中国环境科学 2019,39(6)：2328~2335 China Environmental Science
不同工况下轻型车油耗试验驾驶方式评价
刘俊女1,朱庆功2*,杨正军2 (1.北京市机动车排放管理中心,北京 100176；2.中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司,天津 300300)
摘要：在一台性能稳定的汽油车上由同一驾驶人员按平顺、粗暴和正常3种驾驶方式分别进行NEDC(新欧洲行驶工况)、FTP75(美国认证工况)以及WLTC(世界统一轻型车测试循环)工况油耗试验,采用能量变化率(ER)、距离变化率(DR)、能量经济性变化率(EER)、绝对速度改变率(ASCR)、速度平方根误差(RMSSE)以及惯性做功改变率(IWR)6个指标作为驾驶质量评价指标,通过分析计算每次试验各项评价指标及其与燃料消耗量变化的相关性,确定了油耗试验驾驶方式的合理性边界条件.结果表明,对于WLTC和FTP75工况,平顺驾驶和粗暴驾驶均会导致评价指标变大或者变小,驾驶方式与评价指标呈规律性变化;对于NEDC工况,不同的驾驶方式对NEDC工况油耗影响较小.油耗试验的边界条件, WLTC工况的EER为(0.25±0.47)%、ASCR为(1.20±0.97)%、RMSSE为(0.85+0.15)km/h、IWR为(2.15±1.27)%时,可认为油耗试验的驾驶方式较为合理;FTP75工况的EER为(-0.09±0.69)%、 ASCR为(-0.59±0.42)%、RMSSE为(0.88+0.34)km/h以及IWR为(-0.69±1.66)%时,油耗试验的驾驶方式较为合理. 关键词：油耗试验；工况；驾驶方式；边界条件
中图分类号：X51 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1000-6923(2019)06-2328-08
Evaluation of the driving way of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption test in different driving cycle. LIU Jun-nü1*, ZHU Qing-gong2, YANG Zheng-jun2 (1.Beijing Vehicle Emission Management Center, Beijing 100176, China；2.China Automotive Technology and Research Center, Tianjin 300300, China). China Environmental Science, 2019,39(6)：2328~2335
Abstract：The NEDC、FTP75and WLTC cycle fuel consumption test were carried out in a stabilized gasoline car with three different driving ways including smooth, rough and normal driving by the same driver. Based on the evaluation of energy rating (ER), distance rating (DR), energy economy rating (EER), absolute speed change rating (ASCR), root mean squared speed error (RMSSE) and inertia work rate (IWR), the rationality of the boundary conditions of fuel consumption test were obtained through the analysis and calculation of the above evaluation index and the change of fuel consumption of each test. Smooth and rough driving both resulted in the regular change of evaluation index in FTP75and WLTC test. However, the different driving way had little effect on fuel consumption in NEDC test. The boundary conditions of fuel consumption test were obtained as below. When ER was in the range of (0.25±0.47)%, ASCR was in the range of (1.20±0.97)%, RMSSE was in the range of (0.85+0.15)km/h, IWR was in the range of (2.15±1.27)%,the driving ways of the WLTC cycle fuel consumption test were reasonable. For the cycle of FTP75, the reasonable driving ways of fuel consumption test ought to make sure that EER, ASCR, RMSSE and IWR ranged among (-0.09±0.69)%, (-0.59±0.42)%, (0.88+0.34)km/h and (-0.69±1.66)% respectively.
Key words：the fuel consumption test；the driving cycle；the driving ways；the boundary condition
随着我国机动车保有量大幅增加,机动车污染已成为我国空气污染的重要来源,成为人们关注的焦点[14].我国《节能与新能源汽车产业发展规划
-
油耗试验结果的影响研究较多[1314],在同样的设置
-
条件下油耗试验结果具有良好的重复性.而驾驶质量对油耗试验结果的影响研究较少,只有定性的对驾驶员经验进行的研究[1518].
-
(2012-2020年)》[5]中指出,到2020年我国乘用车平均燃料消耗量需要降至5.0L/100km,为汽车企业节能降耗、减少污染物排放提出更高技术要求,同时也对检测机构的检测工作提出了更高的精度要求.
轻型车油耗测量主要是通过测量在模拟工况循环下CO2、CO和HC的排放量,用碳平衡法来计算油耗[6].研究表明,多种因素对车辆油耗试验结果可能产生影响,这些因素主要包括试验条件、转毂阻力设定、燃油箱油量、驱动轮胎压、试验参数设定以及驾驶质量等[712].试验条件和转毂阻力设定对
-
目前主要的排放测试工况有NEDC(新欧洲行驶工况)、FTP75(美国联邦测试循环)和WLTC(世界统一轻型车测试循环)工况,我国第6阶段排放标准采用WLTC工况[19].WLTC和FTP75工况均为瞬态工况,与NEDC工况相比,变化更加剧烈,对试验驾驶
收稿日期：2018-11-20
基金项目：国家环境保护部公益项目(201409021);中国汽车技术研究中心有限公司重点项目(18190213)
* 责任作者, 工程师, zhuqinggong@catarc.ac.cn
不同工况下轻型车油耗试验驾驶方式评价 - 论文
