which biofuelis more efficient in a - lth · which biofuelis more efficient in a ... lund...

2012‐05‐11

1

Which biofuel is more efficient in a vehicle engine?

Prof. Bengt JohanssonDiv. of Combustion Engines,

Dept. of Energy Sciences

Lund University

Department of Energy Sciences(80 persons)

Lund University40,000 students

Faculty of Engineering(Lund Institute of Technology)

5,000 students

Division of Thermal Power EngineeringProf.MohsenAssadi

Division of Heat transfer

Prof. Bengt Sundén

Division of Fluid dynamics

Prof.Lazlo Fuchs

Division of Combustion Engines

Prof. Bengt Johansson(32 persons)

Division of Energy economics and planningProf. L. Törnqvist

Department of Engineering Physics

Division of Combustion Physics

Prof. Marcus Aldén( 40 persons)

Department of Automatic ControlProf. Anders Rantzer(35 persons)

2012‐05‐11

2

Outline

• Defining the problem: What is an environmentally friendly vehicle?

• Fuels for future cars orfuture cars for future fuels?

• Advanced combustion engines

– Third type of engine: HCCI

– Mixed modes: SACI and PPC

Outline






2012‐05‐11

3

Clean combustion

5

What is it?

Why?

6

Clean Combustion

Local Emissions Global EmissionsCO2

NOx, PM, HC, CO

2012‐05‐11

4

Clean Combustion

Local Emissions Global Emissions

AftertreatmentLow temperature

combustionFuel

efficiency BiofuelCarbon

Capture and Storage, CCS

7

CO2NOx, PM, HC, CO

3. Store CO2

2. Reduce cycle time1. Release less

Is all wood biofuel?Giant Sequoia approx 3266 years old

Methusalah tree, Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, 4843 yearsold as of 2012

8

2012‐05‐11

5

Clean locally or globally?

Global emission(Greenhouse effect):

CO2 i.e. fuel consumption

Local emissions:

NOx

HC

CO

PM

9

Emission focus vs. time

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

10

2012‐05‐11

6

Environmentally friendly ≡ no CO2?

11

The CO2 neutral alternative…

12

2012‐05‐11

7

Some emission statisticsfrom New York by the turn of the century…

• 200 m3 liquid emissions per day

• 1000 ton solid emissions per day

• An army of tenths of thousands worked with transporting the emissions out from the city

The first IC engine driven car was thus welcomed as a significant enviromental improver

2012‐05‐11

8

100 years later ‐ Smog

A similar concept, Saab 1995

2012‐05‐11

9

Hondas version 1998; ZLEV

• Hydrocarbons absorbed during cold start

• Advanced control of catalyst

• Optimum combustion using variable valve timing

Honda ZLEV, Zero Emission Level Vehicle

2012‐05‐11

10

SI: Honda ZLEV

• 0.004 g/mile gives 40 g/year with 16000 km annually

• Compare with one litre of wind shield whiper fluid. This contains approx. 800 g of HC and thus we need to drive 20 years to emit the same amount with the ZLEV car.

• Gasoline cars can be clean enough!

Diesel?

2012‐05‐11

11

Diesel

Trade‐off between local and global emissions

22

Local emissions

Diesel engine

Gasoline engine

HCCI engine

00

Global emissions(CO2)

2012‐05‐11

12

Outline






Fuels for future cars

Adapted from at talk by Rolf Egnell

2006Combustion Engines Energy sciences

Lund Institute of Technology

2012‐05‐11

13

Production of fuels from different feedstock

Methane

Hydrogen

Alcohols

Electricity

LPG

DME

BioDiesel(RME)

Diesel oil

Gasoline

OilNatural

gasCoal

Biomass(waste)

SolarHydroWind

FischerTropsch

SynthesisGas

MTG

Production of fuels from different feedstock. No Oil!

Methane

Hydrogen

Alcohols

Electricity

LPG

DME

BioDiesel(RME)

Diesel oil

Gasoline

Naturalgas

CoalBiomass(waste)

SolarHydroWind

FischerTropsch

SynthesisGas

MTG

2012‐05‐11

14

Production of fuels from different feedstock. No Fossil

Biogas

Hydrogen

Alcohols

Electricity

LPG

DME

Bio-Diesel(RME)

Diesel oil

Gasoline

Biomass(waste)

FischerTropsch

SynthesisGas

MTG

First generation

Next Generation

SolarHydroWind

Cars for future fuels

28

2012‐05‐11

15

Payload vs. Vehicle size

29

Emty weight Payload (kg) Total (kg) Payload/total Total/payload

Scania truck 20 000 40 000 60 000 0,67 1,50

Boeing 747‐400 178 756 218 134 396 890 0,55 1,82

Bike 25 75 100 0,75 1,33

Motorcycle 150 75 225 0,33 3,00

Car 1 475 75 1 550 0,05 20,67

A‐B‐C of Fuel Consumption

A. Car size

B. Engine size

C. Engine efficiency in right operating conditions

30

2012‐05‐11

16

Porsche 911 performance with 100+ mpg?

31

• Two persons

• 100 liter of storage capacity

Porsche 911 data

32

M=1550 kgCr=0.012Av=1.96 m2Cd=0.33

Vd=3.8 literP=355 PS (hp)T=400 Nm

Performance 0-60: 4.6 sV,max=300 km/h ( 186.5 mph)Fuel consump.= 12.0 l/100 km (19.6 mpg)

2012‐05‐11

17

Power needed @300 km/h (186.5 mph)

33

hpkW

xxxxxxx

vvACmgCP vDaR

1.3268.239

6.3

300

6.3

30096.133.02.15.081.91550012.0

5.02

2

The ”Cigar”

2012‐05‐11

18

Two person capacity is often enough

35

UK National Office of Statistics:“The average car occupancy is 1.6 people per car and for commuting it's 1.2 “

A carpool in California is a car with ONE person if the car is fuelefficient…

The ”Cigar”

http://www.peraves.ch/

Existing large model use large BMW 1200 cc MC engine. With turbo a top speed of 315 km/h and fuel consumption of 3.5 l/100 km (67 mpg)

2012‐05‐11

19

Power needed @300 km/h (186.5 mph)

37

hpkW

xxxxxxx

vvACmgCP vDaR

7.492.37

6.3

300

6.3

3000.110.02.15.081.9250012.0

5.02

2

Cigar design specificationsCd=0.1Av=0.5-1 m2

m= 250 kgCr=0.012 (two wheels)

Power needed at 50 and 100 km/h (31‐ 62 mph)

Porsche 911 vs. cigar

38

Speed (km/h) 911 Cigar Unit Ratio

50 3.57 0.57 kW 6.28

100 13.4 2.1 kW 6.36

300 239.8 37.2 kW 6.45

50 4.86 0.77 hp 6.28

100 18.2 2.9 hp 6.36

300 326.1 49.7 hp 6.45

Acceleration proportional to power/mass ratio:Cigar: 250/49.7=5.03 kg/hp911: 1550/355=4.37 kg/hp

2012‐05‐11

20

A. Car size

• With more correct car size the engine size can be reduced a factor of 6 i.e. single cylinder version of 911 engine with 633 cc displacement is enough

• Porsche 911 has a fuel consumption of 12 l/100 km (19.6 mpg)

• Cigar would have 12/6=2 l/100 km (117.6 mpg) without any need of new engine technology. (Scaling both engine and car size)

39

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220Bilhast. [km/h]

B. Engine size

• A Porsche 911 does not operate at optimum load points in normal driving.

• At 50 km/h the estimated load is only 2 bar BMEP or less

• Bsfc=400 g/kWh

(ηb=21 %)

40

2012‐05‐11

21

Engine downsizing

Three options

1. Turbo or supercharge a small engine

2. Cylinder deactivation of large engine

3. Variable displacement i.e. variable engine size

41

B.1. Mercedes CDI 250, 2.1 liter

42

Vd=2143 ccTorque= 500 Nm (369 lb-ft)

2012‐05‐11

22

43

Two stage turbo

Engine downsizing‐MB 250 CDI

44

Displacement of 2.1 liter giving 224 hp and 500 Nm of torque : 30 bar BMEP is now full load NOT 10 or 20 bar

Fuel consumption;C-class 5.1 l/100 km (46.1 mpg), E-class 5.3 l/100 km (44.4 mpg),S-class 5.9 l/100 km (39.9 mpg)

CO2:C-class 139 g/kmE-class 143 g/kmS-class 155 g/km

2012‐05‐11

23

B2: Dual engine concept

• Use one small and one large engine

• As an example:

– One 2 cylinder 1 liter engine

– One 4 cylinder 2 liter engine

• This gives us 1, 2 or 3 liter to choose from

45

Layout 4 +2 cyl

FAS

Transm.

46

Fiat 2-cylinder production engine

2012‐05‐11

24

Operation

• 2‐cyl at low loads

• 4‐cyl operation at higher load operation (Autobahn)

• 6‐cyl operation at highest loads

• 6‐cyl + FAS at transients (with FAS start of 4‐cyl)

• FAS for regenerative braking

• FAS for lowest speed operation ( < 5 km/h)

• Manual selection should be possible

47

B3: Variable displacement engine

• If we can change displacement, Vd, engine load, P, can be controlled without reducing BMEP!

48

td n

NVbmepP

2012‐05‐11

25

Atkinson Cycle

49

Displacement from 0.15 to 0.85 l per cylinder gives 0.6 to 3.4 l four cylinder engine at full load (@max BMEP)

Atkinson engine with variable displacement

50

2012‐05‐11

26

Atkinson engine efficiency

51

A‐B‐C of Fuel Consumption

A. Car size

B. Engine size

C. Engine efficiency in right operating conditions(Maximum engine efficiency)

52

2012‐05‐11

27

Summary /ABC of fuel consumption

A. Correct car size gives factor of 6 in fuel consumption

B. Correct load point gives factor 2 in fuel consumption (21%‐42% or 400‐200 g/kWh)

C. Partially Premixed Combustion have the potential to extend brake efficiency to 50% with US10/Euro emissions. With further optimization 55% could be reached

D. With waste heat recovery 60% should be possible giving a factor of 3 from today.

A total reduction potential of factor 18!

53

Outline






2012‐05‐11

28

55

Prof. Bengt Johansson

Division of Combustion EnginesDepartment of Energy Sciences

Lund University

SI HCCI PPC

Path to High Efficiency Gasoline Engine

Outline

• HCCI and fuel efficiency

– 50% thermal efficiency

• Partially premixed combustion, PPC

– Background

– Why gasoline is the best diesel engine fuel

– 56% thermal efficiency in car size engine

– 57% thermal efficiency in truck size engine

– Why 55% thermal efficiency is better than 57%

– How to reach 26 bar IMEP with US10 NOx, PM, HC and CO engine out

56

2012‐05‐11

29

Outline




– Background






57

BackgroundCombustion concepts

Spark Ignition (SI) engine (Gasoline, Otto)

Compression Ignition (CI) engine (Diesel)

+ Clean with 3-way Catalyst

- Poor low & part load efficiency

+ High efficiency- Emissions of NOx and

soot

2012‐05‐11

30


Spark Ignition (SI) engine (Gasoline, Otto)


Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition

(HCCI)

Partially premixed combustion (PPC)

Diesel HCCI

Spark Assisted Compression Ignition

(SACI)Gasoline HCCI

+ High efficiency

+ Ultra low NOx

-Combustion control

-Power density

+ Injection controlled- Less emissions

advantage




soot

The Heat Release in HCCI

HCCI process: 1. Mix fuel and air2. Compress the homogeneous charge3. Get auto ignition4. Expand the burned gas

2012‐05‐11

31

Normal flame propagation vs. HCCI

HCCI requirements

1. Temperture high enough for autoignition

2. Mixture diluted to prevent too fast combustion

2012‐05‐11

32

−10 −5 0 5 10 150

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Crank angle [CAD]

Q [J

]

SOC 1% HR

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

λ

Igni

tion

Tem

pera

ture

[K]

Natural gasIso−octane Ethanol Methanol

Ignition Temperature

NOx emission

2012‐05‐11

33

The Three Temperatures of HCCI1. Autoignition temperature, Tign= 1000 K

2. Minimum temperature for CO to CO2 = Tmin= 1500 K

3. Maximum temperture to prevent NOx Tmax= 2000 K

Maximum ∆T is 1000K and minimum ∆T is 500K

thus ratio of highest load to minimum load is 2:1

NOT enough with 2:1 for traditional diesel engine load control with constant air flow.

−10 −5 0 5 10 150

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Crank angle [CAD]

Q [J

]

SOC 1% HR

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

λ

Igni

tion

Tem

pera

ture

[K]

Natural gasIso−octane Ethanol Methanol

Ignition Temperature

2012‐05‐11

34

HCCI Emissions

HCCI

0,01

0,500,00

NOx

PM *

0,05

USA 2007

AutoTechnologyOct. 2002, p 54

Efficiencies?

68

2012‐05‐11

35

Energy flow in an IC engineFuelMEP

QhrMEP

IMEPgross

lMEPnet

BMEP

QemisMEP

QlossMEP

QhtMEP

QexhMEP

PMEP

FMEP

Combustion efficiency

Thermodynamic efficiency

Gas exchange efficiency

Mechanical efficiency

Net Indicated efficiency

Brake efficiency

Gross Indicated efficiency

FuelMEP

QhrMEP

IMEPgross

lMEPnet

BMEP

QemisMEP

QlossMEP

QhtMEP

QexhMEP

PMEP

FMEP

Combustion efficiency

Thermodynamic efficiency

Gas exchange efficiency

Mechanical efficiency

Net Indicated efficiency

Brake efficiency

Gross Indicated efficiency

MechanicaleGasExchangmicThermodynaCombustionBrake

***

70

Thermodynamic efficiencySaab SVC variable compression ratio, VCR, HCCI, Rc=10:1-30:1; General Motors L850 “World engine”, HCCI, Rc=18:1, SI, Rc=18:1, SI, Rc=9.5:1 (std) Scania D12 Heavy duty diesel engine, HCCI, Rc=18:1;

Fuel: US regular Gasoline

SAE2006-01-0205

2012‐05‐11

36

All four efficiencies

71

Problem with HCCI: Too fast combustion

72

Optimum

2012‐05‐11

37

Outline




– Background






73


Spark Ignition (SI) engine (Gasoline,

Otto)


Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition

(HCCI)

Partially premixed combustion (PPC)

Diesel HCCI

Spark Assisted Compression Ignition

(SACI)Gasoline HCCI

+ High efficiency

+ Ultra low NOx

-Combustion control

-Power density




soot

+ Injection controlled- Less emissions

advantage

2012‐05‐11

38

Partially Premixed Combustion, PPC

75

-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

HC

[pp

m]

SOI [ATDC]-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

NO

x [p

pm]

Def: region between truly homogeneous combustion, HCCI, and diffusion controlled combustion, diesel

HCCI

PPC

CIPCCI

PPC: Effect of EGR with diesel fuel

76

Load 8 bar IMEP

Abs. Inlet Pressure 2.5 bar

Engine Speed 1090 rpm

Swirl Ratio 1.7

Compression Ratio 12.4:1 (Low)

DEER2005

Scania D12 single cylinder

2012‐05‐11

39

1

43

2

Outline




– Background






78

2012‐05‐11

40

79

PPC with low cetane diesel

Lic. Thesis by Henrik Nordgren 2005 and presented at DEER2005

Outline




– Background






80

2012‐05‐11

41

81

VOLVO D5 with Gasoline

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 400

50

100

150

CAD [TDC]

Cyl Pressure [bar]Inj Signal [a.u.]RoHR [J/CAD]

N 2000 [rpm]

IMEPg 13.38 [bar]

Pin 2.57 [bar]

Tin 354 [K]

EGR 39 [%]

lambda 1.75 [-]

Injection SOI [TDC] Fuel MEP [bar] Percentage [%]

1 -64.00 10.88 41.28

2 -29.20 7.74 29.36

3 0.80 7.74 29.36

LoadNoise

Load & CA50

82

Efficiencies & Emissions

Indicated Gross Thermal Combustion/240

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

Effi

cie

ncy

[%]

91 %

NOx*100 [g/kWh] CO [g/kWh] HC [g/kWh] Soot [FSN]0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Em

issi

on

s

BelowDetectableLevel

13 ppm

0.46 %

4598 ppm

! D60 project goal

dPmax 7.20 [bar/CAD]

CA5 3.40 [TDC]

ID -1.00 [CAD]

CA50 11.35 [TDC]

CA90-10 13.00 [CAD]

2012‐05‐11

42

Burn rate and ηT

83

Optimum Thermodynamic efficiency

Premixedness

High heat losses

Low effective expansion ratio

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 400

50

100

150

CAD [TDC]

Cyl Pressure [bar]Inj Signal [a.u.]RoHR [J/CAD]

Outline




– Background






84

2012‐05‐11

43

858585

Experimental setup, Scania D12

Bosch Common Rail

Prailmax 1600 [bar]

Orifices 8 [-]

Orifice Diameter 0.18 [mm]

Umbrella Angle 120 [deg]

Engine / Dyno Spec

BMEPmax 15 [bar]

Vd 1951 [cm3]

Swirl ratio 2.9 [-]

Fuel: Gasoline or Ethanol

8686

rc: 17.1:1rc: 14.3:1

Low Compression Ratio PPC High Compression Ratio PPC

Two Test Series: High & Low Compression Ratio

2012‐05‐11

44

87878787

Fuel amount in the pilot is a function of:1.rc2.RON/MON3.EGR

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CAD [TDC]

[a.u

.]

Load & CA50Const.

It must not react during compression

Injection Strategy

It consists of two injections. The first one is placed @ ‐60 TDC to create a homogeneous mixture while the second around TDC. The stratification created by the second injection triggers the combustion. The first injection must not react during the compression stroke, this is achieved by using EGR.

SAE 2009-01-0944

88

Running Conditions

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

[ba

r]

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

[C]Inlet Pressure

Exhaust Pressure

Inlet TemperatureExhaust Temperature

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

Gross IMEP [bar]

[-

]

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1330

35

40

45

50

55

60

EG

R [%

]

2012‐05‐11

45

8989

Efficiencies 17.1:1

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1350

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gross IMEP [bar]

[%] Combustion Efficiency

Thermal EfficiencyGas Exchange EfficiencyMechanical Efficiency

902 4 6 8 10 12 14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Gross IMEP [bar]

CO

[g/k

Wh

]

GrossNetBrakeEU VIUS 10

2 4 6 8 10 12 140

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Sm

oke

[FS

N]

Gross IMEP [bar]

902 4 6 8 10 12 14

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Gross IMEP [bar]

HC

[g/k

Wh

]


Emissions

Obsolete injection system

Not well tuned EGR-combination

2 4 6 8 10 12 140

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

NO

x [g

/kW

h]


2012‐05‐11

46

Outline




– Background






91

9292

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1850

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Gross IMEP [bar]

[%] Combustion Efficiency

Thermal EfficiencyGas Exchange EfficiencyMechanical Efficiency

Efficiencies 14.3:1

2012‐05‐11

47

9393

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Sm

oke

[FS

N]

Gross IMEP [bar]2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Gross IMEP [bar]

NO

x [g

/kW

h]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gross IMEP [bar]

CO

[g/k

Wh

]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 180

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

HC

[g/k

Wh

]


Emissions

Better tuned EGR-combination

Outline




– Background






94

2012‐05‐11

48

9595

Experimental Apparatus, Scania D13

XPI Common Rail

Orifices 8 [-]

Orifice Diameter 0.19 [mm]

Umbrella Angle 148 [deg]

Engine / Dyno Spec

BMEPmax 25 [bar]

Vd 2124 [cm3]

Swirl ratio 2.095 [-]

Standard piston bowl, rc: 17.3:1

9696

5 10 15 20 25 3020

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Gross IMEP [bar]

[%]

brake

net

gross

Efficiency

50% brake efficiency seems viable!!!

2012‐05‐11

49

9797

5 10 15 20 25 300

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

So

ot [

FS

N]

Emissions

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Gross IMEP [bar]

Bra

ke H

C [g

/kW

h]

Brake HCUS 10EU VI

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Gross IMEP [bar]

Bra

ke N

Ox

[g/k

Wh

]

Brake NOxUS10EU VI

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

5

10

15

20

25

Gross IMEP [bar]

Bra

ke C

O [g

/kW

h]

Brake COUS 10EU VI

Fuel Effects on High ON Fuels PPC

Prof. Bengt JohanssonDivision of Combustion EnginesDepartment of Energy Sciences

Lund University98

2012‐05‐11

50

9999

Fuel specification – Scania D12 tests

RON MON C H/C O/C LHV [MJ/kg] A/F stoich

Ethanol 107 89 2 3 0.5 26.9 9

FR47330CVX 87.1 80.5 7.2 1.92 0 43.5 14.6

FR47331CVX 92.9 84.7 6.9 1.99 0.03 41.6 14.02

FR47333CVX 80.0 75.0 7.16 1.97 0 43.7 14.65

FR47334CVX 69.4 66.1 7.11 1.98 0 43.8 14.68

FR47335CVX 99 96.9 7.04 2.28 0 44.3 15.1

FR47336CVX 70.3 65.9 7.1 2.08 0 43.8 14.83

FR47338CVX 88.6 79.5 7.21 1.88 0 43.5 14.53

99

100100

Inlet Conditions

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

Gross IMEP [bar]

Inle

t Tem

pe

ratu

re [K

]

EthanolFR47330CVXFR47331CVXFR47333CVXFR47334CVXFR47335CVXFR47336CVXFR47338CVX

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Gross IMEP [bar]

ab

s In

let P

ress

ure

[bar

]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gross IMEP [bar]

EG

R [%

] EthanolFR47330CVXFR47331CVXFR47333CVXFR47334CVXFR47335CVXFR47336CVXFR47338CVX

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 201

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

[-

]


100

2012‐05‐11

51

101

Injection strategy

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gross IMEP [bar]

Fu

el M

EP

ma

in [b

ar]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Gross IMEP [bar]

Fu

el M

EP

pilo

t [b

ar]


-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CAD [TDC]

[a.u

.]

101

102

Efficiencies

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2095

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100

Gross IMEP [bar]

Co

mb

ustio

n E

ffici

enc

y [%

]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2040

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

Gross IMEP [bar]

Gro

ss In

dic

ate

d E

ffici

en

cy [%

]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2040

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

Gross IMEP [bar]

The

rmal

Effi

cien

cy [%

]


102

2012‐05‐11

52

103

Emissions – different fuels

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

So

ot [

FS

N]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Gross IMEP [bar]

NO

x [g

/kW

h]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

2

4

6

8

10

12

Gross IMEP [bar]

CO

[g/k

Wh

]


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gross IMEP [bar]

HC

[g/k

Wh

]


104104104

RON MON C H/C O/C LHV [MJ/kg] A/F stoich

Group 1 FR47335CVX 99.0 96.9 7.04 2.28 0.00 44.30 15.10

FR47332CVX 97.7 87.5 6.61 2.06 0.07 39.70 13.44

FR47337CVX 96.5 86.1 7.53 1.53 0.00 42.10 14.03

Group 2 FR47338CVX 88.6 79.5 7.21 1.88 0.00 43.50 14.53

FR47330CVX 87.1 80.5 7.20 1.92 0.00 43.50 14.60

FR47331CVX 92.9 84.7 6.90 1.99 0.03 41.60 14.02

Group 3 FR47336CVX 70.3 65.9 7.10 2.08 0.00 43.80 14.83

FR47334CVX 69.4 66.1 7.11 1.98 0.00 43.80 14.68

FR47333CVX 80.0 75.0 7.16 1.97 0.00 43.70 14.65

Group 4 PRF20 20 20 7.2 2.28 0 44.51 15.07

MK1 n.a. 20 16 1.87 0 43.15 14.9

Fuel Matrix ‐ Scania D13

2012‐05‐11

53

105105105

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

5

10

15

20

25

RON [-]

IME

P g

ross

[ba

r]

Stable operational load vs. fuel type

Tested Load Area

106106106

Soot Emissions

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Gross IMEP [bar]

Soo

t [F

SN

]

G. ON 99/97G. ON 98/88G. ON 97/86G. ON 93/85G. ON 89/80G. ON 87/81G. ON 80/75G. ON 70/66G. ON 69/66D. CN 52PRF20

Diesel vs. Gasoline

2012‐05‐11

54

107

D13 Running on Diesel & Gasoline

5 10 15 20 25 3034

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

Gross IMEP [bar]

Bra

ke E

ffici

en

cy [%

]

D13 GasolineD13 Diesel

D13 Diesel was calibrated by Scania and the calibration was done to meet EU V legislation.

Average improvement of 16.6% points @ high load!!!

108

Engine combustion ‐ direction

Spark Ignition (SI) engine (Gasoline,

Otto)

Compression Ignition (CI) engine

(Diesel)

Homogeneous Charge

Compression Ignition (HCCI)

Diesel PPC

+ High Efficiency

+ Ultralow NOx & soot

- Combustion control

- Power density



+ High efficiency- Emissions of NOx

and soot

+ Injection controlled- Efficiency at high load

Gasoline PPC

+ High Efficiency+ Low NOx & soot

1900‐1995

1995‐2005

2005‐2010

2010‐

2012‐05‐11

55

The End

Thank you

109

which biofuelis more efficient in a - lth · which biofuelis more efficient in a ... lund...

Documents