CPM Besch 2016 Characterization of Atmospheric Dispersing ... · II 16 in center III 30 in 24 in IV...

CAFEECenter for Alternative Fuels, Engines, and Emissions

CHARACTERIZATION OF ATMOSPHERIC

DISPERSING EXHAUST PLUME DURING ON-

ROAD OPERATION OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY

HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS

Marc C. Besch†, Arvind Thiruvengadam†, Dan K. Carder†, Pragalath Thiruvengadam†, Saroj Pradhan†, Berk Demirgok†,

Mridul Gautam†‡

† West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV‡ University of Reno Nevada, Reno, NV


West Virginia UniversityBenjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (MAE)


BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

2

115ft

Partial Flow Sampling System (PFSS)

Full Flow Constant Volume Sampling System (CVS)

Full Flow Windtunnel Dispersing Plume Studies

On-Road Chase or Dispersing Plume Studies


BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

3

• Assess the likelihood of reproducing real-world PM size distributions collected from the exhaust plume, by using two methodologies: CVS and Partial-Flow sampling

� Differences in dilution rates occurring in dispersing plume => enhancement/suppression of nucleation

� Importance of local turbulence intensity inside plume in enhancement of nucleation mode particle formation

� Impact of real-world background aerosols on particle formation/evolution in dispersing plume

• Compare PM development in real-world exhaust plume vs. full-scale windtunnel vs. full-flow CVS vs. partial flow sampling

• Compare PM morphology and composition via TEM/EDX analysis of PM samples obtained through plume and laboratory sampling


FROM ON-ROAD CVS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT

4

• Particle size distributions and number concentrations measured in CVS were

found to be dependent on engine technology

• DPF regeneration events increase TPM emissions

• SCR activity results in particles both in nucleation (e.g. sulfates) and accumulation mode particles

� Composition and the environmental impact (if any) from these

accumulation mode particles is worth investigating

• Solid particles in the nucleation mode are observed in exhaust of natural gas

vehicles

a) Data from on-road CVS study suggests that lubrication oil contribution is prevalent even in engines with less miles

b) Engine component ageing could potentially increase the PN count from

natural gas engines


5

FROM FULL-FLOW WIND-TUNNEL STUDIES• Experimental modeling work (Gautam et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2001) indicated

that the most important events in PM nanoparticle formation and evolution

occur within 2m from the exhaust stack.

• On-road chase studies (Rönkkö et al., 2006) indicate no differences in PM after

5m from exhaust stack.

• Formation of nucleation mode particles depends upon EC/OC balance in raw

exhaust and turbulence intensity (TI) surrounding the exhaust plume.

• Experimental and modeling work by Littera (2014) found increased nucleation

mode particle concentrations in areas within the plume with higher TI.

• Real-world background air, richer in solid nuclei than the HEPA-filtered air used

in PFS or CVS systems, promote greater heterogenic nucleation.

� Dilution air conditions closer to atmospheric values led to better agreement between

chase vs. chassis data (Rönkkö et al., 2006)

• Comparison between in-plume and double dilution stage (ejector diluters)

sampling from the stack (Brown, 2005).

• Kinsey (2006) presented a mobile laboratory for characterization of particulate emissions from heavy-duty diesel truck allowing for in-plume and raw exhaust sampling (partial flow)


6

METHODOLOGY – Test Vehicles

Vehicle Engine Model After Treatment

System

Vehicle 1 (MY 2008) Cummins ISX 525 DPF only

Vehicle 2 (MY 2014) Detroit Diesel DDC15 DPF and SCR

Vehicle 3 (MY 2014) Cummins ISL-G 320

(Natural gas)

Three-way catalyst

Vehicle 1, MY 2008, DPF only

Vehicle 3, MY 2014, Natural gas w/ TWC


METHODOLOGY - On-Road Plume Sampling

SCRDPF

Engine

Tpre-DPF

Ppre-DPF

Part ial-Flow System

Dry, Ambient

Temperature,

Compressed HEPA Filtered Air

Supply

ECU Data

via J1939

Horiba OBS-2200

+

Horiba OBS-TRPM

Tpost-SCR

Pitot-tube

flowmeter

Ppost -SCR

TSI

EEPSMFC

TSI

EEPS

TEM Grid

Holder

Probe

FTIR

Analyzer

Adjustable Probe Holder

Solenoid Valves

Manifold

Semtech-DS

Sensors Inc.

CPC

TSI

TSI

EEPS

Ambient

Sample

CPC,TSI

EAD,TSI

DMM, Dekati

Aethalometer

Exhaust Plume SampleRaw Exhaust Sample

Exhaust Plume Sample Extraction Cart

Heated manifold

(47±5ºC)• maintain constant

flow through probe• split sample to

different instruments

• attach sample holder for TEM grids

Double dilution

SPCS, Horiba


8


Solenoid Valves

Heated Manifold

Heated and insulated Tygon tube

Exhaust stack

Enclosure with controls and miniature NDIR sensors

Plume sample probe

Hotwire anemometer

Extraction probe for miniature NDIR CO2 sensor

• 5 sampling probes with adjustable probe position

• Each probe is equipped with� Thermocouple� Continuous CO2 measurement via dedicated

NDIR sensor� Anemometer for wind speed measurements

(center probe only)

• Sampling lines were characterized for particle losses using AVL APG


9

Parameter 1st Stage 2nd Stage

Diluter TypeEjector Diluter

(AirVac TD110-H)

Ejector Diluter

(AirVac TD110-H)

Dilution Air

Temperature~150°C ~20 - 25°C

Dilution Air

Condition

Dry, HEPA

filtered air

Dry, HEPA

filtered air

Residence Time ~0.6sec ~0.4sec

Dilution Ratio ~7 ~11


Exhaust stack

PosDistance Exh. to

center probe

Height above

center

I 4 in center

II 16 in center

III 30 in 24 in

IV 60 in 35 in

Pos. I Pos. II Pos. III Pos. IV

Raw exhaust partial flow sampling system:

Center probe location w.r.t. exhaust stack:

Nr. Speed / RouteSampling

PosDirection

Mode Sampling

Time [sec]

Valve

order

1 SAC to Test Site I - - c and t

2 20mph I Northbound 300 c-t-r-b-l-c

3 20mph II Southbound 300 c-t-r-b-l-c

4 35mph I Northbound 180 c-t-r-b-l-c

5 35mph II Southbound 180 c-t-r-b-l-c

6 35mph III Northbound 180 c-t-r-b-l-c

7 45mph I Southbound 120 c-t-r-b-l-c

8 45mph II Northbound 120 c-t-r-b-l-c

9 45mph III Southbound 120 c-t-r-b-l-c

10 45mph IV Northbound 120 c-t-r-b-l-c

11 Test Site to SAC IV - - c and t

Test Matrix:


10

METHODOLOGY – Test Route and Matrix• Two vehicle operating conditions => engine load conditions

� Transient vehicle operation‒ Highway (I-5) and urban driving => Depot Park facility (SW Sacramento, CA) to Robbins

(NW of Sacramento, CA)

� Steady-state vehicle operation‒ Reclamation Road located ~39 miles north of

Sacramento, CA‒ Steady-state 25 mph‒ Steady-state 35 mph‒ Steady-state 45 mph

• Test route characteristics� Length: ~10.1 miles

� Average grade ~0.4% (peak ~1.6%)

16ft

32ft

Sacramento

~39 miles

North


METHODOLOGY - Data Processing

• PM metrics� Total particle number concentration via CPC (TSI Inc.); i) raw exhaust, ii) plume

� Total particle number concentration compliant with UNECE PMP method via SPCS-

2100 (Horiba Inc.); plume

� Particle active surface information via EAD (TSI Inc.); plume

� Particle mass information via AVL MSS (AVL GmbH) and DMM (Dekati); plume

� PM black carbon information via aethalometer AE33 (Magee Scientific); plume

� Particle number and size distribution via EEPS™, model 3090 (TSI Inc.); i) ambient air,

ii) plume

• Raw gaseous emissions (Semtech-DS) used to monitor engine/after-treatment activity (i.e., DPF regeneration) and to compute local dilution ratio based on CO2

with gaseous concentration in plume measured via FTIR (mks 2030)

• TEM grids containing PM samples will be analyzed at the West Virginia

University Shared Research Facilities using a JEOL JEM-2100 LaB6

Transmission Electron Microscope to analyze particle morphology

• An Energy-Dispersive X-ray analysis will also be performed to obtain information

about PM composition on a particle basis


RESULTS – Dilution Ratios

Vehicle 1 - DPF only Vehicle 2 - DPF-SCR

20mph 20mph

Pos #1 Pos #2 Pos #3 Pos #4 Pos #1 Pos #2 Pos #3 Pos #4

Center 4.0 11.0 7.3 5.7

Top 11.6 8.9 3.7 12.7

Right 17.2 31.1 17.8 19.3

Bottom 19.1 67.6 76.7 63.1

Left 25.9 10.3 64.6 23.9

35mph 35mph


Center 2.8 21.8 17.5 60.1 6.6 11.4 23.5

Top 6.1 8.1 21.1 78.4 4.2 9.6 58.6

Right 26.8 21.1 22.5 65.9 18.9 13.7 35.1

Bottom 108.4 58.8 34.3 76.6 88.1 39.7 25.7

Left 61.2 24.1 30.2 22.2 45.3 21.7 52.2

45mph 45mph


Center 3.6 9.8 19.0 56.9 4.4 12.3 5.7 25.3

Top 5.1 7.6 34.9 64.0 6.4 13.5 41.4 28.4

Right 18.1 23.4 23.0 62.2 19.7 15.8 31.6 28.6

Bottom 75.0 60.1 31.1 48.9 68.9 40.4 28.6 28.6

Left 57.1 11.2 41.2 50.8 37.6 26.8 40.3 27.9

• DR PFS => 1st stage ~7, 2nd stage ~11 => DRtot ≈ 81• DR CVS => ~10 on average during cruise operation

DPF regeneration event occurring


13

0 500 1000 1500 20000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Top

0 500 1000 1500 20000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

0 500 1000 1500 20000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Left

0 500 1000 1500 20000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

0 500 1000 1500 20000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Bottom

0 500 1000 1500 20000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

0 500 1000 1500 20000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Right

0 500 1000 1500 20000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

RESULTS – Plume Identification w/ NDIR

0 200 400 600 800 10000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Top

0 200 400 600 800 10000

20

40

60

Tem

p [

C]

0 200 400 600 800 10000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Left

0 200 400 600 800 10000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

0 200 400 600 800 10000

5000

10000

CO

2 [

ppm

]

Bottom

0 200 400 600 800 10000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

0 200 400 600 800 10000

5000

10000C

O2 [

ppm

]Right

0 200 400 600 800 10000

10

20

30

Tem

p [

C]

Vehicle 1 - 20mph, Pos #1 Vehicle 1 - 45mph, Pos #1


14

RESULTS – Vehicle 1, Pos #1, 20 vs 45mph

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

2000

4000

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

2

4

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

2

4x 10

4

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

20

40

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

0.05

0.1

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 9000

5000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

CPC [#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

5000

10000

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

5

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

500

1000

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

20

40

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

0.05

0.1

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

1000

2000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

CPC [#/c

m3]

Not corr. for DRPFS Not corr. for DRPFS

C B LT R20mph 45mph


15

RESULTS – Transient Test

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

2

4x 10

6

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

2000

4000

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

1

2x 10

5

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

500

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

0.1

0.2

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

5000

10000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10x 10

5

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

T TT

TC C

Not corr. for DRPFS

• Vehicle 1• Transient operation => extra

urban and highway driving• ~39 miles from test site to Depot

Park facility (Sacramento, CA)

• DPF regeneration event during portions of route

=> Total particle number concentration via double-stage dilution PFS system


16

RESULTS – Vehicle 2, 35mph, 3 diff. Pos.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

5000

10000

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2

4

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

5

10x 10

4

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2

4

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000.01

0.02

0.03

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2000

4000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

5

10x 10

5

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

500

1000

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

1

2x 10

5

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

500

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

0.02

0.04

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2000

4000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

5

10x 10

5

EE

PS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

500

1000

EA

D [

mm

/cm

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

1

2x 10

5

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

500

DM

M [

/mug/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

0.02

0.04

MS

S [

mg/m

3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

2000

4000

SP

CS

[#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

500

1000

1500

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

CP

C [

#/c

m3]

• Change measurement plane form 1, 2, to 3• Onset of regeneration event during measurement

on second plane


CONCLUSIONS

17

• Design of exhaust plume sample extraction cart allowing to sample at different

locations (axially and radially) within the dispersing exhaust plume.

• Three test vehicles, i) DPF only (US-EPA 2007 compliant; ii) DPF-SCR (US-

EPA 2010 compliant); iii) stoichiometric natural gas with TWC (US-EPA 2010

compliant)

• Steady-state (20,35, and 45mph) and transient vehicle operating conditions

• Particle instruments to characterize number, active surface, mass, and black

carbon. Additional sample collection on TEM grids for morphology analysis via

transmission electron microscopy.

• Miniature NDIR sensors and thermocouples aided in locating boundaries of

dispersing plume

• Significantly increased particle number concentration in exhaust plume during DPF regeneration event

• Decoupling of number concentration in raw exhaust and plume at start and end

of DPF regeneration event

• => In-depth data analysis and TEM grid analysis started and currently on-going


18

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Marc C. Besch - [email protected]

Arvind Thiruvengadam - [email protected]

Daniel K. Carder - [email protected]

Mridul Gautam - [email protected]

CAFEECenter for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

CPM Besch 2016 Characterization of Atmospheric Dispersing ... · II 16 in center III 30 in 24 in IV...

Documents

Transcript of CPM Besch 2016 Characterization of Atmospheric Dispersing ... · II 16 in center III 30 in 24 in IV...