31083-1-P
Annual Progress Report No. 1
Kinetics of Oxidation and Quenching
of Combustibles in Exhaust Systems
of Gasoline Engines
D. J. PATTERSON
B. CARNAHAN
R. H. KADLEC
H. A. LORD
J. J. MARTIN
W. MIRSKY
E. SONDREAL
PERIOD: February 24, 1969 to February 23. 1970
1969-1970
This project is under the technical supervision of the:
Coordinating Research Council
APRAC-Cape 8-68 Steering Committee
and is work performed by the:
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Under Contract No. CAPE-8-68(1-68)-CRC
and Contract No. CPA-22-69-51-HEW
-------
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT NO.1
KINETICS OF OXIDATION AND QUENCHING OF COMBUSTIBLES IN
EXHAUST SYSTEMS OF GASOLINE ENGINES
D. J. Patterson
B. Carnahan
R. H. Kadlec
H. A. Lord
J. J. Martin
W. Mirsky
E. Sondreal
PERIOD:
February 24, 1969 to February 23, 1970
1969 - 1970
. This project is under the technical supervision of the:
Coordinating Research Council
APRAC-CAPE 8-68 Steering Committee
and is work performed by the:
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Th~ University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Under Contract No. CAPE-8-68(1-68)-CRC
and Contract No. CPA-22-69-51-HEW
-------
, '
,
.;
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
"
Contributions to this r.eport were made by several faculty and graduate
students from the Departments of Chemical and,Mechanical Engineering, The
University of Michigan. In particular, the write-up of Phase II Progress
was made largely by Mr. Everett Sondreal under the guidance of Profe'ssor
Robert Kadlec and Professor Bruce Carnahan of the Department of Chemical
Engineering. The program exhaust' was written by Professor Carnahan. The
assistance of Mr. Marshall Graves who organized the data and prepared mos~
of the figures related to Phase I progress is gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks are in order to the members of the ARPAC CAPE-8-68 Broj-
ect Steering Committee whose astute comments have been most helpful in pre-
paring this report.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES
OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE I
A. Multicylinder "Conventional" React:>r
Engine-reactor system
Instrumentation
Baseline engine evaluation
B. Experimental Reactor Study
Objectives
General requirements of stirred tank system
General description of stirred tank system
Mixing in the reactor
References
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE II
Modelling an Exhaust Reactor as a Stirred Tank
References
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE III
A.
B.
Spectroscopic Analysis
Measurement of Instantaneous Engine Exhaust Velocity
and Temperature .
Hydrocarbon Class Analysis by Subtractive Column
C.
APPENDIX .
ENGINE TEST DATA SUMMARY FOR CURVES OF FIGURES 9-24
DISTRIBUTION LIST
iii
. . -~ 00.-. .
. .
Page
iv
" v
viii
.1 \
2
2
2
3
4 ,
8
8
9
9
9
12
13
13
21
25
25
26
2'7
77
83
. -..
-------
Table
III.
VII.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I.
Chevrolet Engine Characteristics
2
II.
DuPont Type V Reactor Characteristics
3
Gas Analysis Techniques
5
IV.
Engine Road Load Horsepower Calculations
6
V.
Spectrometer-NDIR Comparison for Variable Fuel/Air
Ratio
25
VI.
Spectrometer-NDIR Comparison for Variable Load
26
Spectrometer-NDIR Comparison for Variable Spark
Timing
26
iv
-------
Figure
17.
.-'- ..-,. ..
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
Chevrolet 350 in.3 engine set-up for emission test in Room
243 of The University of Michigan Automotive Laboratory. .:
2.
TyPe V DuPont exhaust manifold reactor.
3.
DuPont type V reactor at. The University of Michigan.
4.
Cutaway view of type V reactor.
5.
Modified intake manifold.
6.
Flow schematic of University of Michigan hydrocarbon, CO,
NO, 02' and .C02 exhaust gas analysis system. .
7.
Flow schematic of University of Michigan subtractive column-
flame ionization hydrocarbon analysis system.
8.
Calculated road load engine horsepower requirement as a
function of car speed:
9.
C02' CO, 02, and NO emission vs. air/fuel ratio~
10.
Hydrocarbon and aldehyde emission vs. air/fuel ratio.
11. .. Mass emission vs. air/fuel ratio.
12.
HYdrocarbon class analysis vs. air/fuel ratio.
13.
C02' CO, 02' and NO concentration emission vs. spark timing.
14.
HYdrocarbon emissions vs. spark advance.
15.
Mass emission vs. spark'advance.
16. Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. spark advance.
C02' CO, 02' and NO emission vs. engine speed.
18.
Hydrocarbon emission vs. engine speed.
19.
Mass emission vs. engine rpm.
20.
Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. engine speed.
v
'n. .-. .....
.-.;
",.',\
Page
29 ,
29
30
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
\
45
46
-------
Figure
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
,1
Page
21.
C02' CO, 02' and NO emission vs. torque.
47
22.
Hydrocarbon and aldehyde emission vs. load.
48
23.
Mass emission vs. load.
49
24.
Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. load.
50
25.
Two-tank experimental reactor system schematic.
51
26.
52'
Experimental reactor cross section.
27.
Variation in hydrocarbon concentration downstream of
exhaust valve.
53
28.
Comparison of reaction rate equations for oxidation of
carbon monoxide.
58
29.
Variation in exhaust temperature.
59
30.
Variation in exhaust flow.
59
31.
Hydrocarbon concentration (methane).
60
32.
Carbon monoxide concentration.
60
33.
Flow out of reactor.
61
34.
62
Temperature and pressure in reactor.
35.
Emission concentrations in reactor.
63
36.
Reactor temperature and pressure based on an enthalpy-
averaged temperature and a modulated input.
64
37.
Reactor gas composition based upon an enthalpy-averaged
feed temperature and a modulated input.
65
38.
Reactor temperature and pressure based on an enthalpy-
averaged feed temperature and time-averaged input for
each cylinder.
66
39.
Reactor gas composition based upon an enthalpy-averaged
feed temperature and time-averaged inputs for each cylinder.
67
vi
-------
I
I"
~.~.;\ :,,'
Figure
<:~"-i{'
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Page
40.
68
Emission concentrations during reactor warm-up.
41.
69
Exhaust manifold simulation.
42.
A combined mass and energy balance "on CO.
74
43.
Spectrographic anaiysis of exhaust gas (typical).
75
vii
-------
OBJECTIVES
..
. .
"\
The objectives of this study are:
.
. .
.To quantify the effects that the various chemical and physical pro-
cesses have on emission characteristics of exhaust thermal reactors
installed on selected typical engines operating at various condi-'
tions on a dynamometer test stand.
.To obtain concentration measurements of pertinent chemical species
and classes at the entrance to, within, and at the exit from thermal
reactors, and from this data to determine gross chemical reaction
rates.
"To obtain information which will be helpful in predicting the design
of gasoline engine exhaust reactors.
.To develop a computer model for thermal reactors.
viii
-------
. INTRODUCTION.
. .
. +he approach ~aken in this study deviates somewhat from that described
in the original proposal. Originally, the intent was to follow an elemental
volume of exhaust gas from the time it left the exhaust valve to the time .it
entered the atmosphere. Chemical and physical measurements on this volume
were to be resolved both spatially and temporally~ However, the study is now
being directed towards obtaining needed new reaction rate data for pertinent
chemical classes and species using an experimental well~stirred tWo~tank reac-
tor system. This information will be used in a computer simulation to predict
reactor performance under a variety of conditions, including time varying in-
puts. Therefore, emphasis is being placed on determining gross rate constants
for CO, 02' total HC, and possibly hydrocarbon classes, taking into account
the residence time distribution of these species within the reactor..
A computer model is being developed to simulate the overall chemical
. kinetics of the reaction processes in the engine mounted reactor, using the.
rate data obtained from the experimental two-tank reactor mentioned above. A
first generation model has bee'n developed which used rate data found in the
literature. This model will be updated as soon as rate constants and
residence time distributions are experimentally determined from measurements
on the experimental reactor. The current computer model has already brought
out the need for better rate data and for more accurate experimentaldetermi-
~ations of input enthalpy. This latter factor has brought about an increased
effort to experimentally determine instantaneous exhaust velocity and temper-
ature measurements.
Current major efforts are now primarily in the following areas:
(a)
Experimental determination of the performance of the engine
mounted DuPont reactors.
(b)
Preparation of the two-tank reactor system for preliminary
operation.
(c)
Further' development of the computer model.
(d)
Experimental determination of instantaneo~s exhaust gas
velocity and temperature.
(e)
Development of a system for the experimental determination
of residence time distribution within the experimental
reactor.
1
-------
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE I
A.
Multicylinder "Conventional" Reactor
ENGINE-REACTOR SYSTEM
At the outset of this program, conversations were held with represen-
tatives of various automotive and petroleum companies regarding engines
and "conventional" manifold reactors appropriate to The University of
Michigan study. Those contacted included General Motors, Ford, Chrysler,
DuPont, Ethyl, Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron. Visits were made to General
Motors, Ford, DuPont, Mobil, and Texaco laboratories. As a result of
these discussions, a decision was made to focus on the Chevrolet 350 in.3
coupled with the DuPont type V thermal exhaust reactor.
A 350 in.3 v-8 engine, donated by the General Motors Corporation, was
received and set up for dynamometer testing. Table I lists the manufacturer's
specifications for the engine. This engine was selected because it would
remain in production for some years, because it is the largest volume pro-
duction v-8 engine and because DuPont reactors were readily available for
this engine. Figure 1 shows the engine installed for test in Room 243 of
The University of Michigan Automotive Laboratory. The standard vehicle
exhaust system was installed.
TABLE I
CHEVROLET ENGINE CHARACTERISTICS
I
I:
Model year
Displacement
Compression ratio
No. of cylinders
Bore
Stroke
Con. rod length
Firing order
Fuel specification
Carburetion
Emission control
Rated power
Rated torque
Exhaust opening
Exhaust closing
Intake opening
Intake closing
Left exhaust manifold
Right exhaust mainfold
Exhaust port volume
1969
350 in.3
9.0:1
8
4.0 in.
3.48 in.
'5.7 in.
1-8-4- 3-6-'5-7-2
regular
Rochester 2-bbl
AIR
255 BHP at 4200 rpm
365 lb ft at 1600 rpm
66 ° BOC
32° ATe
16° Bl'C
70° AOC
13 lb/64.6 in.3
13.25 lb/73 in.3
3.66 in.3/cyl
2
-------
Type V reactors and appropriate modified engine parts were procured
from the DuPont C or.porat ion. The DuPont reactors were selected because they.
appeared to be the most effective exhaust manifold thermal r~actors avail-
able at the time. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the standard type V reactor.
The reactor consists of an outer shell in which is mounted a .tubular core
and a radiation shield to insulate the hot core from the cooler outer shell.
Air is injected into each exhaust port. The exhaust gas-air mixture is
swept into the reactor core during the exhaust stroke as the arrOws suggest.
When conditions are favorable vigorous chemical reactions occur which ~onvert
hydrocarbon and.carbonmonoxide compounds to carbon dioxide and water vapor.
The hot reacting gases then flow around the radiation shield into the exhaust
system. Figure 3 shows a cutaway reactor. References 1, 2, and 3 describe
reactor characteristics and performance in more detail. '
TABLE II
DuPONT TYPE V REACTOR CHARACTERISTICS
Year received
Overall length
Overall diameter (exc. port) ,
Overall internal vol, flange-to-flange
Inner core volume
Weight
Primary material
Maximum recommended core temperature
1969
21. 375 in.
5.5 in. ' ,
259 in.3/reactor
60 in.3/reactor
26 Ib/reactor
310 stainless
17'50°F
, An engine modification required for optimum reactor operation involves
the intake manifold heating system. The conventional exhaust gas crossover
passage entrances are blocked. Instead, hot water is routed to the cross-
,over. This conserves exhaust energy while providing manifold heat. An '
intake manifold properly modified was supplied by DuPont. This manifold is
shown in Figure 5.' ,
One of the reactors received by The University of Michigan was modified
to accept quartz windows at the center of each end of the reactor. This
provides a straight optical path through the hot core. One window is large
enough (1-3/4 in. dia) to allow a visual inspection of the combustion process.
~he location of the large quartz window is apparent from Figure 3. ,The
other window is smaller (3/4 in. dia). ' '
INSTRUMENTATION
In order to analyze the effectiveness of the engine~exhaust thermal
3
-------
reactor system, various pieces of instrumentation were assembled. Engine
power was measured by a Westinghouse 200 hp electric dynamometer. Fuel flow
was measured by a General Motors displacement-type burette system. Fuel-
air ratio was controlled by pressurization or evacuation of the carburetor
float bowl. Air flow was measured by a General Motors rounded edge orifice
air cart and a Meriam micro-manometer. Thermocouples were used to measure
various critical engine temperatures. Exhaust temperatures were monitored
by unshielded immersion thermocouples purchased from Industrial Instr~ent
Supply Corporation. A large tank was mounted above the engine to mini-
mize pulsation effects. A Kistler Model 601A quartz pressure transducer was
installed in cylinder No.1 to measure cylinder pressure. A second Kistler
Model 701A quartz transducer was installed at the exhaust manifold outlet
to monitor exhaust system transient pressure. Mercury manometers were used
to measure the intake and exhaust system average pressures. Continuous gas
sampling taps were installed at each exhaust port, at the exhaust wye, and
at the tailpipe. An overview of the engine and instrumentation is shown in
Figure 1.
Gas Analys is
Gas analyses were made with a variety of instrumentation. Table III
lists this equipment. The 02 analyzer as well as nondispersive IR analyzers
for CO, C02' NO, and HC have been incorporated into a large semi-portable
cart--which can be seen in Figure 1. A schematic of this cart is shown in
Figure '6. The subtractive column analyzer and flame ionization detector
have been combined in a smaller portable cart. Figure 7 shows a schematic
of this system. Air Central, Incorporated Model No. 08-800-71 diaphragm gas
pumps are used to draw the samples.
BASELINE ENGINE EVALUATION
After obtaining the engine and setting up the instrumentat5_on, 8,n eval-
uation was made of the unmodified production 350 in.3 Chevrolet engin~.
Both performance and emission data were measured. Road load engins horse-
power was calculated. The results are shown in Figure 8 based on ass~mptions
listed in Table IV. The baseline engine was evaluated at several speed
and load points. A majority of data was recorded around a speed of 1200 rpm
and load of 30 hp. (130 ft-lb torque) which is about 50% of full load at
30 mph. This corresponds to about 12 in. of manifold vacuum. Thus it is
somewhat typical of accelerations on the Federal Test Procedure (9). Air/fuel
ratio, spark timing, speed, and load were varied about this 1200 rpm set
point. The emission results are plotted in Figures 9-24 and tabulated in the
Appendix. No correction for dilution or non-chemically correct operation is
applied. Performance data for these tests is tabulated in the Appendix also.
4
-------
Specie
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide'
Nitric oxide
Hydrocarbon
Hydrocarbon
02
Aldehydes
Hydrocarhon
. classes
:j:ndividual .
hydrocarbons
Hydrogen
TABLE III
GAS ANALYS:J;S ~HNIQUES
Technique
NDIRl,2
NDIRl,2
NDIR1,3
NDIRl .
FID4
Amperometric
DNPH5
Subtractive
column plus FIDP .
Gas chromatograph
Thermal conductivity
Manufacturer
Beckman Inst. Model 3l5A
Beckman. Inst. Model 315A
Beckman Inst. Model 3l5A
Beckman Inst. Model 315A
Beckman Inst. Model 109A
Beckman Inst. Model 715
Wet chemical and Bausch
&: Lomb Spectronic .
20 spectrophotometer
Perkin-Elmer 800
Instrument under
construction
Range
O-l~
O-l~
0-4000 'ppm
0-1000 ppm
0-3000 ppm
0-'J1o or 0-2510
l.
2'-
3.
4.
5..
6.
NDIR - Nondispersive infrared.
Orsat' used a~ check of calibration gases.
Modified Saltzman used as check of calibration gases.
FID - Flame ionization detector.
DNPH - Dinitrophenylhydrozone wet chemical method--colorimetric procedure
(References 5, 6, 7). .
Subtractive column technique according to Sigsby, .( Reference 8t Addi tional
discussion in this report under Detailed Progress Phase III..
5
-------
TABLE IV
ENGINE ROAD LOAD HORSEPOWER CALCULATIONS
(1969 Chevelle with 350 in.3 Engine)
Vehicle Information*
Weight including 600 lb test load, W
Frontal area, Af
N/V ratio with 2.73 axle and powerglide
Coef. of rolling resistance, Cw
Coef. of air resistance, Cd
Driveline efficiency
mph 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Efficiencies .81 .817 .82 .819 .821 .824 .825 .823 .825
3945 lb
21. 6 ft2
36.4:1
.017
.0013
Calculations
Road load hp
V
- -
375
V
- -
375
2
[Cw x W + Cd x Af x V ]
r . 017 x 394'5 +
2
. 0013 x 21. 6 V ]
where V is vehicle speed in mph
Engine hp Requirement = Road load
Engine rpm = mph x N/v
= mph x 36.4
hp/driveline efficiency
Results are plotted in Figure 8.
*
Courtesy Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corporation.
6
-------
':
A.
Air/Fuel ,Ratio .
, ! '
" '
, ,
Figure 9 sh?",s the e!!lission concentrations of CO, C02' 02' and NO as a
func~ion:ofair/fuel ratio~ Engine conditions were 1200 rpm~ '30 BHP andMBT
spark. Indolene clear fuel was used. Hydrocarbon emissions as hexane are
shown in Figure 10.' Both NDIR and FID readings are shown. Aldehydes,
measured by the DNPH method, are also plotted in Figure 10. These data com-
pare favorably to those in the published literature.
Figure 11 shows the CO, NO, and FID pydrocarbon emissions on a mass
basis. The parameter used is brake specific emission rate (BSER), pounds
of emission per bhp-hr. The pounds of emission per pound of fuel termed
fuel 'fraction emission rate (FFER) is'also plotted. Figure 12 shows the
class analysis results from the subtractive column analyzer. Note that the
percent paraffins decreased slightly and the olefins increased slightly as
the mixture was leaned. Aromatics remained about constant. No comparable
data exist in the literature. One must keep in mind that the subtractive
col~mn results include acetylene with the olefins and approximately half
the benzene with the paraffins.8 Additional verification of the subtractive
column analyzer by gas chromatography will increase our confidence in these
results. The Appendix includes a data summary for this test series.
B.
Spark Timing
Figure 13 shows the emission concentrations of C02' N?, 02' and CO as
a function of spark timing. Engine conditions were 1200 rpm, 30 BHP, and
approximately 15.4:1 A/F ratio. Indolene30 fuel was used to, avoid knocking.
Note that NO increased linearly with spark advance. Figure 14 shows the
,FID and NDIR hydrocarbon emissions. Aldehyde measurements were not recorded
for this test. These data compare favorably with data published in the
literature. Figure 15 shows the BSER and FFER for the CO, NO, and HC emjs~
sions. Figure 16 shows the class analysis results from the' subtractive
column analyzer. Note that aromatics were nearly constant whereas paraffins
increased and olefins decreased as the spark was ,advanced. No comparable
data exists in the literature. The ,Appendix includes a data summary for
this test series.
C.
Engine Speed"
~ '
Figure 17 shows the/effect of engine speed on C02' NO, CO, and 02
concentration emissions. Engine operating conditions were, .30 hp, MB'f spark
and about 14.8:1 air/fuel ratio. Indolene 30 test fuel was used. Under
these optimized constant load conditions NO decreased linearly with speed.
Figure 18 shows the hydrocarbon emissions. Both measurements decrease with
speed increase. These concentration readings compare favorably with litera-
ture values. Figure 19 shows the BSER and FFER rates. The apparent decrease
in CO mass emission rate results from the lower CO concenb'ation at higher
7
-------
speeds. Figure ,20 shows the hydrocarbon class analysis versus engine speed.
Paraffins decrease and olefins and aromatics increase slightly at higher
speeds. No comparable literature values exist. The Appendix includes a
data summary for this test series.
D.
Load
Figure 21 shows the effect of load on C02' CO, 0 , and NO emission.
NO increases with load at a decreasing rate. At ligh~ loads CO and 02
increase and C02 decreases slight~y. Engine conditions were 1200 rpm, MBT
spark and about 15.8:1 air/fuel ratio. Indolene 30 fuel was used. Figure
22 shows hydrocarbon and aldehyde emissions. Incomplete combustion at loads
lighter than 30 ft-lb did not increase aldehyde emissions significantly.
These data compare favorably to thosein the published literature. Figure 23
shows BSER and FFER emission parameters for this test. Finally Figure 24
shows a class analysis. At light loads the class analysis approaches that
of the Indolene fuel itself. No comparable data exists in the literature
regarding class analysis. The Appendix includes a data summary for this'
test series.
B.
Experimental Reactor Study
O:s.m::TIVES
The experimental reactor was included in the program to permit a critical
examination of those parameters affecting changes in the chemical composition
of an elemental volume of exhaust gas as it passes through an exhaust reactor.
Discussions among those involved in the study reflected the opinion that
global reaction rate constants for the disappearance of certain compounds
and/or classes of compounds in a perfectly mixed reactor were the most criti-
cal unknowns in reactor modeling. Thus the primary emphasis of the experi-
mental reactor program has been placed on designing a system to permit the
determination of these rate constants. An attempt will be made to account
separately for the imperfect mixing effects expected in production vehicle
reactors.
Factors of possible importance in addition to reaction rates in perfectly
mixed systems, such as the composition profiles, flow rates, and mixing
rates in the exhaust pulses, have also been studied to some extent with a
separate system, a linear reactor. This work, which corresponds closely to
that anticipated at the outset of the project, will be discussed in a fol-
lowing section.
8
-------
,-
GENERAL R~UIREMENTS :qE: STIRRED TANK SYSTEM
. .
The stirr~d tank experimental .reactor is to provide kinetic data for a
perfectly. mixed system. Basically this requires that air and exhaust gas of
.measured composition flow steadily at measured rates through a highly stirred
reactor having a known and uniform pressure, temperature, and composition.
Means must be provided to independently vary the inlet composition, relative
exhaust and air flow rates, overall flow rate, and reactor temperature.
The design features incorporated to ~chieve these objectives are described
in the following section. '
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF STIRRED TANK SYSTEM
The stirred tank system, which wi~l also be called the two-tank system,
is sketched in Figure 25. This system will be attached directly to the
exhaust port of a propane fueled single cylinder CFR variable compression
ratio engine. Hot exhaust will pass from the exhaust port through a per-
forated exhaust inlet tube and into a 1350 in.3 surge and mixing tank and
then through a nozzle into the 50in.3 reactor. The high velocity jets
generated by the nozzle will be used to keep the reactor well stirred. Air
will be injected through a heated line into the reactor inlet nozzle. A
throttle and by-pass loop will control flowrate in order to permit the re-
actor residence time to be 'varied without changing engine conditions. The
tW9 tanks and connecting piping will be constructed of Hastelloy-X or simi-
lar high temperature alloys and should be capable of continuous operation
at up to 2000°F.
..
Gas samples will be withdrawn at the reactor inlet and outlet through
water cooled sampling probes. Gas temperatures will be measured with
shielded thermocouples in the surge tank, at the reactor entrance, at three
locations inside the reactor, and at the by-pass flowmeter. The degree of
uniformity of temperature inside the reactor will be checked by comparing
, .
the three thermocouple readings. Asa spot check the thermocouples can be
. moved around inside the reactor, and in addition the composition can be
determined at various locations by inserting water-cooled sampling probes
through the thermocouple taps. Surge tank and reactor pressures will be
measured with manometers. Propane and air flow rates to the engine as well
as injection air flow rate will be measured with critical flow orifices and
injection air temp~rature with a shielded thermocouple. Flow rate through
the by-pass loop will be measured with a Venturi meter after the gas has
been cooled by passing through a heat exchanger.
MIXING IN THE REACTOR'
The most critical task of the reactor design is the maintenance of a
high mixing rate. The mixing occurs in two steps; (1) the exhaust is. mixed
with air j':lst upstr.eam of the reactor inlet, and (2) the exhaust-air mixture
9
-------
is mixed with the products of reaction in the reaction chamber. In the
present design both steps depend upon the mixing effects of turbulent jets.
Figure 26 is a cross-section view of the reactor showing the jet orifices.
A.
Mixing of Exhaust With Air
The mixing of the exhaust with air is accomplished by using the h~gh
air supp~y pressure to force air through twelve 1/16 in." dia holes equally
spaced around the circumference of the reactor inlet tube. At the maximum
designed air flow rate of 30 lbm/hr this should result in an air velocity
of from about 500 ft/sec to sonic velocity through the holes depending on
the air temperature. The resulting mixture is thep discharged through the
reactor inlet nozzle into the reactor.
B.
Mixing of Reactants With Products
The reactor is designed to operate at a flow rate of up to 60 lbm/hr.
For the present nozzle design this should require a pressure drop of about
4 psi across the twelve 3/32 in. dia inlet holes and result in a velocity
through the holes of about 1100 ft/sec at an inlet temperature of 1000°F.
The centerline velocity of a jet of this size discharging into an infinite
medium would retain about 40% of its initial value after the 1.5 in. it
travels in the reactor before striking a wall (see, eg., Abramovich (10)),
and thus" should possess enough kinetic energy to cause a fairly high level
of recirculation and turbulence in the reactor. The micro-mixing parameter
or Evangelista, Shinnar, and Katz (11), which represents the ratio of resi-
dence time to micro-mixing time, is 8.5 for this system. For a given re-
actor volume this parameter can only be increased by decreasing the number
and/or size of the inlet holes, which consequently requires a higher pressure
drop across the inlet nozzle. In order to check for imperfect mixing effects
it will be necessary to use at least two different reactor nozzles resulting
in different values of this parameter. The design permits nozzles to be
easily interchanged, and the requirement of higher back pressures can be
met by increasing the engine intake system pressure.
SYSTEM CONTROLS
Exhaust flow rate and composition can be controlled to a large extent
by individually controlling the upstream pressures of the air and fuel
supplied to the engine, while temperature can be controlled by varying the
engine compression ratio and spark timing. Since this does not provide much
control over hydrocarbon emissions, provisions have been made to allow the
introduction of species into the surge tank if this is deemed necessary.
In order to permit variation of reactor residence time while maintaining
constant inlet composition by holding engine conditions constant, a by-pass
10
-------
"
loop and throttle valve have been' 'incorporated into the' design. Injection
air flow rate is independently controlled by adjusting the pressure upstream
of the critical flow orifice, while temperature is controlled by adjusting
the power to the air heaters with a variable transformer.
FABRICATION
Fabrication of the reactor system is underway at the Walker Manufac-
turing Corporation.
,LINEAR REACTOR STUDY
The experimental progr&m initially envisioned called for follo~ing an
element of exhaust gas through a linear reactor by sampling the concentra-
tion as a function of time at several positions. Temperature, pr,essure, and
velocity measurements would also be taken, and to permit.the use of,optical
techniques the reactor was to be constructed of quartz. The desi~n, of this
reactor was completed and some parts, including sections of quartzi'tubing"
" were purchased.
Rather than begin work with the complicated and relatively expensive
quartz reactor, a linear reactor consisting of a simple straight mild steel
pipe was attached to the exhaust port of the same single cylinder engine
now being used with the two-tank system. Both steady and timed samples were
obtained for the engine conditions listed below,
Spar~" Advance
RPM
I. M. Vacuum
Compression Ratio
Air/F.uel Ratio'
300(mbt)
1020 :t 10
8.5 - 8.8
8.'5:1
.1% CO
in. Hg
using the method described by Daniel and Wentworth (12). Results for total
FID hydrocarbon concentration as a function of crank angle at five locations
along the reactor located, approximately 4.5, 7, 10.5, 13.5, and17~5 in.
from the exhaust valve, respectively, are presented in Figures 27a-e. An
attempt was also made to obtain the velocity as a function of position and
time by following the peak concentration in the exhaust slug from these
figures, and the results were compared to those obtained by a numerical solu-
tion based on the method of characteristics. Some degree of success was
achieved, but more work would be required to obtain completely satisfactory
agreement between the two methods.
'"
11
-------
( 10)
( 11)
References
(1) .
Cantwell, E.N., et al., "A Progress Report on the Development of
Exhaust Manifold Reactors," SAE Preprint No. 690139, January 1969.
(2) .
Cantwell, E.N., et al., "Recent Development in Exhaust Manifold
Reactor Systems," ~. of Mech. ~. Preprint ADP13( B)/70, May 1970.
(3)
Cantwell, E.N., and J.J. Mikita, "Exhaust Minifold Thermal Reactors-
A Solution to the Automotive Emission Problem," 68th Annual ~ Pet.
Ref. Assoc., April 1970.
( 4)
( 5)
Saltzman, B.E., Analytical Chemistry, v. 32, p. 135, 1960.
Oberdorfer, P.E., 'TIetermination of Aldehydes in Automobile Exhaust
Gas, "SAE Preprint 670123, January, 1967.
( 6)
U.S. Bureau of Mines, "Procedures of Determining Exhaust Carbonyls as
2, 4-Dini trophenylhydrazones, " APRAC Proj. CAPE-1l-68 Final Report,
1968.
( 7)
Papa, L. J., "Colorimetric Determination of Carbonyl Compounds in
Automotive Exhaust as 2, 4-Dinitrophenylhydrozones," Env. ScL and
Tech. V. 3, No.4, Aprii 1969, p. 397. --- --- ---
( 8)
IG.osterman, D.L., and .J.E. Sigsby, "Application of Subtractive Techni-
ques to the Analysis of Automotive Exhaust," Environmental Science and
Technology, !, No.4, April 1967, p. 309.
( 9)
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Control of Air Pollution
from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines," Federal Register
1968, 33 (June 4).
Abramovich, The Theory of Turbulent Jets, M. I. T. Press (1963).
Evangelista, J.J., R. Shinnar, and S. Katz, The Effect of Imperfect
Mixing on Stirred Combustion Reactors, 12th Symposium (Int '1) ~
Combustion, pp. 901-912 (1969).
(12) . Daniel, W.A., and J.T. Wentworth, Exhaust Gas Hydrocarbons--Genesis
and Exodus, Society of Automotive En~ineers, TP-6, p. 192. (Paper
no.486B, SAE National Automobile Week, March 1962.)
12
-------
. " . 0('<"" ~ ,
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE II
Modelling an Exhaust Reactor as a Stirred Tank
A first-generation model has been developed to simulate the operation of
a 300 in.3 reactor attached to four cylinders of a 350 in.3 displacement eight-
cylinder engine. It is based on instantaneous mixing of air and. exhaust at
their respective instantaneous flow.rates at the inlet to the reactor. .The
reactor itself is assumed to be well stirred, meaning that tempe'rature and com-
position are uniform throughout, down to the level of "micromixi'ng."
Recognizing that exhaust enters in pulsations identified with the firing
of individual cylinders and that the flow rate of air may be staged, the pro-
gram was written to accept up to 12 input streams each of which can be timed
to enter the reactor over any portion of a 720° engine cycle. The values for.
rate of flow, temperature, .and composition for a given input are generated by
function subprograms, so that any desired pattern of variation can be intro-
duced without rewriting the calling program. Each input may contain up to 20
chemical species, which may subsequently appear as either reactants or prod-
ucts in any of 10 reactions.
The computer model computes temperatures, pressures, compositions,
enthalpies, heat loss, reaction rates, outflow, and accumulation. A Runge-
Kutta method of fourth order is used to compute the total moles in the reactor,
the total enthalpy of the reactor, and the moles of each chemical species at
any given time from rates of reaction, rates of flow, and rate of heat loss.
The reactor temperature is updated for each new value of enthalpy using a half-
interval root-finding technique. Pressure is computed from the total mole
content of the reactor and temperature by using the perfect gas law.
. .
Heat loss from the reactor is computed as the product of an overall heat
transfer coefficient times the difference between the temperature within the
. .
reactor and the ambient temperature. The overall coefficient has been. treated
as a constant and its. value has been estimated, neglecting radiation, to be
0.775 Btu/oF hr, based on a reactor shell having 2 ft2 of surface area sur-
rounded by a 3-1/2 in. thickness of ceramic insulation.
Flow rate out of the reactor is computed as the product of 0.0025 times
the instantaneous gage pressure within the reactor in psig. The constant
0.0025 was obtained by trial operation of the program to obtain an average
operating pressure of approximately 1 psig.
Chemical reactions are communicated to the computer by arrays which give
the coefficients of the chemical species in the chemical equation. Rate data
for the reactions are introduced using correlations based on an Arrhenius-
type power law of the form
13
-------
r
=
. -E/RT A B
k e Ps P02'
All of the simulations run thus far are based on selected reaction kinetics
available in the literature.
At the start, the only chemical reactions co~sidered were the oxid~tions
of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon as methane. Published rates for oxidation
of CO are shown in Figure 28. These differ by several orders of magnitude
(probably because of variations in experimental conditions). The rate equa-
tion for CO chosen for use in the simulation was that obtained by Yuster (44)
in studies on exhaust systems.
The rate of oxidation for methane was adapted from results given by
Koslov (27). Koslov's rate equation contains the partial pressure of methane
raised to the -0.5 power (PCH4-0'5); because of difficulties posed by having
a rate which became infinite as concentration approached zero, this was sum-
marily changed to PCH41.0 along with a compensating change in the pre-
exponential coefficient to adjust the rate to match Koslov's at 600 ppm
methane. The rate equations finally used were as follows:
Carbon Monoxide - Yuster
rCO
=
-1.91 x 102 e-35,600/RT P P
CO 02
Methane - Koslov
rCH
4
=
-2.08 x 109 e-60,000/RT 1.5
PCH4 P 02
Units are:
r-lb mOles/see in.3; T - ~; p-psia; R-l.987 cal/g mole oK.
In the first simulation, input from each cylinder was assumed to enter at
a flow, temperature, and composition which varied periodically during the course
of the exhaust stroke measured in degrees of engine crank angle. The range
and pattern of variation shown in Figures 29 through 32, was based on a con-
sensus by project personnel. The variation in hydrocarbon concentration with
crank angle agrees with the data given by Daniel (16). All values shown are
consistent with operation of the engine at 1200 rpm with fuel consumption of
20 lb/hr and an air/fuel ratio of 15, which is essentially the stoichiometric
ratio where the fuel is assumed to be normal octane. The mass-average concen-
trations of combustibles entering with the exhaust,were 0.8% CO and 552 ppm
hydrocarbon. Additional air at 100°F was assumed to be introduced ihto the
reactor at a constant rate, which over a cycle amounted to 40% of the entering
14
-------
exhaust to g~ ve a "dilution ratio" of 1. 4.
1200 to 2000°F.
Exhaust temperature varied from
,The results of the simulation at instantaneously varying input conditions
were characterized by wide swings in the outlet flow, temperature, and methane
concentration and smaller variations in pressure, CO, and 02' as shown in
Figures 33 through 35. Performance approached repeated cyclic operation after
. three engine cycles of 720°, corresponding to 0.3 see, starting with the reac-
tor filled with nitrogen and assuming no thermal capacity in the reactor wall
and insulation. Conversion of CO to C02 was computed to be approximately 60%
and the conversion of CH4 to C02 and H20 approximately 95%. These values are
in generally good agreement with experimental results given by Schwing (36)
for similar operating conditions.
A second' simulation was run at the same inlet conditions of temperatu,re,
flow, and compositi~n as shown in Figures 29 through 32, but with averaging
of these inlet conditions with time over the duration of each exhaust stroke.
Separ~te exhaust pulses from individual cylinders were still introduced. This
simplification caused the reactor temperature to drop from l180°F to 960°F and
reduced conversion of CO to
-------
which are the resulting time variations of temperature, pressure, and CO, CH4,
and 02 concentrations. These results compare favorably with those presented
in Figures 34 and 35 for the instantaneous input. It was concluded that the
cyclic properties of the input were not o£ themselves important in determining
conversion, but that time-averaging unwittingly changed the energy content of
the entering exhaust and was for that reason responsible for an unacceptably
large error. This conclusion reinforces an observation made earli~r, to the
effect that the measurement of temperature at the inlet to the engine-mounted
DuPont reactor should reflect .the true energy content of the entering exhaust
if the model is to be successfully based on independently determined reaction
kinetics.
All of the previously mentioned simulations were based on computations
performed using a step size of 1/50 of a 720° cycle. Decreasing the step size
to 1/100 of a cycle produced only a negligible change in the indicated perfor-
mance of the reactor, however increasing the step size to 1/10 and 1/5 cycle
resulted in unacceptable errors.
Because of high cost associated with running at small step sizes, the
simulation program could not be run to cover the relatively long period of
time required to simulate reactor warm-up. To estimate the rate of warm-up,
a hand calculation was performed on a reactor having 4 in. dia, 2 ft2 shell
area, 1/16 in. stainless steel walls, and 3-1/2 in. thickness of ceramic fiber
insulation. The unsteady state heat balance was approximated by assuming
that the gas in the reactor was immediately at its steady sta~e temperature,
that the temperature across the steel shell was uniform, and that the temper-
ature profile across the insulation remained linear. Surface heat transfer
coefficients were estimated to be 3.2 Btu/hr ft2 of inside and .92 Btu/hr
ft2 of outside at steady state. On this basis, the shell wall temperature
increased by 95% of its total change in 36 min. This time estimate is likely
high, since the approximation of using a linear temperature profile across
the insulation caused more heat to be lost during the warm-up than would
actually occur. To bracket the warm-up period on the low side, we assumed
perfect insulation at the outside surface of the steel shell, which yielded
95% warm-up in 21 min. Krambeck (28) computed reactor warm-up to occur in
approximately 10 min for a 110 in.3 reactor having an inner wall 1/32-in.
thick, which indicates order of magnitude agreement.
I
The most important result of the approximate warm-up calculations was
that the initial rate of temperature rise in the steel wall was bracketed
between 1.5°F/sec and 2.6°F/sec for the two sets of assumptions given just
previously. At intermediate times during warm-up, the rate of change in wall
temperature would be somewhat less than these values. Thus, for one engine
cycle lasting for 0.1 see, the maximum change in wall temperature falls between
0.15 and 0.26°F. As noted previously, the temperature, flow, and composition
leaving the reactor approach a repeated cycle after three engine cycles or
0.3 sec. During this time the wall temperature would change by less than 0.45
to 0.78°F. Since the temperature drop across the inside gas film resistance
is always much larger than this, varying from approximately lOOO°F at start-up
16
-------
to 130°Fat steady state, the change in wall temperature has a negligible
effect on the energy balance computed over three engine cycles. Thus the
effect of wall temperature during warm-up can be investigated by running sep-
arate simulations of three cycles each at different fixed wall temperatur~s
between ambient and steady state. Reactor performance during warm-up com-
puted on this basis is shown in Figure 40. Outlet temperature increase from
approximately 1140°F just after start-up to 1260°F at steady state. Conver-
sions change from 55% to 80% for CO and from 90% to 99% for CH4.
While our mai~ interest is in modelling the exhaust ,reactor itself, the
exhaust ports leading into the reactor and the exhaust pipe leaving the reac-
tor may also provide residence times sufficient for significant amounts of
reaction. To evaluate the importance of the inlet port, a,stirred-tank simu-
lation was run on a volume of 7.5 in.3 receiving exhaust from a single cylin-
der. Inlet conditions, which averaged 0.8% CO, 552 ppm CH4, and :1572°F, were
assumed to vary periodically in the same manner as for exhaust 'gas entering
the 300 in.3 reactor (Figures 29 through 32). Air was introduced at 100°F to
achieve a dilution ratio of 1.4 as before; however, the flow rate: for the air
was'staged to give 10% of the average rate over the 75° in~erval pf crank
angle corresponding to maximum exhaust flow and a higher rate over the remain-
ing 645° of a 720° e~gine cycle. This assumption for air rates was intended
to parallel the behavior of existing 'methods, which tend to admit ~ir in
inverse proportion to exhaust flow because of back pressure (21).
Temperatures,. pressures, and concentrations in the exhaust port were
observed to exhibit periodic oscillations of wide ampliture as a function of
crank angle, as would be expected for a small volume receiving a cycling input.
These results are shown in Figures 43a-e. Changes in hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide during the period after exhaust flow ceased for a cycle were repre-
sented by an exponential-type decline as combustion and dilution by the con-
tinuing flow of air dropped concentrations to near zero at the end of each
720° cycle. The most significant finding was that conversion of CB4 was 70%
and the conversion of CO 20% within the small volume of the port. It should
be remembered that these conversions are based on the same selected literature
values of kinetic constants used previously (44,27) and a;e therefore subject
to an unknown error for the conditions of this problem. However, the tenta-
tive conclusion is that the exhaust port may be quite important in predicting
overall conversions between the exhaust valve and the tailpipe of an exhaust
,system. Its importance may however be less than that shown due to imperfect
mixing of air and exhaust within the small volu~e of the port.
In a final series of simulation on the 300 in.3 stirred tank reactor,
4% hydrogen was added as an additional fuel species and the amount of carbon
, monoxide was increased to 8%. HYdrocarbon as methane was maintained at 552
ppm as before.
The proportion of H2 in relation to CO was established on the basis of
an equilibrium constant of 3.8 for the water gas shift reaction, as proposed
17
-------
by D'Alleva (13). In the absence of information on the kinetics of homoge-
neous oxidation of hydrogen, it was assumed that the hydrogen was consumed
immediately upon entering the reactor.
A chief reason for running a simulation at higher levels of combustibles
was to check the Runge-Kutta solution for the combined mass and energy balance.
This was accomplished by comparing the steady state predicted by the reactor
model and that obtained from an independent calculation of the mass and. energy
balance lines. It was possible, using the kinetics for tpe combustion of CO,
to compute the mass balance (temperature as a function of conversion) for
various initial concentrations of CO. The resulting temperatures were deter-
mined explicitly for a specific initial concentration and exit conversion.
The energy balance line was determined by first calculating the initial tem-
perature of the exhaust mixed with injected air plus the energy contribution
for the complete combustion of hydrogen. This was determined using the pro-
gram which calculated the enthalpy-averaged temperature of the exhaust. It
was then a simple matter to obtain the slope of the energy balance line and
thereby predict the steady state. .
Because of the characteristic "s" shape of the material balance curve, a
series of energy balance lines for progressively higher inlet exhaust temper-
atures should reach a point of ignition evidenced by an abrupt increase in
conversions and temperature. Results are presented in Figure 26 for inlet
temperatures of 900°F, 1000°F, l036°F, and 1072°F. The inlet concentrations
of CO and H2 were 8% and 4%, respectively. The program correctly predicts the
ignition conditions for these temperatures. However, it incorrectly predicts
a nonignition point for an inlet temperature of lOOO°F and predicts the incor-
rect nonignition point for the 900°F inlet temperature. The conversions are
much too high for the predicted temperature.
After correcting the above problem, modelling based on a stirred tank
will be discontinued until after kinetic studies with the experimental reac-
tor are completed.
18
-------
r--
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR PROGRAM EXHAUST
Program Parameters
engine
speed
1
input
timing
!
initial
conditions
1
ambient
conditions
t
computation
end printing
controle
.!,
+ flow )
+ temperature' Outlet
+ composition
(flows +
Inlet tempera.tures
compositions
Reactor
Simulation
I~haust "
t
Stoichiometry
t
Thermodynamics
Chemical Data
LIST OF DATA INFtn'S
Specific heat constants
Heats of forlll&tion
Molecular weights
Gas constants
Number of inputs
Number of chemical species
Number of reactions
Pre-exponential rate coefficients
Activation energies
Stoichiometric coefficients.
Reaction rate exponents (orders)
Engine rpm
Input crank angles
Crank angle spans for inputs
Minimum temperatures of inputs
Temperature spans of inputs
Minimum flow rates of inputs
Flow spans of inputs
Minimum concentrations in inputs
Concentration spans of inputs
Reactor volume
Ambient pressure
Ambient tempera.ture
Heat transfer coefficient (overall)
Flow coefficient
Initial reactor temperature
Ini tial reactor pressure
Initial reactor compositions
Tolerance for temperature calculations
Duration of simulation in engine cycles
Number of computational steps per cycle
Pr int frequency
Maximum number of half-interval iterations
Print controls
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PRmTED OUTPUTS
Numbers of i.nputs, species, and reactions
Heats of for..ation and specific heats
Stoichiometric ,quations and chemical rate
Input parameters.
engine rpm
input timing
tempersture
flow
composition
equations
Stirred
Tank
Model
+~+
t
Kineti cs
(A,B,C,D)
(DHF)
(wr)
(RG & RK)
(N)
(M)
(Q)
(M)
(E)
(NU)
(NE)
( LAMBDA)
(ALOW)
(ASPAN)
(TLOW)
(TSPAN)
(FLOW)
(FSPAN)
(now)
(XSPAN)
(v)
(PA)
(TA)
(!!BAR)
(CFLOW)
(TOZERO)
( POZERO )
(XOZERO)
(TEPS)
(MAXCYC)
( NSFCYC )
(FREQ)
(IIMAX)
(PRINT)
Initial and ambient conditions
Computational and printing parameters
Reactor temperature, pressure, and mole balence versus crank angle
Reactor composi tion versus crank angle
Inlet flow, temperature, and enthalpy verSUS crank angle
Inlet composition versus crank angle
Energy balance versus crank angle
Reaction rates versus crank angle
Rates of species "appearence" versus crenk engle
Intermediate computations used for debugging
19
-------
,----- ------ ---------- - ----- - - -->
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
._-------~
FIDW DIAGRAM OF PROGRAM OPERATION
I. I Clear Working Arrays I
!
II. I Read Input \---'1 TERMINATE I
1
III.
Calculate cycle timing parameters:
cycle time (CYCTIM); step size (DELTAT); max,
time (TMAX)
1
IV.
Initialize parameters of integration:
TIME; ANGLE; no. of cycles (NCYC); temperature
(TO); pressure (1'(\); moles (MO); flovout (FOOT);
concentrations' (XO)
1
V.
Compute initial moles and enthalpies of all components
1n the reactor
1
VI.
CJ\LL RUNGE (a fourth order Runge-Kutta routine)
Routine RUNGE computes new values for reactor
contents including (1) total moles, (2) total
enthalpy, and (}) moles of each chemical species.
The fourth order routine requires that the
derivatives of these quantities be computed
4 times (in each time step) by the calling
program
1
VII. I I~~GE.NE.l) 1
True ~. ~ False
VIII..
The return ot a value for RUNGE not equal to "1 tI
indicates a step haa been completed and that
printing will occur as called for by the array
PRINT
IX.
Compute derl vati vea:
A. Determine crank angle
B. Compute new composition 10. reactor
C. Compute reactor temperature from total
moles, total enthalpy, and compos! tion using halt
interval root finding technique
D. Update pressure using gas law
E. Compute rates of flow and entbalpy leaving
reactor
F. Compute reactor heat 1088
v. Determine flow, temperature, and composi-
tion for each active inlet stream using subpro-
grams F'NF, FNT, and FNX
H. Compute the derivative of total moles 1n
the reactor from flow in, fl;o~n~ge 1n
moles due to reaction
I. Compute the derivative !:!. ~ enthalpy in
the reactor from enthalpy in, enthalpy out, and
heat 108&
J. Compute rates of all chemical reactions
from reaction kinetic8
K. Compute the derivative of the moles of eacb
species in the reactor t'rom now...-and com~i:--
tions in and out and reaction rates
- --- --- - ------- - - -- - --- - - - - - --.. - _.. - --.. - - - -... - -......
It '!'MAX has been exceeded, cont.rol returns to
"I" to begin another run or to terminate
NOTES :
Subprograms FNF, FNT, and FNX supply values of flow,
temperature, and composition as functions of crank
angle.
2. All enthalpies are generated by a subroutine ~LAR
based on temperatures, specific heats, and heats of
formation supplied by tbe calling program.
1.
}.
AU time advance is accomplisbed vi tbin subprogram
RUNGE .
20
-------
(10)
(11)
REFERENCES
(1)
Agnew, W. G. (General Motors), "Automotive Air Pollution Research."
. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, y::rr, 153-181 (1968).
(2)
Agnew, W. G. (General Motors), '~uture Emission-Controlled Spark-Ignition
Engines and Their Fuels." Research Publication GMR-880, ~neral -Motors
Corporation, Warren Michigan. (Presente9 at the 34th Midyear Meeting of
the Division Refinery, American Petroleum Institute, Chicago, Ill., May
12, 1969.)
(3)
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists.
Limit Values for 1966." Cinctnnati, 1966.
"Threshold
(4)
Barnhill, T., "Summary Report on the Chemical Analysis of Automotive
Exhaust Gas." Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, The
University of Michigan. January 28,1970.
(5)
Baum, E., '~utomobile Afterburner Studies: Noncatalytic Afterburning
Without Igni~ion." U.C.L.A. Report 59-14, March 1959. "
(6)
Brownson, D. A., and R. F. Stebar (General Motors), "Factors Influencing
the Effectiveness of Air Injection in Reducing Exhaust Emissions."
Society of Automotive Engineers, TP~12. p. 103. (Originally published
in SAE Transactions, 74, 1966.) .
(7 )
Cantwell, E.N., I. T. Rosenlund, W. J. Barth, F. L. Kinnear, and S. W.
Ross (DuPont), I~ Progress Report on the Development of Exhaust Manifold
Reactors." Paper No. 690139, SAE International Automotive Engineering
Congress, Detroit, Michigan. January 13-17, 1969.
(8)
Cantwell, E. N., and A. J.. Pahnke (DuPont), "Design Factors Affecting
the Performance of Exhaust Manifold Reactors." SAE Transactions, 74,
1966.
( 9)
Caplan, J. D. (General Motors),
Automotive Engineers, TP-12, p.
actions, 74, 1966~)
"Vehicle Emissions, II." Society of
20. (Originally published in SAE Trans-
Chandler, J. M., A. M. Smith, and J. H. Struck (Ford),
the Concept of Non-flame Exhaust Gas Reactors." Paper
National Autqmobile Week, March 1962.
"Development of
No. 486M, SAE
Colucci, J. M., and C. R. Begeman, Journal Air Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, !L,113 (1965).
21
-------
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17 )
(17A)
(18)
Curl, R. L., '~ispersed Phase Mixing: I. Theory and Effects in Simple
Reactors." AIChE~., 2, No.2, 175 (March 1963).
D'Alleva, B. A., "Procedure and Charts for Estimating Exhaust Gas Quan-
tities and Compositions." General Motors Research Laboratories Report
GMR-372, May 15, 1960.
Daigh, H. D., and W. F. Deeter, "Contro]
tive Exhaust." Presented at the Mid-year
leum Institute, San Francisco, May 1962.
of Nitrogen Oxides in Automo-
Meeting of the American Petro-
Daniel, W. A., and J. T. Wentworth (General Motors), '~haust Gas Hydro-
carbons-Genesis and Exodus." Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-6,
192. (Paper No. 486 B, SAE National Automobile Week, March 1962.)
Daniel, W. A. (General Motors), "Engine Variable Effects on Exhaust
Hydrocarbon Composition (A Single-Cylinder Engine Study with Propane as
the Fuel)." Paper No. 670124, SAE Automotive Engineering Congress,
Detroit, Michigan, January 9-13, 1967.
Danckwerts, P. V., "The Effect of Incomplete Mixing on Homogenous Reac-
tions." Chemical Reaction Engineering, 12th Meeting Europ. Fed. Chem.
Eng., Amsterdam, 1957.
Eccleston, B. H., and R. W. Hurn, "Comparative Emissions from Some
and Prototype Lead-Free Automobile Fuels." u.S. Department of the
rior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 7390. May 1970.
Leaded
Inte-
Evangelista, J. J., R. Shinnar, and S. Katz, "The Effect of Incomplete
Mixing in Stirred Combustion Reactors." Twelfth Symposium (International)
on Combustion. poitiers, France, July 1968.
(19)
Eyzat, P., and J. C. Guibet, '~New Look at Nitrogen
Internal Combustion Engines." SAE Paper No. 680124,
1968 Papers, p. 93.
Oxides Formation in
Fuels and Lubricants
(20)
Fristrom, R. M., and A. A. Westenberg,
New York, 1965, p. 349.
Flame Structure.
McGraw-Hill,
(21)
Glass, W., D. S. Kim, and B. J. Kraus (ESSO), '~ynchrothermal Reactor
System for Control of Automotive Exhaust Emissions." SAE Paper No.
700147, Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Michigan, January 12-
16, 1970.
(22)
Glasson, W. A., and C. S. Tuesday, 'Rydrocarbon Reactivities in the Atmo-
spheric Photo-oxidation of Nitric Oxide." Presented to the American
Chemical Society Meeting, Atlantic City, September, 1965.
22
-------
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(zr)
(28)
(28A)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
)
Haagen.Smit~ A. J. (California Institute of Technology), "Chemistry and
Physiology of Los Angeles Smog." Industrial ~ Engineering Chemistry,
44, No.6 (June 1952). ' ,
Hirschler, D. A., L. F. Gilbert, F. W. Lamb, and L. M. Niebylski, Indus-
-
~ and Engineering Chemistry, ~, 1131 (1957).
Hottel, H. C., G. C. Williams, N. M. Nerheim, and ,G. R. Schneider,
"Kinetic Studies in Stirred Reactors: Combustion of Carbon.Monoxide and
PropaI?-e." Tenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1965, p. 111.
, '
Jackson, M. W., W. M. Wiese, and J. T. Wentworth (General Motors), "Vehi-
cle Emissions." Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-6, p. 175. (Paper
No. 486A pre~ented at the SAE National Automobile Week, March 1962.)
Koslov, G. 1., "On High Temperature Oxidation of Methane. "
posium (International) on Combustion, 1958, p. 142.
Seventh Sym-
Krambeck, E., "Math Model for Thermal Reactor Designs." Quarterly
Reports, June 1968--June 1969. Ford Mobil Project XVII.
Levenspiel, 0., and K. Bischoff, "Patterns of Flow in Chemical Process
Vessels." Advances in Chemical Engineering, ~,95-108. Academic Press,
New York, 1963.
Longwell, J. P., and M. A. Weiss (Esso), "High Temperature Reaction Rates
in Hydrocarbon Combustion." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry; 47,
No.8, 1634 (August 1955). '
Lewis, B., and G. von Elbe (U.S. Bureau of Mines), Combustion, Flames
~ Explosions of Gases. Academic Press, New York, 1951, 739-748.
Newhall, H. K.,
of Nitric Oxide
76, 743, 1967.
and E. S. Starkman, "Direct Spectroscopic Determination
in Reciprocating Engine Cylinders." SAE Transactions,
Ninomiya, J. S., and A. Golovoy, '~ffects of Air-Fuel Ratio on Composi-
tion of Hydrocarbon Exhaust from Iso-octane, Pi-isobutylene, Toluene, and
Tolune-n-Heptane Mixture." Paper No. 690504, SAE Mid-Year Meeting,
Chicago, 1969.
Patterson, D. ,J., "Kinetics of Oxidation and Quenching of Combustibles
in Exhaust Systems of Gasoline Engines." Progress Report No. 11, CRC
Project, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of
Michigan, January 19JO.
Perry, R. H., C. H. Chilton, and S. D. Kirkpatrick, "Perry's Chemical
Engineers Handbook," Vol. 4, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1.963, p. 9, section 9.
23
-------
C~5)
(:~6 )
(37 )
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
Ried, R. S., J. G. Mingle, and W. H. Paul, "Oxides of Nitrogen from Air
Added in Exhaust Ports." Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-12, 230.
(Paper 660115 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit,
January 1966.)
Schwing, R. C. (General Motors), '~n Analytical Framework for
of Exhaust Manifold Reactor Oxidation." SAE Preprint 700109,
19rO.
the Study
January
Sigworth, H. W. Jr.; P. S. Myers, O. A. Uyehara, "The Disappearance of
Ethylene, Propylene, n-Butane, and I-Butene in Spark-Ignition Engine
Exhaust." SAE Preprint 700472, May 19rO.
Sorenson, S. C., P. S. Myers, and O. A. Uyehara, "The Reactions of Ethane
in Spark-Ignition Engine Exhaust Gas." SAE Preprint 700471, May 19rO.
Steinhagen, W. K., G. W. Niepoth, and S. H. Mick (General Motors),
"Design and Development of the General Motors Air Injection Reactor
System," Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-12, 146. (Paper 660106,
SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, January 1966.)
Sturgis, B. M., J. W. Bozek, W. F. Biller, and S. B. Smith, "The Appli-
cation of Continuous Infrared Instruments to the Analysis of Exhaust
Gas." Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-6, 81. (Paper No. llB, SAE
National Meeting, January 1958.)
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Control of Air
Pollution from New Motor Vehicle Engines; Standards for Exhaust Emis-
sions, Fuel Evaporative Emissions, and Smoke Emissions, Applicable to
19rO and Later Vehicles and Engines." Federal Register ~ II, 2,L,
No. 108, June 4, 1968.
U. S. Public Health Service, Div. of Air Pollution. '~he Sources of
Air Pollution and Their Control." PHS No. 1548, 1966.
wentworth, J. T., and W. A. Daniel (General Motors), 'Tlame Photographs
of Light Load Combustion Point the Way to Reduction of Hydrocarbons in
Exhaust Gas." Society of Automotive Engineers, TP-6, p. 121. (Paper
No. 425, SAE Annual Meetings Jan 1955.)
Yuster, S. T., P. Stoudhammer, J. Miller, S. Sourirajan, R. Henderson,
and T. Masters, '~fterburner Studies as Applied to Automobile Exhaust
Systems." U.C.L.A. Report 58-55, June 1958.
Zwietering, T. N., "The Degree of Mixing in' Continuous Flow Systems."
Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 11, No.1, p. 1, 1959.
24
-------
.
DETAILED PROGRESS PHASE III
A.
Spectroscopic Analysis of Engine Exhaust Gas
To examine the feasibility of using a spectrometer as an analytical
instrument for this study, a quantitative spectroscopic analysis of engine
exhaust was made and the results were compared with those obtained with a non-
dispersive infrared analyzer.
The instrument used was a Perkin-Elmer Model 112 spectrometer with a NaCl
prism, a thermocouple detector,. and a globar light source. Exhaust gas was
drawn into a one-meter gas cell from the engine exhaust pipe through an ice
bath and filter. The pressure in the sample cell was brought to 1 atm and an
analysis made for CO, C02, NO, and total hydrocarbons using the 4.65-, 2.7-,
5.3-, and 3.4-micron bands, respectively. A sample record is shown in Figure
43. Calibr~tion curves for both the spectrometer and the NDIR were obtained
from span gases with known composition which were purchased from Olson Labora-
tories. Data were obtained at several fuel/air ratios, loads and spark posi-
. .
tions, and are summarized in Tables V, VI, and VII. Average discrepancies are
seen to be 36% for CO, 6% for C02' 29% for NO, and 64% for total hydrocarbons.
Corrections for H20 interference were made in obtaining the results for C02'
TABLE V
SPECTROMETER-NDIR COMPARISON FOR VARIABLE FUEL/AIR RATIO
RUN FUEL/ CO(ot,) C02(ot,) NO (ppm) HC(ppm)
AIR
NO. RATIO SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR
81 11. 28 8.75 10.70 10.2 8.21 450 680 575 375
80 12.96 3.14 5.61 12.1 11. 21 1300 2547 425 325
76 14.97 0.90 0.65 14.0 12.22 1700 2594 253 225
79 16.19 0.39 0.23 14.1 14.13 2300 2834 160 207
78 17.82 0.24 0.10 14.4 12.48 1675 1989 350 171
77 . 19.85 0.35 0.10 11.5 10.96 960 1186 265 180
25
-------
TABLE VI
SPECTROMETER-NDIR COMPARISON FOR VARIMLE LOAD
RUN DYNAMOM- CO(i) CO~(i) NO(ppm) HC(ppm)
ETER
NO. SCALE SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR SPECT. NDIR
102 3.0 0.40 0.23 12.70 11.70 606 960 702 . 835
101 9.5 0.40 0.16 12.85 12.74 1130 8r;J7 577 306
100 16.7 0.43 0.16 13.05 12.87 1250 1761 555 225
99 25.4 1.06 0.37 13 .30 12.48 2480 2106 358 216
103 33.0 0.68 0.86 11.90 12.74 1245 2066 787 415
104 42.0 2.06 1.28 11.10 12.48 1400 1837 710 365
TABLE VII
SPECTROMETER-NDIR COMPARISON FOR VARIABLE SPARK TIMING
RUN SPARK CO(%)
TIMING
NO. (deg. ) SPECT. NDIR
117 17 0.7 0.65
116 25 0.8 0.51
113 33 1.58 1.63
114 41 1.43 1.49
115 50 0.8 0.37
B.
Measurement of Instantaneous Engine Exhaust Velocity and Temperature
The discussion concerned with Phase II of this project has brought out
the fact that the reactor model is quite sensitive to the enthalpy input to
the reactor. An accurate experimental determination of the enthalpy input
requires good measurements of both instantaneous engine exhaust velocity and
temperature. Since no known conventional techniques are available for getting
these measurements, developmental work is underway on a new technique which
appears promising for both measurements.
The method uses laser-schlieren photography with a rotating-mirror
camera. The laser-schlieren system is used to detect turbulent eddies as they
move with the exhaust stream. The average eddy spatial velocity is assumed to
be equal to the exhaust stream velocity. By projecting the resulting schlieren
image through a narrow slit and moving the slit image at a fixed rate across a
sheet of Polaroid film, by means of the rotating mirror, a photograph is
26
-------
,"
obtained which gives continuous
short-time. interval. The slope
instantaneous velocity.
records of both eddy position and time, over a
of the resulting image at any point gives
Measurement of instantaneous gas temperature will be attempted using the
same technique for measuring the speed of a spark-induced shock wave in the
gas stream. Since shock velocity is proportional to Tl/2, the gas stream tem-
perature can be estimated from the measured shock velocity. "
This work has been started using equipment made available from previous
studies at The University of Michigan Automotive Laboratory. This equipment
has been modified" and installed on a CFR engine where preliminary results have
been obtained. These results are promising and work is continuing.
C.
Hydrocarbon Class Analysis by Subtractive Column
A subtractive column
hydrocarbon classes. The
Klosterman, Environmental
analyzer was built to measure the three pr.incipal
technique used is identical to that of Sigsby and
Science and Technology, !' No. ~, April 1967, p. 311.
Olefins and acetylenes are removed by a mercury sulfate-sulfuric
scrubber. Aromatics are removed by a palladium sulfate-sulfuric acid
A flame ionization analyzer is used as the hydrocarbon detector.
acid
scrubber.
Figure 7 shows a flow schematic of The University of Michigan system. The
unit has three parallel paths. The exhaust sample is directed either through
path Sl (total hydrocarbons, 82 (total minus ole fins and acetylenes), or S3
(total minus olefins, acetylenes, and aromatics). Provisions were made for
zeroing the FID and" for backflushing. Dry nitrogen is used for the backflush.
To check the performance of the analyzer three calibration gases were
blended. These gases (as analyzed by the manufacturer) were:
./
olefinic:
4620 ppmc propane in nitrogen
315 ppmc toluene plus 282 ppmc benzene in nitrogen--
597 ppmc
100 ppmc acetylene, 150 ppmc propylene, 101 ppmc
ethylene, and 205 ppmc l--butene in nitrogen--total
556 ppmc
paraffinic:
aromatic:
The FID measured results on new columns are reported as ppmc in the table
below. The FID was calibrated on the propane mixture.
27
-------
Calibrating Gases
4620 ppmc 597 ppmc 556 ppmc
Paraffinic Aromatic Olefinic
Column Used
Backflush
Aromatic and
Olefin Sub.
None
Olefin Sub.
o
4620
4620
4620
o
192
570
'570
o
o
o
582
Calculated Results
Paraffins and Benzene
Ole fins and Acelytene
Aromatics
4620
o
o
192
o
378
o
582
o
These data show that the columns subtracted the constituents as expected.
Apparently all the acetylene is reported with the olefins and part of the
benzene (192 ppmc of 315 ppmc in mix or 60%) is reported with the paraffins.
A detailed GC analysis is required to substantiate the subtractive column
values. .
Experience shows that the percent benzene which breaks through varies
from column-to-column. Flowing dry nitrogen through the aromatic subtractor
improves benzene retention. A 60% breakthrough is about average. Column life
appears to be on the order of one hour actual analysis time. This varies with
flow rate and gas composition. We usually change columns when they are about
50% discolored. .
28
-------
, I~-;~r.,::
" .
,.
Figure 1. Chevrolet 350 in.3 engine set-up for emission test in Room 243 of'
The University of Michigan Automotive Laboratory.
r.EXHAUST GAS:l ... rOU:; SHEll
\~/!\~) ~
'- ~---.. '-... ---G--- _/
-
RADIATION
SHIELD
CORE
TO EXHAUST SYSTEM
-
Figure 2. Type V DuPont exhaust manifold reactor.
courtesy DuPont Corporation.
Figure
29
-------
~ ?~r.' I:. .~~,~:~ . :
..1:.1',' .
:.. ~..~..'
"
. . .~, .".' ~ -,
.~. ~. t:'t-~~~...~': .
J ...:~.
, ,
. .
..
'.
," ~:.
Figure 3. DuPont type V reactor at The University of Michigan. Quartz
dows in the right-hand reactor provide a see-through optical path.
win-
',. .,.
~...}. .f'~' ,
,J,(,..\,
,;;'t~,:."j~f
,,;,0.:',::,*'
:""t.
~I~~b;'"'''' ...
',-
.'
..,>.~. :~-.i1.
Figure 4.
Cutaway view of type V reactor.
Courtesy DuPont Corporation.
30
-------
~2~:J1~iIt~~~~)t.~_.. ~'~~, .~. 1¥1\ ~ .;;
~I~i~~~';~ .
. ':?'
~?
.--/,..:'.. :
"
";'1)
q..
~..
Figure 5. Modified intake manifold.
as the source for intake charge heat.
'4, .
,: ,
;.,
Hot water replaces exhaust
31
-------
\)I
I\)
en.
~
~
en.
~
~
~
r.:I
S
3-WA Y
SOLENOID
BY-PASS
ICE
BATH
CONDENSER w /
WA TER TRAP
FILTER
NO
EXHAUST ANALYZERS
Desiccant
SPAN GASES
PURGE
ZERO GAS
(N2)
C02
CO
LOWH
ROTOMETER
w / NEEDLE
VALVE
HYDROCARBON SPAN GASES
Figure 6. Flow schemat1.c 01' University of Michigan hydrocarbon, CO,
NO, 02' and C02 exhaust gas analysis system.
-------
. .
HYDROCARBON.
CA LIBRA TION GA SES
FIL TER
V2
S2
FILTER
Flame
Ioniza-
tion
etector
ROTO-
METER
w I needle
valve
N
\..N
\..N
N2
BACK FLUSH
N - Needle Valve
v-
I
Posi-
tion
1
2
Sample Seen Flow
by FID Path
Back flush S2S3
Paraffins and S3
benzene
Total olefins S2
T.otal cr zero S 1
Scrubber
All
HgSO 4
and Pd
HgS04
None
Operation of Valves
V7.8Vl V2.5 V3.6 V4
On Off Off Off On
Off On Off On Off
3
4-
Off On On
Off On Off
Off
Off
Off
On
Figure 7. Flow schematic of University of Michigan subtractive column-flame ionizat10n hydrocarbon analysis
system. The subtractive analyzer is patterned after that of Sigsby, Ref. 8 of Phase I progress.
-------
35
30
0::: 25
LiJ
3:
o
LiJo... 20
zLiJ
- V)
(,:)0:::
zO 15
LiJ:I:
\..N LiJ
+=- ~
« 10
0:::
CQ
5
o
o
+ standard point
10
20
40
30
50
60
Figure 8. Calculated road load engine horsepower requirement as a function
of car speed. Graph based upon assumptions and formulas of Table IV.
-------
16
14
12
3000
2500
to-
Z
L&J 10 2000.'
u
0:::
L&J
~ NO
N
0 :E.
N 8 0-
o 1500 0-
u
0" 6-
z
u
c
z 6
c(
u.
u.. 1000
V)
co
4
2
o
o
500
o
10
12 14 16
MEASURED AIR-FUEL RATIO
18
20
. Figure 9. C02' CO, 02' and NO emiseionvs. air/fuel ratio.
50% load, MBT spark, Indolene clear fuel.
1200 rpm,
35
....;.
~~:~.::~~~.
-------
1500 300
a
:L
u
:L
total 200 ~
CL
aldehydes CL
(/)-
I.I.J
C
100 >-
a;
o c
~
I.I.J 1000 <
z
~
I.I.J 0
:L
~
CL
CL fid
-
(/)
z
a
CQ
0:::
<5
a
0:::
c 500
>-
:L
b.
o
o
12
14 16
MEASURED AIR-FUEL RATIO
20
. 18
10
Figure 10. Hydrocarbon and aldehyde emission vs. air/fuel ratio.
50% load, MBT spark, Indolene .clear fuel.
1200 rpn,
;6
-------
--BSER
~CO
0 NO x 10
1.00 100
6 . total HC x 10
---FFER
-.- CO
.80 . NOx 10 .80
. total HC x 10
--'
~
0:: u.
:J: .60 .60 :E
d... co
:J: --'
m -
- :E
:E m
m --'
--' .40 .40 -
0::
0::- u.J
U.
LaJ U.
V')
m
.20 .20
,
, .
[
.00
o
10
12
14 16 '
MEASURED AIR -FUEL RATIO
18
.00
20
Figure 11. Mass emission vs. air/fuel ratio.
50% load, MBT spark, Indolene clear fuel.
1200 rpm,
37
-------
100
. paraffins + 1/2 benzene
V) 80 .. aromatics - 1/2 benzene
z
0 . olefins + acetylene
co
0::
~
0
0:: 60 .
c
>-
::I: . .
-J .
~ .
0
to- 40
I.L. .
o
to-
Z
UJ
U .
0::
UJ 20 .. ..
a.. .. ..
... ..
--. a A .& -
..
..
0
0 10. 12 14 16 18 20
MEASURED A IR-FUEl RATIO
Figure 12. HYdrocarbon class analysis vs. air/fuel ratio.
38
-------
. \:
"'.~.' ;
16
o
o
o
3000
14
o
o
12
CO
2
o
:. 2500,
.. .-:
~ ~': .
, . -
. . "'~ ~:? ... . , :.,., .
,:~.-. /
!z 10 2000.
L&.I
U
~
L&.I
c..
N
0 ~
.. 8
N 1500 :c..
o
U 0"
.0". z
U
Q 6
z
-------
1500
~ 1000
z
~
:J:
~
a..
..
V')
z
0
~
0:::
5
0
0::: fid
c
>- 500 0
:J:
o
~
~
-
A
ndir
20 30 40
SPARK ADVANCE, DEG BTC
o
10
Figure 14. Hydrocarbon emissionsvs. spark advance..
50% load, 15.4:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
40
1200 rpm,
50
-------
.250
.200
0:::
:I:
ci.
:I:
CQ
.150
-
:E
CQ
...J ,
.. ,'.100'
0:: '
'L&J
, V')
CQ
.050
.000
-- B SER
-0- CO
[J NO
'6 total HC
---FFER
-.- CO
. NO
. total HC
8
8\
\ 8
\
\
. '
.\ 8/8
\ .
0" 0" /
" 8 /
8 " ' ./
..........---.-'.IY
o
o
....... --
.-' --
.-:;tl --A-
o
10
20 30 40
SPARK ADVANCE, DEG BTC '
Figure 15. Mass emission vs. spark advance.
load, 15.4:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
1200 rpm, 5010
41
'.250
.200 .
...J
'L&J '
. 150 ' ~
, .
:E
CQ
...J
:E
CQ
...J
.100 ..
0::
L&J
LL..
LL..
.050
-
.000
50 I
-
-------
100 . paraffins + 1/2 benzene
. aromatics - 1/2 benzene
(/) . olefins + acetylene
:z
0
cc 80
c=:
~
0
c=:
c
>-
:r: 60
....J
~
0
t-
LL.
0
t- 40
:z
L.I.J .
<..>
c=:
L.I.J
0.
20
o
o
10
20
30
40
50
SPARK ADVANCE, DEG BTC
Figure 16.
Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. spark advance.
42
-------
16
3000
14
C02
o
12
2500
I-
:z 10 [J 2000
UJ
u
~
UJ
a..
N
0
N 8
'0 '1500
u
o.
u
c 6 -.'
:z ~.--
« BSFC x 10 --8--
U ..., -8-.
u.. 1000
V) ..
IX) .-
4
500
'. 2
CO.
o
o
o
o
1000
1200
1400 '
RPM
1600
1800
2000
Figure 17. C02' CO, 02' and NO emission vs. engine speed.
MBT spark, 14.8:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
501/0 load,
43
-------
1500
UJ 1000
z
~
UJ
::I:
:E
a..
a..
-
V)
z
0
co
0::
5'
0
0::
Q
>- 500 -0-- ()
::I: 0 fid
0
0 -0-
A
I\. 6.
6. u
ndir A
o
o
1000
1200
1400
RPM
1600
1800
2000
Figure 18. Hydrocarbon emission vs. engine speed. 50% full
load, MBT spark, 14.8:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
44
-------
--BSER
.250 -0- CO .250
o NO,
--FFE~ total HC
-.- CO
.200
.200
0:::
:J:
.
a..
:J:
co
~
co
..J
.150
0:::-
LoU
V')
co
.100
.050
.000
. NO
, '., total HC
,~
"
'~
"
, '..... '
....... '
....... """'-
, ----
-----
.
.
o
o
-'-L -
~ --~--
o
1000
1200
1400 '
RPM
1600
1800
Figure 19. Mass emission vs. engine rpm. 50% load,
MBT spark, 14.8:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
45
. 150
..J
~
u..
:E
co
~
. 100 ~
-'
0:::-
LoU
u..
u..
.050
.000
2000
'~":'"":.-.'I'
,.., "\" '.
.i\\F '
?~.
-------
100
. paraffins + 1/2 benzene
V) 80 A aromatics - 1/2 benzene
z
0 . olefins + acetylene
m
a::::
(S
0
a:::: 60
c
~
:J:
.....J
~ aromatics A
o
to- 40
u..
0
!z paraffins
UJ
u
a:::: .'
UJ .
a.. 20
olefins
o
o
1000
1200
1400
RPM
1600
1800
2000
Figure 20.
Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. engine speed.
46
-------
16
..
","'I: 3000
14
0
0 2500
12 0
l:Q 2000
..... 10
2
I.&.J
U
0:::: BSFC
I.&.J
Q.. xlO
N ::E
c 8 NO Q.. ~
Q..
N . 1500 . . -
o 0
u. ~ 2
0-
u 6
c . ".
2.
-<: . ~e- 1000
U -,
(/)
u.. ---<,e-e-"
~ 4 !
I
!
02 ' 500
. I
2 ~:
~
CO .
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
TOR QUE, LB. FT.,
Figure 21. C02' CO, 02' and NO emission vs. torque. J.200 rpm,
MBT spark, 15.8:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fuel.
I
I
, .
47
-------
1500 300
0
:I:
U
:I:
200 :E
a..
a..
,
V)
L&.J
C
100 >-
:I:
L&.J
L&.J 0 C
z 1000 ...J
~ - 500 0 0
:I:
.6
ndir
o
o
50
100 150
TOR QUE, LB. FT.
200
250
Figure 22. Hydrocarbon and aldehyde emission vs. load. 1200
rpm, MET spark, 15.8:1 A/F ratio, Indolene 30 fUel.
48
-------
0250
0200
0::
~ . 150
Q.. .
~
cc
-
:E
cc
...J
0::" .
~ 0 100
cc
0050
.000 .
o
"~' ,"
. .
. "t'
'~':"!.~~' .\~~.:.\'. : \".' .
,": '. . .
--BSER .,
-o-CO
o NO
,6. total HC
---FFER +-CO
. NO
. . total HC
/
. . ~
\ 0 . LCO. "
.\ /
\ . / .
\ /
\.~. .. /-
, . ',"....------ ~:r-----~.
" .."...It"'. . / .' ~
. . '~~ A 2:..~... ...HC
.;" . -..- .--- -16
50
100 150
. TOR QUE, LB. FT.
200
49
/.....
.:1..~
~ 200
8
~
.150
s"'
'P4
1-4
Or-!
o Q)
C\J ::1
r-!~
o
. /'C\
'0
. 100 ...J ~ g
~ -t ~
:::> . 0
u.. CIJ 'c
. :> ~
:E ~ H
co 0 "'
...J .~ ,~
- CIJ+,
:2: ." to
. 050 ~ ~ ~
~ ~<
I..LJ .\l!
u.. 0«0 r-!
u.. ..
eD
. .
t<\U\
C\Jr-!
.000.
Q) "'
1-4 ~
::1 1-4
bD to
." P4
rr.. CIJ
250
-------
100 . paraffins + 1/2 benzene
. aromatics - 1/2 benzene
V) . olefins + acetylene
z
0
~ 80
0::::.
~
0
0::::
C
>- 60
:I:
....J
~
0
to-
L.L..
0 40 . arom cs\
I-
z
UJ
U
0:::: .
UJ
0..
20
o
o
50
100
150
200
250
TOR QUE, LB. FT.
Figure 24.
Hydrocarbon class analysis vs. load.
50
-------
.------------------------
EXHA UST
GAS INLET
~
"V
)C>rNsuL1( T f I'II\K X )
~« ~_'-:' -.;"'/\XX
)( .
>< .x
-Xt'\i
y
)(
~~
r
SURGE TANK
"""" x v XVy ¥vx x X x:
f"'.,[) v x x x X v x x V ~~
~ " AIR
. BLOWOUT - SAMPLING ~ AIR "U
PIl'T'r~ TAP >< .~. HEATER ><)( NLET
XXvYX vx x THERMO
. xxxv Xyvv»('x'X - X . 'XX XA/'YX Y x v .
yCOUPLE ~ J<..X/V'VX x¥ x
~ X,..
.;< X
'X'X THERMOCOUPLE< ~ THERMOCOUPLES
~ THROTTLE 1><
~ ~ ~~K~
IX ~ :x
I'X."'" x x x x xN x x x REACTo'n ~
r..;\?)«f lYx ~)q ""xv"'"Y XI 1.[1
- ..-t--
~ ~
X' ){
0- ~hXV(.. )(
xy')(xxxx
X
>0-
'X
xy
~)
>.;<
V
V
N ..JX YX
X ~')( x x
J.l PRESSURE
c...? GA G E
--.
-
\J1
t-'
-
-
~XXx')(xy)c 1
IV(XXxxx
.. >< ')c
. 'X
><.;
-------
Exhaust
inlet
\.J1
I\)
t
Air
inlet
Ingure 26.
I
+~
+
Experimental reactor cross section.
Arrows suggest flow.
-------
-- ~--- --
5000
4000
u
:E
0..
0.. 0
.. 3000
V)
:z
0
a:1
0::
~ <5
0 2000
0::
c
>-
:J:
(a) 4.5 Ino
1000
o
300 400
CRANK ANGLE DEGREES
500
:rigu~e 2:7..
600
700
Variation in hydrocarbon concentration downstream of exhaust valve.
-------
5000
4000
3000
u
:E
0...
V1 0...
~
2000
1000
o
..--1-1
100
200
300 400
CRANK ANGLE DEGREES
Figure Z7.
(Continued)
(b) 7 1 n.
500
~.
\'
600
700
-------
5000
4000.
3000
u
~
n..
. n..
V1
V1 2000
1000
o
I
. 300 400
CRANK ANGLE DEGREES
100
200
Figure 'Z{.
(Continued)
(c) 10.. 5 i n..
500
600
700
-------
5000
4000
3000
u
:E
a..
a..
\Jl
0'\ 2000'
1000
o
100
200
300 400
CRANK ANGlI DEGREES
Figure 27. (Continued)
500
(d) 130 5 in.
600
700
-------
.. -' .
5000
4000
3000
u
:E
a..
a..
~ 2000
- /'
1000
(e) 17.5 In.
o
100
- 200
. 300 400
CRANK ANGLE DEGREES
500
Figure 27. (Concluded)
600
700
- -
-------
~
I
U
Q)
II)
-
II)
~
o
E
I
E
C'
..
-
...
0:
"
W
I
Q)
~
Z
o
.....
U
~
e::::
u..
o
V)
LLJ
.....
~
.
10-7
10-9
7
j
8
9
10
104/ T (oK)
12
11
13
Figure 28. Comparison of reaction rate equations for
oxidation of carbon monox~de.
58
-------
. '.
2000
100
80
.~
u.. z'
00
LU i= 60
~~
1-0:::
~:;
LU
. ~ ~ 40
UJz
I-~
a.:
VI
1200
. 5 x 10-3
20
o
o
Figure 29.
100
80
.~
u
~ z.
cn2 60
~I-
o~
:EO::
.0:;
-
.~ 40
~z
Li~
VI
20
o
o
100
Variation in exhaust temperature.
20 40 60 80
FRACTION OF EXHAUST STROKE, %
Figure 30. Variation in exhaust flow.
100
59
-------
2500
100
80
~
:E ~-
~ ;::: 60
<
uJ ~
~ ~ .
I- u.. 40
LLJ 0
:E z
~
V')
20
250 ,
o
Figure 31.
20 40 60 80
FRACTION OF EXHA UST STROKE, %
Hydrocarbon concentration (methane).
100
0.8 100
constant value for CO
~.80...
~
LLJ- Z
00
. --
XI- 60 ....
0<
z-
oCt:
:E;;
Zu.. 40 -
00
COz
Ct:
5~
V')
20 -
0 I . I ' I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
FRACTION OF EXHAUST STROKE. %
Figure 32. Carbon monoxide concentration.
60
-------
,
,
\d 1\
I" "I, II
I ' 1\ " I ,
3xlO -3 I II I \ I 1
, ,'1,1'
I I 'I, ,
I I I , ,\
\ I. I
\ I \
" I
, lxlO -3 -oJ
6XlO~3
5XlO-3
0'\
I-'
. 4xlO-3
u
L.I.J
V)
0:::
L.I.J
a..
V)
~
o
:E
~.
9 3
u. 2xlO-
flow' in
J. ..........- flow wi . I
I' ' ~
. 11\! III I
I' I, 'a I ' (I
'~' , " I ~ ",, , I
I' ., , I' I, I' II I' , ,
1\ II 1\ I, ,I II,' I,
n 1111 1\ "\ 11,'\ II,
I I',' I "'"
11111' J\ 1\ III1 'I
: \ I \1 , " " I" \ "1
I, I ~ \ I " " I ~ \ 1.1
I I I \ " \ " I \ I \
I '" \. \ I \, " " \ I \
\ I \J' 1 \ I ~ ""
\ I, 'I '-\
\ ' '" \
,\~ ~ '
. --, -,-------_.-L I
1 ' 2
ENG I NE CYCLES, UN ITS OF 72.00
n
U
o
" -
- 3
Figure 33. Flow out of reactor.
-------
1280
1260
1240
u..
0
UJ 1220
~
:::J
I--
~ 1200
UJ
a..
:E
UJ 1180
I--
1160
1140
~
f\) 1120
<:
~
a..
UJ. 17
~
:::J
~ 16
~
UJ
~
a.. 15
14
o
2
ENG I NE CYCLES, UN ITS OF 720°
1
Figure 34.
Temperature and pressure in reactor.
3
-------
7
6
5
tfl. 4
z.
~
C) 3
>-
x
o
2
1
o
&'
80
60
:E
a...
a... 40
oq-
. ::I:
<..>
20
o
o
0.8% of CO entering
552 ppm avg. CH4 entering
ENG INE CYCLES, UNITS OF 72fIJ
Figure 35. Emission concentrations in reactor.
.3
tfl.
01 o.
<..>
o
3
-------
--
--. -
1280
1260
1240 temperature
1220
u.
0 1200
L&J
0::
::>
I- 1180
<
0::
L&J
a.. 1160
:E
L&J
I-
1140
0\
.f:'"
lI'essure
17
16
15.
14
o
3
1 2
CYCLES, UNITS OF 72f1J CRANK ANGLE
Figure 36. Reactor temperature and pressure based on an enthalpy-averaged temperature
and a modulated input--step size ~/50 cycle.
I
-------
0'\
\J1
7
6
5
4
N
0
~ 3
2
1
o
:r.~ 60
u
~
~ 40
"
100
- 02
co (0. 8% in engi ne exha ust)
80
4 (25u to 2500 ppm in enyine exhaust)
20
o
1 2
CYCLES, UN ITS OF 72f1J CRANK ANGLE
Figure 37- Reactor gas composition based upon an enthalpy-averaged feed
temperature and a modulated input--step size 1/50 cycle.
.3
.2
. 1
o
u
~
o
, -3
-------
1260
1240 temperature
1220
u..
0 1200
.......
et::
~
..- 1180
~
.......
a... 1160
~
.......
..-
1140
0\
0\
~
V)
a...
.......
et::
~
V)
V)
.......
et::
a...
I,
pressure
14
o
1
3
2
CYCLES, UN ITS OF nrP CRANK ANGLE
Figure 38. Reactor temperature and pressure based on an enth~lpy-averaged feed
temperature and time-averaged input 'for each cylinder---step size 1/50 cycle.
-------
7
6
5
4
N 3
o
~
2
1
o
0\
-..;j
100
80
60
~
:I:
U 40
:E
a..
a.. 20
o
02
CO (0. 8% in engi ne exhaust)
, - CH4
(554.2 ppm CH4" input)
1
2
Figure 39~ Re~ctor gas composition based upon an-enthalpy-averagedfeed
temperature and time-averaged inputs for each cylinder.
.4
.3
.2
o
u
~
. 1
o
3
-------
7
fI!-
z.
LIJ
. Co:)
>-
x
o
6
6%02 entering
5
4
. 0.8% CO entering
0'\ 50
ex>
40
~. 30
0.. 20
~
:::I:
U 10
0
0 200 -
Figure 40.
552 ppm avg. CH4 entering
400 600 800
. REACTOR WALL TEMPERATURE, of
Emission concentrations during reactor warm-up.
1000
-
1200
.4
.3
.2
. 1
fl!-
e
u
o
I
-------
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0'\ 800
\0
600
400
200
o
_.. ._--_._...~
1 . 2
CYCl£S; UN ITS OF 7200 CRANK ANGLE
(a) Reactor Temperature Variation with Cycle Time (Tank Volume 7.5 in. 3,
3
Figur~ 41. Exhaust manifold .simulation.
-------
«
-
(/) 25
a..
L&J
~
::3
(/)
(/)
.....;j L&J
0 ~
a..
20
35
30
14
1
2
CYCLES; UN ITS OF 7200 CRANK ANGLE
(b) Reactor Pressure Variution with Cycle Time (Tank Volume 7.5 in. 3)
Figure 41.
(Continued)
3
-------
.8
, . 7
.6
.5
o .4
u
~ .3
--3 .2
I-'
. 1
o
1 2
. .
CYCLES: UNITS OF 1'100 CRANK ANGLE
. ':..,..
".'
3
(c) CO Concentration vs. Cycle Time (Tank Volume 7.5 in. 3)
Figure 41. tContinued)
-------
600
500
400
~
::J:
U
:E 300
-..J a..
I\) a..
200
100
o
1 2
CYCLES; UNITS OF 7'l00 CRANK ANGLE
3
(d) CH4 Concentration vs. Cycle Time (Tank Volume 7. 5 in. 3)
Figure 41. (Continued)
-------
20.
18
16
14 -..~!:t
12
N 10
0
~
--.J 8
\J.t
6
4
2
0
1 . 2
CYCLES; UN ITS OF 72rP CRANK ANGLE
(e) 02 Concentration vs. Cycle Time (Tank Volume 7: 5 in. 3)
Figure 41.
(Concluded)
3
-------
z
o
V; .6
0::::
~
Z
o
U
...J .5
~
o
I-
U
.~
u.. .4
17000F 19()()OF 12000F
T:,
I /'~12000F
, ','
, ','
I " /
, ',I
, ',/
, "
. / /, /
, ,
, / 'I '
, ,'/
, ",
I /' /
, /',
, I',
, ,',
, /' /
, ,',
I I',
, I',
, ~'/
, I',
, /' /
, ,
, 1,1
~ I,'
1,1
I, /
!J ,,/'
I /"
I /1/
, / /,
12000F , / "
OQ<>F K ,,' /
.1 \ , ,,/
~, ',/
\' I " 1,/
LO
.9
.8
.7
Initial CO concentration
of 8%
rote: the temperatures
labeled at the top of the
energy balance lines are
the 1 n itia I reactor temper-
atures.
.3
.2
o
800
2000
2200
1400
1600
1800
1000
1200
TEMPERA TURE of
Figure 42.
A combined mass and energy balance on CO.
74
-------
-..;j
\J1
-1St c~
o
u;
EXHAUST GAS SPECTRUM {RUN. NO. 991
t
o
...
:,.
~
ENG INE SPEC.
350 CU. IN. CHEVROlfT V-B
FUEL: INDOlfNE 30
SPEED: 1205 R PM
TORQUE: 132 FT -LB
IGNITION
TIMING: 33° MBT
A IR-FUEL RATIO: .15.4
-r
c::
~
,.,'
t
&
u
::--
cwf
SPECTROMETER SPEC.
PERKIN-ELMER 112
PRISM: NaCI
DETECTOR: THERMOCOUPlE
GAS CELL: 1 METER PERKIN-ELMER
CEll PRESSURE: 1 ATM
SPECTRAL RANGE: 2 - 15~
:;'igure 43.
Spectrographic analysis of exhaust. gas (typical).
-------
o
.,;
&
2
~
--.1
0'\
o
.f1
r"'\
!:-~
16-4
J.
\
0"
2
~
~
Figure 43.
B/tSEUNe IoItTII C(4 O/JLV
'\ ,,,../
'J ,
\
\
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
\
~
It)
\
8
~
-------
APPENDIX
ENGINE TESr DATA SUMMARY FOR CURVES OF FIGURES 9-24
77
-------
CRC TEST RESULTS
Series: ~A,)
Fuel: HID ~o
RPM: 1200
Variable:
Spark:
EHP: -~o
Spark
Location: Tailpipe
Submitted by: MWG
Date: 6/2~/70
i TOTAL HC C02 02 H2 PBTE I
Run Torque BSFC A/F i A/F Spark L?W HC HCHO --1 ,11th I
I
calc. I SPINDT ppm BSER I FFER % FFER ppm FFER If, If,
124 132.8 .642 15.45 14.98 5 126 60 140 ?'50 .00661 .0103 12.74 1.17 .1007 .1570 649. .00599 .00933 1. 55 -- 21.8
120 134.4 .580 15.37 14.~2 10 166 80 190 ~30 .00775' .0134 13.57 . 1.07 .0819 .141 1088. .00892 .0154 .60 -- 24.1
--..:J 127 131. 8 .575 15.20 15.06 10 162 75 180 320 .00748 .0130 12.9 .84 ,.0639 .1111 992. .00809 .0141 1.50 -- 24.3
\D 126 133.4 . 5~4 15.26 15.24 15 198 80 210 ~70 .00805 .0151 1~.29 .51 .0361 .0676 1219. . 00925 .0173 1.60 -- 26.2
122 132.8 .515 15.60 14.84 20 207 no 250 430 .00921 .0179 13.01 1.17 .0816 .159 n19. .00985 .0192 1.52 -- 27.2
25 131. 3 .499 15.38 14.91 27 234 1~0 500 480 . 0098~ .0197 13.85 .58 .0387 .0775 1837. .0131 .0263 1.30 -- 28.0
19 135.:; .489 15.64 14.59 33 234 140 ~10 470 .00946 .0193 13.85 .47 .0~08 .0629 2500. .0176 .0359 .75 -- 28.6
23 153.4 .493 15.48 40 219 160 345 ';(10, .0l0~ .0209 1~.01 .75 .0497 .101 2554. .0174 .0354 -- 28.4
121 132.3 .503 15.50 14.39 45 '219 160 ~~o ';00 .0103 .0204 13.85 .19 .0529 .105 2981. .0214 .0424 .68 -- 27.8
BSER: brake specific emission rate 1bm/bhp hr
FFER: fuel fraction emission rate' Ibm/Ibm fuel
,"
~~:...
'.
". "-i'
j-'-
-------
CRC TEST RESULTS
Series: IA5 Variable: A/F Location: Tailpipe
Fuel: Indo1ene Clear Spark: MM' Submi tted by: MWG
RPM: 1200 BHP: "'~O Date: 2/12/70
TOTAL HC H2
BSER
87 42 1~0 .450 18.97 19.87 177 189 1~0 160 260 .00625 .0139 11.2 0.1 .0078 .0174 1200 .01006 .022~7 5.4
77 " n4 .46~ 18.80 19.85 177 1~0 180 290 .00717 .0155 11.1 0.1 .0081 .0174 1150 .00992 .021.44 5.2
78 ;~ 1~1 .461 16.78 17.82 168 127 140 190 ~oo .00667 .01448 12.5 0.2 .0145 .0~14 2000 . 01552 .0~~66 ~.~
86 ~4 1~0 .461 16.62 17.37 159 140 160 270 .00586 .0127 12.6 0.1 .0071 .015~ 2100 .01590 .0,446 ~.O
g> 79 ~~ 1'1 .469 14.94 16.19 204 160 220 '50 .0072, .01542 14.1 0.' .0202 .04'0 2850 .0205' .04,81 1.1
82 ,4 1'2 .488 14.'0 15.11 222 86 210 270 420 .00846 .01n5 14.3 0.9 . 0')90 .1210 2400 .01686 .0,485 0.6
76 ,4 1'1 .495 14.77 14.97 222 200 '00 490 .oo~m . 02007 0.7 .0462 .09,4 2600 .018'9 .0'716 1.2
8, ,4 1'2 .52' 1'." 1'.90 259 240 '10 470 .00938 . 01795 1,.2 2.7 .175" .'~57 1400 .00975 .01,865 0.25 --
80 ~4 1'1 .570 12.17 12.96 '25 340 470 670 .01'67 .02~98 11.' 5.7 .'787 .6642 710 .00505 .00886 O.~O --
84 ~5 1'1 .605 11.78 12.11 '15 80 '60 490 650 .01'19 .02182 10.6 6.8 .4494 .74,~ 400 .0008' .00468 0.'0 --
81 ,4 1'1 .664 10.52 11. 28 ,n 460 610 810 .01692 .02549 8.4 10.0 .6799 1. 0245 190 . 001~8 .00209 0.25 --
85 ,4 1'2 .n4 9.86 10.28 4'1 64 520 650 870 .01840; .02514 7.5 11.5 .7941 1. 0818 100 ,JOO74 .00101 0.02 --
BSER: brake specific emission rate 1bm/bhp hr
FFER: fuel fraction emission rate- 1bm/1bm fuel
I
-------
CRC TEST RESULTS
Series: 4A4
Fuel: Indo1ene 30
Variable: RPM
BHP: -30 (~ 1oad--1200 rpm)
Location: Tailpipe
Submitted by: JHD
Date: 4/27/70
OJ
t-'
! LOW FID ppm TOTAL HC" CO CO NO
A/F A/F 'HC HCHO : Para & I I FFER "2 t I BSER I FFER ' 02 }{2
Run Spark Toraue BSFC calc. SPINDT RPM 'ppm PPth Para Arom I total BSER % ppm BSER FFER t
112 22 176. .464 15.07 15.27 900 279 -- 140 320 420 .008 .018 13.6 .23 .015 .031 2454 .017 .036 1.5 --
107 27 158 .477 14.79 14.10 1001 270 -- 220 410 500 .C10 .021 13.6 1.28 .082 .171 2027 .014 .029 .55 --
106 33 137 .487 14.92 14.33 1195 207 -- 200 390 490 .010 .020 13.6 1.07 .070 .145 2275 .016 .033 .75 --"
108 32 113 .530 14.81 14.26 1401 243 -- 160 360 470 .010 .019 13.9 .86 .061" .115 1989 .015 .029 0.5 --
109 34 100 .559 14.88 14.57 1599 207 -- 150 340 440 .010 .018 13.6 .65 .049 .088 1913 .015 .028 0.8 --
110 33 87 .591 14.75 14.73 1796 234 -- 85 240 360 .009 .015 13.3 .86 .068 .115 1387 .012 .020 1.1 --
III 39 79 .620 14.62 14.94 i200l 171 -- 85 260 360 .009 .015 13.3 .72 .059 .095 1571 .014 .022 1.3 --
BSER: brake specific emission rate
FFER: fuel fraction emission rate
1bm/bhp hr
Ibm/Ibm fuel
. ~.:::
-------
CRC TEST RESULTS
Series: 2A4
Fuel: Indo1ene 30
RHo!: 1200
Variable: LOAD
Spai'k: MBT
Location: Tailpipe
Submitted by: JHD
Date: 6/18/70
():)
(\)
! I LOW ; FDJppm TOTAL HC C02 CO NO 02 H2 PBTE
, i BSFC A/F A/F HC 'HCHO Para & I I til
jRun Spark calc. SPINDT,Torque PPm ppm Para Aran total BSER FFER '1> '1> BSER FFER ppm BSER FFER '1>
: 1~ 36 1.467 :15.25 115.44 : 19.95 670. -- 550. 850. 1100. .06549 .04463 12.22 .69 .1338 .0912 198. .00411 .00280 2.6 -- 9.53
131 36 1.031 ,16.19 116.05 I 30.45 270. -- 200. 360. 500. .02192 .02125 12.6 .30 .0428 .0415 ~53. . 00540 .00523 2.6 -- 13.56
135 i 36 .719 116.13 '15.71 I 52.50 216. -- 120. 270. 440. .01338 -01860 13.15 .16 .0158 .0220 1235. .0131 .0182 2.05 -- 19.44
133: 36 .583 '16.27 15.82 i 80.59 225. -- 130. 260. 440. .01093 .01876 13.01 .13 .0105 .0180 1989. .0172 .0295 2.15 -- 23.99
137: 35 .524 :15.93 15.58 107.62 225. -- 140. 300. 460. .01009 .01925 13.29 .16 .0114 .0218 2500. .0191 .0365 1.9 -- 26.68
128: 33 .507 :15.18 15.08 1130.20 279. , -- 170. 340. 515. .01055 .02079 13.29 .65 .0434 .0854 2232. .0139 .0314 1.6 -- 27.56
134: 31 .464 116.05 15.57 i158.81 211. -- 120. ::>55. 420. . 00820 .01767 13.01 .27 .0172 .0370 3143. .0214 .0461 1.9 -- 30.13
136: 27 .447 115.84 15.34 i210.79 198. -- 120. ::>60. 410. . 00767 .01716 12.9 .72 .0439 .0981 2106. .0137 .0307 1.9 -- 31.26
132 I 25 .433 16.21 115.70 1233.10 193. -- 110. 230. 365. . 00672 . 01550 12.6 .69 .0414 .0954 2431. .0156 .0360 2.3 -- 32.27
129 ! 23 .440 15.13 :14.87 1250.42 ! 216. -- 120. 265. 430. . 00761 . 01731 13.01 .93 .0536 .1219 2106. .0130 .0295 1.4 -- 31.81
BSER: brake specific emission rate
FFER: fuel fraction emission rate.
1bm/bhp hr
Ibm/1bm fuel
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Contract Distribution
No. of
copies
Mr. Alan E.' Zengel
Assistant Project Manager
Coordinating Research CoUncil, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10020
'00
Dr. P.R. Ryason
Chevron Research Company
576 Standard Avenue
Richmond, California 94802
2
Mr. R.J. Corbeels -
Research and Technical Department
. Texaco, Inc.
P. o. Box 509
Beacon, New York
1
Dr. E.N..Cantwell
Automotive Emissions Division.
Petroleum Laboratory
E.I. D~Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
Wilmington, Deleware 19898
1
Dr. J.B. Edwards
Research Section
Chrysler Corporation
12800 Oakland Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48203
1
Mr. G.D. Kittredge
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Motor Vehicle Research and Development
5 Research Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan
15
Dr. H. Niki
Scientific Laboratory
Ford Motor Comp~ny
P.O. Box 2053
Dearborn, Michigan
2
48121
8'
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST (Concluded)
Contract Distribution
Mr. R.C. Schwing
Research Center Laboratories
Fuels and Lubricants Department
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
12 Mile and Mound Roads
Warren, Michigan 48090
Mrs. Mary Englehart
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
National Air Pollution Control Administration
411 W.Chapel Hill street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Internal Distribution
Professor J.A. Bolt, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto. Lab., N.C.
Professor B. Carnahan, Dep~. of Chern. Eng., East Eng. Bldg.
Professor J.A.' Clark, Dept. of Mech. Eng., West Eng. Bldg.
Professor D.E. Cole, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto Lab., N.C.
Professor N.A. Henein, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto. Lab., N.C.
Professor R. Kadlec, Dept. of Chern. Eng., East Eng. Bldg.
Professor H. Lord, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto. Lab., N.C.
Professor J.J. Martin, Dept. of Chern. Eng., East Eng. Bldg.
Professor W. Mirsky, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto. Lab., N.C.
Mr. E. Sondreal, Dept. of Chern. Eng., East Eng. Bldg.
Professor D.J. Patterson, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Auto. Lab., N.C.
Proj ect File
84
No. of
Copies
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
33
370
------- |