Introduction

Requirements of the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union, declare that all manufactured and imported into The Russian Federation vehicles shall comply with the harmful substances emissions standard Euro 5, came into force on January 1^st, 2015 (TR TC 018/2011). Till December 31^st, 2015 the vehicles that were certified and had the vehicle type approval before the end of 2013, may comply with the Euro 4 standard.

In the European Union members beginning from 2014 came into force the Euro 6 emission standard for light vehicles and light commercial vehicles. For particular categories of light commercial vehicles the Euro 6 standard regulations are coming into force on September 2015 (Regulation # 49).

Alternative fuels, natural gas and biofuels in particular attract more and more interest. Using of these fuels helps to solve a number of issues, such as improvement of energy independence of countries, lowering operating expenses and lowering of harmful substances and greenhouse gases emissions. As well as engines operating on traditional fossil fuels, engines on alternative fuels shall comply with ecological requirements (Ter-Mkrtichian and Mazing, 2014).

Compliance with the current requirements of the UNECE Regulations requires improvement of the engine design as well as allocation of exhaust-gas after treatment devices, which in its turn requires additional expenses, that depend on the fuel type.

The article covers technical and economic assessment of expenses (manufacturing cost), involved in adding, changing and replacement of equipment, and bore by a vehicle manufacturer in order to meet the requirements of the UNECE Regulations. A light commercial vehicle with engine swept volume 2.0 liter, with an aftertreatment system serves as an example. A basic (for comparison) vehicle is illustrated by the vehicle of the Euro 1 emission class (Posada et al., 2013,). The articles covers diesel, gasoline and natural gas engines (Posada et al., 2012; Posada et al., 2013).

Technologies of emission reduction may nominally be divided into technologies, aimed at prevention of pollutants formation and technologies of exhaust-gases after treatment. Technologies aimed at prevention of pollutants formation include fuel systems, turbocharging systems, systems of exhaust gases recirculation, systems for using of alternative fuels (Bahmutov and Karpukhin, 2012, Ter-Mkrtichian and Mazing, 2015).

Methods of the expenses analysis

Assessments were made without regard to expenses involved in modernization of production. It means that the calculation includes raw materials and components expenses, purchased products and semi-finished products expenses, and labour expenses involved in equipment of a vehicle

DOC = ∑DOC_i + WP,                                               (1)

where DOC – the vehicle manufacture cost;

DOC_i – cost of the i component;

WP – payment for labour.

In case of the data availability on DOCi and WP values, provided by the manufacturer, cost information shall be calculated as a simple sum of these values.

In case the DOCi data are unavailable, the below described method may be used (Posada et al., 2012; Posada et al., 2013).

In this case, the retail prices of the components (RP_i) serve as the background data. In case retail prices data are not available for the period of assessment, the latest available retail prices shall be adjusted for the consumer price index (CPI).

In order to reduce retail prices to the prime cost the k₁ coefficient shall be used. The k₁ coefficient shall be taken equal to “retail price equivalent” (RPE) (Johnson, 2011). In this case DOCi shall be calculated as the component price-RPE ratio.

DOC_i = RP_i/RPE,                                                       (2)

where RP_i – retail price i-component

Retail price equivalent is a term introduced by the USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the growth of retail prices of motor vehicles in relation to the emission regulations tightening (Rogozhin et al., 2009).

The retail price equivalent value shows the ratio of a vehicle price, which includes manufacturer’s price, VAT, trade mark-up to the vehicle production cost.

RPE = RР / TDC,                                                      (3)

где RР – vehicle retail price;

TDC – vehicle production cost.

According to the EPA research in 2009, RPE value for the world leading auto manufacturers amounts to 1,42-1,49 (Rogozhin et al., 2009) (table 1).

Table 1: RPE value for various auto manufacturers

EPA research in 2009 also mentions RPE value for components. According to the performed assessments (Posada, 2013 et al.; EPA, 2004) the RPE value amounts from 1.5 for purchased components to 2.0 for components, produced by auto manufacturers themselves. As to the auto components, sold through retail networks, the RPE value amounts to 2.5 with regard to the trade mark-up of the retail network (EPA, 2004; Wang et al. 1993; Kolke, 2004).

Use of injection systems, turbocharging systems and a heat exchanger of charging air cooling allows not only to reduce emissions, but to increase engine power and its fuel efficiency. With regard to this, when calculating expenses for these systems the decreasing k₂ coefficient shall be used. According to the foreign studies (FEV, 2012), the k₂  coefficient value for diesel engines amounts to 0.5.

In the long-term perspective, that expenses involved in the production growth and improvement of staff competence are going to decrease. In order to control these effects, the decreasing k₃ coefficient shall be applied, according to the research (EPA, 2010) k₃ amounts to 0.8-1.0 depending on the applied technology.

Thus, the exceedence of cost development shall be calculated according to the formula:

DOC = ΣDOC_i × k₁× k₂ × k₃                                                       (4)

Analysis Results

This part covers cost of emissions reduction technologies in more detail. The results of the cost calculation of various engine improvement technologies are given in the table 2.

Common-rail injection systems are most commonly used for achieving the Euro 3 and higher regulations for diesel engines of light commercial vehicles. Costs of Common-rail injection systems, used for achieving Euro 3 amount to $600 (Johnson, 2011). Meeting higher requirements for harmful emissions limits implies increase of fuel injection pressure up to 2000…2500 bar (FEV, 2012). K₂ coefficient for the accumulative injection results amounts to 0.5.

Turbocharging systems (turbo-compressors) prevailed on the European market until the introduction of the Euro 5 regulations. After the introduction of the Euro 5 regulations, turbocharging systems with variable geometry of a turbine started developing. As well as in the previous case, the k₂ coefficient amounts at 0.5.

The charging air intercooler cost was calculated by division of the retail price by RPE according to the formula 1.

Application of the exhaust-gases recirculation systems in combination with the recirculation exhaust-gases cooling allows to meet the Euro 4-6 standards.

Expenses for engine control system calibration are included into the scope of R&D (Posada et al., 2013).

Table 2: Cost of technologies included into improvement of the engine design

Exhaust-gases after treatment systems are applied to reduce amount of already formed pollutants. These systems include an oxidation catalyst (P. R. Phillips, 1999; Heck et al., 2009), a particulate trap (Blanchard et al., 2002; Kai et al., 2009), an NOx adsorber (Xu et al., 2010; Hoard and Hammerle R., 2004), and a selective catalytic reduction system (Kubsh, 2007, Lambert et al., 2004).

Expenses for the exhaust-gases purification systems consist of expenses for a catalyst, a washcoat, a catalyst carrier support, catalyst canning and labour expenses with overhead cost. Expenses for the selective catalytic reduction system also include expenses for an AdBlue reservoir. As long as the catalist (or a NOx adsorber) volume depends on an engine swept volume, expenses for exhaust-gases after treatment system are also a function of an engine. The table 3 shows functions of exhaust-gases after treatment systems and an engine swept volume (V_d) in liters, obtained by the foreign researchers (Posada et al., 2013).

Table 3: Dependencies of exhaust-gases after treatment systems cost from engine swept volume (V_d, l)

Expenses for R&D equipment and certification, involved in improvement of the engine design were obtained from (EPA, 2000). With regard to the production volume, these expenses amount from $12 to $51 (Posada et al., 2013) (Table 4).

Table 4 shows expenses for technologies, necessary for vehicles with diesel engines to meet the Euro 4 and higher requirements.

Table 4: Cost of various technologies of emissions reduction for the diesel engines with 2.0 liter swept volume for the light commercial vehicles in the USA and Europe

Table 5 shows the expenses for technologies, necessary for vehicles with gas engines compliance with the Euro 4 and higher regulations. It is assumed that natural gas is used in a spark ignition engine. For that purpose the engine has additional port injection gas system with electronic control. Engines that meet the Euro 4 and 5 regulations are equipped with a three-way after treatment system and operate on stoichiometric mixtures. For the Euro 6 regulations on the part-load modes an engine operates on lean mixtures, which considerably increases engine efficiency, whereas for the NO_x reduction the selective catalytic system is used in this case.

Table 5: Cost of various emissions reduction technologies for light commercial vehicles with gas engines with swept volume 2.0 liter

Comparison of expenses for emissions reduction systems for gasoline, gas and diesel engines

Table 6 shows comparative analysis of emissions reduction system of gasoline, gas and diesel engines. Expenses for emissions reduction systems of diesel engines exceed that of gasoline engines for the Euro 3 standard by 3-4 times. Expenses for gas engines have middle position between that of gasoline and diesel engines. It should be noted that NO_x regulations for gasoline (and gas) engines 3 times tighter than that of diesel engines.

Table 6: Total cost and cost differences (in comparison with Euro 1) for fulfilling the emission regulations Euro 4-6 for engines with swept volume 2.0 liter

Summary

Diesel engines require more complex modifications and more complicated exhaust-gases after treatment systems, than gasoline and gas engines for reaching emissions standards.

Expenses for emissions reduction for diesel engines has grew rapidly since the need for common-rail injection system and exhaust-gases after treatment technology application appeared. Expenses for compliance of vehicles with the emission regulations for an engine with swept volume 2.0. liter amount from $140 for Euro 2 to $1600 for Euro 6, that is more than 10 times.

Expenses for gas engines emissions reduction technologies amount to $461 for the Euro 3 regulations and $929 for the Euro 6. In the last case, it is planned to use lean mixture and selective catalytic reduction system for NOx in order to create more energy-efficient engine. It is assumed that fuel expenses decreasing in operating conditions will exceed expenses for after treatment system, though this requires additional studies within the framework of future research.

Acknowledgments

The paper was prepared under the agreement # 14.624.21.0005 with the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (unique project identifier RFMEFI62414X0005) to create an experimental model of the system of neutralization of toxic components.

References

1. TR TC 018/2011. Technical Regulations of the Customs Union. On the safety of wheeled vehicles. eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/texnreg/deptexreg/tr/Documents/ТР%20ТС 20018-2011.pdf.
2. Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be fitted and/or be used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these Prescriptions Addendum 48: Regulation # 49.
3. Posada, F., Bandivadekar, A., and German, J. (2012). Estimated Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles, The International Council on Clean Transportation. (136). theicct.org.
4. Posada, F., Bandivadekar, A., and German, J. (2013). Estimated Costs of Emission Control Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles Part 1-Gasolin. SAE Technical Paper, 2013-01-0534. doi:10.4271/2013-01-0534.
5. Posada, F., Bandivadekar, A., and German, J. (2013). Estimated Costs of Emission Control Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles Part 2-Diesel. SAE Technical Paper. 2013-01-0539. doi:10.4271/2013-01-0539.
6. Johnson, T. (2011). Personal communication on LDV Emission Control Technologies and Cost Study. Washington DC.
7. Rogozhin A., Gallaher M., and McManus W. (2009). Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers.S. Environmental Protection Agency. RTI Project Number 0211577.002.004.
8. S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA). (2004). Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Non Road Diesel Engines. Washington, U.S. Environment Protection Agency – Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
9. Wang, Q., Kling, C., and Sperling, D. (1993). Light-duty vehicle exhaust emission control costs using a part-pricing approach. Air & Waste, 43(11), (1461-1471).
10. Kolke R. (2004). Vergleich der Umweltverträglichkeit Neur Technologien im Strassenverkehr, in Fakultät für Maschinenbau. Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg: Magdeburg.
11. (2012). Light-Duty Vehicle Technology Cost Analysis – European Vehicle Market, Additional Case Studies (Phase 2). International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
12. R. Phillips, G. R. (1999). Development of Advanced Diesel Oxidation Catalysts. SAE Technical Papers (1999-01-3075).
13. Heck, R.M., Farrauto R.J., and Gulati S.T. (2009). Catalyst air pollution control: commercial technology. (3^rd ed). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley. (522).
14. Blanchard, G., Colignon, C., Griard., C., Rigaudeau, C., et al. (2002). Passanger Car Series Application of a New Diesel particulate Filter System Using a New Ceria-Based Fuel-Borne Catalyst: From the Engine Test Bench to European Vehicle Certification. SAT Technical Paper, 2002-01-2781, doi:10/4271/2002-01-2781.
15. Kai, R., Sekia, T., Ogawa, M., Saiki, K. et al. (2009). Thermal-Mechanical Durability of DOC and DPF After-treatment System for Light Heavy Pickup Truck Application. SAE Technical Paper, 2009-01-2707, doi:10.4271/2009-01-2707.
16. S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA). (2004). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines. Washington, U.S. Environment Protection Agency – Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
17. Xu, L., McCabe, R., Death, M., and Ruona, W. (2010). Laboratory and Vehicle Demonstration of “2-nd Generation” LNT + in-situ SCR Diesel NO_x Emission Control Systems. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 3(1): (37-49), doi: 10.4271/2010-01-0305.
18. Hoard, J.W., and Hammerle R. (2004). Economic Comparison of LNT Versus Urea SCR for Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in U.S. Market, in Diesel Engine and Emission. Research Conference (DEER). Coronado, CA.
19. Kubsh, J., (2009). Diesel Engine Control Technology. Retrieved from http://files.harc.edu/Sites/TERC/About/Events/ETAX200705/EmissionControlTechnology.pdf 2007.
20. Lambert, C., Hammerle, R., McGill, R., Khair, M. et al. (2004). Technical Advantages of Urea SCR for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Application. SAE Technical Paper, 2004-01-1292, doi:10.4271/2004-01-1292.
21. Ter-Mkrtichian, G.G., Mazing, M.V. (2014). State of the art and prospectives of fuel systems of automotive diesels. Engine-building, 1 (30–35). http://www.science-education.ru/121-18222.
22. Ter-Mkrtichian, G.G., Mazing, M.V. (2015). New generation of diesel fuel systems and problems of its standardization. http://www.science-education.ru/121-18222.
23. Bahmutov S.V., Karpukhin K.E., (2012). “Pure” cars: the directions of realization and reached results. Zhurnal avtomobil’nyh inzhenerov, 6 (77), (51-54).