throbber
Development of SCR on Diesel Particulate Filter
`System for Heavy Duty Applications
`
`2011-01-1312
`Published
`04/12/2011
`
`Mojghan Naseri, Sougato Chatterjee, Mario Castagnola, Hai-Ying Chen, Joseph Fedeyko,
`Howard Hess and Jianquan Li
`Johnson Matthey Inc.
`
`ABSTRACT
`Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalysts have been
`demonstrated as an effective solution for controlling NOx
`emissions from diesel engines. Typical 2010 Heavy Duty
`systems include a DOC along with a catalyzed soot filter
`(CSF) in addition to the SCR sub-assembly. There is a strong
`desire to further increase the NOx conversion capability of
`such systems, to enable additional fuel economy savings by
`allowing engines to be calibrated to higher engine-out NOx
`levels. One potential approach is to replace the CSF with a
`diesel particulate filter coated with SCR catalysts (SCR-DPF)
`while keeping the flow-through SCR elements downstream,
`which essentially increases the SCR volume in the after-
`treatment assembly without affecting the overall packaging. In
`this work, a system consisting of SCR-DPF was evaluated in
`comparison to the DOC + CSF components from a commercial
`2010 DOC + CSF + SCR system on an engine with the engine
`EGR on (standard engine out NOx) and off (high engine out
`NOx). The SCR-DPF system exhibited significantly higher
`NOx reduction efficiency than the CSF systems under both
`steady state and heavy duty FTP transient conditions when the
`engine operated at the same condition. The soot oxidation
`activity on these two systems was also evaluated. Net soot
`oxidation (ie more soot removed from the filter than entered it
`form the engine) was observed over the SCR-DPF system at
`400°C presumably because of the high NOx/PM ratio when
`the engine EGR was turned off. No net soot burn was observed
`for the 2010 CSF system when operating with standard EGR at
`the specific conditions chosen for these series of testing. The
`high passive filter regeneration activity of the SCR-DPF
`system with the engine operating at high engine-out NOx may
`result in less frequent active regeneration events and, hence,
`reduce the fuel penalty associated with active regeneration.
`The results of this work demonstrated that using SCR-DPF
`systems not only could meet current NOx reduction regulations
`but also improve fuel economy for heavy duty diesel vehicles
`
`Copyright © 2011 SAE International
`doi: 10.4271/2011-01-1312
`
`by allowing them to operate at higher engine out NOx
`conditions.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`To meet NOx emission requirements and regulations for heavy
`duty diesel engines, selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
`catalysts have been demonstrated to be an effective solution.
`Urea based SCRs for 2010 heavy duty applications consist of
`DOC along with a catalyzed soot filter (CSF) in addition to the
`SCR sub-assembly. Further decrease in NOx emission from an
`after-treatment system is desired to have additional fuel
`economy saving by allowing diesel engines operation at higher
`engine out NOx level. One approach is to replace the CSF with
`a diesel particulate filter coated with SCR (SCR-DPF) while
`keeping the flow-through SCR downstream. This approach
`helps in increasing the SCR volume, which can improve
`system NOx conversion, without changing the overall package
`size in a typical 2010 type system. Utilizing the SCR-DPF
`system could allow the diesel engine to operate at higher
`engine out NOx while still having the same emission targets
`and potentially improve the engine fuel economy. For the
`SCR-DPF system, high porosity filters are needed to enable
`the use of the high washcoat loadings necessary to get good
`performance and durability. These high porous filters need to
`have very good thermomechanical properties to enable them to
`survive the active regeneration events over the life of the
`system. Previous work has demonstrated that SCR-DPF
`catalysts have high NOx conversion capabilities [1, 4]. Also,
`many investigations have been conducted to understand the
`thermal durability of Cu-zeolite SCR catalysts and their
`activity after repeated soot regeneration [1, 2, 3, 4], which
`allows its use in the SCR-DPF system. It was also demonstrated
`that SCR-DPF has a similar characteristics as the CSF in that
`it has a low impact on back pressure [4]. However, limited
`work has been done to evaluate SCR-DPF for passive
`regeneration capability in heavy duty applications.
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1798
`
`BASF-2011.001
`
`

`
`In this work, a system containing an SCR-DPF was evaluated
`in comparison to a 2010 type CSF + SCR system on an engine
`with the engine EGR on (auto EGR) and off (high engine out
`NOx). The NOx conversion of these two systems during steady
`state and transient (HD FTP cycles) testing was studied to
`evaluate NOx conversion of the SCR-DPF as compared to the
`CSF system for heavy duty applications. In order to have the
`desired fuel economy, the SCR-DPF system must not only
`have high NOx conversion but also be able to passively
`regenerate via reaction with NO2. Therefore, passive soot
`oxidation activity of these two systems was evaluated.
`
`EXPERIMENTAL
`Cu-zeolite SCR was washcoated on a high porosity filter. The
`filter used for this study was a NGK cordierite C650, 300 cells
`per square inches and 12 mil wall thickness. This catalyst was
`compared to a current catalyzed soot filter (CSF) which was
`also coated on NGK cordierite filter substrate with 200 cells/
`
`in2 and 12 mil wall thickness. Both CSF and SCR-DPF were
`combined with diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) upstream and
`Cu-SCR catalysts downstream. DOC, CSF and SCR-DPF
`were hydrothermally aged at 700°C for 150hrs while SCR
`catalysts were aged for 100hrs at 650°C. There was 10% water
`present during all hydrothermal aging. Table 1 shows catalyst
`dimensions and aging conditions.
`
`Testing was conducted using a 2007 MY heavy duty diesel
`engine with a 2007 calibration. The system configuration
`during all tests was DOC + SCR-DPF (or CSF) + SCRs, the
`configurations are shown in schematic diagrams 1 and 2. Urea
`was delivered and injected into exhaust by an air assisted
`Grundfos pump. The urea injection nozzle was located after
`the DOC for SCR-DPF system and after the CSF for the DOC
`+ CSF + SCR system. A six inch static mixer was placed after
`the injection nozzle and before SCR-DPF or SCR bricks to
`ensure good mixing and uniform distribution in the exhaust.
`
`Table 1. Catalysts Information
`
`Schematic Diagram 1. CSF System configuration
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1799
`
`BASF-2011.002
`
`

`
`Schematic Diagram 2. SCR-DPF System configuration
`
`Both steady state and transient testing were conducted to
`determine the performance of the two systems. The SCR-DPF
`system was tested with EGR off while the CSF system was
`tested both with EGR off and on. Steady-state tests were
`conducted at six different speeds and loads, A75, A25, B75,
`B25, C75 and C25. The ANR (ammonia to NOx ratio) was
`kept constant at 1.2 during steady state runs. The space velocity
`during steady-state testing varied between 20K hr−1-55K hr−1
`depending on the system and test condition. The two system
`performances were also determined during cold and hot HD
`FTP cycles. During transient cycles, urea over-dosing strategy
`at lower temperatures (200-220°C) was used to saturate the
`SCR and SCR-DPF components. The average ANR during
`transient cycles was 1.2 for both the CSF system (EGR on) and
`for the SCR-DPF system (EGR-off).
`
`For passive regeneration testing, the CSF or the SCR-DPF
`systems were loaded up to 3g soot/l. The passive regeneration
`capability of each system was studied at DOC inlet temperatures
`of 300°C and 400°C at speed B. Filters were weighed before
`and after soot loading and passive regeneration while still hot
`at around 180°C. The CSF system was passively regenerated
`with auto EGR (ie low NOx) while SCR-DPF was regenerated
`with EGR turned off (ie high NOx).
`
`The dynamometer utilized in this study was 800HP AC
`motoring dyno from Horiba. During transient testing, full
`dilution tunnel CVS (Horiba 4000 SCFM) was used, and
`intake air flow was measured with Sierra air flow meter
`ranging from 0-2400kg/hr with +_1% accuracy in full scale.
`Engine out emissions were measured using Horiba MEXA
`7500D dual bench (CO, HC and NOx) analyzers with +_1%
`accuracy across the full scale. System out emissions were also
`measured using an FTIR (MKS model 2030 HS). DPF
`backpressure was monitored using pressure transducers, Setra
`
`Model 206. Soot loadings/regenerations for the filters were
`measured by weighing the filters while still hot at 180°C. The
`scale used for weighing the filters was Mettler Toledo, ranging
`from 0-64Kg with 0.1g resolution. Temperatures in the system
`were measured using K type thermocouples.
`
`RESULTS
`
`NOx Performance During Steady State
`The NOx conversion over Cu-SCR for both SCR-DPF and CSF
`systems were measured during 6 mode steady state tests with
`ANR of 1.2. Before the start of steady state testing, the DPFs were
`actively regenerated at CSF/SCR-DPF inlet temperature of 600°C
`to remove soot. SCR-DPF performance was determined by
`turning off the EGR (to give a high NOx condition) while the CSF
`system was studied with both auto EGR and EGR off. Turning off
`the EGR resulted in approximately 5.0g/hp-hr engine out NOx
`while with auto EGR it was approximately 1.0g/hp-hr. Auto-EGR
`resulted in higher temperatures and lower exhausts flow as
`compared to EGR off as shown in Figure 1. The bars represent
`exhaust flow while dashed lines show SCR or SCR-DPF inlet
`temperatures. With EGR off, the exhaust flow increased at a
`minimum of 40% to over 100% in some cases. Consequently,
`with EGR off, exhaust temperature under these steady state
`conditions dropped anywhere from 30°C to over 100°C.
`
`Figure 2 shows NOx conversion for both systems at steady state
`with ANR of 1.2. For the majority of modes, the SCR-DPF
`system has equivalent NOx conversion as the CSF system even
`with high engine out NOx, higher exhaust flow and lower inlet
`temperatures. For example under C25 test condition, the SCR-
`DPF demonstrated almost similar (>93%) NOx conversion as the
`CSF system, even though the exhaust flow was more than double
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1800
`
`BASF-2011.003
`
`

`
`Figure 1. Exhaust flow and temperature at different engine operations
`
`with the SCR-DPF and exhaust temperature was over 30°C
`lower. Only under the very low temperatures for A25 and B25,
`the SCR-DPF system showed lower performance than the CSF
`system. This is due to very low temperature experienced by the
`SCR-DPF, approximately 214°C as compared to 290-300°C for
`the CSF system. However, the overall results suggested that there
`is a potential to achieve higher overall NOx conversion with the
`SCR-DPF system than the CSF+SCR systems. This is further
`examined by testing both systems under similar test conditions.
`
`Figure 3. NOx conversion for CSF and SCR-DPF
`systems (no EGR)
`
`Figure 3 shows the results of steady state testing of the CSF
`system versus the SCR-DPF system under similar EGR-off
`conditions. These tests were carried out to compare the
`performance of these two systems when subjected to similar
`temperatures and flow conditions. The exhaust flow conditions
`were those of the EGR-off conditions as shown in Figure 1.
`The exhaust temperatures at SCR inlet for each test conditions
`are shown in Figure 3. Note that the temperature was measured
`at SCR-DPF inlet for SCR-DPF system and at SCR inlet for
`CSF system. ANR was maintained at 1.2 for these tests. These
`results clearly showed the benefit in NOx reduction with the
`SCR-DPF system, especially under difficult low temperature
`conditions. Comparing A25 and B25 conditions with
`
`Figure 2. NOx conversion for CSF (auto-EGR) and
`SCR-DPF (no EGR)
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1801
`
`BASF-2011.004
`
`

`
`temperatures around 210°C, the SCR-DPF system exhibited
`significantly higher NOx reduction than the CSF system.
`Especially at B25 which had 50% higher flow than A25, the
`SCR-DPF system exhibited around 85% NOx reduction while
`the CSF system exhibited only about 70%. Similarly at C25,
`with even higher flow but temperatures around 237°C, the
`SCR-DPF system produced 93% NOx reduction while it was
`only 79% with the CSF system. As the temperature increased
`beyond 350°C, this difference was minimized.
`
`A light-off test comparison was also conducted to determine
`performance of the SCR-DPF as compared to the CSF system.
`The experiment was designed to have similar exhaust
`temperatures for both systems and space velocity was maintained
`approximately at 30,000/hr. EGR was turned off for SCR-DPF
`system while CSF system was tested with auto-EGR. ANR for
`
`each point was at 1.20. Figure 4 shows temperatures for each
`system during these tests. As is shown, the two systems had
`similar temperatures for most modes except the last mode,
`where the CSF system experienced higher temperature.
`
`Figure 5 shows NOx conversion for each system during light-off
`tests. These results suggested that the SCR-DPF system exhibits
`higher NOx conversion at lower temperatures from 200°C to
`about 280°C, as compared to the CSF system. For example, at
`200°C, the SCR-DPF system produced 77% NOx conversion
`whereas the CSF system showed only 62%. From 280°C
`onward, both systems have similar NOx conversion. However,
`at 340°C, there appears to be a slight drop in NOx conversion
`with the CSF system, which was not observed with the SCR-
`DPF system. This data has been repeated and is being further
`investigated. In general, these results indicate that the SCR-DPF
`system has a better light-off as compared to the CSF system.
`
`Figure 4. Exhaust temperature for SCR-DPF (EGR off) and CSF (Auto-EGR) during Light-off tests
`
`Figure 5. NOx conversion light-off comparison between SCR-DPF system (EGR off) and CSF system (Auto-EGR), ANR=1.2
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1802
`
`BASF-2011.005
`
`

`
`NOx Conversion During Transient Testing
`The NOx conversion over Cu-SCR for both the SCR-DPF and
`the CSF systems was measured during cold and hot HD FTP
`cycles. There was a warm FTP cycle between the cold and three
`hot FTP cycles. Again, the SCR-DPF system was tested with
`EGR off while the CSF system was tested with both auto EGR
`and EGR off. The engine out NOx was approximately 5g/hp-hr
`under hot FTP cycle with EGR off and it was 1.5g/hp-hr with
`auto EGR. Similar to steady state conditions, turning off the
`EGR resulted in lower exhaust temperature and higher flow, as
`compared to auto EGR. Figure 6 shows temperature traces and
`urea dosing for both systems at different engine operation
`conditions. The top traces (dotted lines) in the graph are SCR/
`SCR-DPF inlet temperatures (left Y-axis) while the traces at the
`bottom (solid lines) show urea dosing for both systems (right
`
`Y-axis). As is shown, SCR inlet temperature for the CSF system
`reaches 200°C sooner as compared to the SCR-DPF system.
`Figure 7 represents the histogram of exhaust temperature at two
`engine operating conditions; auto EGR (low NOx) and EGR
`off (high NOx). The lines indicate the percentage of time
`over certain temperature. The CSF system with auto EGR
`experienced more time over 200°C as compared to SCR-DPF
`system with EGR off condition. In the JM urea dosing system,
`urea is dosed at temperatures of 200°C or above. Therefore,
`in the CSF system with auto EGR, urea was dosed earlier.
`However, the dosing strategy was adjusted in order to have
`similar overall cycle ANR of 1.2 for both systems. This means,
`slightly higher Urea was dosed in the later part of the cycle with
`the SCR-DPF, which compensated for the late onset of dosing
`in this system.
`
`Figure 6. Exhaust temperature and urea dosing traces comparison between auto EGR and no EGR during Hot FTP
`
`Figure 7. Exhaust temperature histogram comparison between auto EGR and no EGR during Hot FTP
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1803
`
`BASF-2011.006
`
`

`
`Figure 8 compares the NOx conversion during cold, warm and
`hot HD FTP testing for the CSF and the SCR-DPF systems
`with auto EGR and EGR turned off, respectively. During these
`tests, the SCR-DPF system demonstrated slightly higher NOx
`conversion than the CSF system. This difference was more
`pronounced during the cold FTP cycle where the SCR-DPF
`system showed 63% NOx conversion as compared to 55% for
`the CSF system. During the hot FTP cycle, SCR-DPF still
`showed better NOx conversion as compared to the CSF,
`however the difference was minimal. Please note that these
`tests were not carried out with a dosing strategy fully optimized
`for SCR-DPF system. The dosing strategy was developed and
`optimized for CSF + SCR system. Authors believe that by
`optimizing the urea dosing strategy and taking advantage of
`NH3 storage of the system, SCR-DPF performance can further
`be improved under these conditions.
`
`Next, the SCR-DPF and the CSF systems were tested again
`under HD FTP transient cycles, but under similar engine
`operating conditions by turning the EGR off (in both cases).
`The exhaust flow was similar for both systems in these tests.
`The temperature profiles for these two systems were similar as
`well. The temperature histograms during hot FTP for both
`systems are shown in Figure 9. Exhaust temperature for the
`SCR-DPF system was measured at SCR-DPF inlet while it
`was measured at SCR inlet for the CSF system. As is shown in
`
`Figure 9, both systems experienced similar percentage time
`over temperature profile during the FTP tests, especially at
`200°C where urea injection starts. Due to similarity of the
`overall SCR temperature profiles between the two systems
`(unlike previous FTP tests with and without EGR) overall
`cycle ANR for the SCR-DPF and the CSF systems was s
`imilar. Please note that in these tests, the same Urea dosing
`strategy was utilized for both systems. The SCR-DPF system
`dosing was not optimized in any way to provide better
`performance.
`
`Figure 10 shows the NOx conversion comparison between
`these two systems under similar engine operating conditions
`with EGR turned off. The SCR-DPF system clearly exhibited
`higher overall NOx reduction than the CSF system during
`warm and hot FTP cycles. Comparing the hot cycles, the SCR-
`DPF produced 78-80% NOx reduction while the CSF system
`only produced 68 - 70% NOx reduction. In cold cycle tests, the
`late onset of Urea dosing with the SCR-DPF, probably
`minimized any benefit. This again indicated the benefit of the
`additional SCR catalyst volume in the SCR-DPF system. As
`mentioned previously, further enhancement in the urea dosing
`strategy can possibly help with additional improvement in
`NOx conversion with the SCR-DPF system. This will be
`investigated in the future.
`
`Figure 8. NOx Conversion during cold, warm and hot FTP cycles with CSF system
`(auto EGR) and SCR-DPF system (EGR off))
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1804
`
`BASF-2011.007
`
`

`
`Figure 9. Temperature histogram during Hot FTP cycle for CSF and SCR-DPF Systems
`
`Figure 10. NOx Conversion during cold and hot FTP cycles- EGR Off
`
`Passive Regeneration of Soot Via Reaction
`with NO2
`The passive regeneration capabilities of the SCR-DPF and
`CSF systems were determined under steady state conditions
`after loading the filters up to 3g soot/l. Passive regeneration
`was studied at DOC inlet temperatures of 300°C and 400°C
`with the engine running at speed A. Similar flow and
`temperature conditions were identified for the two systems for
`these tests. For the SCR-DPF system, passive regeneration
`capability was studied with and without urea injection. The
`passive regeneration duration for the SCR-DPF system was
`30 minutes with the EGR off. The CSF system was passively
`regenerated with the EGR on (ie low NOx condition). The CSF
`
`was regenerated for 30 minutes and the filter weight was
`measured while still hot at 180°C. Afterwards, the CSF was
`reinstalled and passively regenerated for a second 30 minute
`period and its weight was recorded. This was carried out to
`evaluate effect of additional time on the CSF passive
`regeneration process. As expected, turning off the EGR
`resulted in higher NOx/PM ratio for the SCR-DPF system as
`compared to the CSF system.
`
`Figure 11 shows passive regeneration capabilities of the two
`systems. The NO2/NOx ratio, space velocity, and engine out
`NOx for each system are shown in Table 2. In the SCR-DPF
`system, urea was dosed at ANR of 1.2 during the passive
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1805
`
`BASF-2011.008
`
`

`
`regeneration evaluation. This urea was dosed upstream of the
`SCR-DPF. There was no such urea dosing upstream of the CSF.
`During the 300°C passive regeneration tests, neither system
`demonstrated any net soot burn. In fact, both systems showed
`soot gain during this 30 minute period. There was up to 10%
`soot gain for the CSF at 300°C while the soot loading nearly
`double for the SCR-DPF, indicating significantly poorer passive
`regeneration for the SCR-DPF under these conditions. It appears
`that the higher increase in the soot load on the SCR-DPF system
`was due to urea dosing which allowed for significant reduction
`in NO2 across the SCR-DPF, before the same NO2 could be
`utilized for soot burn. During the 400°C passive regeneration
`testing, the CSF system still continued to show lack of passive
`regeneration and increased soot load by 24%. This appears to be
`due to reduced NO2 make from the DOC and CSF under this
`higher operating temperature. In contrast, the SCR-DPF system
`
`actually produced nearly 20% reduction in soot load under the
`400°C test condition. This can be attributed to higher NO2
`generation from the DOC under the SCR-DPF test conditions.
`Note that SCR-DPF had orders of magnitude higher engine out
`NOx with EGR off. It is known that higher NOx concentration
`helps to increase the NO oxidation to NO2, across a DOC under
`some temperature conditions. Accordingly, the DOC in the
`SCR-DPF system produced nearly 30% NO2 under the 400°C
`test condition. In addition, the overall NOx/PM ratio for the
`SCR-DPF condition was much higher than the CSF system.
`This combination resulted in significant passive regeneration
`with the SCR-DPF system than the CSF system at 400°C. Note
`that, this passive regeneration was observed even with urea
`dosing on the SCR-DPF. The SCR-DPF system also had a very
`high NOx conversion at both passive regeneration test
`conditions, as shown in Figure 12.
`
`Table 2. NO2/NOx, SV and Engine out Information during Passive Regeneration
`
`Figure 11. Passive regeneration characteristics of the two systems, 30minute regeneration time
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1806
`
`BASF-2011.009
`
`

`
`Figure 12. NOx Conversion for SCR-DPF during Passive Regeneration, ANR=1.2
`
`The SCR-DPF passive regeneration capability was further
`studied with and without urea injection at the same DOC inlet
`temperatures of 300°C and 400°C. The results are presented in
`Figure 13. These tests were carried out to understand the effect
`of Urea dosing on the SCR-DPF’s passive regeneration
`capability. As is shown (and as is expected), urea injection
`significantly reduced the net soot burn on the SCR-DPF. At
`300°C, there was only a slight soot gain of 5% without urea
`injection as compared to 20% increase in soot load with urea
`dosing. At 400°C, however, the SCR-DPF filter was passively
`regenerated with and without urea dosing. With urea dosing,
`
`the passive regeneration extent was reduced and 19% net soot
`was observed as compared to 25% net soot burn without urea.
`The lower soot burn with urea injection is attributed to NO2
`conversion via the SCR reaction as shown in Figure 14. Note
`that around 100% NOx conversion was observed through the
`SCR-DPF system in these experiments, as shown in Figure 12.
`
`The results shown in this section indicate that SCR-DPF has a
`promising potential for passive regeneration with engine out
`NOx control strategy, while still meeting high NOx conversion
`needed at tailpipe.
`
`Figure 13. SCR-DPF system passive regeneration capability with EGR off
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1807
`
`BASF-2011.010
`
`

`
`Figure 14. NO2/NOx ratio at different locations with DOC + SCR-DPF system with and without urea injection
`
`SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
`• In this paper, a DOC + CSF + SCR system was compared
`with a DOC + SCR-DPF + SCR system for heavy duty diesel
`engine applications. The SCR-DPF system was tested with
`high engine out NOx of approximately 5g/hp-hr (EGR off)
`while the CSF system was evaluated at an engine-out NOx
`level of 1-1.5g/hp-hr (EGR on) as well as under similar high
`NOx with EGR off.
`• Both steady state and transient results indicate that if engine
`conditions are similar for both systems (EGR-off), the SCR-
`DPF system enables higher NOx reduction as compared
`to the CSF system. The improved SCR-DPF performance
`is especially evident and more advantageous at lower
`temperatures, as demonstrated through steady state and light-
`off tests. This higher NOx conversion can be attributed towards
`the higher overall SCR volume in the SCR-DPF system.
`• The SCR-DPF system also exhibits very good potential
`for higher NOx conversion for future heavy duty systems.
`This was demonstrated during both steady state and transient
`testing. With further optimization of the urea dosing strategy
`for SCR-DPF system, the NOx conversion performance of
`heavy duty SCR-DPF system can be further improved. This
`can enable heavy duty engines to operate with higher engine
`out NOx while still meeting tailpipe emissions leading to
`improved vehicle fuel economy.
`• The SCR-DPF system demonstrated better passive
`regeneration capability under higher engine out NOx
`conditions as compared to the CSF system under lower engine
`out NOx. Therefore, when operated with higher engine out
`NOx (>2.5 g), the SCR-DPF system will experience less
`frequent active regeneration events and thus further reduce
`
`fuel penalty. It is off-course understood that the regeneration
`strategy with SCR-DPF needs to be optimized along with
`engine out emissions, in order to take advantage of this.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Lee, J.H., Paratore, M.J., and Brown, D.B., “Evaluation
`of Cu-Based SCR/DPF Technology for Diesel Exhaust
`Emission Control,” SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 1(1):96-101, 2008,
`doi:10.4271/2008-01-0072.
`2. Chang, R., Chen, H.Y., Fedeyko, J.M., Andersen, P.J.
`Thermal Durability and Deactivation of Cu-zeolite SCR
`Catalyst. 20th North American Catalysis Society Meeting,
`June 2007
`3. Cheng, Y., Lambert, C.K., Kwak, J.H., Peden, C.H.F..
`Understanding the Deactivation Mechanisms of Cu/Zeolite
`SCR Catalysts in Diesel Application. US Department of
`Energy Diesel Engine Emissions Reductions (DEER)
`Conference, Dearborn, August 2008
`4. Ballinger, T., Cox, J., Konduru, M., De, D., Manning, W.,
`Andersen, P. J.. Evaluation of SCR Catalyst Technology on
`Diesel Particulate Filters
`
`CONTACT INFORMATION
`Mojghan Naseri
`380 Lapp Rd
`Malvern, PA 19355
`Phone: (484) 320-2236
`naserm@jmusa.com
`
` SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1808
`
`BASF-2011.011
`
`

`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
`The authors would like to thank everyone at Johnson Matthey
`who contributed to this work through catalyst preparation,
`characterization and evaluations. We would also like to thank
`Johnson Matthey for permission to publish this paper.
`
`DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
`CSF
`
`Catalyzed Soot Filter
`
`SCR
`
`DPF
`
`Selective Catalytic Reduction
`
`Diesel Particulate Filter
`
`SCR-DPF
`SCR coated diesel particulate filter
`
`DOC
`
`NOx
`
`PM
`
`ANR
`
`SAE
`
`Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
`
`Nitrogen oxides
`
`Particulate matter
`
`Ammonia to NOx ratio
`
`SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 4 | Issue 1
`
`1809
`
`BASF-2011.012

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