The present disclosure relates generally to diesel engine exhaust systems. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for controlling diesel engine exhaust emissions.
Diesel engine exhaust contains particulate matter, the emission of which is regulated for environmental and health reasons. This particulate matter generally constitutes a soluble organic fraction (“SOF”) and a remaining portion of hard carbon. The soluble organic fraction may be partially or wholly removed through oxidation in an oxidation catalyst device such as a catalytic converter; however, this typically results in a reduction of only about 20 percent of total particulate emissions. Thus, vehicles equipped with diesel engines may include diesel particulate filters for more completely removing the particulate matter from the exhaust stream, including the hard carbon portion. Conventional wall flow type diesel particulate filters may have particulate removal efficiencies of about 85 percent. However, diesel particulate filters, particularly those that have relatively high particulate filtration efficiency, are generally associated with high back pressures because of the restriction to flow through the filter. Further, with use, soot or other carbon-based particulate matter accumulates on the diesel particulate filters causing the buildup of additional undesirable back pressure in the exhaust systems. Engines that have large particulate mass emission rates may develop excessive back pressure levels in a relatively short period of time. High back pressures decrease engine efficiency and reduce engine performance. Therefore, it is desired to have diesel particulate filtration systems that minimize back pressure while capturing a high percentage of the particulate matter in the exhaust.
Conventional wall flow diesel particulate filters (DPFs) are high particulate removal efficiency filters that include a porous-walled honeycomb substrate (i.e., monolith) with channels that extend generally from an upstream end to a downstream end of the substrate. Generally half the channels are plugged adjacent the downstream end of the substrate and the other half of the channels are plugged adjacent the upstream end of the substrate. This plugged configuration forces exhaust flow to pass radially through the porous walls defining the channels of the substrate in order to exit the diesel particulate filter.
To prevent diesel particulate filters from becoming excessively loaded with particulate matter, it is necessary to regenerate the diesel particulate filters by burning off (i.e., oxidizing) the particulates that accumulate on the filters. It is known to those of skill in the art that one method by which particulate matter may be oxidized is to raise the temperature of the exhaust gas sufficiently to allow the excess oxygen in the exhaust gas to oxidize the particulate matter. Also well-known to those of skill in the art is that particulate matter may be oxidized at a lower temperature in the presence of sufficient amounts of nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
Diesel exhaust inherently contains nitrogen oxides (NOx), which consist primarily of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Typically, the NO2 inherently present in the exhaust stream is a relatively small percentage of total NOx, such as in the range of 5 to 20 percent but usually in the range of 5 to 10 percent. Although some regeneration of a diesel particulate filter occurs at such levels, it is insufficient to result in complete regeneration. The effectiveness of NO2 in regenerating a particulate filter depends in part on the ratio of NOx to particulate matter in the exhaust stream. Generally, the reaction of “2NO2+C═CO2+2NO” requires 8 times NO2 per unit of C in mass.
To promote full regeneration, it is often necessary to increase the quantity of NO2 in the exhaust stream. This is particularly true where the NOx/particulate ratio is relatively small. One method to produce sufficient quantities of NO2 is to use an oxidation catalyst to oxidize a portion of the NO present in the exhaust stream to NO2. For example, a catalytic converter including a diesel oxidation catalyst can be positioned upstream from the diesel particulate filter and/or the diesel particulate filter itself can include a diesel oxidation catalyst. However, these types of prior art arrangements may result in excessive NO2 emissions.
One aspect of the present disclosure relates to a system for reducing particulate material emissions in diesel engine exhaust. In one embodiment, the system is adapted to optimize the use of NO2 to remove particulate matter (PM) from the exhaust stream and to passively regenerate a diesel particulate filter that is a part of the system.
Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a diesel particulate filtration system that at least one upstream filter to optimize the NO2 to PM ratio at a downstream filter. In one embodiment, the upstream filter is a catalyzed flow-through filter, and the downstream filter is a catalyzed wall flow filter.
Examples representative of a variety of inventive aspects are set forth in the description that follows. The inventive aspects relate to individual features as well as combinations of features. It is to be understood that both the forgoing general description and the following detailed description merely provide examples of how the inventive aspects may be put into practice, and are not intended to limit the broad spirit and scope of the inventive aspects.
At relatively low temperatures (e.g., 200 to 350° C.), NO2 molecules are typically more active for combusting soot than O2. NO2 reacts with soot according to the following reaction: 2NO2+C═CO2+2NO. This reaction requires 8 times more NO2 per unit of C in mass. The NO2/PM ratio is a significant factor to boost this reaction.
One way to increase the NO2/PM ratio at a filter is to decrease the PM on the filter rather than increase the concentration of NO2 at the filter. To achieve this goal, a combination of an upstream filter and a downstream filter can be used. The upstream filter can have a lower filtration efficiency than the filtration efficiency of the downstream filter. In one embodiment, the upstream filter includes a flow-through filter (FTF), and the downstream filter includes a wall flow filter. The system preferably optimizes the NO2/PM ratio on both filters such that an optimum amount of NO2 is generated. Preferably, the system allows for the effective passive regeneration of the downstream filters at relatively low temperatures thereby preventing plugging of the downstream filter, and also minimizes the concentration of NO2 that exits the tailpipe.
Flow-through filters partially intercept solid PM particles in exhaust. Some flow-through filters may exhibit a filtration efficiency of 50% or less. As discussed above, in accordance with the disclosure, while the first staged filter may be an FTF, the downstream filter may be a wall-flow filter. The wall-flow filter may have a filtration efficiency of at least 75% or higher. Both filters may be catalyzed to remove and oxidize HC, CO, and PM. Because of the flow-through nature, a portion of PM is intercepted in the first filter and the rest of the PM passes to the downstream high efficiency filter. The catalyst on the FTF may be chosen to just oxidize a selected portion of NO coming from engine exhaust to NO2. Then, a portion of the NO2 can be used to oxidize captured PM, transferring the used NO2 back to NO, which can be reused by catalyst inside the filter downstream before being released.
The second filter may be catalyzed in such a way that the NO2 being left over from the first filter and NO2 being generated at the front section may be consumed by the captured soot at the middle and rear section of the second filter. The configuration of the system, including the design of the first filter to achieve a desired filtration efficiency and oxidation ability, allows the tailpipe NO2/NOx ratio to be reduced to levels to meet California Air Resource Board Regulation.
Prior art systems have used a straight channel catalytic converter positioned upstream from a wall flow filter to increase the concentration of NO2 at the wall flow filter. The present disclosure teaches using a flow-through filter upstream of the wall flow filter instead of a straight channel catalytic converter. Flow-through filters provide a number of advantages over catalytic converters. For example, flow-through filters provide higher residence times to allow locally generated NO2 to react with a larger portion of PM (including both soluble organic fractions and hard carbon constituents) coming from engine. This decreases the PM portion that enters the down stream filter and increases NO2/PM ratio inside the downstream filter. By optimizing the NO2/PM ratio, the downstream filter is boosted to work efficiently at lower temperatures. In contrast, catalytic converter systems typically use a heavily catalyzed catalytic converter upstream of a catalyzed DPF. Such a catalytic converter can consume soluble fraction of particulate matters, but does not affect the concentration of hard carbon soot in the exhaust. Thus, multistage filtration with a catalyzed flow through pre-filter followed by a catalyzed DPF is a better solution with maximized soot-NO2 residence time and minimized NO2 emissions at the tailpipe.
In certain embodiments, the combination of the FTF and the DPF may lead to a filtration efficiency of higher than 92% and NO2/NOx ratio on a CAT 3126 engine over FTP cycle to 28% which may exhibit a 20% increase of NO2/NOx percentage across the device from the engine out NO2/NOx level. Such a device may improve PM filtration efficiency and reduce the system-out NO2 to meet CARB NO2 rule. The primary PM reduction from the FTF can increase the NOx/PM ratio inside the downstream DPF, hence the captured soot oxidized at a relatively lower temperature, leading to lower application criteria.
The first diesel particulate device 26 is preferably a flow-through filter. Flow-through filters are filters that typically have moderate particulate mass reduction efficiencies. For purposes of this specification, particulate mass reduction efficiency is determined by subtracting the particulate mass that enters the filter from the particulate mass that exits the filter, and by dividing the difference by the particulate mass that enters the filter. The test duration and engine cycling during testing are preferably determined by the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) heavy-duty transient cycle that is currently used for emission testing of heavy-duty on-road engines in the United States (see CFR Title 40, Part 86.1333). A typical flow-through filter has a particulate mass reduction efficiency of 50 percent or less.
Certain flow-through filters do not require all of the exhaust gas traveling through the filter to pass through a filter media having a pore size sufficiently small to trap particulate material. One embodiment of a flow-through filter includes a plurality of flow-through channels that extend longitudinally from the entrance end to the exit end of the flow-through filter. The flow-through filter also includes filter media that is positioned between at least some of the flow-through channels. The filter further includes flow diversion structures that generate turbulence in the flow-through channels. The flow diversion structures also function to divert at least some exhaust flow from one flow-through channel to another flow-through channel. As the exhaust flow is diverted from one flow-through channel to another, the diverted flow passes through the filter media causing some particulate material to be trapped within the filter media. This flow-through-type filter yields moderate filtration efficiencies, typically up to 50% per filter, with relatively low back pressure.
A catalyst coating (e.g., a precious metal coating) can be provided on the flow-through channels of the flow-through filter to promote the oxidation of the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the particulate matter to gaseous components and to promote the oxidation of a portion of the nitric oxide (NO) within the exhaust gas to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Furthermore, the filter media of the flow-through filter captures a portion of the hard carbon particulate matter and a portion of the non-oxidized SOF present in the exhaust. A portion of the net NO2 present, comprising the combination of the NO2 generated by the oxidation catalyst and the NO2 inherently present in diesel exhaust, reacts with the particulate matter trapped on the filter media, according to the reaction NO2+C═CO (or CO2)+NO. In doing so, the solid particulate matter is converted to a gas, which flows out of the particulate reduction device. To enhance to combustion of carbon at the filter media, the filter media can also be coated with a catalyst (e.g., a precious metal such as platinum).
The first diesel particulate reduction device 26 can also be referred to as an upstream diesel particulate reduction device 26. An example upstream diesel particulate reduction device 26 is shown at
In one embodiment, the filtration material 30 is a woven-type material constructed from metallic fibers (e.g., a metallic fabric or fleece) which capture particles both by impingement and by blocking their flow. The particle-blocking properties of the filtration material 30 are determined in part by the diameter of the metallic fibers used to construct the fleece. For example, metallic fibers of 20 to 28 microns (millionths of a meter) and 35 to 45 microns have been found to work acceptably. As the exhaust gases flow out of the foil 32 and into the filtration material 30, significant internal turbulence is induced. Of course, types of filtration material other than metallic fleece could also be used
In one embodiment, the device 26 has a diameter of about 10.5 inches and a length of about 3 inches, with 200 cpsi. In certain embodiments, the residence time of the device 26 can be at least 10% or 15% greater than the residence time of a standard straight channel flow-through catalytic converter having the same space velocity.
The space velocity (i.e., the volumetric flow rate of the exhaust gas divided by the volume of the particulate reduction device) of the upstream particulate removal device 26 is greater than the space velocity of the downstream particulate removal device 28. In certain embodiments, the space velocity of the upstream particulate reduction device is equal to at least 2, 3 or 4 times the space velocity of the downstream particulate reduction device for a given volumetric flow rate. In other embodiments, the space velocity of the upstream particulate reduction device is equal to 2-6 or 3-5 times the space velocity of the downstream particulate reduction device for a given volumetric flow rate. In still other embodiments, the device 26 can have a particulate mass reduction efficiency of 15-50 percent or 20-50 percent.
In a preferred embodiment, the first diesel particulate reduction device 26 is manufactured by Emitec Gmbh and sold under the name “PM Kat.” The device 26 may, however, comprise any flow-through-type construction known to those of skill in the art, such as wire mesh, metallic or ceramic foam. Further details relating to the constructions of the Emitec filters suitable for use as upstream filters can be found at U.S. Patent Application Publication Numbers US 2005/0232830, US 2005/0274012 and US 2005/0229590, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
The upstream diesel particulate reduction device 26 also contains a catalyst coating adapted to promote the oxidation of hydrocarbons and the conversion of NO to NO2. Exemplary catalyst coatings include precious metals such as platinum, palladium and rhodium, and other types of components such as alumina, cerium oxide, base metal oxides (e.g., lanthanum, vanadium, etc,) or zeolites. A preferred catalyst for the first particulate reduction device 26 is platinum with a loading level greater than 50 grams/cubic foot of substrate. In other embodiments the platinum loading level is in the range of 50-100 grams/cubic foot of substrate. In a preferred embodiment, the platinum loading is about 70 grams/cubic foot.
In a preferred embodiment, the catalyst coating is available from Intercat, Inc.
In one embodiment, the device 26 may exhibit a 27% PM reduction efficiency. In one embodiment, the NO2/NOx ratio at the out end of the device 26 on a CAT 3126 engine over FTP cycle is around 32%.
The second diesel particulate reduction device 28, also called the downstream diesel particulate reduction device 28, can have a variety of known configurations. As shown at
In one embodiment, the device 28 has a diameter of about 10.5 inches and a length of about 12 inches, with 200 cpsi/12 mil.
Referring to
An example diesel particulate reduction device is a wall-flow filter having a monolith ceramic substrate including a “honey-comb” configuration of plugged passages as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,851,015 that is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Example materials for manufacturing the substrate 50 include cordierite, mullite, alumina, SiC, refractory metal oxides, or other materials conventionally used as catalyzed substrates. In a preferred embodiment, the device 28 includes a diesel particulate filter sold by Engelhard Corporation under the name “DPX Filter.”
In certain embodiments, the substrate 50 can be coated a catalyst. Exemplary catalysts include precious metals such as platinum, palladium and rhodium, and other types of components such as base metal oxides or rare earth metal oxides. In certain embodiments, the substrate 50 has a platinum loading of 30-80 grams per cubic foot. In a preferred embodiment, the substrate 50 has a platinum loading of about 50 grams per cubic foot. In another embodiment of the diesel particulate reduction device 28, the substrate 50 may have a precious metal loading of about 25 grams per cubic foot, wherein the filter is coated substantially uniformly throughout its length. In one embodiment of the diesel particulate device 28, the substrate 50 may have a precious metal loading between about 5 and 35 grams per cubic foot, wherein the filter is coated substantially uniformly throughout its length.
The upstream particulate reduction device 26 preferably has a higher precious metal loading than the downstream particulate reduction device 28. In certain embodiments, the precious metal loading of the upstream device 26 is at least 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent or 40 percent higher than the precious metal loading of the downstream device 28. In other embodiments, the precious metal loading of the upstream device 26 is in the range of 10-80 percent, 20-60 percent or 30-50 percent higher than the precious metal loading of the downstream device 28.
In certain embodiments, catalyst coating of the substrate 50 may be banded with first 2 inches being coated at 48 g/ft3 and the last 10 inches being coated at 2 g/ft3 for a filter having a length of 12 inches. In this embodiment, the downstream particulate reduction device exhibited a filtration efficiency higher than 85%. In one example operation of the system, the NO2/NOx ratio out of the filter on a CAT 3126 engine over FTP cycle was essentially the same as the ratio out of the engine at 8%.
As illustrated in
The sizes of the wash coated zones may vary in different embodiments of the filter. For example, in certain embodiments, the first coated zone 71 of the filter 28 may be between about ⅙ and ⅓ of the length of the filter 28 and the third coated zone 73 may be between about ⅙ and ⅓ of the length of the filter 28.
The precious metal loading values may also vary in different embodiments of the filter. In certain embodiments, the precious metal loading of the first zone 71 may be between about 25 and 50 grams/cubic foot and the precious metal loading of the third zone 73 may be between about 5 and 50 grams/cubic foot. In certain embodiments, the overall precious metal loading of the filter 28 may be between about 5 and 35 grams/cubic foot.
In one embodiment, for a filter that is 12 inches in length and 10.5 inches in diameter, the first and the last 3 inches of the device 28 may be wash-coated with a catalyst at a precious metal loading of about 50 grams/cubic foot and the middle 6 inches may be left uncoated. In such an embodiment, the overall precious metal loading of the filter 28 would be around 25 grams/cubic foot.
In another embodiment, the filter 28 may be zone-coated, but with different levels of loading on the coated portions. For example, for a filter that is 12 inches in length and 10.5 inches in diameter, the first (inlet) 3 inches may be wash coated with 50 grams/cubic foot of precious metal loading and the last (outlet) 3 inches may be coated with 10 grams/cubic foot of precious metal loading and the middle 6 inches may be left uncoated. In such an embodiment, the overall precious metal loading of the filter 28 would be around 15 grams/cubic foot.
Further details of zone-coating of catalysts can be found at U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/835,953, entitled “CRACK RESISTANT SUBSTRATE FOR AN EXHAUST TREATMENT DEVICE”, the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
It should be noted that similar zone-coating techniques for catalysts may be used in the upstream diesel particulate reduction device 26 as well.
The diesel particulate reduction device 28 preferably has a particulate mass reduction efficiency greater than 75%. More preferably, the diesel particulate reduction device 28 has a particulate mass reduction efficiency greater than 85%. Most preferably, the diesel particulate reduction device 28 has a particulate mass reduction efficiency equal to or greater than 90%. It is preferred for the particulate reduction device 28 to have a higher particulate mass reduction efficiency than the particulate reduction device 26. In certain embodiments, the particulate mass reduction efficiency of the device 28 is at least 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 or 500 percent higher than the particulate mass reduction efficiency of the device 26. In other embodiments, the particulate mass reduction efficiency of the device 28 is at least 50-600 or 100-500 or 200-500 percent higher than the particulate mass reduction efficiency of the device 26.
Preferably, to ensure regeneration without excessive NO2 emissions, the ratio of the mass of NO2 to the mass of particulate matter in the exhaust stream between the upstream device 26 and the downstream device 28 is preferably between 8 and 14. More preferably, this ratio is between 8 and 12. In certain embodiments, it is desirable for the concentration of NO2 between the devices 26, 28 to be in the range of 50-700 parts per million. In other embodiments, the ratio of NO2 to total NOx between the devices 26, 28 is in the range of 20-55 percent or in the range of 30-50 percent. The ratio of NO2 to NOx can be determined by measuring the total amount of NO2 and the total amount of NOx in the exhaust stream between the upstream and downstream filters, and the dividing the total NO2 by the total NOx to obtain a flow weighted average over a given test period. An example test period and engine cycling protocol during testing are set for by the FTP heavy-duty transient cycle that is currently used for emission testing of heavy-duty on-road engines in the United States.
In operation of the system, a first portion of the particulate matter contained in the diesel exhaust is deposited on the first diesel particulate reduction device 26 in an amount that is a function of the particle capture efficiency of the first diesel particulate reduction device 26. The exhaust gas exits the first diesel particulate reduction device 26 containing a residual portion of particulate matter, defined as the amount of particulate matter not deposited on the first diesel particulate reduction device 26. The exhaust gas thereafter enters the second diesel particulate reduction device 28, where a portion of the particulate matter present in the exhaust gas is deposited on the second diesel particulate reduction device 28 according to the particle capture efficiency of the second diesel particulate reduction device 28.
Simultaneously, as the exhaust gases travel through the first diesel particulate reduction device 26, the SOF portion of particulate matter is oxidized by contact with the oxidation catalyst coating. Furthermore, the NO present within the exhaust stream is converted to NO2 by the oxidation catalyst coating within the first diesel particulate reduction device 26. A portion of this NO2, along with the NO2 inherently present in the exhaust gas, reacts with the particulate matter trapped on the first diesel particulate reduction device 26. By the reaction of NO2+C═NO+CO or CO2, a portion of the particulate matter is oxidized and converted from a solid carbon form to carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas, which thereby exits the particulate reduction device. There is insufficient mass of soot, however, trapped on the first diesel particulate reduction device 26 to completely consume the NO2 present in the exhaust stream.
Consequently, the exhaust gas exiting the first diesel particulate reduction device 26 contains a residual portion of NO2. This exhaust gas then enters the second diesel particulate reduction device 28 and the NO2 in the exhaust stream reacts with soot on the device 28, converting a portion of the NO2 into NO and regenerating the device 28. In this way, particulate matter is captured and the particulate reduction devices are regenerated while minimizing NO2 emissions.
Moreover, the preferred design of the particulate reduction devices create significant internal, three-dimensional, turbulent flow patterns by virtue of the highly tortuous, twisted flow vectors that result from flow impacting into the filtration material 30 and being channeled into and out of the openings in the corrugated foil 32. Other flow-through filter designs such as wire mesh or ceramic or metallic foams produce similar favorable internal turbulence. This internal local turbulence increases the interaction of the exhaust gas with the catalytic coating on the filtration substrate material, thereby promoting the conversion of NO to NO2. Furthermore, this turbulence increases the interaction of the NO2 with the particulate matter trapped on the surfaces of the diesel particulate reduction device. In doing so, the design of the diesel particulate reduction device promotes the consumption of NO2 and the regeneration of the particulate filter.
A number of tests were preformed to provide comparative data between an example system in accordance with the principles of the present disclosure and other systems. The systems tested included system A, system B and system C.
System A is an example of system in accordance with the principles of the present disclosure. System A included an Emitec PM Kat flow-through filter positioned upstream from a wall flow filter. The Emitec filter had a platinum loading of about 70 grams per cubic foot while the wall flow filter had a platinum loading of about 50 grams per cubic foot. The Emitec filter had a diameter of 10½ inches and a length of about 3 inches, and the wall flow filter had a diameter of 10½ inches and a length of about 12 inches. The Emitec filter had a particulate mass reduction efficiency less than 50 percent, while the wall flow filter had a particulate mass reduction efficiency greater than 85 percent.
System B was manufactured by Johnson Matthey, Inc. and sold under the name CCRT. The system included a catalytic converter positioned upstream from a catalyzed wall/flow filter.
System C had the same configuration as System A, except the Emitec filter was loaded with a low NO2 producing catalyst sold by Engelhard. The catalyst includes constituents that inhibit the production of NO2, but allow the oxidation of hydrocarbons. The platinum loading for the low NO2 producing catalyst was also 70 grams per cubic foot.
Systems A, B and C were tested using a caterpillar 3126 diesel engine having 210 horsepower at 2200 rotations per minute. During testing, the engine was cycled according to the parameters set forth under standard FTP heavy-duty transient cycling.
During testing, the percentage of NO2 relative to the total NOx emitted from the engine was measured for each of the systems between the upstream and downstream exhaust treatment devices.
It will be appreciated that the specific dimensions disclosed herein are examples applicable for certain embodiments in accordance with the principles of the disclosure, but that other embodiments in accordance with this disclosure may or may not include such dimensions.
This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/984,436, filed Jan. 4, 2011, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/725,578, filed Mar. 19, 2007, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,862,640, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/784,621, filed Mar. 21, 2006, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3318128 | Rhodes | May 1967 | A |
3458977 | Young et al. | Aug 1969 | A |
3712030 | Priest | Jan 1973 | A |
4065919 | Eknayan | Jan 1978 | A |
4098722 | Cairns et al. | Jul 1978 | A |
4276071 | Outland | Jun 1981 | A |
4319896 | Sweeney | Mar 1982 | A |
4340403 | Higuchi et al. | Jul 1982 | A |
4346557 | Shadman et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4372111 | Virk et al. | Feb 1983 | A |
4400352 | Rehnberg et al. | Aug 1983 | A |
4404007 | Tukao et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4416674 | McMahon et al. | Nov 1983 | A |
4419108 | Frost et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
4449362 | Frankenberg et al. | May 1984 | A |
4451441 | Ernest et al. | May 1984 | A |
4462812 | Bly et al. | Jul 1984 | A |
4464185 | Tomita et al. | Aug 1984 | A |
4478618 | Bly et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4485621 | Wong et al. | Dec 1984 | A |
4485622 | Takagi et al. | Dec 1984 | A |
4515758 | Domesle et al. | May 1985 | A |
4535588 | Sato et al. | Aug 1985 | A |
4625511 | Scheitlin et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4652286 | Kusuda et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4665690 | Nomoto et al. | May 1987 | A |
4686827 | Wade et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4695437 | Jung | Sep 1987 | A |
4702075 | Jenny | Oct 1987 | A |
4813233 | Vergeer et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4814081 | Malinowski | Mar 1989 | A |
4828807 | Domesle et al. | May 1989 | A |
4851015 | Wagner et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4857089 | Kitagawa et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4864821 | Hoch | Sep 1989 | A |
RE33118 | Scheitlin et al. | Nov 1989 | E |
4887427 | Shinzawa et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4902487 | Cooper et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4905470 | Reichle et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4912776 | Alcorn | Mar 1990 | A |
4916897 | Hayashi et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4934142 | Hayashi et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4961314 | Howe et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4980137 | Nelson et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5065574 | Bailey | Nov 1991 | A |
5067320 | Kanesaki | Nov 1991 | A |
5076821 | Bruhnke et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5082479 | Miller | Jan 1992 | A |
5089237 | Schuster et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5094075 | Berendes | Mar 1992 | A |
5100632 | Dettling et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5143707 | Beck et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5157007 | Domesle et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5169604 | Crothers, Jr. | Dec 1992 | A |
5207990 | Sekiya et al. | May 1993 | A |
5212948 | Gillingham et al. | May 1993 | A |
5240485 | Haerle et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5243819 | Woerner et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5248482 | Bloom | Sep 1993 | A |
5293742 | Gillingham et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5322537 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5396764 | Rao et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5426936 | Levendis et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5489319 | Tokuda et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5492679 | Ament et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5522218 | Lane et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5591413 | Toyoda | Jan 1997 | A |
5711147 | Vogtlin et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5746989 | Murachi et al. | May 1998 | A |
5771684 | Hertl et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5771868 | Khair | Jun 1998 | A |
5787707 | Hertl et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5891409 | Hsiao et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5908480 | Ban et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5996337 | Blosser et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6023930 | Abe et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6119448 | Emmerling et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6199375 | Russell | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6293096 | Khair et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6294141 | Twigg et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6316121 | Maus | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325834 | Fonseca et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6365283 | Bruck | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6427436 | Allansson et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6484495 | Minami | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6516611 | Schäfer-Sindlinger et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6534021 | Maus | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6546721 | Hirota et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6557340 | Twigg et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6582490 | Miller et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6587188 | Gleine et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6669913 | Haberkamp | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6673136 | Gillingham et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6680037 | Allansson et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6696031 | Twigg et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6725653 | Brown et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6742331 | Minami | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6753294 | Brisley et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6766641 | Surnilla et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6775972 | Twigg et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6776814 | Badeau et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6790248 | Ishihara et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6805849 | Andreasson et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6813882 | Hepburn et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6813884 | Shigapov et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6817174 | Igarashi et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6827909 | Bruck et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6829891 | Kato et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6857265 | Twigg et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6862881 | Klingbeil et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6863874 | Twigg | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6877313 | Phillips et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6889498 | Chandler et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6892529 | Duvinage et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6916450 | Akama et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6928806 | Tennison et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6966179 | Onodera et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6973776 | van Nieuwstadt et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6983589 | Lewis et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990800 | van Nieuwstadt et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7000384 | Kagenishi | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7007462 | Kitahara | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7008461 | Kuki et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7021047 | Hilden et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7055314 | Treiber | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7078004 | Voss et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7082753 | Dalla Betta et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7111453 | Chandler et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7128772 | Brück | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7141226 | Twigg | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7174705 | Binder et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7178331 | Blakeman et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7207171 | Nagaoka et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7264785 | Blakeman et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7267805 | Bruck et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7340888 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7404933 | Twigg | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7498010 | Andreasson et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7862640 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
20020053202 | Akama et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020170433 | Pfeifer et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030072694 | Hodgson et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030086837 | Bruck et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095904 | Cheng | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097934 | Bruck et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040013579 | Schaller | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040013580 | Bruck et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040175315 | Brisley et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040221572 | Treiber | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050011186 | Saito et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050132674 | Toyoda et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050198942 | van Nieuwstadt et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050229590 | Bruck et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050232830 | Bruck | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050274012 | Hodgson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060080953 | Maus et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060117736 | Twigg | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060130464 | Sun et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060185352 | Twigg | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060236680 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060254258 | Blakeman et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060254263 | Allansson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060254266 | Chandler et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060272317 | Brown et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070012031 | Tanimura et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20080047244 | Zhang et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20110185709 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
33 37 903 | May 1985 | DE |
35 45 762 | Jul 1987 | DE |
37 44 265 | Jul 1989 | DE |
0 035 053 | Sep 1981 | EP |
0 160 482 | Nov 1985 | EP |
0 283 913 | Sep 1988 | EP |
0 160 482 | Jan 1989 | EP |
0 341 832 | Nov 1989 | EP |
0 369 163 | May 1990 | EP |
0 393 257 | Oct 1990 | EP |
0 628 706 | Dec 1994 | EP |
0 341 832 | Jan 1996 | EP |
0 758 713 | Feb 1997 | EP |
0 798 452 | Oct 1997 | EP |
1 055 805 | Nov 2000 | EP |
1 054 722 | Dec 2001 | EP |
1 251 249 | Oct 2002 | EP |
1 060 004 | Feb 2006 | EP |
1 251 249 | Jun 2006 | EP |
2 860 837 | Apr 2005 | FR |
1 014 498 | Dec 1965 | GB |
1 301 667 | Jan 1973 | GB |
1 557 780 | Dec 1979 | GB |
2 188 559 | Oct 1987 | GB |
57-117326 | Jul 1982 | JP |
59-150918 | Aug 1984 | JP |
60-43113 | Mar 1985 | JP |
61-112716 | May 1986 | JP |
64-8311 | Jan 1989 | JP |
5-195756 | Aug 1993 | JP |
6-50134 | Feb 1994 | JP |
6-294316 | Oct 1994 | JP |
7-119444 | May 1995 | JP |
8-42329 | Feb 1996 | JP |
8-49533 | Feb 1996 | JP |
8103636 | Apr 1996 | JP |
8-266868 | Oct 1996 | JP |
9-79024 | Mar 1997 | JP |
9-88569 | Mar 1997 | JP |
2001-82133 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2001-295627 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2001-355431 | Dec 2001 | JP |
WO 9012950 | Nov 1990 | WO |
WO 9110048 | Jul 1991 | WO |
WO 9944725 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO 0003790 | Jan 2000 | WO |
WO 0192692 | Dec 2001 | WO |
WO 2004094045 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO 2004047952 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004050219 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2004072446 | Aug 2004 | WO |
WO 2005005797 | Jan 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“California enforcing NO2 limits for diesel emission retrofits,” http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2006/11arb.php, 1 page (Nov. 6, 2006). |
“CRT Filter,” DieselNet Technology Guide, pp. 1-5 (Mar. 15, 2001). |
“Innovations,” http://www.emitec.com/index.php?lang=en&mid=e4&doc=50, 14 pages (Date Printed Nov. 13, 2006). |
“Proposed Amendments to the Verification Procedure for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines,” California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, pp. 1-29 (Oct. 24, 2003). |
Cooper, B. et al., “Role of NO in Diesel Particulate Emission Control,” SAE 1989 Transactions Journal of Engines, Section 3, vol. 98, pp. 612-624 (Copyright 1990). |
Enga, B. et al., “Catalytic Control of Diesel Particulate,” SAE 1982 Transactions, Section 1, vol. 91, pp. 767-795 (1982). |
Engler, B. et al., “Catalytically Activated Diesel Particulate Traps—New Development and Applications,” SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 860007, pp. 1-10 (1986). |
Hawker, P. et al., “Experience with a New Particulate Trap Technology in Europe,” Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment 1997, pp. 41-57 (Feb. 1997). |
Hilliard, J. et al., “Nitrogen Dioxide in Engine Exhaust,” SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 790691, 15 pages (1979). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2007/006971 mailed Sep. 14, 2007 (16 pages). |
Kiyota, Y. et al., “Development of Diesel Particulate Trap Oxidizer System,” SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 860294, pp. 203-213 (1986). |
Klein, H. et al., “Diesel Particulate Emissions of Passenger Cars—New Insights into Structural Changes During the Process of Exhaust Aftertreatment Using Diesel Oxidation Catalysts,” SAE Technical Paper Series, pp. 1-12 (Feb. 23-26, 1998). |
Lafyatis, D. et al., “Ambient Temperature Light-off Aftertreatment System for Meeting ULEV Emission Standards,” SAE Technical Paper Series, pp. 1-5 (Feb. 23-26, 1998). |
Office Action issued for EP Patent Application No. 07753586.2 mailed Feb. 20, 2009 (4 pages). |
Office Action issued for EP Patent Application No. 07753586.2 mailed Sep. 23, 2009 (6 pages). |
Response to Feb. 20, 2009 Office Action for EP Patent Application No. 07753586.2 filed Jun. 4, 2009 (15 pages). |
Response to Sep. 23, 2009 Office Action for EP Patent Application No. 07753586.2 filed Mar. 24, 2010 (12 pages). |
Tuenter, G. et al., “Kinetics and Mechanism of the NOx Reduction with NH3 on V2O5—WO3—TiO2 Catalyst,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev., vol. 25, No. pp. 633-636 (1986). |
Westerholm, R. et al., “Chemical Analysis and Biological Testing of Emissions from a Heavy Duty Diesel Truck With and Without Two Different Particulate Traps,” SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 860014, pp. 73-83 (1986). |
Wiedemann, B. et al., “Vehicular Experience with Additives for Regeneration of Ceramic Diesel Filters,” SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 850017, pp. 3-21 (1985). |
Zelenka, P. et al., “Worldwide diesel emission standards, current experiences and future needs,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, vol. 10, pp. 3-28 (1996). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130183215 A1 | Jul 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60784621 | Mar 2006 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12984436 | Jan 2011 | US |
Child | 13550069 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11725578 | Mar 2007 | US |
Child | 12984436 | US |