Design, development and qualification of compact mobile emissions measurement system (CMEMS) for real-time on-board emissions measurement

Tiwari, Aseem C

doi:10.33915/etd.1788

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main idea behind developing this system was to make it lighter and have compact so that it could be installed on the tailpipe of the truck. To achieve the desired requirements designers used commercially available compact solid-state gas analyzers and developed the sampling system smaller than the MEMS sampling system [2]. CMEMS was designed with an inbuilt data acquisition system unlike in MEMS.…”

Section: West Virginia University 2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compact Mobile Emissions Measurement System (CMEMS) was developed by WVU to measure real-time on-road emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles [2]. It was designed and developed to miniaturize and improve the performance of Mobile Emissions…”

Section: West Virginia University (Wvu) 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the CMEMS also reported a difference of 2.36% for NOx and 2.69% for CO2 against laboratory grade analyzers on seven FTP runs. Differences of 1.87% for NOx and 1.51% for CO2 were reported against the laboratory grade analyzers on a simulated on-road cycle" [2].…”

Section: West Virginia University (Wvu) 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance of compact mobile emissions monitoring system for real-time on-board emissions measurement

Jayasinghe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance of Compact Mobile Emissions Monitoring System for Real-Time On-Board Emissions Measurements By Chandima S. Jayasinghe The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Compact Mobile Emissions Monitoring System (CMEMS) in an engine dynamometer test cell equipped with laboratory grade analyzers, and under real-world testing conditions. The CMEMS was evaluated in the test cell with the engine operating under transient (FTP) and steady state conditions and results were compared with laboratory data. In response to the Consent Decrees, which were entered into by some of the heavy duty engine manufactures and the United States, several in-use portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) have been developed, and some of them are commercially available. However, most of these systems are based upon an impractical design that requires one or more "boxes" to be placed in the cab of the test vehicle, with heated analyzers and sample handling systems, an exhaust flow rate measurement system installed on the tailpipe, and heated sample lines. Such systems place a taxing power demand on the engine. They are bulky and heavy, and the deskew times contribute to measurement uncertainties. In response to the "lessons learned" from the use of WVU's Mobile Emissions Measuring System (MEMS), WVU has developed compact MEMS, which addresses the concerns associated with currently available PEMS, including the MEMS. The unique feature of the CMEMS is that it is a single unit with all components incorporated in the single 34"x 8"x 8" container, which is mounted on the exhaust stack. Compared to the MEMS, the Compact Emissions Monitoring System weighs 60lb, which is 70lb less than the MEMS. CMEMS consists of a CO 2 analyzer, NOx sensor and the control unit to measure CO 2 and NOx emissions from a vehicle. CMEMS uses solid state nondispersive infrared detector BE-150 for measuring CO 2 emissions. CMEMS has a built in Data Acquisition System. On the other hand, even though the Engine Control Module (ECM) uses a CAN (Controller Area Network) to serial adaptor, the ECU was not probed with the current setup of the CMEMS. The engine was tested over the steady-state cycles, federal heavy-duty certification cycle and simulated on-road cycle. Mass emissions rates measured by CMEMS differed from laboratory generated results by 6.2% for CO 2 and by 5.7% for NOx over the steady-state cycle. Over the FTP transient cycle, the differences observed were-8.3% for CO 2 and 11.1% for NOx. Significantly lower percentage differences were recorded while testing CMEMS over the on-road cycle: 1.4 and 2.9% for CO 2 and NOx emissions respectively. Under real-world conditions, the CMEMS had a maximum error percentage of 7.7% for CO 2 and 8% for NOx, in comparison to the MEMS. CMEMS in its current configuration was unable to maintain the required temperature for the chiller, under real world testing. Lack of ventilation and heat dissipation problems As my graduate studies come to an end, many people come to my mind that I am grateful for...

show abstract

Section: West Virginia University 2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: West Virginia University (Wvu) 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%