首页> 外文期刊>Emission Control Science and Technology >Improving Methodology of Particulate Measurement in Periodic Technical Inspection with High-Sensitivity Techniques: Laser Light Scattering Photometry and Particle Number Method
【24h】

Improving Methodology of Particulate Measurement in Periodic Technical Inspection with High-Sensitivity Techniques: Laser Light Scattering Photometry and Particle Number Method

机译:高灵敏度技术在定期技术检查中改进颗粒测量方法:激光散射光度法和颗粒数法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

First, the validity of the current test procedure for particle measurement adopted in a periodic technical inspection (PTI) was evaluated by comparing test results obtained with the PTI and a type approval test (TAT) procedure using a Euro V level diesel truck with an intentionally damaged diesel particulate filter (DPF). PM and particle number (PN) with the TAT increased with increasing DPF damage ratio, and the PTI results well reproduced those in the TAT. However, the regulation limit of the PTI was so loose that even a 100% damaged DPF resulted in emission well below the PTI limit, although 0.5% and 5% damage ratios resulted in values exceeding the PN and PM limits in TAT, respectively. Then, we evaluated three different techniques for particle detection with the PTI procedure, such as an opacity meter, which is currently used in PTI, laser light scattering photometry (LLSP), and the PN method. For the detecting DPF failure, opacity meters did not have sufficient sensitivity. On the other hand, the LLSP was sensitive enough for detecting DPF failure, but the results varied among LLSP devices. This variation was due to the test procedure of PTI, which is strongly transient (no load racing). The LLSP and PN measurement devices were sensitive enough to detect DPF failure at idle, which was quite steady, and the variation observed in the PTI procedure did not occur. PN counting of particles over 15 nm was more sensitive than LLSP and was sensitive enough to detect DPF failure, which did not result in the PM limit in TAT being exceeded.
机译:首先,通过比较使用PTI获得的测试结果和使用欧洲V级柴油卡车的型式认可测试(TAT)程序,并有意地比较了定期技术检查(PTI)中采用的当前粒子测量测试程序的有效性,柴油颗粒过滤器(DPF)损坏。 TAT的PM和颗粒数(PN)随着DPF损伤率的增加而增加,PTI结果很好地再现了TAT中的那些。然而,PTI的调节极限是如此宽松,以至于即使100%损坏的DPF也会导致排放远低于PTI极限,尽管0.5%和5%的损坏比率分别导致值超过TAT中的PN和PM极限。然后,我们评估了三种不同的通过PTI程序进行粒子检测的技术,例如PTI当前使用的不透明度计,激光散射光度法(LLSP)和PN方法。对于检测DPF失败,不透明度计没有足够的灵敏度。另一方面,LLSP对检测DPF故障足够敏感,但结果在LLSP设备之间有所不同。这种变化是由于PTI的测试过程引起的,该测试过程非常短暂(无负载竞争)。 LLSP和PN测量设备足够灵敏,可以在空闲时检测DPF故障,这非常稳定,并且在PTI程序中未观察到变化。超过15 nm的粒子的PN计数比LLSP更为灵敏,并且足够灵敏以检测DPF失败,这不会导致TAT中的PM限值被超过。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号