Search Results

Simulation and testing are often done by different engineers in different departments of a company. This can lead to disconnects and unrealistic predictions, especially if the person doing simulations does not have an experimental background. On the other hand, experimental results can also include errors that result in misleading answers. It is important for the engineer doing either testing or simulation to have a good understanding for what results are plausible and what results might be suspect. This paper will provide examples where error crept into testing or simulation that could have been caught and corrected early if a good feel for “reasonable” results had been in place. The importance of understanding how a software package is analyzing the data will be explained, since settings buried deep within a menu structure can drive misleading results.

This paper presents the results of engine and vehicle simulation modeling for a wide variety of individual technologies and technology packages applied to two medium-duty vocational vehicles. Simulation modeling was first conducted on one diesel and two gasoline medium-duty engines. Engine technologies were then applied to the baseline engines. The resulting fuel consumption maps were run over a range of vehicle duty cycles and payloads in the vehicle simulation model. Results were reported for both individual engine technologies and combinations or packages of technologies. Two vehicles, a Kenworth T270 box delivery truck and a Ford F-650 tow truck were evaluated. Once the baseline vehicle models were developed, vehicle technologies were added. As with the medium-duty engines, vehicle simulation results were reported for both individual technologies and for combinations. Vehicle technologies were evaluated only with the baseline 2019 diesel medium-duty engine.