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 describes the potential for the use of Dedicated EGR® (D-EGR®) in a gasoline powered medium truck engine. The project goal was to determine if it is possible to match the thermal efficiency of a medium-duty diesel engine in Class 4 to Class 7 truck operations. The project evaluated a range of parameters for a D-EGR engine, including displacement, operating speed range, boosting systems, and BMEP levels. The engine simulation was done in GT-POWER, guided by experimental experience with smaller size D-EGR engines. The resulting engine fuel consumption maps were applied to two vehicle models, which ran over a range of 8 duty cycles at 3 payloads. This allowed a thorough evaluation of how D-EGR and conventional gasoline engines compare in fuel consumption and thermal efficiency to a diesel. The project results show that D-EGR gasoline engines can compete with medium duty diesel engines in terms of both thermal efficiency and GHG emissions.

This paper presents the fuel consumption results of engine and vehicle simulation modeling for a wide variety of individual technologies and technology packages applied to a long haul heavy duty vehicle. Based on the simulation modeling, up to 11% in fuel savings is possible using commercially available and emerging technologies applied to a 15L DD15 engine alone. The predicted fuel savings are up to 17% in a Kenworth T700 tractor-trailer unit equipped with a range of vehicle technologies, but using the baseline DD15 diesel engine. A combination of the most aggressive engine and vehicle technologies can provide savings of up to 29%, averaged over a range of drive cycles. Over 30% fuel savings were found with the most aggressive combination on a simulated long haul duty cycle. Note that not all of these technologies may prove to be cost-effective. The fuel savings benefits for individual technologies vary widely depending on the drive cycles and payload.

Medium- and Heavy Duty Truck fuel consumption and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant contributors to overall U.S. GHG emissions. Forecasts of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle activity and fuel use predict increased use of freight transport will result in greatly increased GHG emissions in the coming decades. As a result, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a regulation requiring reductions in medium and heavy truck fuel consumption and GHGs beginning in 2014. The agencies are now proposing new regulations that will extend into the next decade, requiring additional fuel consumption and GHG emissions reductions. To support the development of future regulations, a research project was sponsored by NHTSA to look at technologies that could be used for compliance with future regulations.

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.

Compression brake noise (also known as “Jake Brake” noise) has been a significant issue for heavy duty trucks for several decades. As a result of compression brake noise, there are many local ordinances in North America banning the use of engine brakes, and some countries such as Australia and South Africa have in the past considered total bans on compression brakes. Previous research showed that the primary problem is caused by operators who remove the OEM muffler system and replace it with a “straight stack” exhaust pipe with no sound reducing properties. On the other hand, even with the OEM exhaust system in place, compression brake noise is sometimes significant. The introduction of exhaust aftertreatment to meet stringent 2010 EPA emissions requirements (diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems, DPF + SCR) provides two potential benefits for compression brake noise.

Several new or significantly upgraded heavy duty truck engines are being introduced in the North American market. One important aspect of these new or revised engines is their noise characteristics. This paper describes the noise related characteristics of the new DD15 engine, and compares them to other competitive heavy truck engines. DD15 engine features relevant to noise include a rear gear train, isolated oil pan and valve cover, and an amplified high pressure common rail fuel system. The transition between non-amplified and amplified common rail operation is shown to have a significant noise impact, not unlike the transition between pilot injection and single shot injection in some other engines.

Tier 2, bin 5 diesel engines may use multiple combustion modes to achieve stringent emissions requirements. Unfortunately, switching between different combustion modes can cause step changes in noise that will be unacceptable to consumers. In this paper, several sound quality metrics are evaluated for their ability to quantify the NVH issues that arise during a rich pulse event. In addition, techniques are presented that allow an engine developer to reduce the NVH effects caused by changing combustion modes. Careful calibration tuning in close cooperation with performance and emissions development engineers is required to solve noise problems that arise from combustion mode switching events, since an NVH improvement may often come at the expense of a performance or emissions issue.

Customer feedback indicated that there was a difference in noise levels and frequency content between nominally identical diesel engines manufactured in two different plants. A test program was created to determine whether this perceived difference was real. This program opened the opportunity to investigate several levels of variability in SAE J-1074 noise measurements. From the data, estimates of confidence intervals were developed to predict true mean noise levels in the presence of back-to-back, install-test-remove, and sample-to-sample test variability. The data from this project can be used to estimate the number of tests required in order to achieve a given level of accuracy in estimating the true mean noise level of an engine or of an engine population. The results can also be used to design a test program that will provide a given level of confidence in determining whether there is a statistically significant difference between two engine populations.

Fuel injection and cylinder pressures of diesel engines have increased substantially over the past decade, as have noise levels of many engines. Test results show that these two trends are linked: gear train impact, driven by fuel system and crankshaft torsional excitation, has become a dominant noise forcing function in heavy duty diesel engines. Fuel system torsional dampers, crank gear isolators, and rear gear trains can reduce gear impact noise. Empirical equations have been developed to predict the overall noise of heavy-duty diesel engines, based only on the size and location of the gear train. These simple equations can predict engine noise levels with surprising accuracy.