Search Results

To meet increasingly stringent diesel exhaust emissions requirements, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have introduced common rail fuel injection systems that develop pressures of up to 2000 bar (30,000 psi). In addition, fuel delivery schemes have become more complicated, often involving multiple injections per cycle. Containing higher pressures and allowing for precise metering of fuel requires very tight tolerances within the injector. These changes have made injectors more sensitive to fuel particulate contamination. Recently, problems caused by internal diesel injector deposits have been widely reported. In this paper, the results of an investigation into the chemical nature and probable sources of these deposits are discussed. Using an array of techniques, internal deposits were analyzed from on a number of sticking injectors from the field and from OEM test stands in North America.

Control and elimination of mobil-source particulate matter (PM) emissions is of increasing interest to engineers and scientists as regulators in industrialized countries promulgate lower emission levels in diesel engines. Relative to their gasoline engine counterparts, today's diesel engines, in general, still emit a higher mass of PM. While strictly speaking, this PM is an agglomeration of organic and inorganic particles, the predominant component is carbon and is commonly referred to as “soot”. For mobil-source PM control, one of the current preferred technologies is the ceramic closed-cell monolith Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). Ideally, DPFs accumulate and store PM during low speed/temperature engine operation and burn the accumulated PM during high speed/temperature operation.

The effects of the cetane improvers* 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (EHN) and di-tertiary-butyl peroxide (DTBP) on regulated exhaust emissions from a 1993 Detroit Diesel Series 60 heavy-duty diesel engine were studied. EHN and DTBP were added to two commercially available fuels at concentrations ranging from 500 to 12,000 ppm by volume. Both additives reduced CO, NOx, and particulate emissions as measured in the hot start portion of the FTP heavy-duty transient emissions cycle. A comparison of the emissions response of the two additives shows that the nitrogen in EHN does not contribute to NOx emissions at typical treat rates.