Operating lines for plug-in hybrid turbo charger systems meeting LEV III evaporative gas regulations

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 2020 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) implemented even more stringent regulation of vehicle emissions, its low-emission vehicle III (LEV III) program. In a (P)HEV T-GDI vehicle, the vehicle operates in EV driving mode when the engine is off, making it similarly difficult to comply with evaporative gas regulations. Automotive OEM strategy development to reduce vehicle evaporative gas and exhaust gas is in progress as these new emissions regulations are being implemented. Unlike in a naturally aspired engine, in a turbo gasoline direct injection (T-GDI) engine, the main operating area is the turbo boosting area. It operates in the positive pressure area rather than the negative pressure area, making it difficult to meet the requirements of the new evaporative gas regulationsI. The (P)HEV T-GDI characteristics showed the evaporative gas standards of LEV III, as well as regulations on CO 2 , fuel efficiency, and exhaust gas. 2.0 T-GDI single purge system vehicles showed 1.8 times engine operation time test results satisfied with evaporative gas test regulation values.
Additionally, exhaust gas emissions in hot mode showed that CO(g/mile) affects 2.0 L T-GDI vehicles 2~3 times more than 3.0 L V6 T-GDI dual purge system vehicles. Fuel efficiency test results, confirming that the 3.0 V6 had about 15 % FTP, 20 % HWY, 18 % US06 better fuel efficiency compared to the 2.0 L T-GDI vehicles. Furthermore, the properties of the operating lines optimized for two plug-in hybrid turbo charger systems to assess whether they can meet the evaporative gas standards of LEV III, as well as regulations on CO 2 , fuel efficiency, and exhaust gas. The 2.0 L T-GDI vehicle bears fuel economy loss, increases the engine operating time, and responds to the regulation of evaporative gas, and the 3.0 V6 confirms that the engine operating time, fuel economy, exhaust gas, and evaporative gas are optimized. To respond to LEV III evaporative gas regulations, 2.0 L T-GDI PHEV vehicles take longer engine operation time, fuel economy loss, and respond to evaporative gas, CO 2 , emission regulations, 3.0 L V6 T-GDI PHEV vehicles confirmed that engine operation time, fuel economy, exhaust gas, and evaporative gas were optimized. They can meet the evaporative gas standards of LEV III, as well as regulations on CO 2 , fuel efficiency, and exhaust gas.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 S. Paz, "Vehicle evaporative emissions characterization by chromatographic techniques applied to different gasoline-ethanol blend" SAE 2014

2 D. Drake, "Using economic analysis to assess the viability of post-2016 my greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles" SAE 2012

3 H. Itakura, "Studies on carbon canisters to satisfy LEVII EVAP regulations" SAE 2000

4 S. Reddy, "Small SI engine evaporative emission control" SAE 2012

5 H. Viswanathan, "Shock waves in canister purge valves" SAE 2013

6 J. Leffel, "Requirements setting, optimization and “best fit” application of AIS hydrocarbon adsorption devices for engine evaporative emissions breathing loss control" SAE 2005

7 T. Takaoka, "Newly developed Toyota plug-in hybrid system and its vehicle performance under real life Operation" SAE 2011

8 T. Hori, "Large eddy simulation of non-evaporative and evaporative diesel spray in constant volume vessel by use of KIVALES" SAE 2006

9 H. Johansson, "Lack of legislation causes large problems with evaporative emissions" SAE 2009

10 Y. Park, "LEV-3 environmental regulations corresponding studies on the effects on the evaporative emissions from the fuel system caused a secondary canister" 140-146, 2016

11 A. Bejcek, "Evaporative emissions control system for walk behind lawnmowers" SAE 2007

12 M. Meyer, "Evaluation and adaptation of 5-cycle fuel economy testing and calculations for HEVs and PHEVs" 2012

13 J. Dolch, "Effects of 7, 9, and 10 psi vapor pressure fuels on multi-day diurnal evaporative emissions of tier 2 and LEV II vehicles" 6 (6): 382-392, 2013

14 Y. Nakao, "Effect of port injection specifications on emission behavior of THC" 9 (9): 2427-2433, 2016

15 T. Matsubara, "Development of new hybrid system for compact class vehicles" SAE 2009

16 N. Takagi, "Development of exhaust and evaporative emissions systems for Toyota THS II plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" 3 (3): 406-413, 2010

17 K. Maeda, "Development of a hydro-carbon adsoripon filter" SAE 2003

18 M. Komatsu, "Development of Toyota plug-in hybrid system" SAE 2011

19 J. Kim, "Development of HC-trap for reducing evaporative gas on 2L SI engine" 209-212, 2017

20 A. Pham, "Characterization of gaseous emissions from blended plug-in hybrid electric vehicles during highpower cold-starts" SAE 2018

21 M. Samulski, "Characterization and control of evaporative emissions from fuel tanks in nonroad equipment" SAE 2006

22 H. Itakura, "Analysis of the HC behavior in the air intake system while vehicle is oarked" SAE 2004

23 J. Lebowitz, "Activated carbon coated polymeric foam for hydrocarbon vapor adsorption" SAE 2005