4. Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies

4. Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies

Improving the efficiency of internal combustion engines is one of the most promising and cost-effective near- to mid-term approaches to increasing highway vehicles' fuel economy. The Vehicle Technologies Office's (VTO) research and development activities address critical barriers to commercializing higher efficiency, very low emissions advanced internal combustion engines for passenger and commercial vehicles. This technology has great potential to reduce U.S. petroleum consumption, resulting in greater economic, environmental, and energy security. Already offering outstanding drivability and reliability to over 230 million passenger vehicles, internal combustion engines have the potential to become substantially more efficient. Initial results from laboratory engine tests indicate that passenger vehicle fuel economy can be improved by more than 50%, and some vehicle simulation models estimate potential improvements of up to 75%. Advanced combustion engines can utilize renewable fuels, and when combined with hybrid electric powertrains could yield further reductions in fuel consumption. The EIA reference case forecasts that by 2040, more than 99% of light- and heavy-duty vehicles sold will still have internal combustion engines, therefore the potential fuel savings are tremendous.

The VTO undertakes research and development activities to improve the efficiency of engines for both light and heavy-duty highway vehicles, whether they run on petroleum-based (gasoline and diesel) or alternative fuels. VTO supports every phase of research in these areas, from fundamental science to prototype demonstration. VTO's research focuses on improving engine efficiency while meeting future federal and state emissions regulations. It does this through three main approaches:

Developing advanced combustion strategies that maximize energy efficiency while minimizing the formation of emissions within the engine.

Developing cost-effective aftertreatment technologies that further reduce exhaust emissions at a minimum energy penalty. Recovering energy from engine waste heat normally lost through the cooling and exhaust systems.

Commercialization of these advanced combustion engine technologies could allow the United States to cut its transportation fuel use and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 40%.

Research and development is done in collaboration with industry, national laboratories, other federal agencies (such as the National Science Foundation [NSF]) and universities, as well as through the following government/industry partnerships:

U.S. Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy sustainability (U.S. DRIVE) Partnership focusing on light-duty vehicles

21st Century Truck Partnership, focusing on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles

The major goals of the Advanced Combustion Engine R&D subprogram are:

By 2015, increase the efficiency of internal combustion engines for passenger vehicles resulting in fuel economy improvements of 25% for gasoline vehicles and 40% for diesel vehicles; and by 2020, improve the fuel economy of gasoline vehicles by 35% and diesel vehicles by 50%, compared to 2009 gasoline vehicles.

By 2015, increase the efficiency of internal combustion engines for commercial vehicles to 50%, a 20% improvement from the 42% of the baseline 2009 heavy-duty engine. This goal is part of the overall SuperTruck initiative to increase Class 8 truck freight hauling efficiency by more than 50% by 2015. By 2020, further improve engine efficiency to 55% with demonstrations on commercial vehicle platforms.

By 2015, increase the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by at least 5% using thermoelectric generators that convert energy from engine waste heat to electricity.

4-1

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

Subprogram Feedback

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) received feedback on the overall technical subprogram areas presented during the 2014 Annual Merit Review (AMR). Each subprogram technical session was introduced with a presentation that provided an overview of subprogram goals and recent progress, followed by a series of detailed topic area project presentations. The reviewers for a given subprogram area responded to a series of specific questions regarding the breadth, depth, and appropriateness of that DOE Vehicles Technologies Office (VTO) subprogram's activities. The subprogram overview questions are listed below, and it should be noted that no scoring metrics were applied. These questions were used for all VTO subprogram overviews. Question 1: Was the program area, including overall strategy, adequately covered? Question 2: Is there an appropriate balance between near- mid- and long-term research and development? Question 3: Were important issues and challenges identified? Question 4: Are plans identified for addressing issues and challenges? Question 5: Was progress clearly benchmarked against the previous year? Question 6: Are the projects in this technology area addressing the broad problems and barriers that the Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) is trying to solve? Question 7: Does the program area appear to be focused, well-managed, and effective in addressing VTO's needs? Question 8: What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the projects in this program area? Do any of the projects stand out on either end of the spectrum? Question 9: Do these projects represent novel and/or innovative ways to approach these barriers as appropriate? Question 10: Has the program area engaged appropriate partners? Question 11: Is the program area collaborating with them effectively? Question 12: Are there any gaps in the portfolio for this technology area? Question 13: Are there topics that are not being adequately addressed? Question 14: Are there other areas that this program area should consider funding to meet overall programmatic goals? Question 15: Can you recommend new ways to approach the barriers addressed by this program area? Question 16: Are there any other suggestions to improve the effectiveness of this program area? Responses to the subprogram overview questions are summarized in the following pages. Individual reviewer comments for each question are identified under the heading Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc. Note that reviewer comments may be ordered differently; for example, for each specific subprogram overview presentation, the reviewer identified as Reviewer 1 in the first question may not be Reviewer 1 in the second question, etc.

4-2

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

Subprogram Overview Comments: Gurpreet Singh (U.S. Department of Energy) ? ace000

Question 1: Was the program area, including overall strategy, adequately covered?

The reviewer observed a well-presented overview on overall strategy and goals.

The reviewer answered yes, and commented that it was a lot to cover in such a brief presentation but that it was well summarized.

The reviewer commented yes, although technical success or progress should not be misinterpreted as retail success or social acceptance of the technology.

Question 2: Is there an appropriate balance between near- mid- and long-term research and development?

The reviewer responded yes, and clarified that some of the projects are quite high risk/high potential and some closer to real world production implementation.

The reviewer remarked generally well balanced, although long term could use some more definition.

The reviewer opined that, looking at near-/mid-term research and development (R&D), current internal combustion engine (ICE) technology, including relatively untapped lean burn and ethanol/lean burn, have been fully exhausted in investigation, and new technology, such as homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI)/reactivity controlled compression ignition (RCCI) or any other technology that drives a paradigm change in customer behavior, is at best 15 years out or more.

Question 3: Were important issues and challenges identified?

The reviewer responded yes.

The reviewer responded yes, the workshops with stakeholders are effective to identify the real issues and find ways to address the hard points.

The reviewer said in a technical sense, yes, and in an implementation sense, no.

Question 4: Are plans identified for addressing issues and challenges?

The reviewer said yes, and commented nice job of working with stakeholders. The reviewer noted that some programs remain high risk, but these risks are properly stated, and successful completion of the tasks will reduce the risks.

The reviewer commented not the implementation challenges.

4-3

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office Question 5: Was progress clearly benchmarked against the previous year?

The reviewer commented yes.

The reviewer responded moderately; good presentation of this year's status, not completely compared to last year's status.

Question 6: Are the projects in this technology area addressing the broad problems and barriers that the Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) is trying to solve?

The reviewer commented yes, and observed a good match.

As the reviewer indicated previously, technical barriers will be more easily overcome than social acceptance, retail and infrastructure challenges.

Question 7: Does the program area appear to be focused, well-managed, and effective in addressing VTO's needs?

The reviewer commented yes, nicely aligned and clearly focused with stakeholder agreement.

The reviewer said yes.

Question 8: What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the projects in this program area? Do any of the projects stand out on either end of the spectrum?

According to the reviewer, strengths include the coordination with academia and industry so that the funding directly addresses the real challenges in an effective way. The reviewer observed no major weakness, although more funding would always help.

This reviewer commented on weaknesses. The reviewer believed additional focus on IC as we know it is still in the 0-15 year future for engines, perhaps longer, and advanced combustion is after that.

Question 9: Do these projects represent novel and/or innovative ways to approach these barriers as appropriate?

The reviewer stated yes, observing many solid technologies under development that might not have received much attention without DOE encouragement.

The reviewer commented yes.

Question 10: Has the program area engaged appropriate partners?

The reviewer commented yes, very good collaboration.

4-4

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

The reviewer noted that oil producers, retailers and other similar parties are part of the equation. According to the reviewer, it may not be appropriate to this discussion, but if the technical solution develops into an implementation nightmare, outside input from those affected parties will be valuable.

Question 11: Is the program area collaborating with them effectively?

The reviewer commented yes, a real strength.

The reviewer commented not yet.

Question 12: Are there any gaps in the portfolio for this technology area?

The reviewer did not see major gaps.

The reviewer identified infrastructure and implementation as gaps.

Question 13: Are there topics that are not being adequately addressed?

The reviewer commented that off-road vehicles are not directly addressed. Test procedures and emission limits are evolving; there may be unique engine requirements.

The reviewer remarked infrastructure and implementation.

Question 14: Are there other areas that this program area should consider funding to meet overall programmatic goals?

The reviewer observed a good portfolio now.

The reviewer identified infrastructure, implementation, and lean burn/ethanol combustion as other areas to consider.

Question 15: Can you recommend new ways to approach the barriers addressed by this program area?

The reviewer encouraged the program to keep doing more of the same.

The reviewer suggested the program meet with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and oil producers on the business/program side to discuss potential technical solutions. If implementation is too painful or costly to customer, it will not happen.

Question 16: Are there any other suggestions to improve the effectiveness of this program area?

The reviewer commented none at this time.

4-5

The reviewer said no.

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

4-6

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

Project Feedback

In this merit review activity, each reviewer was asked to respond to a series of questions, involving multiple-choice responses, expository responses where text comments were requested, and numeric score responses (on a scale of 1.0 to 4.0). In the pages that follow, the reviewer responses to each question for each project will be summarized: the multiple choice and numeric score questions will be presented in graph form for each project, and the expository text responses will be summarized in paragraph form for each question. A table presenting the average numeric score for each question for each project is presented below.

Presentation Title

Heavy-Duty Low-Temperature and Diesel Combustion & Heavy-Duty Combustion Modeling

Light-Duty Diesel Combustion

HCCI and Stratified-Charge CI Engine Combustion Research Spray Combustion Cross-Cut Engine Research Automotive Low Temperature Gasoline Combustion Engine Research Large Eddy Simulation (LES) Applied to Advanced Engine Combustion Research Fuel Injection and Spray Research Using X-Ray Diagnostics Use of Low Cetane Fuel to Enable Low Temperature Combustion Model Development and Analysis of Clean & Efficient Engine Combustion

Chemical Kinetic Models for Advanced Engine Combustion

2014 KIVA Development

Stretch Efficiency for Combustion Engines: Exploiting New Combustion Regimes High Efficiency Clean Combustion in Multi-Cylinder Light-Duty Engines Accelerating Predictive Simulation of IC Engines with High Performance Computing CLEERS Coordination & Joint Development of Benchmark Kinetics for LNT & SCR

CLEERS Aftertreatment Modeling and Analysis

Particulate Emissions Control by Advanced Filtration Systems for GDI Engines Enhanced High and Low Temperature Performance of NOx Reduction Materials

Principal Investigator and Organization

Mark Musculus (Sandia National Laboratories)

Paul Miles (Sandia National Laboratories) John Dec (Sandia National Laboratories) Lyle Pickett (Sandia National Laboratories)

Isaac Ekoto (Sandia National Laboratories)

Joe Oefelein (Sandia National Laboratories)

Christopher Powell (Argonne National Laboratory)

Steve Ciatti (Argonne National Laboratory)

Russell Whitesides (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) Bill Pitz (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) David Carrington (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Stuart Daw (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Scott Curran (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) Kevin Edwards (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Stuart Daw (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

George Muntean (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Kyeong Lee (Argonne National Laboratory)

Chuck Peden (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Page Number

4-10 4-16 4-20 4-25 4-29 4-34 4-38 4-40 4-44 4-47 4-52 4-57 4-60 4-64 4-67 4-72 4-76 4-81

Approach

3.44 3.50 3.44 3.57 3.11 3.50 3.63 2.58 3.33 3.72 2.89 3.50 3.56 3.30 3.67 3.50 3.00 3.88

Technical Accomplishments

Collaborations

3.38

3.19

3.30

3.10

3.44

3.44

3.50

3.86

3.22

3.22

3.29

3.07

3.50

3.38

2.58

2.92

3.25

3.25

3.72

3.61

3.00

3.00

3.25

3.00

3.44

3.61

3.30

3.30

3.50

4.00

3.30

3.40

3.00

2.80

3.75

3.63

Future Research

3.19 3.10 3.31 3.21 3.11 3.43 3.38 2.75 3.17 3.44 3.00 3.33 3.39 3.30 3.17 3.10 2.80 3.50

Weighted Average

3.34 3.30 3.42 3.53 3.18 3.33 3.50 2.65 3.26 3.67 2.97 3.29 3.49 3.30 3.56 3.34 2.95 3.73

4-7

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

Presentation Title

Thermally Stable Ultra-Low Temperature Oxidation Catalysts Cummins/ORNL-FEERC CRADA: NOx Control & Measurement Technology for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Emissions Control for Lean Gasoline Engines

Neutron Imaging of Advanced Engine Technologies

Collaborative Combustion Research with BES

Fuel-Neutral Studies of Particulate Matter Transport Emissions Cummins SuperTruck Program Technology and System Level Demonstration of Highly Efficient and Clean, Diesel Powered Class 8 Trucks SuperTruck Program: Engine Project Review Volvo SuperTruck - Powertrain Technologies for Efficiency Improvement ATP-LD; Cummins Next Generation Tier 2 Bin 2 Diesel Engine A MultiAir / MultiFuel Approach to Enhancing Engine System Efficiency Advanced Gasoline Turbocharged Direct Injection (GTDI) Engine Development Advanced Combustion Concepts - Enabling Systems and Solutions (ACCESS) for High Efficiency Light Duty Vehicles Advancement in Fuel Spray and Combustion Modeling for Compression Ignition Engine Applications

Improved Solvers for Advanced Engine Combustion Simulation

Cummins-ORNL\FEERC Combustion CRADA: Characterization & Reduction of Combustion Variations

Investigation of Mixed Oxide Catalysts for NO Oxidation

Robust Nitrogen Oxide/Ammonia Sensors for Vehicle On-board Emissions Control Thermoelectric Waste Heat Recovery Program for Passenger Vehicles

Principal Investigator and Organization

Chuck Peden (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Bill Partridge (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Jim Parks (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) Todd Toops (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) Scott Goldsborough (Argonne National Laboratory) Mark Stewart (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

David Koeberlein (Cummins)

Sandeep Singh (Detroit Diesel)

Pascal Amar (Volvo Trucks)

Michael Ruth (Cummins)

Ron Reese (Chrysler LLC)

Corey Weaver (Ford Motor Company)

Hakan Yilmaz (Robert Bosch)

Sibendu Som (Argonne National Laboratory)

Matthew McNenly (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Bill Partridge (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Ayman Karim (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Rangachary Mukundan (Los Alamos National Laboratory)

Todd Barnhart (Gentherm)

Page Number

4-84 4-88 4-93 4-97 4-100 4-102

4-106 4-109 4-112 4-115 4-120 4-124

4-128

4-131 4-135 4-138 4-142 4-146 4-150

Approach 3.75 3.50 3.80 3.50 3.38 3.50

3.90 3.80 3.70 3.56 3.30 3.40

3.50

3.50 3.42 3.40 3.50 3.17 3.25

Technical Accomplishments

3.50

Collaborations 3.42

3.07

3.50

3.50

3.70

3.00

3.20

3.13

3.25

3.50

3.70

4.00

3.50

3.90

3.60

3.80

3.70

3.56

3.31

2.90

3.20

3.30

3.10

3.50

3.75

3.43

3.57

3.50

3.50

3.50

3.20

3.50

3.42

3.08

3.33

3.42

3.33

Future Research

3.50 3.21 3.60 3.30 3.13 3.30

3.80 3.60 3.70 3.44 3.30 3.60

3.25

3.29 3.50 3.30 3.00 3.17 3.17

Weighted Average

3.55 3.25 3.61 3.19 3.20 3.50

3.89 3.80 3.75 3.52 3.09 3.34

3.50

3.45 3.48 3.41 3.43 3.15 3.33

4-8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download