Present-day gasoline
direct-injection (GDI) engines in passenger cars can emit more hazardous fine
particulate matter (PM) than a port fuel-injected engine (PFI), or even the
latest heavy-duty diesels equipped with a particulate filter.
The potential impact to public health
from these particulates is driving new developments in fuel delivery,
controls, and combustion strategies, according to the Society of Automotive
Engineers’ magazine Automotive
Engineering.
Cars with downsized, turbocharged GDI
engines such as Ford’s popular EcoBoost
families have become automakers’ most effective tool in meeting stricter
government fuel economy standards.
BMW, Daimler and Kia are
using GDI technology in most of their production vehicles while Robert Bosch sees
GDI as an ideal basis for future hybrids, 48-volt, strong or plug-in.
According to research firm HIS, GDI engines
are set to be the fastest-growing market segment in propulsion during the
coming decade, with some 40 million units in use by 2025.
Such growth suggests GDI particulate
emissions, though low compared to those of an unfiltered diesel, represent an
emerging issue that has researchers examining various approaches to mitigating
the problem including new combustion design and engineering concepts, alternate
fuels and emissions controls.
Confirmation of the hazard comes from a
recent study conducted by researchers at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) Fuels,
Engines and Emissions Research Center who found that sample GDI engines emit
five to 10 times more particulate matter than their PFI counterparts.
“The trade-off for fuel economy is higher
particulate matter emissions,” said ORNL senior R&D team leader John
Storey. “The particulate size ranges from 5 to 5000 nm in diameter and they can
include very heavy, low volatility hydrocarbons and tars.”
These carbon-based agglomerates can irritate
the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, contributing to respiratory and
cardiovascular illnesses and even premature death especially among the vulnerable:
children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions.
The particles that are released by GDI
engines are smaller and more varied in size than diesel particles, Storey
noted. And since these ultrafine particles (UFPs) are just on the heavy end of
smoke size-wise, they can penetrate deeper into lungs, thus posing greater
health risks. Public health authorities are growing concerned about UFP risks
in urban areas and near busy highways and major roads.
The California ARB LEV-3 limits and U.S. EPA Tier
3 standard for particulate mass (PM) emissions start this year, according to
Cary Henry, principal engineer for after-treatment technology at Southwest Research Institute in
San Antonio.
For cars, that means PMs must go from
releasing less than 10 mg/mile to 3 mg/mile during a 2017-to-2021 phase-in
period, and then down to 1 mg/mile beginning in 2025 — a 90 per cent reduction.
Engine emissions tend to change with internal wear, so the goal is to maintain
these levels over a vehicle’s 150,000-mile (93,200-km) lifetime.
In Europe, a 5 mg/km (3.1 mg/mile) PM
emission limit for GDI engines took effect in 2009 with the Euro 5 standard.
The first restrictions for particulate number (PN) emissions—considered more
difficult to achieve than PM targets—come into effect this year with Euro 6,
Henry explained.
The latter initially limits PN totals to 6 ×
1012 number/km,
and then in late 2017 falls an order of magnitude to 6 × 1011 number/km.
In the US, adopting PN standards is under debate.
GDI pros
and cons
Injecting
fuel directly into the cylinder enables a clean-burning explosion
that wastes little fuel and delivers greater power, according to Matti Maricq,
technical leader in chemical engineering and emissions after-treatment at
Ford's Research and Innovation Center in Dearborn.
Gasoline is sprayed directly where the
combustion chamber is the hottest (rather than in the air intake), allowing for
a more thorough, even and leaner burn.
But because of what is thought to be
incomplete fuel volatilization, partially fuel-rich zones and the impingement
of fuel on piston and cylinder surfaces, GDI engines produce a certain amount
of particulate matter. Most emissions typically occur during cold starts and
high load transients during warming, but output varies according to the load,
the drive-cycle phase and driver demands.
Until tougher environmental regulations took
effect, there was little incentive to replace PFI technology, Maricq notes.
“That’s where you spray the fuel with a
closed intake port. The fuel evaporates and has plenty of time to mix with the
air, enabling more complete, stoichiometric combustion—a chemically balanced
reaction that “creates almost no soot,” he adds.
In the early 2000s the auto industry
recognized that “GDI could rapidly effect CO2emissions on a large
scale,” so automakers have been switching over to it ever since, he told Automotive Engineering,
noting that GDI technology continues to evolve.
Early versions, Maricq said, used a
stratified injection strategy which included late fuel injection and charge air
motion to produce a stoichiometric air/fuel mixture in the vicinity of the
spark plug and, thereby, reduce pumping losses at light loads.
The downside of stratified GDI and the
associated ‘wall-guided direct injection’ delivery is a tendency for liquid
fuel droplets to splash onto the piston and cylinder surfaces and in
homogeneous air/fuel mixing, both of which form particulates. Instead, more
recent development of GDI technology has focused on early injection, what is
called homogeneous operation, in which ‘spray-guided direct injection’ directs
fuel straight down the cylinder, minimizing particulate formation.
Cutting particle emissions
The
GDI particulate problem can be mitigated in many ways, of course, but probably
the most brute-force approach is Audi’s dual PFI/GDI system which it
introduced at the 2014 North
American International Auto Show. The plug-in hybrid concept
features a primary GDI supplemented with indirect-injection PFI to lower
particulate output during part-load operation enough to meet Euro 6 limits.
Another
straightforward measure is after-treatment — to mimic diesel engines and
install gasoline particulate filters.
According to Henry, filters can lower
PN emissions by 80% to 90% and meet Euro 6 limits. It’s no surprise that
carmakers have so far avoided filters, which would add additional costs (around
$50 to $100 per vehicle) and may reduce engine efficiency.
Although "green" critics call the
alternative approach, so-called “engine management” methods, unreliable
compared to exhaust filters, most OEMs and component suppliers expect that
combustion design and engineering changes will prove more cost-efficient and
eventually equally effective.
Technology managers at Bosch and Delphi indicate
that new ultra-precision, non-thermal laser drilling techniques for making
injector nozzle holes that deliver fuel in a more ideal fashion will greatly
improve future GDI systems. (Note that Kia Motors' new three-cylinder engine reported here has laser-drilled injectors.)
Specialists will steadily optimize injector
timing, targeting, metering and atomization as well as the point of injection
to achieve this goal. Higher injection pressures will also contribute, they
said.
Other potential solutions might be found in
low-temperature combustion and cooled-EGR concepts that can cut GDI particle
emissions as can using more ethanol in the gasoline which adds oxygen that
inhibits soot formation, Henry said.
Maricq declares that he expects that the GDI
particulate problem will eventually yield to such measures as modified fuels or
multiple injections per cycle, "which theoretically lets you tune when the
fuel gets in there, so not too much gets there at once.”
“But it’s still early days,” he cautioned.
“We don’t yet have a good handle on all the factors, all the knobs that
engineers could turn, at least enough for us to confidently choose the sweet
spot for addressing the problem.”
No comments:
Post a Comment