轎車三軸變速器系統設計【轎車中間軸式五檔變速器】

轎車三軸變速器系統設計【轎車中間軸式五檔變速器】,轎車中間軸式五檔變速器,轎車三軸變速器系統設計【轎車中間軸式五檔變速器】,轎車,變速器,系統,設計,中間,五檔 Mohamed et al. 2015. Int. J. Vehicle Structures Continuously variable transmissions; Fuel consumption; Driveability; Emissions CITATION: E.S. Mohamed, M.I. Khalil and S.A. Abouel-Seoud. 2015. Assessment of Manual, Automatic and Continuously Variable Transmission Powertrains for Gasoline Engine Powered Midsize Saloon Vehicle, Int. J. Vehicle Structures and 40.5 s with values of 150 Nm and 40.5 kW for CVT. The deceleration mode depicted a decrease in performance values till 75 s for MT, 54 s for AT and 52.5 s for CVT. The road torque exhibited some fluctuations for MT. Figs. 7 to 9 show the measurements of time (T) and distance (S) from which acceleration (A) is calculated for the considered transmissions respectively. For MT, a distance of 145 m can be gained in about 18.34 s, resulting in an acceleration of 5.73 m/s2 at instantaneous speed of 105 km/h. For AT, a distance of 360 m can be gained in about 22.5 s resulting in an acceleration of 4.49 m/s2 at instantaneous speed of 101 km/h. For CVT, a distance of 100 m can be gained in about 19.17 s resulting in acceleration of 5.27 m/s2 at instantaneous speed of 101 km/h. Fig. 4: Vehicle road performance for MT at 100 km/h Mohamed et al. 2015. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 7(3), 85-91 88 Fig. 5: Vehicle road performance for AT at 100 km/h Fig. 6: Vehicle road performance for CVT at 100 km/h The fluctuations in speed for MT (see Fig. 7) are attributed to the manual gear shifting process. During standard upshift in a vehicle fitted with either AT or CVT there is no torque interruption to the wheels as observed by flat longitudinal acceleration during the shift. In order to establish a comparative assessment of road performance and acceleration at vehicle cruising speeds of 40, 60, 80, 90 and 100 km/h, Figs. 10 to 13 show the individual maximum values of power, torque, acceleration and time respectively. Table 3 gives the maximum values and their corresponding vehicle speeds for all the three powertrain transmissions. Fig. 7: Vehicle speed and distance for MT Fig. 8: Vehicle speed and distance for AT Fig. 9: Vehicle speed and distance for CVT V e h i c l e r o a d t o r q u e 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e h i c l e s p e e d , k m / h R o a d T o rq u e ( M ), N m R oa d t orqu e f or M T R oa d t orqu e f or A T R oa d t orqu e f or C V T P ol y . ( R oa d t orqu e f or M T) P ol y . ( R oa d t orqu e f or A T) P ol y . ( R oa d t orqu e f or C V T) Fig. 10: Max. torque vs. Vehicle speed V e h i c l e r o a d p o w e r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e h i c l e s p e e d , k m / h R o a d P o w e r (P ), k W R oa d po w e r f or M T R oa d po w e r f or A T R oa d po w e r f or C V T P ol y . ( R oa d po w e r f or M T) P ol y . ( R oa d po w e r f or A T) P ol y . ( R oa d po w e r f or C V T) Fig. 11: Max. power vs. Vehicle speed Mohamed et al. 2015. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 7(3), 85-91 89 V e hi c l e r oa d a c c e l e r a t i on 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e hi c l e s pe e d, k m / h R oa d A c c e le ra ti on ( A ), m /s 2 V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r M T V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r A T V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r C V T P o l y . ( V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r A T ) P o l y . ( V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r M T ) P o l y . ( V e h i c l e a c c e l e r a t i o n ( A ) f o r C V T ) Fig. 12: Max. acceleration vs. Vehicle speed V e hi c l e r oa d t i m e 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e hi c l e s pe e d, k m / h R oa d Ti m e ( T) , s T i m e ( T ) f o r M T T i m e ( T ) f o r A T T i m e ( T ) f o r C V T P o l y . ( T i m e ( T ) f o r M T ) P o l y . ( T i m e ( T ) f o r A T ) P o l y . ( T i m e ( T ) f o r C V T ) Fig. 13: Max. time vs. Vehicle speed Table 3: Max. vehicle road acceleration and corresponding speed At 100 km/h M P Power train T, s A, m/s2 Speed, km/h Value, Nm Speed, km/h Value kW 149.5 4.99 26 590 07 07 MT 350 7.05 27 017 07 30 AT 100 6.10 20 350 00 32 CVT 4.2. Engine-out emissions Based on the ECE-15, the vehicle emissions of CO, CO2, HC and EI respectively from the gas analyzer measurement at road speed 100 km/h with MT, AT and CVT powertrains are shown in Figs. 14 to 16. The variation of all emission contents except for CO2 over time is consistent with the driving cycle. Due to scattered data, the responses are grouped into 3 ranges of time duration namely, T1 for 15-25 s, T2 for 50-100 s and T3 for 125-200 s. The CO, HC and EI computed for CVT is the lowest level followed by AT and MT for all three time durations. The CO2 measured in T1 and T2 time durations for AT is the lowest level followed by CVT and MT. The CO2 measured in T3 duration for CVT is the lowest level followed by AT and MT. In order to establish a comparative assessment, an average value was created for emission parameters at vehicle cruising speeds of 40, 60, 80, 90 and 100 km/h and presented in Figs. 17 to 20. Table 4 gives the minimum values for the emission parameters and their corresponding vehicle speeds for all the three powertrain transmissions. Furthermore, the vehicle fitted with CVT gave lowest emissions of CO, CO2, HC and EI in the time period of measurement compared with the other two transmissions considered in this study. Fig. 14: CO emissions for MT, AT and CVT Fig. 14: CO2 emissions for MT, AT and CVT Fig. 15: HC emissions for MT, AT and CVT Fig. 16: EI for MT, AT and CVT Table 4: Minimum values of vehicle emissions Min. EI and Speed Min. value of emission (60 km/h) Power train HC CO2 CO km/h Value ppm ppm % 70 44.50 24.64 7.20 0.64 MT 62 33.65 23.94 7.38 0.61 AT 60 31.15 20.37 7.17 0.46 CVT Mohamed et al. 2015. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 7(3), 85-91 90 E m i s s i on - c a r bo n m on ox i de ( C O ) 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e hi c l e s pe e d, k m / h C a rbo n M on ox ide ( C O ), % E m i s s i o n , C O % - M T E m i s s i o n , C O % - A T E m i s s i o n , C O % - C V T P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O % - C V T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O % - A T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O % - M T ) Fig. 17: CO emissions vs. Speed C a r b o n D i o x i d e ( CO 2 ) 7 7 . 2 7 . 4 7 . 6 7 . 8 8 8 . 2 8 . 4 8 . 6 8 . 8 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e h i c l e s p e e d , k m / h C a rb o n D io x id e ( CO 2 ) , ppm E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - M T E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - A T E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - C V T P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - M T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - C V T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , C O 2 , p p m - A T ) Fig. 18: CO2 emissions vs. Speed H y d r o c a r b o n , (H C ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e hi c l e s pe e d, k m / h H y droc a rbo n (H C ), pp m E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - M T E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - A T E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - C V T P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - M T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - A T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n , H C , p p m - C V T ) Fig. 19: HC emissions vs. Speed E m i s s i on I nd e x ( E I ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 V e hi c l e s pe e d, k m / h E m is s ion I nd e x , E I E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - M T E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - A T E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - C V T P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - M T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - A T ) P o l y . ( E m i s s i o n I n d e x , E I - C V T ) Fig. 20: EI vs. Speed 4.3. FCR Fig. 21 shows the time history of FCR for all the transmissions considered in this study. The road speed is 100 km/h. The variation of the FCR is consistent with the profile of the driving cycle. This Fig. is plotted for all the powertrain transmissions and vehicle speed with respect of time. It is observed that the data are very picky, therefore it is decided to Similar to previous plots, the FCR responses are divided into T1 to T3 duration ranges of time. The FCR computed for VT is the lowest rate followed by AT and MT in all the three durations. In order to establish the comparative assessment, an average FCR at vehicle cruising speeds of 40, 60, 80, 90 and 100 km/h is given in Table 5. The vehicle when equipped by the CVT exhibits the lowest FCR in the time period of test compared with the other two transmissions considered in this study. Fig. 21: FCR for MT, AT and CVT Table 7: Average FCR for MT, AT and CVT, Min. value is in bold Average FCR, l/100km Power train 100 km/h 90 km/h 80 km/h 60 km/h 40 km/h 7.82 7.72 7.22 7.16 7.55 MT 7.52 7.77 6.44 6.73 6.91 AT 6.59 5.68 5.48 5.67 5.86 CVT 4.4. Powertrain transmissions assessment The percentage of vehicle power, EI, fuel economy and acceleration performance of various transmissions as compared to MT are presented in Table 9 and Fig. 22. The acceleration performance (A) exhibits high percentage for AT (33.65%) followed by CVT (31.15%) and MT. The MT has provided better FCR than the AT and CVT. This FCR is due to the gear shift schedule. Table 9: Vehicle performance parameters, EI and fuel rate of AT and CV transmissions as compared to MT Performance parameters Power train % FCR l/100 km % EI % A, m/s2 % P, kW 0.0 7.16 0.0 44.50 0.0 4.4 0.0 07 MT 6.0 6.73 24 33.65 1.43 4.8 7.69 30 AT 20.8 5.67 30 31.15 14.29 5.1 15.38 32 CVT P e r o r m a n c e p a r a m e t e r s , e m i s s i o n i n d e x a n d f u e l r a t e o f A t a n d C V t r a n s m i s s i o n s a s c o m p a r e d t o M T - 0 . 4 - 0 . 3 - 0 . 2 - 0 . 1 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 M a nu a l t r a ns m i s s i on ( M T) A ut om a t i c t r a ns m i s s i on ( A T) C V t r a ns m i s s i on ( C V T) V e h i c l e s p e e d , k m / h P a ra m e te rs , % Pe r fo r m a n c e p a r a m e te r - r o a d p o w e r (P) , % Pe r fo r m a n c e p a r a m e te r -A c c e l e r a ti o n (A ), % E e m s s i o n I n d e x (E I ), % F u e l c o n s u m p ti o n R a te (F R ), % Fig. 26: Vehicle power, acceleration, EI and FCR of AT and CVT compared to MT powertrain Mohamed et al. 2015. Int. J. Vehicle Structures & Systems, 7(3), 85-91 91 5. Conclusions The driveability, power, torque, acceleration, exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of the gasoline midsize saloon vehicle drove under ECE-15 driving cycle (part 1) for urban area were assessed using a test vehicle on a standard chassis dynamometer. The test vehicle was equipped with interchangeable Mt, AT and CVT powertrains. From the measured emission components, EI and FCR were calculated. Fluctuations in the torque (M) results were observed for MT, while smooth increase was observed for AT and CVT. This is attributed to the manual gear shift, where a torque interruption to the vehicle wheels occur and the longitudinal acceleration was reduced during the shift. However, during a standard upshift in a vehicle fitted with either AT or CVT there is no torque (T) interruption to the wheels. The assessment of emissions data indicate indicated that their variation is consistent with the driving cycle profile for all emission contents other than CO2. The vehicle when equipped by MT gave higher vehicle emissions of CO, CO2 and HC in the measurement time period when compared with the other two transmissions considered in this study. Both AT and CVT have lesser FCR than MT in speed range up to 100 km/h. High speed ratio of AT and CVT allows to optimize the engines thermal efficiency and to reduce the FCR in spite of its lower efficiency. On the other hand, the absence of friction clutch makes the AT and CVT more comfortable with respect to MT and allows the running of vehicle at very low speed without any problem arising from the engage/disengage of clutch. REFERENCES: 1 K. Ajay and S.A. Rehman. 2013. The influence of engine speed on exhaust emission of four stroke spark ignition multi cylinder engine, Int. J. Engg. and Advanced Technology, 2(4), 205-208. 2 E. Hendriks, P. Heegde and T. Van Prooijen. 1988. Aspects of a metal pushing v-belt for automotive cut application, SAE Technical Paper 881734. 3 N. Tamsanya and S. Tamsanya. 2008. Influence of driving cycles on exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of gasoline passenger car in Bangkok, J. Environmental Sciences, 21, 604-611. 4 W. Kriegler, A. Zand and S. Gert-Jan. 1997. IC engines and CVTs in passenger cars: A system integration approach, IMechE Proc. Int. Conf. Advanced Vehicle Transmissions & Powertrain Management, London, UK. 5 M. Claudio, M. Hans, D.K. Hampden, E.K. Robert and W.P. Barber. 2004. Correlation between automotive CO, HC, NO, and PM emission factors from on-road remote sensing: implications for inspection and maintenance programs, Transportation Research Part D, 9, 477-496. 6 M. Deacon, C.J. Brace, N.D. Vaughan, C.R. Burrows and R.W. Horrocks. 1999. Impact of alternative controller strategies on exhaust emissions from an integrated diesel: continuously variable transmission powertrain, Proc. IMechE Part D - J. Automobile Engg., 213(2), 95-107. 7 C.J. Brace, M. Deacon, N.D. Vaughan N D, R.W. Horrocks and C.R. Burrows. 1999. An operating point optimizer for the design and calibration of an integrated diesel: CVT Powertrain, Proc. IMechE Part D - J. Automobile Engineering, 213(3), 215-226. 8 G. Carbone, G. Mantriota and L. Mangialardi. 2001. Fuel consumption of a mid class vehicle with infinitely variable transmission society of automotive engineers, SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-3692. 9 D. Schulz, T. Younglove and M. Barth. 2000. Statistical analysis and model validation of automobile emissions, J. Transporation and Statistics, 3(2), 29-38. 10 M. Barth, F. An, T. Younglove, G. Scora, C. Levine, M. Ross and T. Wenzel. 2000. Development of a Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Final Report. 11 M. Thomas and M. Ross. 1999. Development of second- by-second fuel use and emissions model based on an early 1990s composite car, SAE Tech. Paper 97-1010. 12 R. Goodwin. 1996. A Model of Automobiles Exhaust Emissions During High Power Driving Episodes and Related Issues, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 13 F. An, M. Barth, G. Scora and M. Ross. 1998. Modeling enleanment emissions for light-duty vehicles, Research Record J. Transportation Research Board, 1641(1), 48- 57. 14 A. Fotouhi and Gh.M. Montazeri. 2012. An investigation on vehicles fuel consumption and exhaust emissions in different driving conditions, Int. J. Environ. Res., 6(1), 61-70. 15 F. Vicente, K.M. Marina, N. Leonidas, H. Stefan and D. Panagiota. 2013. Road vehicle emission factors development: a review, J. Atmospheric Environment, 70, 84-97. 16 J. Robert, A. Michel, L. Juhani, T.G. Savas, S. Zissis, D. Phillippe, C. Erwin and R. Pierre. 2006. Accuracy of Exhaust Emissions Measurements on Vehicle Bench, EU Artemis Deliverable Report LTE 0522. Copyright of International Journal of Vehicle Structures & Systems (IJVSS) is the property of Mechaero Foundation for Technical Research & Education Excellence (MAFTREE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.