Search Results

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.

The regulation of particle number (PN) has been introduced in the Euro 5/6 light-duty vehicle legislation, as a result of the light duty inter-laboratory exercise of the Particle Measurement Program (PMP). The heavy-duty inter-laboratory exercise investigates whether the same or a similar procedure can be applied to the heavy-duty regulation. In the heavy-duty exercise two "golden" PN systems sample simultaneously; the first from the full dilution tunnel and the second from the partial flow system. One of the targets of the exercise is to compare the PN results from the two systems. In this study we follow a different approach: We use a PMP compliant system at different positions (full flow, partial flow and tailpipe) and we compare its emissions with a "reference" system always sampling from the full flow dilution tunnel.

The particulate emissions of two brake systems were characterized in a dilution tunnel optimized for PM10 measurements. The larger of them employed a fixed caliper (FXC) and the smaller one a floating caliper (FLC). Both used ECE brake pads of the same lining formulation. Measured properties included gravimetric PM2.5 and PM10, Particle Number (PN) concentrations of both untreated and thermally treated (according to exhaust PN regulation) particles using Condensation Particle Counters (CPCs) having 23 and 10 nm cut-off sizes, and an Optical Particle Sizer (OPS). The brakes were tested over a section (trip-10) novel test cycle developed from the database of the Worldwide harmonized Light-Duty vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP). A series of trip-10 tests were performed starting from unconditioned pads, to characterize the evolution of emissions until their stabilization. Selected tests were also performed over a short version of the Los Angeles City Cycle.

Brake wear is one of the dominant sources of traffic-related particulate matter emissions and is associated with various adverse environmental and health hazards. To address this issue, the UNECE mandated the Particle Measurement Program to develop a harmonized methodology for sampling and measuring brake wear particles with a full-flow sampling tunnel on a brake dynamometer. Here we present the design of a novel, fully PMP compliant sampling tunnel. The dimensions and general layout of the tunnel are based on minimization of super-micron particle losses and consideration of space limitations in brake-dynamometer setups as well as the need for efficient utilization of the test facilities (reduced testing times). Numerical calculations suggested that the critical section of the system is the sampling train from the sample probes to the instrumentation inlet/filter holder.

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.

Particulate emissions cause adverse health effects and for this reason they are regulated since the 80s. Vehicle regulations cover particulate emission measurements of a model before its sale, known as type approval or homologation. For heavy-duty engines the emissions are measured on an engine dynamometer with steady state points and transient cycles. For light-duty vehicles (i.e. the full power train) the particulate emissions are assessed on a chassis dynamometer. The measurement of particulate emissions is conducted either by diluting the whole exhaust in a dilution tunnel with constant volume sampling or by extracting a small proportional part of the exhaust gas and diluting it. Particulate emissions are measured by passing part of the diluted exhaust aerosol through a filter paper. The increase of the weight of the filter is used to calculate the particulate matter mass (PM) emissions.

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.