The present application relates in general to a method of using a non-engine based test system to perform emissions testing.
Vehicle based systems for performing emissions testing using Federal Test Procedures (FTP) have several disadvantages, such as driver variability and long vehicle soak times (12 hours). More precise and efficient alternative methods would be advantageous to perform FTP test procedures used in research and development work.
The present application provides a method for simulating at least one drive cycle of a vehicle using a non-engine based test system. The method comprises: providing a non-engine based test system comprising a combustor in fluid communication with a catalytic converter from the vehicle; supplying fuel and air to said combustor at an air to fuel ratio (AFR) and under conditions effective to produce a feedstream flowpath; substantially stoichiometrically combusting at least a portion of the fuel in the feedstream flowpath under conditions effective to simulate at least one drive cycle of the vehicle and to produce a simulated drive cycle exhaust product for the vehicle, the conditions being effective to prevent substantial damage to the combustor; and, collecting and analyzing the simulated drive cycle exhaust product.
The FTP 75 vehicle emissions test was developed in approximately 1975 to measure emissions from vehicles using a chassis dynamometer. The drive trace for the FTP test is shown in
The use of a vehicle-based apparatus to perform FTP test procedures creates some disadvantages, particularly in research and development work. A primary disadvantage is inefficiency. During aging (typically accelerated aging on an engine), the test stand must be brought down and the catalytic converter must be removed and installed on the test vehicle. The vehicle then is driven over the drive cycle by a human driver, and is soaked (or turned off) overnight for test preparation. Due to the time required for all of the vehicle systems to cool down to approved ambient conditions, only one cold-start FTP test can be performed per day using a vehicle-based system.
Another disadvantage of vehicle-based testing is a lack of precision. One source of reduced precision is the use of a human driver to simulate the drive cycle. Humans are susceptible to driving the test differently from day to day. Another source of reduced precision is the many variables that affect overall emissions from a vehicle. Variations exist from vehicle-to-vehicle, and day to day on the same vehicle.
The present application solves the foregoing problems by using a non-engine based test system to perform drive cycle testing. A preferred non-engine based test system is an exhaust component rapid aging system (NEBECRAS) and a method for using same to simulate vehicle-based FTP test procedures.
A preferred NEBECRAS for use in the method is the “FOCAS® rig,” described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030079520, published May 1, 2003, incorporated herein by reference. Briefly, the FOCAS® rig comprises: (1) an air supply system to provide air for combustion to the burner, (2) a fuel system to provide fuel to the burner, (3) a burner system to combust the air and fuel mixture and to provide the proper exhaust gas constituents, (4) a heat exchanger to control the exhaust gas temperature, (5) an oil injection system, and (6) a computerized control system. The foregoing components are illustrated in
The FOCAS® rig was developed to evaluate the long term effects of the individual variables on the long term performance of the catalyst. The FOCAS® rig is capable of producing a simulated exhaust gas with a composition and temperature corresponding to that produced by the internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle.
Referring now to the drawings and initially to
The exhaust from the burner 60 is routed to a heat exchanger 70. The heat exchanger 70 may be of any conventional design which will be well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In a preferred embodiment the heat exchanger 70 consists of two sections. The upstream section consists of a water jacketed tube. The downstream section is a vertical cross flow shell and tube heat exchanger. The vertical cross flow design minimizes steam formation and steam trapping within the cooling tubes. The heat exchanger 70 is provided with an inlet water line 80 and an outlet water line 90 which supply and drain cooling water to cool the exhaust gas to a temperature simulating that which is present at the inlet to the catalytic converter of a typical motor vehicle.
The exhaust gas is next routed to an oil injection section 110 (
A data acquisition and control system preferably provides a means to control ignition, air assist to the fuel injector, auxiliary air, fuel feed, blower air feed, oil injection, etc. (discussed more fully below). An example of a suitable control system would be a proportional integral derivative (PID) control loop, for example, for controlling fuel metering.
In a preferred embodiment, the data acquisition and control system is provided with a computer program to control the system and to acquire and process the signals from the measured parameters. The computer program can be written in a variety of different ways, which will be well known to persons versed in the art. The controller preferably is provided with a closed-loop fan control to maintain catalyst inlet temperature, preferably at from about −50.degree. C. to about +50.degree. C. about a setpoint temperature, preferably from about −5.degree. C. to about +5.degree. C. about a setpoint temperature. The setpoint temperature is dictated by the cycle being simulated.
The control system for the FOCAS.TM. Rig consists of a Lab VIEW-programmed PC equipped with a touch screen monitor and a multi-function DAQ card, connected to an SCXI chassis holding two SCXI 1120 multiplexing modules, one feed-through panel, and an SCXI 1160 “relay module” to monitor and record system information, and to control system electronics. Using the computer interface, the operator can switch power to the blowers and fuel pump, as well as control the air assisted fuel injectors, burner spark, oil injection, and auxiliary air, all with the touch of a finger.
The burner system in the FOCAS® rig is effective to substantially stoichiometrically combust at least a portion of fuel in the feedstream flowpath without substantial damage to the combustor. In a preferred embodiment, the combustor comprises a nozzle comprising a swirl plate which is effective even at a stoichiometric air to fuel ratio (AFR) of producing a feedstream flowpath comprising an air shroud effective to prevent flame from attaching to a nozzle supplying fuel and air to the combustor during combustion of fuel. The feedstream flowpath also preferably prevents flame from remaining in constant contact with an inner wall of the combustor during combustion of fuel.
Although the FOCAS® rig is preferred, it will be apparent to persons of ordinary skill in the art that any functional and effective non-engine based test system could be adapted for use in accordance with the principles described herein.
The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) uses the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). The UDDS is the result of more than ten years of effort by various groups to translate the Los Angeles smog-producing driving conditions to chassis dynamometer operations, and is a nonrepetitive drive cycle covering 7.5 miles in 1372 seconds with an average speed of 19.7 mph. Its maximum speed is 56.7 mph.
As seen in
In order to perform the drive cycle using the non-engine based test system, the following features are controlled:
Ideally, the FOCAS system exhaust gas mixture contains similar concentrations of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen as seen in the vehicle exhaust at any time during the FTP test. An idealized exhaust gas mixture could be created for research and development work by metering/doping the exhaust gas to create the proper component balance to match the vehicle exhaust throughout operation over the test cycle. The suitable idealized exhaust gas mixture would vary, with an example of a suitable idealized exhaust gas mixture (near stoichiometric) comprising the following components in the following ratios:
The non-engine based test system software controls all of the above parameters simultaneously throughout the simulated FTP, and is programmable to simulate any desired set of test conditions.
Throughout the test cycle, the exhaust is collected, diluted, and thoroughly mixed with filtered background air to a known constant volume flowrate using a positive displacement pump. This procedure is known as Constant Volume Sampling (CVS). A proportional sample of the dilute exhaust is collected in a sample bag for analysis at the end of the test. The emissions are mathematically weighted to represent the average of several 7.5 mile trips made from cold and hot starts. A summary of suitable cycle duration, driving distance, and average speed is given in the following Table:
Exhaust emissions from the FTP cover the effects of vehicle and emission control system warm-up as the vehicle is operated over the cycle. The “stabilized” phase produces emissions from a fully warmed up or stabilized vehicle and emission control system. “Hot-start” or “hot transient” phase emissions result when the vehicle is started after the vehicle and emission control systems have stabilized during operation, and are then soaked (turned off) for 10 minutes.
Weighted total emissions from the FTP at 68° F. to 86° F. ambient temperature conditions are regulated by the EPA. The only regulated pollutant for the FTP at cold conditions (20° F.) is carbon monoxide (CO). Tier 1 cold-CO level for passenger cars is 10.0 g/mile. The California LEVII emissions standards for 2004 light-duty passenger cars, intermediate life—50,000 miles (the standards which the test vehicle was certified to) are:
The weighted total mass equivalent emissions for the EPA FTP-75 are calculated as required in the U.S. EPA regulations (40 CFR 86.144-90) using the following equation:
The non-engine based test system, preferably a FOCAS® system, can be used for thermal aging. As a result, the burner may be deactivated at a predetermined age, the system may be cooled to ambient conditions in a matter of minutes, and then immediately after cooling, the system can be used to perform multiple simulated FTP's. The non-engine based test system can then be returned to aging, making the entire emissions test procedure very time-efficient. These advantages make it highly desirable as a research and development tool.
Persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that many modifications may be made to the present application without departing from the spirit and scope of the application. The embodiment described herein is meant to be illustrative only and should not be taken as limiting the application, which is defined in the claims.
The present application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/213,890, filed Aug. 6, 2002, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,140,874 incorporated herein by reference. This application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/470,471 filed Sep. 6, 2006; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/420,393 filed May 25, 2006; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/326,983 filed Jan. 6, 2006; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/917,230 filed Aug. 12, 2004; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/917,245 filed Aug. 12, 2004; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/918,330 filed Aug. 12, 2004; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/847,034 filed May 17, 2004; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/458,023 filed Jun. 10, 2003; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/439,146 filed May 15, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,983,545 B2; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/457,916 filed Jun. 10, 2003.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1102510 | Irish | Jul 1914 | A |
3030773 | Johnson | Apr 1962 | A |
3131749 | Davis | May 1964 | A |
3176751 | Gerlitz | Apr 1965 | A |
3503715 | Haensel | Mar 1970 | A |
3630024 | Hopkins | Dec 1971 | A |
3685740 | Sheperd | Aug 1972 | A |
3694135 | Dancy et al. | Sep 1972 | A |
3818846 | Reese | Jun 1974 | A |
3890088 | Ferri | Jun 1975 | A |
4035137 | Arand | Jul 1977 | A |
4054418 | Miller et al. | Oct 1977 | A |
4118171 | Flanagan et al. | Oct 1978 | A |
4270896 | Polinski | Jun 1981 | A |
4383411 | Riddel | May 1983 | A |
4651524 | Brighton | Mar 1987 | A |
4845940 | Beer | Jul 1989 | A |
4878380 | Goodman | Nov 1989 | A |
5085577 | Muller | Feb 1992 | A |
5140814 | Kreutmair et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5149261 | Suwa et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5267851 | Washam et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5288021 | Sood et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5320523 | Stark | Jun 1994 | A |
5339630 | Pettit | Aug 1994 | A |
5396794 | Nichols | Mar 1995 | A |
5493171 | Wood | Feb 1996 | A |
5529048 | Kurihara et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5553450 | Schnaibel et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5584178 | Naegeli et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5592924 | Audisio | Jan 1997 | A |
5626014 | Hepburn | May 1997 | A |
5693874 | De La Cruz et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5713336 | King | Feb 1998 | A |
5826428 | Blaschke | Oct 1998 | A |
5860277 | Schnaibel et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5899062 | Jerger et al. | May 1999 | A |
5974787 | Lemire et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5974788 | Hepburn et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5998210 | Hepburn et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6071113 | Tsubouchi et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6269633 | Van Nieuwstadt | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6298729 | Locker | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301875 | Backlund et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6378359 | Dobson et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6382182 | Green | May 2002 | B1 |
6490858 | Barrett et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6586254 | Kumar | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594990 | Kuenstler | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6713025 | Ivanescu | Mar 2004 | B1 |
20010054281 | Adams et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20030012700 | Carnahan | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030079520 | Ingalls et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040007056 | Webb et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040025580 | Webb et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040028588 | Webb et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
918699 | Jul 1949 | DE |
3020030 | Dec 1981 | DE |
0590699 | Apr 1994 | EP |
000895024 | Feb 1999 | EP |
000961013 | Dec 1999 | EP |
2674333 | Sep 1992 | FR |
2329853 | Jul 1999 | GB |
2356826 | Jun 2001 | GB |
51-111927 | Oct 1976 | JP |
56-49820 | May 1981 | JP |
04-72410 | Mar 1992 | JP |
06-264740 | Sep 1994 | JP |
07-198127 | Aug 1995 | JP |
11-159386 | Jun 1999 | JP |
11-270808 | Oct 1999 | JP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20040237636 A1 | Dec 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10213890 | Aug 2002 | US |
Child | 10847034 | US |