Abstract
Standard driving cycles (DCs) and real driving emissions (RDE) legislation developed by the European Commission contains significant gaps with regard to quantifying local area vehicle emission levels and fuel consumption (FC). The aim of this paper was to review local DCs for estimating emission levels and FC under laboratory and real-world conditions. This review article has three sections. First, the detailed steps and methodologies applied during the development of these DCs are examined to highlight weaknesses. Next, a comparison is presented of various recent local DCs using the Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Test Cycle (WLTC) and FTP75 (Federal Test Procedure) in terms of the main characteristic parameters. Finally, the gap between RDE with laboratory-based and real-world emissions is discussed. The use of a large sample of real data to develop a typical DC for the local area could better reflect vehicle driving patterns on actual roads and offer a better estimation of emissions and consumed energy. The main issue found with most of the local DCs reviewed was a small data sample collected from a small number of vehicles during a short period of time, the lack of separate phases for driving conditions, and the shifting strategy adopted with the chassis dynamometer. On-road emissions measured by the portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) were higher than the laboratory-based measurements. Driving situation outside the boundary conditions of RDE shows higher emissions due to cold temperatures, road grade, similar shares of route, drivers’ dynamic driving conditions, and uncertainty within the PEMS and RDE analysis tools.
Highlights
Exhaust emissions from vehicles present a serious risk in urban areas, affecting air quality and human health [1]
The instant vehicle fuel flow rate is measured through the engine control unit (ECU), providing the opportunity to construct a driving cycle based on the fuel consumption (FC) principle
Of the route [38]; Chi-squared—the combination of short trips with the smallest chi-squared value was selected for China Light-Duty Vehicle Test Cycle (CLTC) [24]; Euclidean distance—the smallest Euclidean distance for each driving cycles (DCs) derived should be chosen [52]; relative error—an error of 5% is considered acceptable for each parameter, and if the error is more than 5%, develop a DC again by a random combination of micro-trips, continuing the process until the error rate is less than 5% [1]
Summary
Exhaust emissions from vehicles present a serious risk in urban areas, affecting air quality and human health [1]. On-road emissions lower than the experimental data due to COPERT being an average based numeric mod of CO, HC, NOX , and CO2 were 9.45, 0.06, 2.05, and 392 g/km, respectively, and the [35]. A comparison of various recent local DCs with WLTC are different DC construction data to clustering, and cycle assessment paramete and FTP75 are methods, presented in relation the main characteristic parameters. Recent papers were selected whose full text could be accessed and that prese local DCs with values of the main cycle assessment parameters. A comparison of various recent local DCs with WLTC and FTP75 are presented in relation to the main characteristic parameters. Recent papers were selected whose full text could be accessed and that present local DCs with values of the main cycle assessment parameters
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
