Sustainable surface transport

218447 ｨC InGAS ｨC Annex I modified version for amendment Date of preparation: May the 16th, 2011

SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

THEME SST- 2007- RTD-1

鉄USTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT”
Grant agreement for: Collaborative Projects ｨC Large scale integrating projects
Annex I ｨC 泥escription of Work”
Project acronym: InGAS

Project full title: Integrated GAS powertrain - Low emission, CO2

optimised and efficient CNG engines for passenger cars

(PC) and light duty vehicles (LDV)

Grant agreement no.: 218447
Date of preparation of Annex I (latest version): September, 1st 2008

Date of approval of Annex I by Commission : September, 16th 2008

Name of the coordinating person: Massimo Ferrera - CENTRO RICERCHE FIAT SCpA (IT)
List of Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries

Date

[month] ofN.Short NameNameCountryenterexit1CRF (coord.)Centro Ricerche Fiat SCpAIT1422AVLAVL List GmbHAT1423FEVFEV Motorentechnik GmbHDE1424EON-RUHRE.ON Ruhrgas AGDE1425------1426DAIDaimler AGDE1427GMPT-S SAPT¹General Motors Powertrain Sweden AB

SAAB Automobile Powertrain ABSE1 13428GMPT-GGeneral Motors Powertrain Germany ｨC GmbHDE136 129GDF SUEZGDF SUEZFR14210IFPENInstitut Fran軋is du P騁roleFR14211CNR-IMConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheIT14212TU-GRAZGraz University of TechnologyAT14213ECOCATEcocat OyFI14214CONTIContinental Automotive GmbHDE14215SIEMENSSiemens AktiengesellschaftDE14216PTPolitecnico di TorinoIT14217CHALMERSChalmers Tekniska Hskola ABSE14218HTHaldor Tops A/SDA14219RWTHRheinisch Westf舁ische Technische Hochschule AachenDE14220MEMSMEMS AGCH14221CVUT-JBRCﾈVUT v PrazeCZ14222XPERIONALPHA Composites GmbHDE14223VENTREXVENTREX Automotive GmbHAT14224BAMBundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und -prfungDE14225WRUTWroclaw University of TechnologyPL14226DELPHIDelphi Automotive Systems Luxembourg S.A.LX14227ICVTUniversit舩 StuttgartDE14228POLIMIPolitecnico di MilanoIT14229ICSC-PASInstitute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry Polish Academy of SciencesPL14230KATCONKATCON Global SALX64231OPEL²Adam OPEL GmbHDE1342Table of Content

PART A ｨC Budget breakdown and project summary

- Budget breakdown forms

- Project summary

- List of beneficiaries

N.Short NameLegal NameCountry1CRF (coord.)Centro Ricerche Fiat SCpAIT2AVLAVL List GmbHAT3FEVFEV Motorentechnik GmbHDE4EON-RUHRE.ON Ruhrgas AGDE5------6DAIDaimler AGDE7SAPTSAAB Automobile powertrain ABSE8--9GDF SUEZGDF SUEZFR10IFPENInstitut Fran軋is du P騁roleFR11CNR-IMConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheIT12TU-GRAZGraz University of TechnologyAT13ECOCATEcocat OyFI14CONTIContinental Automotive GmbHDE15SIEMENSSiemens AktiengesellschaftDE16PTPolitecnico di TorinoIT17CHALMERSChalmers Tekniska Hskola ABSE18HTHaldor Tops A/SDA19RWTHRheinisch Westf舁ische Technische Hochschule AachenDE20MEMSMEMS AGCH21CVUT-JBRCﾈVUT v PrazeCZ22XPERIONALPHA Composites GmbHDE23VENTREXVENTREX Automotive GmbHAT24BAMBundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und -prfungDE25WRUTWroclaw University of TechnologyPL26DELPHIDelphi Automotive Systems Luxembourg S.A.LX27ICVTUniversit舩 StuttgartDE28POLIMIPolitecnico di MilanoIT29ICSC-PASInstitute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry Polish Academy of SciencesPL30KATCONKATCON Global SALX31OPELAdam OPEL GmbHDE
PART B ｨC Description of Work
1. Scientific & Technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Concept and objectives
1.1.1 Concept
Natural gas (NG) vehicles were introduced on the market more than 10 years ago. Nevertheless, today痴 market share of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles is relatively small but rapidly increasing. But, today痴 gas engines have the heavy drawback of being developed as multi-fuel engines out of conventional gasoline fuelled combustion engines. Optimized gas technology development suffers under the insufficient infrastructure of filling stations resulting in a clear reduced operation field of CNG mono-fuel vehicles which reduces the acceptance of the end customer. This aspect is additionally overlaid by the challenging storage requirements for gaseous fuels. So, all series vehicles use are based on gasoline engine not designed and optimized for CNG. The market introduction of dedicated (mono-fuel) CNG vehicles requires the development of technologies able to solve problems concerning gas storage, gas feeding, combustion system and aftertreatment and, at the same time, to take into account the quality of natural gas. These technologies do not follow a unique path but different vertical ways about the gas feeding / combustion systems are possible aiming to the given target once that horizontal actions concerning gas quality, gas on-board storage and aftertreatment are successfully performed. This approach can only be carried out by a large scale collaborative project where the vertical and horizontal actions are strictly integrated to fully exploit the following aspects concerning the use of natural gas in Spark Ignition (SI) engines.
A. SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY ｨC From the point of the security of energy supply, natural gas (NG) represents a real alternative to crude oil being available in large quantities also in countries different from the Middle East as shown in Table 1.1. As at end of 2005, the proved reserves of natural gas were 179.83 trillion cubic meters (corresponding to 169.5 x 109 tonnes of oil equivalent) against 163,6 x 109 tonnes of crude oils. If reserves/production ratio is considered, there are ample world reserves of natural gas for the next 65.1 years, higher than those of crude oil (40.6 years), sufficient to allow significant use of NG to power transportation vehicles.
Table 1.1 ｨC Distribution of natural gas and crude oil reserves at end 2005

[BP review of world energy, 2006]

North AmericaSouth & Central AmericaEurope & EurasiaMiddle

EastAfricaAsia PacificNatural gas4.1%3.9%35.6%40.1%8.0%8.3%Crude oil5%8.6%11.7%61.9%9.5%3.4%

B. CLEAN FUEL ｨC Natural gas is a clean fuel. Leaving out the entire elimination of evaporative emissions in Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles because of pressurized gas feeding lines even during refueling, in natural gas, toxic compounds, like sulfur, or potentially toxic, like benzene and higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, or highly reactive such as olefins are absent. Furthermore, the extremely compact molecule of methane, that is the primary constituent of natural gas (from 85% to 95% by volume depending on the different sources), means also a high oxidation stability that strongly opposes the radical degradation in the combustion environment. As a consequence 90-95% of unburned hydrocarbons exhausted by a NG engine is still represented by methane, while toxic organic compounds such as irritant higher aldehydes, 1-3 butadiene, benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are absolutely negligible or nonexistent at all (Fig. 1.1). Because of its strong resistance to radical degradation, the reactivity of methane to form atmospheric ozone is trivial; thus, its potential of ozone formation is very low.
C. REDUCED GREENHOUSE GASES ｨC EC activities on alternative fuels have two policy drivers: the security of energy supply (Energy Green Paper 11/2000) and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Transport White Paper 9/2001) as energy efficiency and alternative fuels are complementary approaches. The use of natural gas as a fuel for vehicles was considered in a number of documents such as the EC Communication on alternative fuels (11/2001) where biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen are identified as the three main candidates, the contact group on alternative fuels (Report 12/2003) attended by stakeholder experts on technology and economics. More recently the use of natural gas has been examined in a study committed by EC DG Enterprise in preparation of a new strategy aimed at reducing the CO2 emissions of light-duty vehicles to a level of 120 g/km in 2012³. The highest hydrogen content of methane molecule, with respect to any other hydrocarbon based fuel, allows to achieve a substantial reduction of the carbon dioxide (CO2) exhausted by NG vehicles of about 23% compared to gasoline (Fig. 1.1). Even if considering the higher greenhouse potential associated to methane (23 time more than CO2 when considered in a time horizon of 100 years), the Global Warming Index (GWI) still confirms the advantage of NG vehicles.
D. HIGH OCTANE NUMBER ｨC The compact molecule of methane, so resistant to the radical degradation, is also the reason of its very high octane number (130), both as research and motor methods meaning zero sensitivity. The highest octane number among all hydrocarbon fuels allows to natural gas to achieve a very high thermodynamic efficiency via the increase of the compression ratio.

Fig. 1.1.a: Environmental skills of natural gas considering LOCAL pollution: HC speciation coming from NEDC test cycle [ATA review, December 1999]

Fig. 1.1.b: Environmental skills of natural gas considering GLOBAL pollution: CO2 reduction due to H/C ratio [ATA review, December 1999]

1.1.2 S&T objectives

1. LATITUDE OF NG COMPOSITION ｨC While the gasoline and diesel fuel characteristics depend on the refining / synthesis process, the natural gas quality depends on the source of extraction⁴. The different types of natural gas are characterized today as high (H-gas) quality and low (L-gas) quality depending on the level of the heating value. Reflecting the heating value, in Europe the natural gas composition can be assumed between the high quality reference gas G20 (pure methane) and the low quality reference gas G25 (methane + 14% of inert as N2). Reflecting further gas properties like knocking behaviour or density, other limit gases are relevant. The gas composition has to be clearly defined because affecting the storage system, the combustion and the aftertreatment. The project will consider not only natural gases of different composition but also mixtures of natural gas with biogas and with hydrogen (H2). A multi-grade fuel tolerance and a high fuel flexibility have to be assured by adopting specific technologies of gas feeding and combustion control systems. The assessment of well-to-tank (WTT) energy consumption represents the first step to arrive at the end to well-to-wheel (WTW) evaluation passing through the tank-to-wheel (TTW) energy related to the given technology way.
2. VEHICLE RANGE ｨC Natural gas requires an advanced, purpose-designed storage system able to guarantee a range equivalent to that of a conventional vehicle, while maintaining a sufficient vehicle trunk capacity achieved by appropriate vehicle architecture.
Table 1.2 ｨC General targets of the natural gas vehicle
Today NG vehiclesInGasGas compositionG20 (100% CH4) G25 (14% inert as N2)Matrix of limit gases defined within the SP B0Fuel flexibilityHomologation with G20 and G25Full compatibility with commercial NG +

Biomethane +

NG / H2 blends (up to 20-30% by volume)Χ Tank mass / vehicle range+ 150 kg/350 km (steel)

+ 200 kg/500 km (steel)+ 160 kg/500 km (composite)Vehicle range250 (bifuel) 400 km (monofuel)500 km (monofuel)a)Vehicle capacity via a specific architecture adopting a not intrusive tank locationJust adaptation to the pre-existing gasoline vehicle Vehicle trunk capacity reduction not higher than 10%CH4 conversion efficiency at a given catalyst cost80% < on 100.000 km durability> 90% on 160.000 km with possible lower catalyst costFun-to-drive (expressed by torque output)12% less than the corresponding NA gasoline engine vehicle or equivalent in case of boosted enginesEquivalent to the corresponding 2006 diesel vehiclea) New design and additional improvement of the fuel conversion efficiency

3. COMBUSTION ｨC A highly efficient and low polluting combustion process, assisted by a dedicated aftertreatment system, affects three main sub-objectives:
3.1 FUEL CONVERSION EFFICIENCY ｨC The combustion system shall enjoy the high octane number of methane and the other natural gas characteristics by adopting specific technologies to be verified in engines characterized by different total displacement (low with 1.4 liters and medium with 1.8 liters) and different applications (passenger cars and light commercials) aimed to achieve a very high efficiency under different driving conditions. First point to be addressed by the development of the CNG combustion system is the very challenging target of a 10% higher fuel conversion efficiency than that of a 2006 diesel engine both as max fuel conversion efficiency and at part load operations (e.g.: BMEP = 4 bar and 3000 rpm).
3.2 FUEL NEUTRAL EMISSION TARGETS ｨC In the position of the European Parliament (EP) adopted at first reading on 13/12/2006⁵, the nature of NG light duty (LD) vehicles emissions has been taken into account by introducing for the first time two separate standards of total hydrocarbons (THC) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). Since long time an emission limit on Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG) is considered in USA. Table 1.3 shows the ultra-low emission target of the project, i.e. pollutant emission limits lower than Euro 6 and Tier II, leaving out PM that being absolutely negligible in the exhaust of vehicles running on natural gas can not be measured. To be fuel neutral, i.e. applicable to gasoline, diesel and all other fuels as it was the intention of the US regulation, these standards have to be complemented by the Global Warming Index (GWI = CO2 + 62 x CH4) determined in the most severe time horizon of 20 years. GWI is more appropriate than the CH4 cap, represented by the difference between total hydrocarbons (THC) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) of the EU regulation, to evaluate the greenhouse influence of a given fuel / powertrain: in this sense the GWI is a really fuel neutral parameter applicable to all fuels.
Table 1.3 ｨC Pollutant emissions limits [mg/km] of passenger cars according to Euro 6 standards for positive ignition engines and US Tier II referred to different durability assessment (80.000 and 190.000 km); the US emission limits are fuel neutral, i.e. applicable to gasoline, diesel and all other fuels. The CO2 emission target is expressed in terms of GWI (Global Warming Index) to account methane (CH4), that in a concentration of about 0.1% by mass of the carbon dioxide CO2, is present in the exhaust of an engine running on natural gas.
Euro 6a)USTier IIUSTier IIInGas targetDurability [km]160.000190.00080.000160.000 (compliance by analysis)THC [mg/km]100 100NMHC [mg/km]6845NMOGb) [mg/km]564745HCHO [mg/km]1198CO [mg/km]1000260021001000NOx [mg/km]60433130PM [mg/km]56---< 5Max fuel conversion efficiency10% higher respect to dieselFuel conversion efficiency at part load (e.g.: 4 bar BMEP@3000 rpm)10% higher respect to dieselGWIc) on NEDCreduction of 20% respect to ICE fuelled by conventional fuelsGWIc) with up to 10%d) biogas in the fuel on NEDCAs a proportion to the biogas concentration

a) For a light commercial vehicle (N1 Class II with a reference mass between 1305 and 1760 kg), the Euro 6 emission limits are as follows: THC/NMHC/NOx/PM = 130/90/75/5 mg/km instead of those shown in the Table which refer to positive ignition passenger cars.

b) The non-methane organic gases (NMOG) of the US regulation include the formaldehyde (HCHO); by subtracting HCHO from NMOG, a figure roughly equivalent to NMHC is obtained.

c) GWI = CO2 + 62 x CH4 in the most severe time horizon of 20 years and not considering N2O, that is negligible.

d) EU guideline: 5,75% by 2010 and further increase of biofuel content in fuels for transportation up to 2020.

4. CATALYST CONVERSION EFFICIENCY ｨC The catalyst up to now developed, specific for NG vehicles, can meet the emissions limits both when the vehicle is new (0 km) and under durability, but with a sensible cost increase with respect to the corresponding conventional catalyst used in gasoline vehicles. The main duty of an advanced catalyst technology for CNG vehicles would be the development of dedicated methane catalyst, i.e. catalysts which for formulation and limited use of precious metal with higher conversion efficiency (respect to gasoline vehicle catalyst ones) at similar or lower level of cost. The catalytic system has to account also other types of combustion process than the stoichiometric one until now developed.

1.1.3 How the S&T objectives relate to the topics addressed by the call

InGas proposalLevel 2 - Topics of SST.2007.1.1.3 的ntegrating natural gas powertrains”

Custom designed LD engine:

Tables 1.2 and 1.3 including vehicle performance as fun-to-drive (see the three technology ways of Sub-Projects A1, A2 and A3 with validators)

Specific aftertreatment:

Table 1.2 (see Sub-project B2)

Storage systems:

Table 1.2 (see Sub-Project B1)

Multigrade fuel tolerance and fuel flexibility: Table 1.2 (see all Sub-Projects and, in particular, Sub-Project B0)
Fuel conversion efficiency & ultra-low emissions:

Table 1.3 (see Sub-Projects A1, A2 and A3 with validators)

Demonstrate the full potential of natural gas when applied to a custom designed light duty engine (including, for instance, higher or variable compression rates) integrated with specific aftertreatment systems dealing more efficiently and at a lower cost than current technology with the reduction of methane emissions in addition to the other pollutants already treated by three way catalysts. Advanced storage systems and vehicle architectures, as well as multi-grade fuel tolerance and fuel flexibility are additional features to be researched.

The research will lead to increased efficiency by 10% compared with diesel engines of today (2006), particularly at part load, and ultra low emissions (better than EURO 6 and US tier 2).

1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art

In 1994 the project BR2-CT94-0919 溺ethane fuelled ultralow emitting cars (METHACAR)established the first basis for sequential multipoint gas injection and stoichiometric combustion approach for dedicated natural gas cars. In the running Integrated Project FP6-2003-Tr-3 / 516195 Green heavy-duty engine (GREEN) started in 2005 there is the Sub-project A1 滴D gas engine for urban areawhere an approach based on gas direct injection is considered. In the running integrated project TIP3-CT-2004-506201 started in 2004 哲ew integrated combustion system for future passenger car engines (NICE)with the Sub-project A3 擢uture gas Internal Combustion engines with Diesel equivalent fuel consumptionis examined the ultra-lean burning. Therefore three basic technology ways, characterized by a combustion process ranging from stoichiometric to very lean mixtures and supported by appropriate gas feeding systems, can be identified:
Sequential multipoint gas injection and stoichiometric combustion (Ü = 1);

Gas direct injection for both stoichiometric and stratified lean combustion;

Ultra-lean homogenous combustion operations with port gas injection or gas direct injection (Ü ハｻ 1, i.e. Üハaround/higher than 1.35).
The technology way 1 is until now the most extensive studied approach to natural gas engines able to meet at the same time a substantial CO2 reduction and stringent emission limits; it has been verified in all engine transient running conditions. Its challenge is to adopt an innovative technology based on variable valve management basis for a further great CO2 reduction of a spark ignited engine. The two other technology ways 2 (that includes lean stratified combustion) and 3 (dedicated to ultra lean homogenous combustion) represent at the moment just technology hypotheses being verified only under quasi steady-state or only steady-state engine operations respectively. Each way shows advantages and drawbacks not only in terms of the development of the given technology, but also in terms of costs and then time to market exploitation.
The aim of the proposed project InGas is to compare these three technology ways in terms of validators equipped with different gas feeding / combustion systems in view of fulfilling the very challenging target for the CNG engine of a 10% higher fuel conversion efficiency than that of the 2006 diesel engine.
Technology way 1 ｨC Starting from 1998, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have developed a first range of NGV (Natural Gas Vehicle) which are now available on the EU market. The fundamental step was the adoption of the sequential multipoint injection substituting the initial gas feeding based at the very beginning on carburetted and then single point gas injection systems, developed for the aftermarket target. The actual advanced OEM bi-fuel natural gas / gasoline vehicles are equipped with electronically controlled EMS (Engine Management System) to fulfil Euro 4 emission standards including the EOBD (European On Board Diagnostic) as requested by the type approval test. Another common feature of the today NG vehicles is the stoichiometric combustion process with the three-way catalyst closed loop controlled. Apart from the problem of the methane conversion requiring a heavy noble metal load meaning higher costs with respect to vehicles running on conventional fuels, the present stoichiometric technology is not able to meet future Euro 6 emission limits. The only way to improve the stoichiometric combustion is to use the variable valve motion management as in progress in the Sub-Project A1 滴D Gas Engine for urban areaof GREEN; the point is to adapt and to refine for full transient operations the approach of heavy-duty (HD) engines to light-duty (LD) vehicles: this requires a new development not only from the point of view of technology but also from the point of view of costs. Furthermore attention should be paid to the cooled EGR applied to LD gas engines.

Technology way 2 ｨC The direct injection (DI) technology, introduced for gasoline engines in the last years, shows a further potential also for mono-fuel CNG vehicles. Mono-fuel optimized DI CNG,lean mixture combustion, high boost turbo-charging, are being investigated at quasi stationary state operating conditions in the running NICE project. Fuel consumption reduction of more than 20% in part load has been achieved by stratified operation. Together with the beneficial C/H ratio of CNG compared to gasoline this leads to a 40% CO2 reduction in total. Also, in full load operation direct gas injection shows significant benefits. The principal lower volumetric efficiency usually requiring a higher boost pressure demand with manifold CNG injection systems can be fully eliminated by direct injection. Also gas quality differences (e.g. L-gas versus H-gas) have no significant disadvantage regarding full load potential using direct injection. The higher knock resistance compared to gasoline offers the possibility to use higher compression ratio up to 13 with thermodynamic optimal combustion phasing. This leads to a significant efficiency improvement and so to better performance at lower fuel consumption. However, there are technical challenges to be solved before a real mono-fuel CNG-DI application can be introduced. Especially with turbo charged engines the catalyst light-off and warm up phase are critical issues to fulfil for future emission standards. The Turbocharger (TC) is an additional heat sink in the exhaust system, so the constraints for the exhaust gas aftertreatment system are worse than with a Naturally Aspirated (NA) engine. Additionally, the high compression ratio of an optimized mono-fuel CNG engine leads to lower exhaust gas temperatures, while the state of the art three-way-catalysts (TWCs) show sufficient conversion rates only above 450 ｰC for methane which is the main component in the HC emissions of a natural gas engine. Especially the longer warm-up phase leads to problems fulfilling the emission limits.

Technology way 3 ｨC Results of the EU project NICE (New integrated combustion system for future passenger car engines TIP3-CT-2004-506201) point out, that using an advanced lean burn CNG-technology a full load performance similar to state-of-the-art DI Diesel technology can be achieved. The advanced lean burn CNG technology of NICE applied to a 2 liter engine shows:

a wide interval of engine speed operations from 1500 rpm up to 3000 rpm with a BMEP close to 20 bar even though the boosting pressure is limited out of using the available boosting equipment without any further improvement;