Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
1
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Emissions Study(Regulated Emissions)
Dec. 8th, 2010
Kwangsam Na
California Environmental Protection AgencyCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency
AirAir Resources BoardResources Board
Heavy Duty Diesel Emission Testing LaboratoryMobile Source Control Division
2
Regulated Emissions
(PM, NOx, CO, THC)
Global Warming Gas
(CO2)
Blend Levels
(20%, 50%, 100%)
Feed Stocks
(Soy-based biodiesel, Animal fat biodiesel,
Renewable diesel)
Driving Cycles
(UDDS, Cruise)
Objectives
To look at the impact of blend levels, feed stocks, and driving cycles on regulated emissions and a global warming gas.
3
Emission Testing
2
4
Vehicles Tested
Veh. #1: 2000 Freightliner C15 Caterpillar Veh. #2: 2006 International ISM 370
Veh. #3: 2008 Freightliner Mercedes Benz MBE 4000
5
450at 1900 rpm
370at 2100 rpm
550 at 1800 rpm
Horse power/Torque
CARB diesel,Soy-based biodiesel(S20, S50, S100),
Animal-based( A20, A50, A100),
12.8
Cruise:57,490
UDDS:43,480
8,000EGR,DOC,DPF
2008 FreightlinerMercedes Benz
MBE 4000
CARB diesel,Soy-based biodiesel(S20, S50, S100),
Animal-based( A20, A50, A100),
10.8
Cruise:61,189
UDDS:43,480
93,000EGR 2006 InternationalISM 370
CARB diesel,Soy-based biodiesel(S20, S50, S100),
Animal-based( A20, A50, A100),Renewable diesel(R20, R50, R100)
14.6
Cruise:58,744
UDDS:43,861
34,0002000 Freightliner C15 Caterpillar
Test fuelsEngine
Displacement(liter)
Inertia weight(lbm)
Odometer(miles)
EmissionControlDevices
Make/model/year
Description on vehicles and fuels tested
6
Driving Cycles Tested
II. 50 mph Highway Cruise: High load cycle
I. Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS): low load cycle
0
20
40
60
80
0 200 400 600 800Time (s)
Spe
ed (
mile
/h)
0
20
40
60
80
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (s)
Spe
ed (
mile
/h)
3
7
Emission Data Measured
Regulated components Non-regulated components
• Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
• Particulate Matter (PM)
• Total Hydrocarbons (THC)
• Carbon Monoxide (CO)
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
• NO2 fractions in NOx
8
Constant Volume Sampling (CVS) Dilution Tunnel and PM sampling Conditions
Horiba full flow dilution tunnel
Horiba PM filter unit
• Dilution air temp.: 25±5 oC• Heated filter temp.: 47±5 oC• Filter face velocity: 100±10 cm/s
9
PM and Gas Analysis
PM: Mettler Toledo UMX2Micro Balance
Readability: 0.1 µg
Gases: Horiba MEXA 7200DExhaust Gas Analyzer
• CO, CO2: NDIR (Non-dispersive infrared)• THC: FID (flame ionization detector)• NOx: CLD (Chemi-luminescence detector)
Detector for Gas Analysis
4
10
Test R
esults
11
Drift o
f NOxEmission fo
r
2000 Vehicle
10
15
20
25
CARB-Soy
S20
S50
S100
CARB-Animal
A20
A50
A100
CARB-Renewable
R20
R50
R100
CARB-2
A20
A100
CARB-Soy
S20
S50
S100
CARB-Animal
A20
A50
A100
CARB-Renewable
R20
R50
R100
CARB-2
A100
S20
UD
DS
Cru
ise
Cy
cles &
Fu
el B
len
ds
NOx Emission Rate (g/mile)
12 14 16 18
11-28-0812-18-08
1-7-091-27-09
2-16-09
Testin
g d
ate
NOx emissions (g/mile)
CA
RB
Diesel
12
PM Emissions
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
CARB
S20
S50
S100
A20
A50
A100
R20
R50
R100
CARB
B20
B50
B100
A20
A50
A100
R20
R50
R100
Soy base
Anim
al baseR
enewable
Soy base
Anim
al baseR
enewable
Double U
DD
S50 M
PH
Highw
ay Cruise
Emission rate for PM(g/mi)
20002006
2008
5
13
CO Emissions
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
CA
RB
S20
S50
S10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
CA
RB
B20
B50
B10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
Soy base Animal base Renewable Soy base Animal base Renewable
Double UDDS 50 MPH Highway Cruise
Em
issi
on
rat
e fo
r C
O(g
/mi)
2000 2006 2008
14
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Elapsed time (s)
TH
C (
gram
)
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
CO
(gr
am)
THC (g) CO (g)
1st UDDS cycle 2nd UDDS cycle
THC and CO Emissions
Before and After the DOC is Warmed up(2008 model year vehicle, CARB diesel, double UDDS cycle)
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Elapsed time (s)
Exh
aust
tem
per
atu
re (
oC
)
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
TH
C e
mis
sio
ns
(g)
Before DOC+DPF After DOC+DPF THC (g)
Exhaust temperature
THC emission
100 oC
15
THC Emissions
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
CA
RB
S20
S50
S10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
CA
RB
B20
B50
B10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
Soy base Animal base Renewable Soy base Animal base Renewable
Double UDDS 50 MPH Highway Cruise
Em
issi
on
rat
e fo
r T
HC
(g
/mi)
2000 2006 2008
6
16
CO2 Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
CA
RB
S20
S50
S10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
CA
RB
B20
B50
B10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
Soy base Animal base Renewable Soy base Animal base Renewable
Double UDDS 50 MPH Highway Cruise
Em
issi
on
rat
e fo
r C
O2
(g/m
i)
2000 2006 2008
17
NO2 Fractions in total NOx emissions
0
20
40
60
80
100
CA
RB
S20
S50
S10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
CA
RB
B20
B50
B10
0
A20
A50
A10
0
R20
R50
R10
0
Soy base Animal base Renewable Soy base Animal base Renewable
Double UDDS 50 MPH Highway Cruise
NO
2 in
to
tal N
Ox
(%)
2000 2006 2008
18
Summary
Continued on next slide
• Average PM, THC and CO emission rates decreased with increasing blend level of biodiesel regardless of the driving cycles and the vehicle model year.
• For the 2008 vehicle, THC and CO emissions sharply dropped when the DOC is warmed up and were not affected by biodiesel concentration. PM emissions were close to or below detection limit. In other words, the use of biodiesel did not show any benefits in the reduction of THC, CO and PM emissions when used with DOC/DPF.
• The 2008 vehicle equipped with DOC and DPF showed the lowest regulated pollutant emissions among the vehicles tested. However, this vehicle was not effective at reducing CO2 emissions.
7
19
Continued on next slide
Summary (Contd)
• NOx significantly increased for 50% and higher biodiesel blends regardless of the driving cycles and the vehicle model year. Increase in NOx emission was most noticeable for the 2008 vehicle.
• For renewable diesel, NOx shows a decreasing trend with increasingblend level for both driving cycles. However, its significant increase was observed for pure renewable diesel.
• For the 2000 vehicle with no NOx control device (EGR), more NOx was emitted for the highway cruise cycle (having high load) than the UDDS cycle (with lower load). However, this emission pattern was opposite for vehicles equipped with EGR, showing a better NOx reduction efficiency under higher load driving cycle.
20
Summary (contd)
• CO2 emissions were not significantly impacted by biodiesel blend levels for different vehicle model year except for renewable diesel blend levels higher than 50% which significantly decreased CO2 emissions for both driving cycles.
• No significant impact of biodiesel was found on NO2 fractions for all vehicles tested. The NO2 fractions were the highest for the 2008 vehicle equipped with a DOC. The 2006 vehicle equipped with EGR showed ahigher NO2 fraction than the 2000 vehicle with no EGR.
21
Thank you for your attention !!!