of three fuels at 1200rpm (Test parameters: engine torque)
Comparison of FE at 1200rpm (on volume basis)
7.680
11.660
15.461
7.672
11.730
15.630
7.842
12.026
15.990
02468
1012141618
20Nm 40Nm 60Nm
Fuel
con
sum
ptio
n (m
l/20s
ec)
HC_95EtOH_95ETBE_95
Comparison of FE at 1200rpm (on heat value basis)
0.239
0.488
0.243
0.488
0.3680.367
0.240
0.366
0.488
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
20Nm 40Nm 60Nm
Fuel
con
sum
ptio
n (M
J//2
0sec
)
HC_95EtOH_95ETBE_95
Fuel consumption was in the order of EtOH>ETBE>HC in the comparison on volume basis (ml/20sec). However, when the heat value of each fuel was taken into consideration, the results became HC≒EtOH≒ETBE. As for the ignition timing, it was able to use MBT on all 3 fuels. Therefore, it was verified that all of the fuels provided similar FE on heat value basis so long as octane numbers were the same.
63Test Results
Comparison of fuel economy of three fuels at 40Nm(Test parameters: engine speed)
Comparison of FE at 40Nm (on heat value basis)
0.367
0.473
0.585
0.368
0.477
0.588
0.366
0.482
0.593
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1200rpm 1600rpm 2000rpmFu
el c
onsu
mpt
ion (M
J//2
0sec
)
HC_95EtOH_95ETBE_95
Comparison of FE at 40Nm (on volume basis)
11.660
15.108
18.618
11.730
15.442
18.97719.182
12.026
15.508
0
5
10
15
20
25
1200rpm 1600rpm 2000rpm
Fuel
con
sum
ptio
n (m
l/20s
ec)
HC_95EtOH_95ETBE_95
Similar to the proceeding figures, the fuel consumption was in the order of EtOH>ETBE>HC in the comparison on volume basis (ml/20sec). However, when the heat value of each fuel was taken into consideration, the results became HC≒EtOH≒ETBE. As for the ignition timing, it was possible to use MBT in all 3 fuels. Therefore, it was verified that all the fuels provided similar FE on heat value basis so long as octane numbers were the same.