2009
DOI: 10.4271/2009-24-0147
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of deviations in NO and soot emissions between steady-state and EUDC transient operation of a common-rail diesel engine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because transient testing utilizes specialty equipment not needed for steady-state testing, it can be convenient to use and/or extrapolate steady-state results to compare with transient results. Unfortunately, the literature has shown that engine performance under steady-state conditions is not a reliable indicator of transient or in-use emissions [2,3,4,5]. Significant portions of the total emissions are generated during the short periods when rapid speed or load changes occur [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Because transient testing utilizes specialty equipment not needed for steady-state testing, it can be convenient to use and/or extrapolate steady-state results to compare with transient results. Unfortunately, the literature has shown that engine performance under steady-state conditions is not a reliable indicator of transient or in-use emissions [2,3,4,5]. Significant portions of the total emissions are generated during the short periods when rapid speed or load changes occur [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In contrast, light-duty US Federal certification testing can involve operating the vehicle under simulated realistic operating conditions, usually over transient test cycles such as the US EPA FTP75 [1]. While it is convenient to use and/or extrapolate steady-state results to compare with transient results, the literature has shown that engine performance under steady-state conditions is not always a reliable indicator of transient or in-use emissions [2,3,4,5]. Significant portions of the total emissions are generated during the short periods when rapid speed or load changes occur [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Present day emission models generally fall into two categories, at the extreme ends of the spectrum when it comes to complexity and computational speed: (i) lookup table based steady state models, and (ii) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with chemical kinetics based models. Quasi steady state models are computationally more efficient than CFD but fail to capture the transient effects [8]. Physics based quasi-D and multi-D CFD models for exhaust gas concentration take into account complex thermodynamical and chemical equations as well as side effects like swirl, tumble, quenching and local temperatures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%