不同风速测量方法对新能源轻型汽车行驶阻力影响

doi:10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2025.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提升新能源轻型汽车行驶阻力的测试效率与精度,对比分析两种风速测量方法及其对应的滑行测试方案.根据现行轻型汽车滑行试验标准的试验流程,对比分析固定风速仪法与车载风速仪法,推导并简化了车载风速仪法对应的空气动力学方程;在相同环境条件下采用多辆样车开展滑行试验,对两组测试数据进行对比分析.试验结果表明:车载风速仪法在低车速工况下风速测量精度更高,而高车速时车载风速仪会增大空气阻力,使测试结果产生一定偏差.因此,开展道路行驶阻力精确测试时,最高车速较低的工况推荐采用车载风速仪法,最高车速较高的工况优先选用固定风速仪法;同时,经推导简化后的空气动力学方程可有效降低计算复杂度,提升数据处理效率.

关键词: 新能源轻型汽车, 滑行试验, 车载风速仪法, 固定风速仪法, 污染物排放标准

Abstract:

To improve the test efficiency and accuracy of road driving resistance for new energy light-duty vehicles, two wind speed measurement methods with their corresponding coastdown test schemes are compared and analyzed in this paper. In accordance with the current standard procedure for coastdown tests of light-duty vehicles, a comparison is conducted between the stationary anemometer method and the onboard anemometer method. The aerodynamic equation for the onboard anemometer method is derived and simplified. Coastdown tests are performed on multiple vehicle prototypes under identical environmental conditions, followed by comparing the two test datasets. The results show that the onboard anemometer method yields higher wind speed measurement accuracy at low vehicle speeds. At high vehicle speeds, however, the onboard anemometer increases aerodynamic drag, resulting in significant deviations in test results. Therefore, for accurate measurement of road driving resistance, the onboard anemometer method is recommended for test conditions with a relatively low maximum speed, while the stationary anemometer method is preferred for high maximum speed conditions. Additionally, the derived and simplified aerodynamic equation effectively reduces computational complexity and improves the efficiency of data processing.

Key words: new energy light-duty vehicles, coastdown test, onboard anemometry method, stationary anemometry method, emission standards

中图分类号:

U469
U467

牛飞飞, 李璞, 金晓清. 不同风速测量方法对新能源轻型汽车行驶阻力影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报, 2026, 60(8): 1364-1373.

NIU Feifei, LI Pu, JIN Xiaoqing. Impact of Different Wind Speed Measurement Methods on Driving Resistance of New Energy Light-Duty Vehicles[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2026, 60(8): 1364-1373.

图/表 12

图1

图2

图3

表1

图4

图5

表2

图6

图7

表3

表4

图8

参考文献 22

[1]	GB/T 18386.1—2021 电动汽车能量消耗量和续驶里程试验方法第1部分:轻型汽车[S].
	GB/T 18386.1—2021 Test methods for energy consumption and range of electric vehicles—Part 1: Light-duty vehicles[S].
[2]	GB/T 19753—2021 轻型混合动力电动汽车能量消耗量试验方法[S].
	GB/T 19753—2021 Test methods for energy consumption of light-duty hybrid electric vehicles[S].
[3]	GB/T 43252—2023 燃料电池电动汽车能量消耗量及续驶里程试验方法[S].
	GB/T 43252—2023 Test methods of energy consumption and range for fuel cell electric vehicles[S].
[4]	GB 18352.6—2016 轻型汽车污染物排放限值及测量方法(中国第六阶段)[S].
	GB 18352.6—2016 Limits and measurement methods for emissions from light-duty vehicles(CHINA 6)[S].
[5]	张小龙, 刘鹏飞, 汪旭明, 等. 带风速风向补偿的车辆道路滑行阻力虚拟测试系统[J]. 农业机械学报, 2017, 48(11): 390-397.
	ZHANG Xiaolong, LIU Pengfei, WANG Xuming, et al. Virtual test system for coastdown resistance of motor vehicle with compensation of wind speed and direction[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2017, 48(11): 390-397.
[6]	LEE B, KIM D, LEE J, et al. Influence of tire rolling resistance coefficient on road load and fuel economy for passenger car[J]. Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers, 2018, 26(6): 745-754. doi: 10.7467/KSAE.2018.26.6.745 URL
[7]	D’AMBROSIO S, VITOLO R. Potential impact of active tire pressure management on fuel consumption reduction in passenger vehicles[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2019, 233(4): 961-975. doi: 10.1177/0954407018756776 URL
[8]	HAO L J, WANG C J, YIN H, et al. Model-based estimation of light-duty vehicle fuel economy at high altitude[J]. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2019, 11(11): 1687814019886252.
[9]	易金花, 陈丽霞, 严杰. 车辆行驶阻力测量风洞法与滑行法对比试验研究[J]. 汽车技术, 2019(7): 59-62.
	YI Jinhua, CHEN Lixia, YAN Jie. Comparative test and research on wind tunnel procedure and coastdown method for vehicle resistance measurement[J]. Automobile Technology, 2019(7): 59-62.
[10]	高岳, 李珍妮, 杨一春, 等. 风洞法测量汽车道路行驶阻力[J]. 汽车工程学报, 2019, 9(1): 21-26.
	GAO Yue, LI Zhenni, YANG Yichun, et al. Vehicle road load measurement in a wind tunnel[J]. Chinese Journal of Automotive Engineering, 2019, 9(1): 21-26.
[11]	付强, 杨志刚, 张辉香, 等. 汽车风阻系数试验与数值模拟的对比分析[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(S1): 48-53.
	FU Qiang, YANG Zhigang, ZHANG Huixiang, et al. Comparative analysis of automobile drag coefficient test and numerical simulation[J]. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2021, 49(S1): 48-53.
[12]	罗雄, 刘易斯. 汽车道路滑行阻力的研究[J]. 汽车科技, 2019(6): 19-22.
	LUO Xiong, LIU Yisi. Research on vehicle road coast down resistance[J]. Automobile Science & Technology, 2019(6): 19-22.
[13]	牛飞飞, 杜伟涛, 金晓清, 等. 基于国VI标准的汽车道路滑行试验研究[J]. 中国测试, 2019, 45(7): 11-18.
	NIU Feifei, DU Weitao, JIN Xiaoqing, et al. Research on vehicle road slip test based on national VI standard[J]. China Measurement & Test, 2019, 45(7): 11-18.
[14]	龚春忠, 沈羡玉, 刘金子, 等. 汽车滑行试验速度间隔选取对精度的影响研究[J]. 汽车实用技术, 2019, 44(24): 58-60.
	GONG Chunzhong, SHEN Xianyu, LIU Jinzi, et al. Research on the influence of speed interval selection on accuracy of vehicle coast-down test[J]. Automobile Applied Technology, 2019, 44(24): 58-60.
[15]	KO K H. A study for detecting fuel-cut driving of vehicle using GPS[J]. Journal of Digital Convergence, 2019, 17(11): 207-213.
[16]	PA ŁASZ B, WALUŚK J, WARGU ŁA Ł. The determination of the rolling resistance coefficient of a passenger vehicle with the use of selected road tests methods[J]. MATEC Web of Conferences, 2019, 254: 04006. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201925404006 URL
[17]	SON J, KO J, KIM K, et al. Correlation analysis of road load fuel economy variations by energy difference for gasoline direct injection and diesel-powered vehicles[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2020, 234(2/3): 897-911. doi: 10.1177/0954407019899516 URL
[18]	徐蝉, 龚春辉, 江绮睿, 等. 环境温度对汽车行驶阻力的影响[J]. 汽车实用技术, 2022, 47(14): 101-104. doi: 10.16638/j.cnki.1671-7988.2022.014.022
	XU Chan, GONG Chunhui, JIANG Qirui, et al. Influence of ambient temperature on vehicle driving resistance[J]. Automobile Applied Technology, 2022, 47(14): 101-104. doi: 10.16638/j.cnki.1671-7988.2022.014.022
[19]	姚实聪, 张明德, 周金应, 等. 遗传算法在国VI固定式风速仪行驶阻力测试中的应用[J]. 中国测试, 2022, 48(6): 18-25.
	YAO Shicong, ZHANG Mingde, ZHOU Jinying, et al. Application of genetic algorithms in running resistance measurements of CHINA 6 stationary anemometry[J]. China Measurement & Test, 2022, 48(6): 18-25.
[20]	刘可, 方超群, 费上宝, 等. 乘用车道路滑行阻力试验影响因素分析[J]. 汽车科技, 2023(2): 8-13.
	LIU Ke, FANG Chaoqun, FEI Shangbao, et al. Study on influence factors of road sliding resistance test of passenger vehicles[J]. Auto Sci-Tech, 2023(2): 8-13.
[21]	DE MENEZES LOURENÇO M A, ECKERT J J, SILVA F L, et al. Vehicle and twin-roller chassis dynamometer model considering slip tire interactions[J]. Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, 2023, 51(11): 6166-6183. doi: 10.1080/15397734.2022.2038199 URL
[22]	ISO 10521-1: 2006 Road vehicles—Road load—Part 1: Determination under reference atmospheric conditions[S].

测试方法	数据处理		结果修正
测试方法	数据选取	行驶阻力	修正系数	行驶阻力
固定风速仪法	至少3对连续往返结果(v_j+Δv滑行到v_j-Δv),满足统计精度,见式(1)	行驶阻力:使用往返滑行时间的调和平均值计算行驶阻力, 见式(2) 滑行阻力曲线:使用最小二乘法将各个基准速度点的行驶阻力拟合成速度的二次函数得到式(3)	K₂, K₀, F₁, K₁	修正到基准状态(标准大气条件),见式(16)
车载风速仪法	至少5对连续往返结果(v_j+Δv滑行到v_j-Δv),满足统计精度,见式(12)	行驶阻力:根据动力学平衡方程和空气动力学阻力数值模拟计算行驶阻力, 见式(11) 滑行阻力曲线:使用线性最小二乘回归法对所有数据进行分析计算,并结合统计学收敛条件式(12)确定滑行阻力二次函数	K₂, K₀, F₁, K₁	修正到基准状态(标准大气条件),见式(16)

v/(km·h^-1)	${F}_{1}^{\mathrm{*}}$/N	${F}_{2}^{\mathrm{*}}$/ N	$\frac{{F}_{1}^{\mathrm{}}-{F}_{2}^{\mathrm{}}}{{F}_{1}^{\mathrm{*}}}$/%
20	261.7	275.6	-5.15
30	305.8	316.3	-3.35
40	363.3	368.9	-1.52
50	434.2	433.5	0.16
60	518.5	510.0	1.63
70	616.3	598.5	2.89
80	727.6	698.9	3.95
90	852.2	811.3	4.85
100	990.4	935.6	5.60
110	1141.9	1071.9	6.24
120	1306.9	1220.1	6.78
130	1485.4	1380.3	7.24

v	v_r
	第1组		第2组		第3组		第4组		第5组
	正	负	正	负	正	负	正	负	正	负
20	20.51	19.27	20.41	19.61	20.37	19.14	20.46	19.53	20.92	18.53
30	30.74	29.13	30.65	29.03	30.95	28.87	30.82	28.67	31.20	28.23
40	40.56	39.70	40.66	39.36	40.75	39.05	41.10	38.48	41.17	38.61
50	51.01	48.63	50.91	48.33	51.04	48.73	51.31	48.40	50.81	48.66
60	60.98	58.81	61.20	58.62	61.14	58.61	61.29	58.23	61.04	58.18
70	71.52	68.72	71.63	68.85	71.56	68.40	71.51	68.39	72.16	67.66
80	81.10	78.09	81.74	78.75	81.16	78.92	82.03	77.35	81.97	78.15
90	91.77	88.61	91.83	88.48	91.27	88.15	91.97	87.59	92.22	88.56
100	101.09	98.28	101.88	99.41	101.34	98.16	101.57	98.50	101.82	98.26
110	111.49	108.38	110.67	108.80	111.11	108.63	111.91	108.83	112.21	107.73
120	121.76	118.16	121.27	118.34	122.07	117.88	121.85	118.08	122.10	117.58
130	131.75	128.68	132.11	127.89	131.65	128.35	132.33	127.04	132.04	127.18

v/(km·h^-1)	v_r/(km·h^-1)				Δ/(km²·h^-2)
	正向		负向		正向	负向	平均
	固定	车载	固定	车载	正向	负向	平均
20	20.78	20.53	19.22	19.22	10.16	0.15	5.16
30	30.78	30.87	29.22	28.77	5.67	25.17	15.42
40	40.78	40.85	39.22	39.04	5.55	14.07	9.81
50	50.78	51.02	49.22	48.55	24.02	65.51	44.77
60	60.78	61.10	59.22	58.49	42.67	85.93	64.30
70	70.78	71.68	69.22	68.40	127.64	112.30	119.97
80	80.78	81.60	79.22	78.45	133.15	121.09	127.12
90	90.78	91.55	89.22	88.48	140.76	131.85	136.31
100	100.78	101.50	99.22	98.52	153.76	138.02	145.89
110	110.78	111.48	109.22	108.47	155.14	162.40	158.77
120	120.78	121.81	119.22	118.01	249.87	287.52	268.70
130	130.78	131.98	129.22	127.83	314.26	357.81	336.04