Institute for Energy and Transport B. Giechaskiel, G. Martini 35th PMP MEETING Institute for Energy and Transport Joint Research Centre B. Giechaskiel, G. Martini 4 March 2015

PMP meetings 2014-04-03: PMP 30th 2014-05-12: PMP 31st telco 2014-07-14: PMP 32nd telco 2014-09-30: PMP 33rd 2015-01-08: PMP 34th (Geneva summary) 2015-03-04: PMP 35th

NRMM Presentation of potential issues related to the measurement of PN (30th) Guidance for PN testing (31st)

Raw exhaust (tailpipe) sampling Is there a need to develop an additional option for PN measurement in the case of HD engines?

WLTP comments Figure improvement Definitions Example of PN system (many repetitions) Actions Figure Les Hill Definition at the beginning Remove example details –keep beginning –Jon And Web page change to UN and title of document

Calibration of PN systems Review of open issues (30th) Presentation of key areas (33rd) Questionnaire sent for optimizing procedures and minimizing areas of future investigation Participants presentations Summary of first replies

Calibration topics overview Is there a need? Based on PMP 33th presentation optimized calibration procedures can improve the differences between PN systems 7-12% PNC open issues VPR open issues Decision based on MINIMUM extra work Lower size of 10nm should be kept in mind

Participants presentations

PNC Reference PNC: Full flow, d23nm>90% (or ISO) Slope: 0.9 to 1.1, residuals ±4% (from 10%) k factor: should be included (and reported) – not possible Material: free, soot, emery oil ISO 27891: Should be adopted, same way all Steepness criteria: add d15? Drift: Monitored

VPR Calibration PNC: calibrated, Require CE23nm>90% One or two PNC method: Concerns with two PNCs method due to non linearity Stability: Decrease from 10% to 3% (5%?) Neutralizers: One Material: Stable Penetration and DF: - Polydisperse validation: GMD 50nm, GSD 1.8 C40: Require air for generation, d50%=10nm, higher initial concentration

Calibration actions

Sub23nm measurements Is there a need? Literature review: Emission levels of sub23nm (30th) There are particles <23nm Experimental investigation at JRC (30th – 32nd +) Sometimes they are an artifact “Real particles” are on average 30-40% on average over a test cycle Monitoring of newer technologies goes on (at JRC)

Sub 23nm update (>10nm) 3 moped 6 motorcycles 3 DPF diesel 7 GDIs (5 Euro 6) 8 PFIs (4 Euro 6) Typically >10 tests per vehicle

Sub23nm: Monitoring Tendency of higher ratio at lower concentrations DPF (no) Coagulation No extremes -2-wheelers

Sub23nm measurements Can we measure <23nm? Theoretical investigation: Feasibility of existing PN systems to measure <23nm (30th). Experimental investigation at JRC Artifacts were confirmed Existing systems with small modification can measure below 23nm (from 10 nm) Below 10 nm the measurements will have high uncertainty From 10 nm some areas need investigation like: -PCRF definition -Catalytic stripper -Specification of >10nm systems -New need of calibration procedures

Catalytic stripper: Losses Catalytic instruments (no sulfur trap) + CPCs AVL (VPR with CS with sulfur trap) + EEPS

Catalytic Stripper: PCRF PCRF (30, 50, 100) of total setup: approx. 1.4

VPR vs CS Similar (normalized) penetration curves (incl. CPC)

Catalytic stripper: Measurements 3 moped 3 motorcycles 2 DPF diesel 5 GDIs (4 Euro 6) 2 PFIs (0 Euro 6) Typically >5 tests per vehicle CS_23nm vs PMP_23nm: ±15% (PMP PCRF>1000) CS_10nm vs PMP_10nm: -30%...0%

Sub 23nm: Error estimation Assumptions >23nm measurement correct Difference >10nm and >23nm are the 10-23nm Penetration of 15nm can give the mean losses in the 10-23nm region Thus the PCRF of 15nm is the extra correction need for the sub23nm measurement Thus the percentages presented have to be corrected with values of approximately 1.7

Regeneration Presentation of potential issues related to the measurement of PN during regeneration (30th) Summary of potential areas of investigation (30th) Euro 6 vehicles, robustness of PMP, emission levels Proposal of experimental plan at JRC (31st) WLTP input if regeneration at the end of the test Preliminary tests at JRC confirm robustness of PMP Robustness of PMP 10 nm (35th)

Regeneration PMP 23 nm and PMP 10 nm robustness

Summary / Next steps Feasibility (with min cost) of sub23nm measurement Sub23nm monitoring Specification of >10nm systems Catalytic stripper technical requirements PCRF definition New need of calibration procedures Effect on PN-PEMS / RDE Timeplan End of 2015 finalization of specification 2016 Inter-lab calibration exercise 2017 Ready protocol >10nm systems Input needed