Search Results

Recently, a particle number (PN) limit was introduced in the European light-duty vehicles legislation. The legislation requires measurement of PN, and particulate mass (PM), from the full dilution tunnel with constant volume sampling (CVS). Furthermore, PN measurements will be introduced in the next stage of the European Heavy-Duty regulation. Heavy-duty engine certification can be done either from the CVS or from a partial flow dilution system (PFDS). For research and development purposes, though, measurements are often conducted from the raw exhaust, thereby avoiding the high installation costs of CVS and PFDS. Although for legislative measurements requirements exist regarding sampling and transport of the aerosol sample, such requirements do not necessarily apply for raw exhaust measurements. Thus, measurement differences are often observed depending on where in the experimental set up sampling occurs.

The measurement of the particle number (PN) concentration of non-volatile particles ≻23 nm was introduced in the light-duty vehicles regulation; the heavy-duty regulation followed. Based on the findings of the Particle Measurement Program (PMP), heavy-duty inter-laboratory exercise, the PN concentration measurement can be conducted either from the full dilution tunnel with constant volume sampling (CVS) or from the partial flow dilution system (PFDS). However, there are no other studies that investigate whether the PN results from the two systems are equivalent. In addition, even the PMP study never investigated the uncertainty that is introduced at the final result from the extraction of a flow by a PN system from the PFDS. In this work we investigate the uncertainty for the three possible cases, i.e., considering a constant extracted flow from the PFDS, sending a signal with 1 Hz frequency to the PFDS, or feeding back the extracted flow to the PFDS.

Different particulate mass (PM) portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) were evaluated in the lab with three heavy-duty diesel engines which cover a wide range of particle emission levels. For the two engines without Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) the proportional partial flow dilution systems SPC-472, OBS-TRPM, and micro-PSS measured 15% lower PM than the full dilution tunnel (CVS). The micro soot sensor (MSS), which measures soot in real time, measured 35% lower. For the DPF-equipped engine, where the emissions were in the order of 2 mg/kWh, the systems had differences from the CVS higher than 50%. For on-board testing a real-time sensor is necessary to convert the gravimetric (filter)-based PM to second-by-second mass emissions. The detection limit of the sensor, the particle property it measures (e.g., number, surface area or mass, volatiles or non-volatiles) and its calibration affect the estimated real-time mass emissions.

Partial flow sampling methods in emissions testing are interesting and preferred because of their lower cost, smaller size and applicability to engines of all sizes. However the agreement of the results obtained with instruments based on this method to those obtained with the traditional, large tunnel full flow sampling systems needs to be achieved, and the factors of construction that influence this agreement must be understood. These issues have received more attention lately in connection with ISO and WHDC standardization efforts underway to achieve a world-wide harmony in the sampling methods for heavy duty diesel engines, and with the introduction of similar Bag-minidiluter techniques into light duty SULEV gaseous pollutant measurement. This paper presents the theory and practice of a partial flow probe and tunnel design that addresses and minimizes the undesirable effects of the necessary differences between the two sampling methods.