90
Besides the negative specific soot mass predicted for operating condition 31, a large discrepancy between the measured and simulated soot emissions for operating
condition 37 is noted. The operating condition settings and measured, ANN, and phenomenological model simulated specific soot emissions for the operating condi-
tions 13, 18, and 37 given in Table 8.4 indicate, that an increase in specific soot emissions with increasing EGR rate is expected. Whereas this is true for the mea-
sured and the simulated values for the operating conditions 13 and 18, only the model prediction for the operating condition 37 shows this behavior. While the
measured emission for 37 EGR = 17 is more than 300 of the value mea- sured for 18 EGR = 27 , the ANN predicted emission for 37 is even 50
lower than that for 13 no EGR, implying that the ANN does not capture the influence of EGR. Although the experimental soot measurements of operating con-
dition 37 are suspected to be statistical outliers, the decrease in soot emissions for an increase in EGR from 0 to 17 , as predicted by the ANN, is even less plausible.
8.3.2 “Marine” Diesel
Similar to the heavy-duty results given in Figure 8.8 a, the ANN nitrogen oxide emission simulations for the two-stroke marine diesel engine show an almost perfect
agreement between measured and simulated values for training operating conditions and a qualitatively correct prediction of the measured values for all verification oper-
ating conditions Figure 8.9 a and b.
a b
Fig. 8.8 Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions ANN Training Verification:
a Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, b Soot Emissions
c
m
[ms] BMEP
[bar] p
Inj
[bar] SOI
[°CA] EGR
[] SOOT [gkWh]
Measured ANN
Model 13
8.696 4.40
1400 356
0.0572 0.05714
0.0988
18
8.702 4.35
1400 356
27 0.0891
0.08909 0.1212
37
8.693 4.40
1400 356
17 0.29074
0.02436 0.1035
Tab. 8.4 Heavy-Duty Diesel Specific Soot Emission Details
N O
x
E m
is si
o n
s [g
k W
h ]
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
Heavy-Duty Operating Conditions [-] 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40
Verification Training
Measurement Simulat ion
S o
o t
E m
is si
o n
s [g
k W
h ]
-0. 05 0. 00
0. 05 0. 10
0. 15 0. 20
0. 25 0. 30
0. 35 0. 40
0. 45
Heavy-Duty Operating Conditions [-] 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40
Verification Training
Measurement Simulation
91
a b
c d
Fig. 8.9 Marine Diesel Nitrogen Oxide Emission Simulation: a ANN
Sequential Operating Conditions Plot, b ANN “1-to-1” Scatter Plot, c ANN Blind Try, d Phenomenological Modeling Blind Try
a
b
Fig. 8.10 Automotive NO Emissions: a Measurements, b ANN Simulation
N o
rm a
li z
e d
N O
x
E m
is si
o n
s [a
.u .]
60 80
100 120
140 160
Marine Operating Conditions [-] 5
10 15
20 25
Verification Training
Measurement Simulation
N o
rm a
li z
e d
N O
x
S im
u la
ti o
n [
a .u
.]
60 80
100 120
140 160
Normalized NO
x
Measurement [a. u. ] 60
80 100
120 140
160
Training Verificat ion
N o
rm a
li z
e d
N O
x
E m
is si
o n
s [a
.u .]
20 40
60 80
100 120
140 160
Marine Operating Conditions [-] 5
10 15
20 25
Measurement Simulat ion
N o
rm a
li z
e d
N O
x
E m
is si
o n
s [a
.u .]
20 40
60 80
100 120
140 160
Marine Operating Conditions [ -] 5
10 15
20 25
Measurement Simulat ion
1. 55 4. 65
7. 75 10. 85
13. 95 c
m
[m s]
5 10
15 20
BME P [b
ar] 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
N O
x [g
k W
h ]
B M
E P
[b a
r] 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20
c
m
[ m s] 1. 55
3. 1 4. 65
6. 2 7. 75
9. 3 10. 85
12. 4 13. 95
8.0 8
.0 8. 0
8. 0 1
.0 1
.0 10.
12. 0 2. 0
2. 2.0
2. 0 4. 0
4.0 4.
4. 0 4. 0
6. 0 6. 0
6. 0 6.
1. 4
1. 55 4. 65
7. 75 10. 85
13. 95 c
m
[m s]
5 10
15 20
BME P [b
ar] 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
N O
x [g
k W
h ]
B M
E P
[b a
r] 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20
c
m
[m s] 1. 55
3. 1 4. 65
6. 2 7. 75
9. 3 10. 85
12. 4 13. 95
12.0 10. 0
10. 0 1
.0 1
.0
10. 8. 0
8 .0
8. 0 8. 0
8. 0 6. 0
6. 0 6. 0
6. 6. 0
6. 0 2
.0 2
.0 2. 0
4. 4. 0
4.0 4. 0
2. 1
