application of pegasor particle sensor in heavy duty ... · the tests were carried out with a heavy...

Correlation between Pegasor Particle Sensor and Particle Number Counter Application of Pegasor Particle Sensor in Heavy Duty Exhaust

Dr. Harald Beck, Dr. Dieter Rothe, Christian Tyroller

MAN Truck & Bus AG, Nuremberg, Germany

[email protected]

The implementation of a particle number limit by Euro VI has lead to the development of an “appropriate” measurement method. This method affords the sampling from diluted engine exhaust and the usage of a complex sample treatment before measurement in a particle number counter. The commercial setups are cost intensive and more over bulky. For engine development another measurement system should be found. In the following studies a new in line sensor, developed by Pegasor was used in comparison with an AVL APC Advanced and an AVL Micro Soot Sensor.The studies have been performed in order to find similarities between the sensor signals. The tests were carried out with a heavy duty diesel EURO IV engine equipped with a continuously regenerating particle trap.

D2066 LF 31 Euro 4Number of cylinder: 6Displacement: 10.5l Power: 440 PSTorque: 2100 Nm

AVL APC 489

AVL MSS 483

Pegasor ParticleSensor(Preversion)

DPFD2066 LF 31 Euro 4Number of cylinder: 6Displacement: 10.5l Power: 440 PSTorque: 2100 Nm

AVL APC 489

AVL MSS 483


DPF

Figure 1: Schematic test setup. The signal correlation has been investigated during several European Stationary and European Transient Cycles before and behind the particle trap.

29.09.201111:21:13_2023 990 mbar 0 %

P

egas

or

[mV

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]

240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

1.0·107

2.0·107

3.0·107

4.0·107

5.0·107

M

SS

[m

g/m

3]

0

10

20

30

40

29.09.201111:21:13_2023 990 mbar 0 %

P

egas

or

[mV

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]

240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

1.0·107

2.0·107

3.0·107

4.0·107

5.0·107

M

SS

[m

g/m

3]

0

10

20

30

40

29.09.201111:21:13_2023 990 mbar 0 %

P

egas

or

[mV

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]

240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

1.0·107

2.0·107

3.0·107

4.0·107

5.0·107

M

SS

[m

g/m

3]

0

10

20

30

40

Figure 2: Signal of PPS, MSS and APC during a transient test cycle.

In transient tests the sensor showed a fast response time. The correlation of Pegasor signal to soot mass signal was found to be moderate, the correlation to particle number concentration was found to be good.

11.08.201111:33:34_1958 979 mbar 0 %

P

eg

aso

r [m

V]

Inte

gra

l: P

eg

aso

r [m

V]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]0 500 1000 1500 2000

Integral(20110811-120958_d2066lf31_etc_1958.b01.utx.nc (REK_1HZ_TIME,Pegasor)) = 178843

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

5.0·106

1.0·107

1.5·107

2.0·107

2.5·107

3.0·107

3.5·107

4.0·107

4.5·107

5.0·107

Integral(20110811-120958_d2066lf31_etc_1958.b01.utx.nc (REK_1HZ_TIME,APCxDR_U)) = 8.79783e+09

Inte

gra

l :

AP

C [

P/c

m³]

0·100

1·109

2·109

3·109

4·109

5·109

6·109

7·109

8·109

9·109

0·100

2·104

4·104

6·104

8·104

1·105

1·105

1·105

2·105

2·105

Figure 3: Correlation of PPS to APC during a European Test Cycle. During the tests the Pegasor Particle Sensor showed a good signal correlation to MSS and APC. The signals were found to be reproducible. Moreover the sensor proved itself to be stable and robust und heavy duty diesel engine conditions.

Correlation between Pegasor Particle Sensor and Particle Number Counter

Application of Pegasor Particle Sensor in Heavy Duty exhaust

Dr. Harald Beck, Dr. Dieter Rothe, Christian Tyroller

16th ETH Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles,

June 24th – 27th 2012

Zurich ETH Zentrum, Main Building, HG E7

2< >MAN Truck & Bus AG Dr. Harald Beck 16th ETH Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles 26.06.2012EMFA

Agenda

1 Motivation

2 Pegasor Particle Sensor

3 Test setup and Programme

4 Pretest results

5 Stationary Tests and Results

6 Transient Tests and Results

7 Conclusion

1


1 Motivation

For EURO VI Homologation particle emission limits have to be fulfilled:

PN: 6 ·1011 # kW h-1 (WHTC) and 8·1011 # kW h-1 (WHSC)

PM: 10 mg kWh-1

The proposed setup according to UN ECE Regulation 49 is bulky and cost intensive (Invest and life cycle cost)

Particle number concentration measurement according to UN ECE Regulation 49 has an impact on particle mass measurement with partial dilution systems

Demands from engineers for an alternative system:

Its signal should correlate with certification standard system

It should be able to measure transient cycles

It should be small and robust (raw exhaust application)

It shall need little service effort (Cost effect in invest and life cycle),

Easy operation (plug and play) should be ensured


Agenda

1 Motivation



4 Pretest results



7 Conclusion

2


2 Peagasor Particle Sensor (1/3)(Sensor Layout)

dilution air


2 Pegasor Particle Sensor (2/3)(Operating principle)

Chargerpower

Electrometer

In = Iout - Iin

Iin

Iout

Sample in

Sample out

Isolated power transfer

Faraday cup

Aerosol charging

In

Technique referred to as “Escaping Current”


2 Peagasor Particle Sensor (3/3)(Sensor Physical Dimensions)

Main Features• Compact design, installed directly to the tailpipe• Particles are not collected• Sensitive parts protected from exhaust flow => Low maintenance• High resolution and sensitivity (10 Hz, 0.3sec Response Time)

Inlet

Outlet

Carrier air


Agenda

1 Motivation



4 Pretest results



7 Conclusion

3


3 Experimental Setup (1/3)(Schematic Overview)

D2066 LF 31 Euro 4Number of cylinder: 6Displacement: 10.5l Power: 440 PSTorque: 2100 Nm

AVL APC 489

AVL MSS 483


DPF


Experimental Setup (2/3)(Test cell)

MSS

APC

PegasorEngine


Experimental Setup (3/3)(Test programme)

Investigation topics:

Influence of dilution air pressure on the PPS signal

Signal correlation of PPS vs APC and MSS in stationary test cycle (ESC)

Signal correlation of PPS vs APC and MSS in transient test cycle (ETC)

Correlation in raw exhaust and after diesel particulate filter


Agenda

1 Motivation



4 Pretest results



7 Conclusion

4


4 Influence of dilution air pressure (1/4)(Test programme)

23.09.201109:47:53_2006 983 mbar 42% Pegasor

P

PS

-Lu

ftd

ruck

[m

bar

]

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

Zeit11:00:00 11:20:00 11:40:00 12:00:00 12:20:00 12:40:00 13:00:00 13:20:00 13:40:00 14:00:00

M

[N

m]

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

N

[U

/min

]

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

Air

pre

ssu

re

time

engi

ne s

peed

torq

ue


4 Influence of dilution air pressure (2/4)(Signal sequence)

31.08.201115:19:16_1990 977 mbar 39% Pegasor

P

egas

or

[mV

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Zeit

15:20:00 15:40:00 16:00:00 16:20:00 16:40:00 17:00:00 17:20:00 17:40:00 18:00:00

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

M

SS

[m

g/m

³]

0

5

10

15

20

25

time


4 Influence of dilution air pressure (3/4)(PPS vs. MSS)

y = 0,0106x + 6,5155

R2 = 0,9961

y = 0,013x + 7,1543

R2 = 0,9997

y = 0,0065x + 18,811

R2 = 0,955

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Druck [mbar]

PP

S/M

SS

[m

V/(

mg

/m3 )]

M1 M2 M3

Air pressure


4 Influence of dilution air pressure (4/4)(PPS vs. APC)

y = 6E-09x + 3E-06

R2 = 0,9935

y = 8E-09x + 4E-06

R2 = 0,9982

y = 5E-09x + 1E-05

R2 = 0,9838

0,00E+00

5,00E-06

1,00E-05

1,50E-05

2,00E-05

2,50E-05

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Druck [mbar]

PP

S/A

PC

[m

V/(

1/c

m3 )]

M1 M2 M3

Air pressure


Agenda

1 Motivation



4 Pretest results



7 Conclusion

5


5 Correlation Stationary tests (1/7)(Test programme)

10.06.201109:43:01_1832 979 mbar 42%

N

[U

/min

]

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

Zeit09:00:00 10:00:00 11:00:00 12:00:00 13:00:00 14:00:00 15:00:00 16:00:00

M

[N

m]

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

time


5 Correlation Stationary tests (2/7)(PPS vs. MSS raw exhaust)

20.06.201110:37:03_1848 979 mbar 0 %

M

SS

[m

g/m

³]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pegasor [mV]0 100 200 300 400 500 600

20110620-173221_d2066lf31_tl_1848.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,MSSxDR_U):correlation = 0.967702

20110620-173221_d2066lf31_tl_1848.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,MSSxDR_U):Minimum.............: -0.011Maximum.............: 35.619arith. Mittelwert...: 5.25385Mittlere Abweichung.: 4.90956Varianz.............: 32.9519Standard-Abweichung.: 5.74037

Polynom-Ordnung 1: f(x) = p0 + p1*x + ...

p0 = 0.571968006025839p1 = 0.0452921444458772

R=0.97


5 Correlation Stationary tests (3/7)(PPS vs. APC raw exhaust)

20.06.201110:37:03_1848 979 mbar 0 %

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

5.0·106

1.0·107

1.5·107

2.0·107

2.5·107

Pegasor [mV]0 100 200 300 400 500 600

20110620-173221_d2066lf31_tl_1848.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,APCxDR_U):correlation = 0.979386

20110620-173221_d2066lf31_tl_1848.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,APCxDR_U):Minimum.............: -4Maximum.............: 2.34e+07arith. Mittelwert...: 4.01487e+06Mittlere Abweichung.: 3.67198e+06Varianz.............: 2.16706e+13Standard-Abweichung.: 4.65517e+06


p0 = 172239.323181636p1 = 37173.2869668173

R=0.98


5 Correlation Stationary tests (4/7)(PPS vs. MSS post DPF)

10.06.201109:43:01_1832 969 mbar 0 %

M

SS

[m

g/m

³]

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Pegasor [mV]0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

20110610-153618_d2066lf31_tl_1832.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,MSSxDR_U):correlation = 0.830476

20110610-153618_d2066lf31_tl_1832.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,MSSxDR_U):Minimum.............: 0.039Maximum.............: 2.344arith. Mittelwert...: 0.285282Mittlere Abweichung.: 0.146267Varianz.............: 0.040331Standard-Abweichung.: 0.200826


p0 = 0.120228200820071p1 = 0.0255076499057002

R=0.83


5 Correlation Stationary tests (5/7)(PPS vs. APC post DPF)

10.06.201109:43:01_1832 969 mbar 0 %

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

5.0·105

1.0·106

1.5·106

2.0·106

2.5·106

Pegasor [mV]0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


p0 = -19063.6623004908p1 = 57961.1049093845

20110610-153618_d2066lf31_tl_1832.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,APCxDR_U):correlation = 0.974596

20110610-153618_d2066lf31_tl_1832.b01.utx.nc (Pegasor,APCxDR_U):Minimum.............: 17900Maximum.............: 2.06e+06arith. Mittelwert...: 355988Mittlere Abweichung.: 314468Varianz.............: 1.51209e+11Standard-Abweichung.: 388856

R=0.97


5 Correlation Stationary tests (6/7)(PPS vs. MSS)

y = 0,0255x + 0,1202

y = 0,0354x + 0,3461

y = 0,0453x + 0,572

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Pegasor [mV]

MS

S [

mg

/m3

]

Rohabgas nach DPF Ausgleichsgeraderaw exhaust post DPF Intermediate


5 Correlation Stationary tests (7/7)(PPS vs. APC)

y = 57961x - 19064

y = 47567x + 76588

y = 37173x + 172239

0,0E+00

5,0E+05

1,0E+06

1,5E+06

2,0E+06

2,5E+06

3,0E+06

3,5E+06

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Pegasor [mV]

AP

C [

P/c

m3

]

Rohabgas nach DPF Ausgleichsgeraderaw exhaust post DPF Intermediate


Agenda

1 Motivation



4 Pretest results



7 Conclusion

6


6 Transient test signal (1/5) (PPS vs. MSS raw exhaust)

29.09.201111:21:13_2023 990 mbar 0 %

P

egas

or

[mV

]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]

240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800

A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

1.0·107

2.0·107

3.0·107

4.0·107

5.0·107

M

SS

[m

g/m

3]

0

10

20

30

40


6 Correlation Transient tests (2/5)(PPS vs. MSS raw exhaust)

11.08.201111:33:34_1958 979 mbar 0 %

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]0 500 1000 1500 2000


M

SS

[m

g/m

3]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Integral(20110811-120958_d2066lf31_etc_1958.b01.utx.nc (REK_1HZ_TIME,MSSxDR_U)) = 8589.6

Pe

ga

sor

[mV

]In

teg

ral :

P

eg

aso

r [m

V]

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Inte

gra

l :

MS

S [

mg

/m3

]

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000


6 Correlation Transient tests (3/5)(PPS vs. APC)

11.08.201111:33:34_1958 979 mbar 0 %

P

eg

aso

r [m

V]

Inte

gra

l: P

eg

aso

r [m

V]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

REK_1HZ.TIME [s]0 500 1000 1500 2000


A

PC

[P

/cm

³]

0.0·100

5.0·106

1.0·107

1.5·107

2.0·107

2.5·107

3.0·107

3.5·107

4.0·107

4.5·107

5.0·107

Integral(20110811-120958_d2066lf31_etc_1958.b01.utx.nc (REK_1HZ_TIME,APCxDR_U)) = 8.79783e+09

Inte

gra

l :

AP

C [

P/c

m³]

0·100

1·109

2·109

3·109

4·109

5·109

6·109

7·109

8·109

9·109

0·100

2·104

4·104

6·104

8·104

1·105

1·105

1·105

2·105

2·105


6 Correlation Transient tests (4/5)(PPS vs. APC average 6 ETC)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Ab

we

ich

un

g [

%]

Rohabgasformel Ausgleichsformel "nach DPF"-Formel

Rohabgasformel -19,83 -22,18

Ausgleichsformel -0,80 -8,35

"nach DPF"-Formel 18,22 5,49

Messung im Rohabgas Messung nach DPF

Dev

iatio

n

Raw exhaust measurement Measurement after DPF

Raw exhaust

Intermediate

post DPF

Raw exhaust post DPFIntermediate


6 Correlation Transient tests (5/5)(PPS vs. MSS average of 6 ETC)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Ab

we

ich

un

g [

%]

Rohabgasformel Ausgleichsformel "nach DPF"-Formel

Rohabgasformel 0,65 27,19

Ausgleichsformel -23,61 -6,80

"nach DPF"-Formel -47,86 -40,79

Messung im Rohabgas Messung nach DPF

Raw exhaust Intermediate post DPF

Raw exhaust measurement Measurement after DPF

Raw exhaust

Intermediate

post DPF

Dev

iatio

n


7 Conclusion

Pegasor Particle Sensor (PPS) was tested under heavy duty real world conditions.

In transient tests the sensor proofed a fast response time

With constant dilution air pressure results were found reproducible

(For traceability reasons an additional pressure recording is recommended)

Under partial load stationary conditions good correlation were found for raw exhaust measurements MSS- (>96%) and APC-Signal (>98%) and for measurements after DPF MSS- (>83%) and APC-Signal (>97%)

The correlation equation found under partial load condition were applied on ESC and ETC. The calculated results lead to deviations of less than 10 % compared with reference analytics.


Time for Questions

Dr. Harald Beck

MAN Truck & Bus AG

EMFA

Vogelweiherstrasse 33

90441 Nürnberg

Tel. +49-911-420-1530

[email protected]

Dr. Dieter Rothe

MAN Truck & Bus AG

EMRE


90441 Nürnberg

Tel. +49-911-420-2061

[email protected]

Christian Tyroller

MAN Truck & Bus AG

EMRE


90441 Nürnberg

Tel. +49-911-420-6597

[email protected]

The authors would like to thank:Juha Tikkanen (Peagasor) Thomas Hamacher (MS4)for the technical support.

application of pegasor particle sensor in heavy duty ... · the tests were carried out with a heavy...

Documents