throbber
SAE TECHNICAL
`PAPER SERIES
`
`2003 -01 -0778
`
`The Development and Performance of the
`Compact SCR -Trap System: A 4 -Way
`Diesel Emission Control System
`
`Andrew P. Walker, Ronny Allansson,
`Philip G. Blakeman and Mats Lavenius
`Johnson Matthey, Catalytic Systems Division
`
`Sara Erkfeldt and Henrik Landaiv
`Volvo Powertrain Corporation
`
`Bill Ball and Pat Harrod
`Eminox Ltd.
`
`Didier Manning and Leopold Bernegger
`Robert Bosch GmbH
`
`Reprinted From: Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control
`(SP -1754 / SP- 1754CD)
`
`Internationa[
`400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096 -0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776 -4841 Fax: (724) 776 -5760 Web: www.sae.org
`
`2003 SAE World Congress
`Detroit, Michigan
`March 3 -6, 2003
`
`J
`
`BASF-2019.001
`
`

`
`All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
`transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
`without the prior written permission of SAE.
`
`For permission and licensing requests contact:
`
`SAE Permissions
`400 Commonwealth Drive
`Warrendale, PA 15096- 0001 -USA
`Email: permissions @sae.org
`724 -772 -4028
`Fax:
`724 -772 -4891
`Tel:
`
`IDA C
`gar W o
`Global Mobility Database®
`All SAE papers, standards, and selected
`books are abstracted and indexed in the
`Global Mobility Database.
`
`For multiple print copies contact:
`
`SAE Customer Service
`877 -606 -7323 (inside USA and Canada)
`Tel:
`724 -776 -4970 (outside USA)
`Tel:
`724 -776 -1615
`Fax:
`Email: CustomerService @sae.org
`
`ISSN 0148 -7191
`Copyright © 2003 SAE International
`
`Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
`The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
`will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
`
`Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
`manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
`
`Printed in USA
`
`BASF-2019.002
`
`

`
`The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR -Trap
`System: A 4 -Way Diesel Emission Control System
`
`Andrew P. Walker, Ronny Allansson, Philip G. Blakeman and Mats Lavenius
`Johnson Matthey, Catalytic Systems Division
`
`2003 -01 -0778
`
`Sara Erkfeldt and Henrik Landaiv
`Volvo Powertrain Corporation
`
`Bill Ball and Pat Harrod
`Eminox Ltd.
`
`Didier Manning and Leopold Bernegger
`Robert Bosch GmbH
`
`emission control communities. In both Europe and North
`America the major challenges are
`in PM and NOx
`control for the legislation to be introduced in 2005 (Euro
`IV), 2007 (US '07), 2008 (Euro V), and 2010 (US '10).
`1 summarises the evolution of the emissions
`Table
`standards
`in Europe, and Table 2 outlines
`the US
`regulations.
`
`Table 1: Emissions Legislation Limits in Europe (ESC
`Test Cycle; g kW1hr1)
`
`Year
`
`HC
`
`CO
`
`NOx
`
`PM
`
`2000 (Euro III)
`
`2005 (Euro IV)
`
`2008 (Euro V)
`
`0.66
`
`0.46
`
`0.25
`
`2.1
`
`1.5
`
`1.5
`
`5.0
`
`3.5
`
`2.0
`
`0.10
`
`0.02
`
`0.02
`
`Table 2: Emissions Legislation Limits the US (SET Test
`Cycle and US HDT Cycle; g bhp-'hr-1)
`(Note that 1 g bhp-1 hr-1 = 1.341 g kVV1hr1)
`
`CO
`
`NOx
`
`PM
`
`Copyright © 2003 SAE International
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`The tightening of Heavy Duty Diesel (HDD) emissions
`throughout
`the world
`legislation
`leading
`to
`the
`is
`development of emission control devices to enable HDD
`the new standards.
`engines
`to meet
`NOx and
`Particulate Matter (PM) are the key pollutants which
`these emission control systems need to address. Diesel
`Particulate Filters (DPFs) are already in use in significant
`numbers to control PM emissions from HDD vehicles,
`and Selective Catalytic Reduction
`is a very
`(SCR)
`promising technology to control NOx emissions.
`
`This paper describes the development and performance
`of the Compact SCR -Trap system - a pollution control
`a DPF -based
`comprising
`device
`system
`(the
`Continuously Regenerating Trap system) upstream of an
`SCR system. The system has been designed to be as
`easy to package as possible, by minimising the total
`volume of the system and by incorporating the SCR
`catalysts on annular substrates placed around
`the
`outside of the DPF -based system. This novel design
`gives rise to an easy -to- package emission control device
`capable of providing very high conversions of all four
`major pollutants, NOx, PM, CO and HC. The design
`the performance of the
`details are discussed, and
`system over both steady state and transient cycles is
`presented. NOx conversions of up to 92% have been
`demonstrated, and the system's emissions of all four
`pollutants are well inside the Euro V, and probably also
`the US 2007 limits (subject to verification of PM).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The progressive tightening of the emissions standards
`for Heavy Duty Diesel vehicles throughout the world
`presents challenges for the engine development and
`
`HC
`
`1.3
`
`0.5
`
`Year
`
`1998
`
`2004
`
`2007
`
`2010
`
`15.5
`
`4.0
`
`15.5
`
`0.10
`
`0.10
`
`0.01
`
`0.01
`
`2.5
`
`1.2
`
`0.2
`
`0.14
`
`15.5
`
`0.14
`
`15.5
`
`BASF-2019.003
`
`

`
`The HC and CO emission limits are not expected to
`cause significant problems, because
`the engine -out
`emissions of these pollutants are already very
`low.
`reductions
`However, major
`in both PM and NOx
`emissions are required in the near future.
`
`One system which has shown great promise
`in
`controlling
`the Continuously
`emissions
`PM
`is
`Regenerating Trap (CRT`, developed and patented by
`Johnson Matthey [1]). Throughout the remainder of this
`paper, this system will be referred to as the Continuously
`Regenerating Diesel Particulate Filter, CR -DPF. There
`are currently over 35,000 CR -DPF systems in operation
`throughout the world, and the long -term field durability of
`the system has been clearly demonstrated [2].
`Indeed,
`systems have been shown to provide very high levels of
`CO, HC and PM reduction even after over 500,000 km
`(and six years) of field operation [3].
`
`The CR -DPF system comprises an oxidation catalyst
`followed by a wall -flow Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF).
`the oxidation catalyst
`traps
`the PM and
`The DPF
`oxidises a portion of the engine -out NO to generate NO2.
`This NO2 combusts the PM at a much lower temperature
`(around 250 °C) than does oxygen (around 550 °C). This
`low temperature combustion of PM by NO2 enables the
`passive operation (with continuous PM removal) of the
`CR -DPF system on a wide range of HDD applications
`(eg buses, trucks, garbage trucks) and is the basis of the
`CR -DPF. The CR -DPF has been used very successfully
`in the retrofit market over a wide range of operating duty
`cycles, since most HDD applications have duty cycles
`to guarantee continuous
`which are sufficiently warm
`regeneration of the CR -DPF system.
`
`the CR -DPF
`The oxidation catalyst used within
`is
`optimised to generate appropriate
`levels of NO2
`to
`regeneration.
`enable continuous, passive PM
`This
`catalyst is also very effective at oxidising CO (into 002)
`and HC (into CO2 and H2O), so the system provides very
`high conversions of PM, HC and CO. However, when
`the NO2 generated by the oxidation catalyst reacts with
`carbon it is converted back into NO, so very little NOx
`conversion is observed over the CR -DPF system.
`
`As discussed above, high conversions of NOx are
`required within the pollution control systems of the
`The most effective on -board NOx reduction
`future.
`for HDD vehicles
`is Selective Catalytic
`strategy
`Reduction (SCR) [4], so this was the approach used to
`SCR systems
`control NOx emissions in
`this work.
`reduce NOx via reaction with ammonia; this reaction is
`highly selective even in environments containing excess
`oxygen, such as the exhaust of Diesel vehicles:
`
`4 NH3 + 4 NO + 02 4 4 N2 + 6 H2O
`
`(1)
`
`Ammonia is generated on board the vehicle via the rapid
`hydrolysis of urea. One of the keys to the successful
`implementation of SCR technology is the ability to match
`injected to the amount of NOx
`the amount of urea
`emitted from the engine. While it is possible to do this
`
`the more common
`using on -board NOx sensors
`[5],
`approach is to map the NOx emissions of the engine,
`and to inject urea based on the information contained in
`these maps. The latter was the approach used here.
`
`The very effective combination of the CR -DPF (for PM,
`HO and CO control) with an SCR system (for NOx
`control) has previously been demonstrated [6]. This
`system was shown
`SORT M
`very high
`to give
`conversions of all four major pollutants over the ESC: up
`to 85% NOx, 96% PM, 98% HC and 100% CO
`conversion, using a total system volume of 51
`litres on a
`litre engine calibrated
`the Euro
`1 emissions
`to
`12
`standards. This catalyst system will be referred to as the
`SCR -Trap System for the remainder of this paper.
`
`In this earlier work, the combined system was arranged
`with the CR -DPF in front of the SCR system. Within this
`configuration, the CR -DPF removes CO, HC and PM,
`and converts some of the engine -out NO into NO2,
`before the gas passes to the SCR system. This leads to
`temperature NOx
`improvement
`large
`the
`low
`a
`in
`conversion of the SCR catalysts, partly because both
`CO and HC can inhibit the low temperature performance
`of SCR catalysts, but mainly because the presence of
`stream strongly promotes
`the gas
`low
`NO2
`in
`temperature SCR activity [6, 7]. This promotion occurs
`via the very fast reaction:
`
`2 NH3 + NO + NO2 4 2 N2 + 3 H2O
`
`(2)
`
`Furthermore, the removal of the PM upstream of the
`SCR system removes the possibility of PM fouling of the
`SCR catalysts and the urea injection system. So clear
`synergies were demonstrated for this combined system.
`
`In this earlier work, the combined system was arranged
`in a linear configuration. Such an arrangement will be
`for many HDD vehicles, especially buses.
`suitable
`However, for many trucks a more compact arrangement
`would be superior, and therefore the alternative layout
`shown in Figure 1 was developed.
`
`Outle
`
`Urea mixing unit
`
`Slip
`
`SCR
`
`SCR
`
`Oxicat
`
`Slip
`
`SCR
`
`SCR
`
`Urea injection point ---.
`Figure 1: Schematic Representation of the Compact
`SCRTTM Concept
`
`Within this design the gas first passes through the CR-
`DPF system, and is then turned through 180° and flowed
`through
`the SCR catalysts, which are coated onto
`
`BASF-2019.004
`
`

`
`metallic, annular substrates, fitted around the CR -DPF
`This presents a wider but much shorter
`system.
`packaging envelope for the combined system, and this
`system will be referred to as the Compact SCR -Trap
`System for the rest of this paper.
`
`DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
`
`therefore started
`to verify
`A project was
`this
`that
`technology did
`in fact have the potential to meet US
`2007 and Euro V emissions levels, when realized
`in
`practical form. The chosen means of verification was to
`culminate in an extensive field
`test on heavy trucks
`engaged in regional distribution duties in the US. This
`meant that the SCR -Trap systems were to be developed
`typical vehicle
`installation and operating
`to meet
`constraints.
`
`This paper describes the development of the Compact
`SCR -Trap system for this purpose, and outlines
`its
`performance over both the ESC and the US Heavy Duty
`Transient test cycles, on a Volvo D12C, US'00 12 litre
`engine.
`
`COMPACT SYSTEM DESIGN
`
`REQUIREMENTS
`
`The concept of Figure 1 had to be realised in a practical
`design meeting a number of constraints. Key targets
`were:
`
`to fit the unit within the specified space envelope
`(24.4x23.6x24.4in) available
`620x600x620mm
`on the test vehicle, and to match the existing
`inlet and outlet pipe positions of the standard
`muffler
`
`to enable both the CR -DPF filter and the urea
`injector to be easily removed for servicing
`
`to meet a backpressure limit of 20kPa at a flow
`of 0.5 kg /s, 438 °C (2.9 psi @ 1.1 lb/s, 820 °F)
`
`to achieve the structural integrity and durability
`required for a 2 -year 350,000 km (220,000 mile)
`intervals of at
`trial, with service
`field
`least
`50,000km (31,250 miles)
`
`to meet specified noise and emissions limits
`
`In addition, it was the clear intention of all the project
`partners to have a design which was functionally as
`close to a future production system as possible.
`
`OVERALL LAYOUT
`
`Designs with a range of alternative catalyst and filter
`sizes which could be fitted within the available space
`the best compromise between
`for
`were assessed
`backpressure (with filter clean and after accumulating
`
`thermal mass and weight while achieving the
`ash),
`space velocities estimated to be required for satisfactory
`catalyst performance. This resulted in
`the choice of
`nominal sizes as follows:
`
`CR -DPF catalyst (diameter x length): 381 x 74.6 mm (15
`x 2.94 in)
`
`Filter (diameter x length): 381 x 305 mm (15 x 12 in)
`
`SCR catalysts (2 off) + ammonia slip catalyst (1 off):
`each of inner diameter 408.5 mm (16.08
`in), outer
`diameter 575 mm (22.64 in), and length 74.6 mm (2.93
`in),
`
`So within a total length of 620mm there had to be
`accommodated CR -DPF elements with a combined
`length of 380mm and SCR /ammonia slip catalysts of
`combined length 224mm (all before canning), as well as
`room for the inlet and outlet flows, the urea mixing
`thermally -insulated endcaps.
`section, and
`A major
`design challenge was therefore achieving the length
`constraint while minimising pressure losses within the
`unit.
`
`KEY DESIGN FEATURES
`
`Unlike the schematic representation of Figure 1, both
`inlet and outlet pipes had to be oriented in a radial
`direction. The length constraint was met by overlapping
`the pipes in an axial direction, and separating the inlet
`and outlet flows by means of a partition across the outer
`annulus [8]. The inlet and outlet are separated angularly
`by only 66 degrees, which adds to the difficulty of
`achieving low pressure losses and uniform flow through
`the catalysts. The CR -DPF is supported by a central
`tube, which locates on both endcaps. The tube contains
`apertures which allow the flow through it from the inlet to
`the CR -DPF and from the CR -DPF to the SCR section.
`Loads are transferred to this tube from the mountings via
`the partition and a support strut assembly. The latter
`avoids significant loads being transferred through the
`SCR catalysts, which for the field trial units have been
`made removable. This removability also necessitated
`the incorporation of inner and outer seals to prevent flow
`bypassing these catalysts, which is particularly important
`to minimise ammonia slip and
`to maximise NOx
`conversion.
`It also required careful design to overcome
`problems of radial tolerance build -up. The filter and the
`CR -DPF catalyst are retained axially by a removable
`retention device inside the central tube [8]. To clean out
`incombustible residues from the filter, it can be removed
`by first removing the mixer assembly and then the
`retention device, each requiring the release of only a
`single fastener; the filter
`is then withdrawn using a
`special tool.
`
`The urea is injected from a centrally -positioned injector.
`Mixing of the urea with the exhaust gas stream occurs in
`a mixing unit downstream of the
`injector [8].
`The
`distance from the end of the filter to the inside of the
`in), but the mixer achieves
`endcap is only 127mm (5
`
`BASF-2019.005
`
`

`
`effective mixing of the urea sprays in both radial and
`circumferential directions before the flow enters the SCR
`catalyst, as will be seen from the high NOx conversion
`efficiencies described below. The mixer was designed
`using mixed energy and spray trajectory calculations, so
`the required mixing with a minimum
`to achieve
`as
`pressure loss. CFD calculations predicted a coefficient
`of variation of urea concentration at SCR catalyst entry
`of less than 10 %, and a velocity profile uniformity index
`the maximum
`flow condition.
`above 0.95 at
`Urea
`deposits are a potential issue with SCR systems. The
`mixer design seeks to minimize the area of solid surface
`which the urea might contact, and to easily re- entrain
`into the flow any liquid that is deposited. The urea
`injection strategy is also vital in avoiding deposits. No
`deposit problems occurred during the prototype pass -off
`testing, but this remains an area to be monitored during
`the upcoming field trials.
`
`Both endcaps are double- skinned, to provide rigidity and
`thermal insulation.
`
`Figure 2 shows the completed unit alongside a CR -DPF
`unit. The latter is sized for a truck with an engine of one
`third less power, and is the same size as the standard
`muffler for that vehicle.
`
`testing of the inlet and CR -DPF sections, to validate the
`main structural elements and the filter retention device.
`This unit survived 413,000 cycles of amplitude 90kPa
`with some internal cracking but no loss of integrity. By
`comparison
`to previous experience using
`test
`this
`procedure, this again
`indicates a service life well
`in
`excess of the planned 2 year field trial.
`
`DESIGN SUMMARY
`
`The final design contains 71.5 litres of catalyst and filter
`within a total volume of approximately 164 litres. As far
`as can be known before field testing, it meets or betters
`all the key targets. Although containing several features
`appropriate only to prototypes, a very similar design
`would be suitable for mass production with little change.
`
`UREA DOSING UNIT
`
`Figure 3 shows the interfaces of the reactant agent
`dosing system with the control unit, exhaust gas system
`with catalyst, urea water solution tank, air reservoir and
`the vehicle CAN -bus.
`Figure 4 shows a schematic
`layout of the dosing system.
`
`engine. vehitde
`engine -CAN
`inj. quantity speed
`roofing water temp
`
`ECU
`
`E
`
`air reservoir
`
`dosing system
`
`catalyst
`
`Figure 3: Schematic of the Interfaces within the Urea
`Dosing Unit
`
`Figure 2: Size Comparison between Compact SCR -
`Trap Sized for 347kW Engine (left) and CR -DPF Sized
`for 231 kW (right)
`
`MECHANICAL DURABILITY
`
`The muffler unit is constructed from AISI 304 austenitic
`stainless steel. The field trial units use design features
`and manufacturing methods well -proven from Eminox's
`heavy -duty CR -DPF systems where possible, in order to
`minimise development
`time, cost and
`This
`risk.
`approach has been vindicated by the results of two
`mechanical durability rig tests. A complete unit mounted
`as in the vehicle underwent shake testing.
`It passed full
`life expectancy according to Volvo's standard procedure.
`Another unit was subjected to pressure pulse fatigue
`
`AC©ae
`bathibw
`
`AtlBae- +..
`};'
`irYet
`
`is
`
`AffYip b
`
`1'.Dx
`
`CorMre,<trtl
`ea n1Fi
`
`>{ì(feg.tl:/ÁNr
`val¡-l9_-7rlt---.,y
`
`'RLLtT
`
`,......._
`
`Tank level sensor
`......... _ .................................
`
`Tarxtenraxre:sn:or
`
`...
`
`Engxre-CAp
`
`AdE6P
`
`pr :.
`
`n3g(
`
`--;í{ l
`
`Adtlae.
`fén petátiió tCrG3r
`
`Vont
`vakÁ
`
`t.
`
`I
`
`AIrDrrs:ué..
`
`Firpid}a
`
`Figure 4: Schematic Layout of the Urea Dosing System
`
`BASF-2019.006
`
`

`
`With the help of a feed pump, a urea /water solution is
`delivered from the urea tank to the dosing valve. The
`system pressure is controlled via a pressure sensor, to
`secure flawless system functionality. So
`that if,
`for
`example, the pressure build -up was disturbed due to air
`or gas bubbles,
`the system would be automatically
`purged.
`The
`injection pressure used was 4.6 bar
`absolute, to ensure good urea spray characteristics.
`
`The dosing strategy is matched to the NOx emissions of
`the engine via a self- contained electronic control system.
`The urea is then injected into a predefined air mass flow
`delivered from the vehicle air reservoir or compressor in
`a subsequent mixing chamber. A back -flow valve is
`integrated
`the mixing chamber,
`into
`to avoid any
`intrusion of urea into the air supply. The air mass flow
`transports the urea through piping and then injects it into
`the exhaust gas flow through a spray tip. Under these
`conditions a fine atomisation and even urea distribution
`the exhaust flow are pre- requisites for high NOx
`in
`conversions.
`
`A focal point in the component development is
`the
`mixing chamber which distinguishes itself functionally
`with the following characteristics:
`
`prevention of urea entering the system
`
`prevention of urea crystalline products in
`system
`
`the
`
`equal mixture of the urea water solution and air
`
`Figure 5 shows the compact dosing unit used in this
`work. A modular dosing system is being developed at
`present, which will allow
`further vehicle system
`installation flexibility though separate pump and dosing
`units.
`
`EXPERIMENTAL
`
`CATALYST AND FILTER DETAILS
`
`The Pt -based catalyst within the CR -DPF part of the
`system was coated onto a metallic monolith substrate
`with a cell density of 54 cells.cm -2 (350 cells.in-2) and a
`wall thickness of 0.15 mm (0.006 in) using standard
`processing techniques. The CR -DPF catalyst used for
`the engine evaluations had a catalyst volume of 8.44
`litres. The cordierite particulate filter used in the CR-
`DPF section of the system was a Corning production
`standard type, with 15 cells.cm -2 (100 cells.in "2) and a
`wall thickness of 0.43 mm (0.017 in). The volume of the
`filter was 34.5 litres.
`
`The SCR catalysts were coated onto metallic, annular
`substrates, with a cell density of 54 cells.cm"2 (350
`cells.in "2) using standard processing techniques. Each
`annular substrate had a volume of 9.52 litres. For some
`experiments an ammonia slip (clean -up) catalyst coated
`onto a single annular substrate was used.
`In other
`experiments, the ammonia slip catalyst was coated onto
`a 266.7 x 152.4 mm ceramic substrate with a cell density
`(400 cells.in "2), and was
`located
`downstream of the compact system.
`
`functional robustness
`
`BENCH ENGINE EVALUATION
`
`The self- contained control unit is mounted to the base
`plate and connected to the internal wire harness via a
`separate connector system.
`The connection of the
`control unit to the engine and vehicle is secured through
`a separate connector. Communication between
`the
`dosing control unit and
`the engine control unit
`is
`maintained through the standardised CAN -bus according
`to J 1939 -71.
`
`Figure 5: Compact Urea Dosing Unit
`
`The engine used for these studies was a Volvo D12C 12
`litre, 347 kW (465 hp) turbocharged, aftercooled engine,
`for US'00 and with slightly modified engine
`certified
`calibration due to the pollution control system.
`
`The European Steady -state Cycle (ESC) is a 13 mode
`cycle which probes the whole range of the engine map.
`The ESC evaluations were carried out using standard
`procedures. The engine was operated for the prescribed
`time in each mode, and completed the engine speed and
`load changes in the first 20 seconds at each mode. The
`sampling
`times were at
`least 4 seconds per 0.01
`weighting factor. One PM sample was taken over the
`complete test cycle by means of a dilution tunnel. The
`filter
`papers were
`stabilised
`under
`controlled
`temperature and humidity conditions for 24 hours prior to
`the testing and then installed for the test. After the test
`cycle had been completed, the filter papers, with the
`collected PM, were again stabilised before being
`weighed.
`
`The US Heavy Duty Transient (HDT) cycle is a transient
`cycle which simulates real world driving.
`The HDT
`evaluations were carried out on the same engine using
`standard procedures according
`to EPA guidelines.
`Regulated emissions
`(except PM) were measured
`before and after
`the Compact SCR -Trap System.
`
`BASF-2019.007
`
`

`
`Second -by- second measurements of gaseous emissions
`and engine parameters were made during the test cycle.
`
`The fuel used during all the tests was Swedish MK1 fuel
`(sulfur level < 10 ppm) from a standard refinery source.
`The engine oil used was Shell Myrina 15W 40. The urea
`used was a commercially available formulation of 32.5 %
`in water. Ammonia to NOx
`urea
`ratios (ANRs) of
`between 0.85 and 1.00 (by moles) were used in this
`work; the ANR was controlled via the urea injection rate.
`An ANR of 1 corresponds to the stoichiometric ratio
`which potentially enables 100% NOx conversion. The
`volumetric flow rate of the urea solution to the injector
`nozzle was measured periodically to check that the urea
`dosing rate was correct.
`
`Gaseous emissions were measured raw before and after
`the catalyst system using a
`range of analysers:
`chemiluminescence for NO and NO2, heated FID (Flame
`Ionisation Detector) for HC, NDIR (Non- Dispersive Infra
`Red) analysers
`for CO, CO2 and N20, and a
`paramagnetic detector for 02. Ammonia was detected
`using a laser -based AltOptronic LD 3000 analyser which
`measures the sample in situ.
`
`RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
`
`ESC EVALUATIONS
`
`The performance of the system was initially measured
`over the ESC test cycle. The urea injection strategy was
`carefully calibrated to provide very high NOx conversion
`with very little ammonia slip. The urea was injected to
`provide an ammonia- to -NOx (ANR) ratio of 0.95, so the
`maximum possible NOx conversion in these experiments
`was 95 %.
`Two Compact SCR -Trap Systems were
`tested: one containing
`two annular SCR catalysts
`followed by an annular ammonia slip catalyst, and the
`other containing three annular SCR catalysts followed by
`an ammonia slip catalyst located downstream of the
`compact
`the emissions
`both
`unit.
`cases
`In
`measurements were made after
`the ammonia slip
`catalyst. The ESC emissions of these two compact
`systems are summarised in Table 3.
`
`Table 3: Emissions of the Compact SCR -Trap System
`over the ESC (g kW' hr')
`
`System
`
`HC
`
`CO
`
`NOx
`
`PM
`
`Engine Out
`
`0.123
`
`0.324
`
`6.926
`
`0.022
`
`2 SCR Catalysts
`
`0.002
`
`0.000
`
`1.097
`
`0.006
`
`3 SCR Catalysts
`
`0.002
`
`0.000
`
`0.562
`
`0.008
`
`Euro V Limits
`
`0.460
`
`1.500
`
`2.000
`
`0.020
`
`It can be seen that the system with the lower catalyst
`volume
`(the one containing only 2 annular SCR
`catalysts) is very comfortably inside the Euro V emission
`legislation
`for all four pollutants.
`Indeed,
`the NOx
`emissions of the system are approximately half the
`proposed Euro V NOx standard of 2 g kW' hr'. When
`the additional SCR catalyst is added to the system, the
`NOx emissions are
`reduced
`to approximately one
`quarter of the proposed Euro V NOx level. As expected,
`the addition of the third SCR catalyst does not lead to
`any significant changes in the other emissions, which all
`remain far below the Euro V legislated levels.
`
`The HC and CO conversions obtained using
`the
`compact systems are extremely high, with both systems
`providing 98% HC and 100% CO conversion. The NOx
`conversion obtained using two annular SCR catalysts is
`rising to 92% when the third SCR catalyst
`84 %,
`is
`added.
`(Since urea is
`injected to provide an ANR of
`0.95, 95% NOx conversion is the maximum possible in
`these experiments, so this 92% is a remarkably high
`conversion figure). The PM conversion from the system
`is around 70 %, but
`relatively
`this
`figure
`low
`is a
`consequence of the very low engine -out PM emissions,
`which, at 0.022 g kW' hr', almost meet the Euro V PM
`standard of 0.020 g kW' hr' without the CR -DPF filter
`system. Note that the PM emissions from the compact
`systems are less than half of the Euro V legislated level.
`
`This very high NOx conversion can be compared with
`previous data generated using the same urea injection
`system as used here. ESC NOx conversions of up to
`83% were reported using an SCR system with no oxicat,
`DPF or ammonia slip catalyst [9]. Much larger SCR
`volumes were used in the earlier work (2.7 to 2.8 times
`engine swept volume, compared to 1.6 here).
`
`Figure 6 shows the NOx conversion and ammonia slip
`level from the compact system containing three annular
`SCR catalysts at each mode of the ESC (except Mode 1,
`which is the idle mode). Note that the NOx conversion is
`measured over the complete system (ie downstream of
`the ammonia slip catalyst) while the ammonia slip is
`recorded
`in front of the ammonia slip catalyst. The
`ammonia slip was measured here to show how much
`ammonia breaks
`through
`the SCR catalysts, and
`therefore to provide an accurate assessment of the
`precision of the urea injection calibration.
`
`Figure 6 shows
`that the NOx conversion
`remains
`extremely high
`in each ESC mode, never
`falling
`significantly below 90 %.
`The ammonia slip
`levels
`measured before the slip catalyst are very low, never
`rising above 10ppm, which testifies to the excellent urea
`injection calibration developed
`this work.
`As
`in
`expected, the ammonia slip level measured downstream
`of the slip catalyst was almost undetectable.
`
`BASF-2019.008
`
`

`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`50
`
`45
`
`40
`
`y T
`
`ca
`
`35
`
`f NOx Conversion
`
`-C) -NH3 Slip
`
`U
`_
`30 R.-,
`á E
`U
`cu
`o
`m
`.o
`a
`
`25
`
`sa-
`
`20
`
`15
`
`\- -
`
`10
`
`5
`
`_ z
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`9
`6
`7
`8
`ESC Mode Number
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Figure
`6: Mode -by -Mode NOx Conversion and
`Ammonia Slip Levels using 3 SCR Catalysts over the
`ESC Test Cycle
`
`US HEAVY DUTY TRANSIENT EVALUATIONS
`
`During the calibration of the urea injection strategy a
`great deal of emphasis was placed on the transient
`performance of the system. This is extremely important
`since real -world driving is often highly transient in nature.
`To assess the efficiency of the urea injection calibration,
`the Compact SCR -Trap System was also tested over the
`US Heavy Duty Transient test cycle. For these tests the
`SCR system comprised two annular SCR catalysts
`followed by an annular ammonia slip catalyst.
`
`The US Heavy Duty Transient test starts with the engine
`traditionally present
`tests
`cold;
`such cold
`start
`challenges for emission control devices. With
`this
`system, cold start PM control is not an issue, since the
`filter will
`remove soot very efficiently at
`particulate
`ambient
`temperatures.
`But NOx control
`is more
`challenging, since urea cannot be injected at very low
`temperatures, because
`it will not hydrolyse and
`ammonia will not be generated at temperatures below
`around 160 °C. This sets a practical limit for the start of
`the urea injection in SCR systems in such cold start
`tests, and therefore limits the NOx conversion that can
`be obtained.
`
`tailpipe NOx
`the engine out and
`Figure 7 shows
`emissions during a cold start US Heavy Duty Transient
`test. The temperature of the SCR system is also shown.
`takes around 600 seconds for the SCR
`Note that it
`temperature
`the critical 160 °C
`catalyst
`rise
`to
`to
`temperature level. This is principally because the CR-
`DPF system has a large thermal mass, so it takes a long
`time for the engine heat to reach the downstream SCR
`catalysts. Urea injection was started after approximately
`625 seconds, at which point the tailpipe NOx level falls
`well below the engine -out NOx level.
`
`It can be seen that substantial NOx conversion is then
`achieved. However, because no urea injection (and
`therefore no significant NOx conversion) occurred during
`the first half of the test, the overall NOx conversion
`
`during this test was relatively low, at 56.1%. Note that
`this is similar to the 55.6% conversion reported by Miller
`et al [10], although in that case the SCR catalyst volume
`was much larger and there was no upstream CR -DPF to
`increase the SCR warm -up time.
`
`2000
`
`1800
`
`--1600
`E
`R1400
`ó 1200
`
`Ç 1000
`
`C 800
`o
`U
`600
`o
`z 400
`
`200
`
`-Engine -Out NOx
`Tailpipe NOx
`-SCR Catalyst Temperature
`
`400
`
`350
`
`300
`
`250
`
`V
`m
`
`200 R
`m Q
`m
`
`150
`
`100
`
`50
`
`o
`
`200
`
`400
`
`600
`Time (s)
`
`800
`
`1000
`
`1200
`
`Figure
`7: NOx Emissions and SCR Catalyst
`Temperature During a Cold Start US Heavy Duty
`Transient Test
`
`The emission and conversion
`levels of the gaseous
`pollutants during this cold start test are given in Table 4.
`
`Table 4: Gaseous Emissions From the Compact SCR -
`Trap System in the Cold Start US Heavy Duty Transient
`Test (g bhp -1hr 1)
`
`System
`
`HC
`
`CO
`
`NOx
`
`Engine Out
`
`0.184
`
`1.311
`
`5.418
`
`Tailpipe
`
`0.013
`
`0.355
`
`2.378
`
`Conversion
`
`93%
`
`73%
`
`56%
`
`The tailpipe ammonia slip was very low during this cold
`start test, with an average of 6ppm, and a maximum of
`20ppm. These low levels confirm the accuracy and
`control of the urea injection strategy.
`
`the engine -out and
`Figure 8 shows
`tailpipe NOx
`emissions, as well as the SCR catalyst temperature,
`during a hot start US Heavy Duty Transient test.
`
`Much better NOx conversion is seen during hot start US
`Heavy Duty Transient tests, since in such
`tests the
`temperature is always high enough
`to permit urea
`injection.
`Table 5 summarises the emissions and
`conve

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket