Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

James Tate - DMUG 2014

1,186 views

Published on

At the 2014 annual Dispersion Modellers user group meeting guest speaker James Tate spoke the topic: 'Making better use of microsimulation models for estimating vehicle emissions'

Published in: Environment
  • Hello! I do no use writing service very often, only when I really have problems. But this one, I like best of all. The team of writers operates very quickly. It's called ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ Hope this helps!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

James Tate - DMUG 2014

  1. 1. Outline  Background – Modelling Road Transport Emissions  Large-scale Networks e.g. Regional / National  City Networks  Modelling a “Virtual World”  Framework  Microscopic traffic simulations  Instantaneous vehicle emission modelling  Calibration & Validation  Results  Mapping vehicle emissions  Spatial & temporal variations  Summary & Conclusions  Work in progress 2
  2. 2. MODELLING LARGE-SCALE NETWORKS Represented a Line Sources 3 City of York Source: http://ntis.trafficengland.com/map 7.02 am 16/09/2014 100 km
  3. 3. MODELLING CITY NETWORKS Short links 4 5 km 500 m
  4. 4. A “VIRTUAL” YORK Coupled micro-scopic traffic & instantaneous emission model 5
  5. 5. TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATIONS1  TRAFFIC DEMAND  Average weekday (May 2011)  Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) & Manual Count data J ANPR surveys (19th May 2011, 0700 – 1900hrs)  TIME PERIODS  AM shoulder  AM peak  Inter-Peak  PM peak  PM shoulder  Evening  NIGHTtime  24-hour weighted average • CALBRATION • Demand/ Flows (DMRB procedure, GEH stat) • Journey times (DMRB criteria) + Vehicle type proportions ( ± 1% )  Car, Van, HGV (rigid & artic), Bus, Coach • Vehicle dynamics • SIMULATIONS • Harvest ALL vehicle trajectories (1Hz, 10 replications) • >1 million vehicle kms for the ‘Base’ scenario 1 The York 2011 S-Paramics network created by David Preater (Halcrow, 2011) 6
  6. 6. MODELLING FRAMEWORK Coupled micro-scopic traffic & instantaneous emission model TRAFFIC MICROSIMULATION S-Paramics, Version 2011.1 Multiple simulations (x10) Vehicle trajectory data at 1Hz. VEHICLE EMISSION MODEL Instantaneous emission model PHEM 11. Dis-aggregate emission data RESULTS Road section, time-of-day, vehicle sub-category or an individual vehicles’ trajectory 7 VEHICLE TYPE PROPORTIONS % Car, Taxi, LGV, HGV Rigid & Artic, Bus (scheduled), Coach. DETAILED VEHICLE REGISTRATION INFORMATION (LOCAL). ANPR surveys 0700 -1900hrs. VEHICLE SUB-CATEGORIES % Euro, Fuel (Petrol/ Diesel), EGR/ SCR, Weight etc.
  7. 7. VEHICLE DYNAMICS Comparing observed and modelled vehicle dynamics 8 OBSERVED Passenger Car Tracking: GPS + Road speed (CAN) MODELLED Traffic microsimulations (Paramics) – Passenger car Sample: AM +PM peak period 100 kms, 4 hours (stationary excluded) Sample: one replication AM +PM peak 12, 000 kms, 600 hours (stationary excluded)
  8. 8. INSTANTANEOUS EMISSION MODEL PHEM version 11  Comprehensive power-instantaneous emission model for the EU fleet  Simulates fuel consumption (FC) and tail-pipe emissions of NOX, NO2, CO, HCs, Particulate Mass (PM), Particle Number (PN)  Whole European vehicle fleet:  Euro 0 to Euro 6  Petrol, diesel and hybrid powertrains  Light and Heavy-duty vehicles etc.  Simulations:  Consider all driving resistances including GRADIENT  Gear shift model  Transient engine maps (with time correction functions)  Thermal behaviour of engine, catalyst, SCR etc. 9
  9. 9. REMOTE SENSING VEHICLE EMISSIONS Surveying the vehicle fleet on the road Emission ratios From peak exhaust plume conc.  NO / CO2  Predict NO2 and NOX / CO2  CO / CO2  HC / CO2 &  PM (opacity measure) Local measurements 4-days surveys September 2011 > 10,000 ‘valid’ records Camera (Number plate) Vehicle Detector (Speed andAcceleration) Source/Detector Mirror Box Source Detector Emissions Analyser (Common Configurations) ESP RSD-4600 instrument www.esp-global.com 10
  10. 10. EMISSION MODELLING VALIDATION (1) Comparison with Remote Sensing Emission Factors 11 Car_diesel 푅푆푀퐴푁푈. = 푁푂푋 퐶푂2 푅푆 × 퐶푂2 푘푚 푀퐴푁푈. Euro class NO X (grams/km) 1.0 0.5 0.0 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Car_petrol
  11. 11. EMISSION MODELLING VALIDATION (2) Comparison with Remote Sensing Emission Factors 12 Car_diesel 푅푆푁퐸푇푊푂푅퐾 푀푂퐷퐸퐿 = 푁푂푋 퐶푂2 푅푆 × 퐶푂2 푘푚 푁퐸푇푊푂푅퐾 푀푂퐷퐸퐿 Euro class NO X (grams/km) 1.0 0.5 0.0 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 Car_petrol 푅푆푂퐵푆퐸푅푉퐸퐷 푇푅퐴퐽. = 푁푂푋 퐶푂2 푅푆 × 퐶푂2 푘푚 푂퐵푆퐸푅푉퐸퐷 푇푅퐴퐽.
  12. 12. CAR-petrol CAR-diesel VAN HGV COACH NOX (%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 BUS EMISSION CONTRIBUTIONS Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 13
  13. 13. CAR-petrol CAR-diesel VAN HGV COACH NO2 (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BUS EMISSION CONTRIBUTIONS Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 14
  14. 14. A “VIRTUAL” YORK 2 Coupled micro-scopic traffic & instantaneous emission model 15
  15. 15. MAPPING VEHICLE EMISSIONS The spatial variation in NOX – AM peak 16 BOOTHAM GILLYGATE
  16. 16. GRAPHING VEHICLE EMISSIONS The spatial variation in NOX – AM peak {©Copyright GoogleTM 2014} 17 BUS STOP
  17. 17. INFLUENCE TIME OF DAY Bootham to Gillygate direction 18
  18. 18. VEHICLE TYPE CONTRIBUTIONS Bootham to Gillygate direction 19 {©Copyright GoogleTM 2014}
  19. 19. BOOTHAM  GILLYGATE (South  East) NOX emissions: EFT v5.2c & PHEM11 AM Peak [08:00  09:00hrs] 0 100 200 300 400 500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Distance (metres) NO X (grams / hr / m) BOOTHAM   GILLYGATE
  20. 20. BOOTHAM  GILLYGATE (South  East) NOX emissions: EFT v5.2c & PHEM11 EVening [19:00  23:00hrs] 0 100 200 300 400 500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Distance (metres) NO X (grams / hr / m) BOOTHAM   GILLYGATE
  21. 21. Summary METHOD  Detailed, coupled traffic-vehicle emission simulations are now feasible  Emission Factors are in agreement with remote sensing measurements  The PHEM (total) NOX emissions from Bootham and Gillygate over a typical weekday are higher than those predicted by the UK EFT 26%  The approach, moving towards a “virtual” representation of local traffic networks and the local vehicle fleet:  naturally encapsulates events that influence emissions e.g. Bus stops  Complex traffic situations and interventions can be assessed:  Congestion  Demand management  Control strategies e.g. Smoothing flow, penetration new Driver Assist Systems 22  Allows the distribution of emissions through urban streets and
  22. 22. Conclusions  During periods of light traffic demand, NOX emissions are concentrated around the intersection itself, with emissions at mid-link locations where vehicles are typically ‘cruising’ at a low-level  In Peak periods with slow moving queues on links, emissions are elevated in the vicinity of the intersection, but also spread along the length of the links ? Does the uniform ‘line source’ assumption still hold for local-scale vehicle emission assessments & micro-scale scale dispersion modelling in street canyons 23
  23. 23. Further work MODEL VERIFICATION & VALIDATION:  Developing methods to quantify differences in vehicle dynamics  e.g. variability in cruising speeds  Further PHEM validation  Light- and Heavy-duty chassis dyno measurements (London Drive Cycle)  Evaluating the complete Traffic – Vehicle Emissions – Dispersion Modelling chain, comparison to ambient measurements. APPLICATIONS:  Fleet renewal e.g. Low Emission Zone evaluation, Bus replacement 24  Sustainable transport policies e.g. reducing the demand for

×