Difference in the Tailpipe Particle Number by Consideration of Sub-23-nm Particles for Different Injection Settings of a GDI Engine

A Correction to this article is available

This article has been updated

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristic of nanoparticles under consideration of sub-23-nm particles from a 1.8-l direct injection (DI) gasoline engine under stoichiometric air/fuel conditions in the exhaust gas system. For future CO2 challenges, the usage of DI—instead of port fuel injection (PFI)—gasoline engines is unavoidable. Therefore, a state of the art particle management program-particle number (PN) system, the Horiba SPCS (2100) with an integrated CPC (condensation particle counter), was recalibrated from a 50% cutoff (D50%) at 23 nm down to a cutoff at 10 nm and the PCRF (particle concentration reduction factor) for sizes smaller than 23 nm was checked. Two different modal points, out of a representative Real Driving Emission (RDE) cycle, were investigated with both calibrations, D50% = 10 nm and D50% = 23 nm. For these different load points, the fuel pressure (FUP) and the start of injection (SOI) were varied, to represent the difference in the structure and the ratio conc(10 nm)/conc(23 nm) of the nanoparticle emissions. The particle characterization includes the particle number (PN), the particle size distribution (PSD), and the particle mass (PM). The particle number was measured with Horiba SPCS (2100). The particle size distribution was analyzed with a Grimm differential mobility analyzer (DMA) in combination with a Faraday cup electrometer (FCE). Micro Soot and Pegasor were used to determine the PM, and an optical characterization was done with a 120-kV Phillips CM12 transmission electron microscope (TEM). The position of all particle measurement systems was downstream the three-way catalyst (TWC). The results of this investigation showed that a higher injection pressure decreases the PN (without consideration of sub-23-nm particles) in general. The ratio conc(10 nm)/conc(23 nm) was therefore higher, because smaller particles, especially ash particles, were less reduced from the FUP. This means higher FUP tends to a higher ratio. For the SOI, the main reasons of the ratio differences were explained by an encroachment between the injection jet and the piston, the valve and the wall.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Change history

  • 13 March 2019

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Figures 6, 11 and 13 were not properly processed. The original version has been corrected.

Abbreviations

BC:

black carbon

CO:

carbon monoxide

CO2 :

carbon dioxide

CPC:

condensation particle counter

CVS:

constant volume sampler

DMA:

differential mobility analyzer

DoE:

design of experiment

DPF:

diesel particulate filter

ECU:

electronic control unit

FCE:

Faraday cup electrometer

FUP:

fuel pressure

GDI:

gasoline direct injection

GPF:

gasoline particle filter

GRPE:

working group on pollution and energy

HC:

hydrocarbons

HEPA:

high efficiency particulate air

MPI:

multiple port injection

NOx :

nitrogen oxide

PCRF:

particle concentration reduction factor

PM:

particulate mass

PMP:

particle measurement program

PN:

particle number

PSD:

particle size distribution

PPS:

Pegasor Particle Sensor

RDE:

real driving emissions

RF:

radio frequency

SOI:

start of injection

TEM:

trans electron microscope

TWC:

three-way catalyst

TP:

tailpipe

UNECE:

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

VPR:

Volatile Particle Remover

WLTP:

Worldwide Light duty Test Procedure

References

  1. 1.

    AVL List GmbH: AVL Micro Soot Sensor Applicaton Paper

  2. 2.

    AVL Powertrain: CAMEO 3 (R8). Version 3: AVL List GmbH

  3. 3.

    Barone, T., Storey, J., Youngquist, A., Szybist, P.: An analysis of direct-injection spark-ignition (DISI) soot morphology. Atmos. Environ. 49, 268–274 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Beck, H.; Rothe, D.; Throller, C. (2012): Correlation between Pegasor Particle Sensor and particle number counter application of Pegasor Particle Sensor in heavy duty exhaust. 16 ETH Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles. Online verfügbar unter http://www.nanoparticles.ch/archive/2012_Beck_PR.pdf

  5. 5.

    Chen, L., Liang, Z., Zhang, X., Shuai, S.: Characterizing particulate matter emissions from GDI and PFI vehicles under transient and cold start conditions. Fuel. 189, 131–140 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.10.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dageförde, H. (2015): Untersuchung Innermotorischer Einflussgrößen Auf Die Partikelemission Eines Ottomotors Mit Direkteinspritzung. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin (Forschungsberichte Aus Dem Institut Für Kolbenmaschinen Ser, v.1/2015)

  7. 7.

    Eiser, A.; Doerr, J.; Jung, M.; Adam, S. (2011): Der Neue 1,8l TFSI-Motor von Audi. Grundmotor und Thermomanagment. In: MTZ 2011 (06), S. 466–475, zuletzt geprüft am 03.01.2018

  8. 8.

    Gaddam, C., Vander Wal, R.: Physical and chemical characterization of SIDI engine particulates. Combustion and Flame. 160(11), S. 2517–S. 2528 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Giechaskiel, B., Manfredi, U., Martini, G.: Engine exhaust solid sub-23 nm particles. I. literature survey. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 7(3), 950–964 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-2834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Giechaskiel, B., Zardini, A., Martini, G.: Particle emission measurements from L-category vehicles. SAE Int. J. Engines. 8(5), (2015). https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-24-2512

  11. 11.

    Hinds, W.: Aerosol Technology. Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New York, N.Y (1999)

  12. 12.

    International Organisation for Standardization: Reciprocating internal combustion engines exhaust emission measurement. Part 1: Test-bed measurement systems of gaseous and particulate emissions (ISO 8178-1:2017). https://www.iso.org/standard/64710.html, zuletzt geprüft am 03.01.2018

  13. 13.

    ISO 15900:2009, 2009: Determination of particle size distribution -- differential electrical mobility analysis for aerosol particles. https://www.iso.org/standard/39573.html

  14. 14.

    ISO 27891:2015, (2015): Aerosol particle number concentration -- Calibration of condensation particle counters. https://www.iso.org/standard/44414.html

  15. 15.

    Kittelson D.; Patwardhan U.; Zarling D.; Gladis D.; Watts W. (Hg.) (2013): Real-time measurements of metallic ash emissions from engines. 17th ETH-conference on combustion generated nanoparticles. Zürich, 23–26.6. Center for Diesel Research

  16. 16.

    Kosola, H.: Pegasor. User manual. Pegasor PPS-plotter (2012)

  17. 17.

    Lee, K. O.; Seong, H.; Sakai, S.; Hageman, M.; Rothamer, D. (2013): Detailed morphological properties of nanoparticles from gasoline direct injection engine combustion of ethanol blends. In: 11th International Conference on Engines & Vehicles, SEP. 15, 2013: SAE International400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA, United States (SAE Technical Paper Series)

  18. 18.

    Liati, A.; Schreiber, D.; Panayotis, D.E.; Arroyo Rojas Dasilva, Y.; Spiteri, A. C. (2016): Electron microscopic characterization of soot particulate matter emitted by modern direct injection gasoline engines. In: Combustion and Flame 166, S. 307–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.01.031

  19. 19.

    Price, P.; Stone, R.; OudeNijeweme, D.; Chen, X. et al. (2007): Cold start particulate emissions from a second generation DI gasoline engine. JSAE/SAE International Fuels & Lubricants Meeting, JUL. 23, 2007. SAE Paper: SAE International400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA, United States (SAE Technical Paper Series)

  20. 20.

    Swanson, J., Kittelson, D., Watts, W., Gladis, D., Twigg, M.: Influence of storage and release on particle emissions from new and used CRTs. Atmos. Environ. 43(26), 3998–4004 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    M. Tichy, S. Decker, A. Krammich, D. Riedl, M. Winkler, B.H. Min (2016): Beiträge / 12. Internationales Symposium für Verbrennungsdiagnostik. Spray Development and ECU Calibration using DoE and Opitcal Measurement Methods stationary and dynamic to fulfill Euro 6. Unter Mitarbeit von Sabine Müller. Mainz-Kastel, Mainz-Kastel: AVL Deutschland

  22. 22.

    Wu, Z., Song, C., Lv, G., Pan, S., Li, H.: Morphology, fractal dimension, size and nanostructure of exhaust particles from a spark-ignition direct-injection engine operating at different air–fuel ratios. Fuel. 185, 709–717 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.08.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yamada, H.; Funato, K.; Sakurai, H. (2015): Application of the PMP methodology to the measurement of sub-23 nm solid particles. Calibration procedures, experimental uncertainties, and data correction methods. In: Journal of Aerosol Science 88, S. 58–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.06.002

  24. 24.

    Yamamoto, K.; Yagasaki, S. (2017): Effect of Soot Size on Particle Filtration and Soot Cake Formation in Diesel Particulate Filter. 21th ETH-Conference on Combustion Generated. Online verfügbar unter http://www.nanoparticles.ch/archive/2017_Yamamoto_PR.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 31.12.2018

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Schwanzer.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: Figures 6, 11 and 13 were not properly processed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwanzer, P., Rabl, HP., Loders, S. et al. Difference in the Tailpipe Particle Number by Consideration of Sub-23-nm Particles for Different Injection Settings of a GDI Engine. Emiss. Control Sci. Technol. 5, 7–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40825-019-0114-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Particle number
  • GDI
  • DoE