Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
nox reduction / fuel consumption 5
- Thread starter opsguy
- Start date
-
1
- #2
I suppose a point to keep in mind is that if you're changing timing by upgrading from a mechanical injection system to an electronic one, you may be able to improve BSFC in parts of the operating range where you don't measure NOx, while improving NOx elsewhere.
-
1
- #5
opsguy,
Reducing NOx basically requires reducing peak combustion temps. Retarding injection timing from MBT will usually result in lower NOx, but higher HC and SFC.
Charge air cooling and EGR are also effective approaches to reducing NOx.
Hope that helps.
Terry
Reducing NOx basically requires reducing peak combustion temps. Retarding injection timing from MBT will usually result in lower NOx, but higher HC and SFC.
Charge air cooling and EGR are also effective approaches to reducing NOx.
Hope that helps.
Terry
-
1
- #6
The tradeoff is about 30:1 NOx vs Fuel economy in g/km. I.e. reduce NOx by 30% from retarding timing alone from a nominal setting and you will increase fuel economy by 1%.
PM will also increase with retarded main injection timing (About 20:1 PM:CO2).
Max 4/5 degrees from nominal setting.
PM will also increase with retarded main injection timing (About 20:1 PM:CO2).
Max 4/5 degrees from nominal setting.
-
2
- #8
TDIMeister
Automotive
Tradeoff ratios vary by specific application, combustion development and where you are along the trade-off curve. It's not a linear curve.
TDIMeister
Automotive
Pilot injection and other strategies for injection rate shaping could also reduce NOx by reduce the peak rate of heat release and pressure rise without the disadvantages of retarded start of injection and EGR.
- Thread starter
- #11
Changing injection strategy and cut-off ratio will of course affect the NOx and PM outputs as well, but as a rule of thumb those are the tradeoffs when retarding/advancing main SOI whilst leaving separation constant for HSDI engines within that timing range (i.e. around an already optimised combustion).
TDIMeister
Automotive
@70btdc: I don't get the impression from the OP post that the engine in question is either HSDI or in an optimised-state.
@ivymike: That's why proper combustion development and any changes to injection strategy should be only one part of a holistic exercise, which may include reshaping of piston bowl geometry. This latter factor in itself also has a huge influence on the aforementioned NOx/PM/NVH/SFC tradeoffs.
@ivymike: That's why proper combustion development and any changes to injection strategy should be only one part of a holistic exercise, which may include reshaping of piston bowl geometry. This latter factor in itself also has a huge influence on the aforementioned NOx/PM/NVH/SFC tradeoffs.
- Thread starter
- #16
Anything you do to reduce NOx will reduce fuel efficiency. After all N2 combined with oxygen to create NOx releases energy, so N2 in this case is fuel. There are a lot of band-aides to try to fix this but the best they can do is get you back where you started at the cost of making things more complicated. Two things that I found that reduce NOx generation and at the same time improve fuel efficiency is to reduce the charge air/ air box temperature but there is a limit to that as you start getting white smoke. The other thing is to raise the jacket water temperature and this has a ignition delay feature that they are trying to acheive with electronic control. I would like to complete the experiment on this idea. Anybody have a locomotive I can borrow?
L4189, thats very interesting. What is the mechanism to reduce NOx by reducing the temperature gradient? I would have thought that promoting higher temps to be kept within the chamber by reducing the gradient between charge and chamber wall would have had the opposite effect - needing less advance and creating higher peak temps?
TDImeister, being already optimised was an assumption, but if we dont assume some constants at least, the OP question is to broad to answer. I only have experience of HSDI engines, from 1000-2500rpm steady state these tradeoff ratios are correct for a good range of engine displacements.
TDImeister, being already optimised was an assumption, but if we dont assume some constants at least, the OP question is to broad to answer. I only have experience of HSDI engines, from 1000-2500rpm steady state these tradeoff ratios are correct for a good range of engine displacements.
TDIMeister
Automotive
L4189 said: "Anything you do to reduce NOx will reduce fuel efficiency."
Don't tell that to the people working on HCCI, PCCI and other forms of LTC.
@70btdc: Granted. A linear proportional assumption is OK when you don't deviate far from the original point.
Don't tell that to the people working on HCCI, PCCI and other forms of LTC.
@70btdc: Granted. A linear proportional assumption is OK when you don't deviate far from the original point.
70btdc,
Advance doesn't directly cause NOx, temperature causes NOx. The rate of the NOx generating reaction is exponential with temperature (as are many reactions). The peak temperature within the chamber virtually defines the amount of NOx created, because all the lower temperatures in the combustion chamber (in time or geometry) do not contribute very much to the total NOx generation.
Advance doesn't directly cause NOx, temperature causes NOx. The rate of the NOx generating reaction is exponential with temperature (as are many reactions). The peak temperature within the chamber virtually defines the amount of NOx created, because all the lower temperatures in the combustion chamber (in time or geometry) do not contribute very much to the total NOx generation.
- Status
Similar threads
