wltp-dtp-12 geneva, 16.01.2013 dtp subgroup labprocice slide 1 progress report dtp subgroup lab...

WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013

DTP Subgroup LabProcICE

slide 1

Progress ReportProgress ReportDTP SubgroupDTP Subgroup

Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines

(LabProcICE)(LabProcICE)

WLTP-DTP-12WLTP-DTP-12

Geneva, 16.01.2013Geneva, 16.01.2013



slide 2

1) State of the working progress

2) Issues on DTP Level

3) Validation phases 2 and 3

4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues

5) Next steps

Overview



slide 3

• several dates Draft working team meetings

• 14. – 16.11.2012 Brussels workshop

- evaluation of validation 2 results

- road load determination

- joined meeting with EV Group

minutes: LabProcICE-171

• 06.12.2012 Phone/web conference

- comparison of RLD methods

Meetings since DTP-11



slide 4





5) Next steps

Overview



slide 5

WLTP flexibilities (LabProcICE-151 / -152 / -153)

Even improved test procedures with tightened tolerances will allow to use flexibilities in a

systematic manner and might still lead to discrepancies between type approval and 'real-

world' CO2 values.

EU-Com proposal:

Correction / normalization of measured CO2 emissions

LabProcICE feedback:

approach might shorten discussions on gtr test procedure tolerances

impact on WLTP roadmap?

Chair requested feedback on the feasibility of proposed normalization methods

(see Annex of LabProcICE-151)



slide 6

Expected decision at DTP-12:

Implement such an approach

(a) in WLTP gtr

or

(b) on regional level only by interested contracting parties?



slide 7

Test mass / vehicle selection / inertia classes

Review of DTP status:

Approach from T&E / NL / ICCT includes:

(1) vehicle test mass

improved definition (incl. optional equipment, luggage/payload)

Testing worst and in addition best case

(if requested by manufacturer)

(2) optional body parts influencing the aerodynamics

Detailed discussion of alternative approaches at f2f-meeting

(3) step-less inertia



slide 8

Open Issues

(a) Payload factors

Current LabProcICE proposal : M1 15%, N1 35% (based on EU data)

Analysis of data from Japan showed the following payload factors:

-non commercial usage: 10 to 15 %

-commercial usage: 30 to 35 %.

Solutions:

(1) Exclude payload from gtr test mass approach regional decision

(2) Define 2 harmonized payload levels (low & high) in gtr, e.g. 15% and 30%.

allocation to the respective vehicle classes on regional level.



(b) (b) Consideration of aerodynamic featuresConsideration of aerodynamic features

• The vehicle shall be tested 3 times (3 coastdowns, 3 CO2 tests) to define the maximum bandwidth for CO2 values

TML without aerodynamic features TMH without aerodynamic features and worst case

• intermediate values for individual features to be calculated and added to TM CO2 value

• extrapolation within a certain range should be possible

mass

CO2

TML TMH

Bandwidth of individual vehicle

TM

TM CO2

Aero CO2

individual values

for each feature

Aerodyn. worst case

No aerodynamic features installed

No aerodynamic features installed

CO2



slide 10

Consideration of movable parts

LabProcICE decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO2 impact

of such parts, e. g. spoiler, air shutters, level of vehicle:

(a) Low impact:

“movable parts shall operate as intended under normal driving conditions”

(b) Unknown impact:

- Worst case setting as starting point.

- Deviations depending on usage time or if the aerodynamic impact of

the worst case setting is below defined thresholds.

Japan supported option (b) because of unknown future parts and impacts



slide 11

(c) Tyre selection criteria

1. Select tyre from the worst rolling resistance class

(based on EU tyre labelling directive, RR measured in acc. with UN-R117,

tyres offered by manufacturer for series of production)

2. Select widest tyre (offered by manufacturer for series of production) within

the worst class

EU-COM at DTP-11: consideration of tyre categories (C1, C2, …)

proposal from ACEA expected for discussion in LabProcICE

3. Open issue regarding wheel rim selection:

- rim with highest aerodynamic drag (worst case approach) or

- consider rims as aerodynamic options?

decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO2 impacts



slide 12

RR-Classn+2

SelectableTyres

Proposal: Three steps for Tyre selection for Road load determination

Vehicle Family

Aero Cd

Wheel Rim4

Rolling Resistance

(1) HighestRR-Class

RR-Classn+1

RR-Classn

Wheel Rim3

Wheel Rim2

Wheel Rim1

(2) Widest Tyre

(3) Consider Wheel Rims as aerodynamic

options

(3) Use wheel rim with highest aero

drag

option:

Open Issue:



slide 13

Method of subtraction of intake air

Aim:

measure low pollutant mass with higher accuracy by considering the pollutant level

that is contained in the combustion and intake air of the vehicle (LabProcICE-020)

Concerns by US EPA / Japan

DTP-08: Issue put on hold until results of validation and correlation show the

clear need and effect of the proposed method

No measurements during validation 2 Proposal withdrawn



slide 14

Table of running resistances (LabProcICE-167 by PSA)

• Need for table as an alternative to measurement methods agreed.

• General objective by EU-COM:

default factors should represent worst case to prevent an incentive to use the

table instead of the measurement methods

JRC will scrutinize the proposal counterproposal if necessary

Comparison of RLD measurement methods• EU-COM at DTP-11: equivalency of methods to be evaluated

• TelCo 6.12.2012 (LabProcICE-167 /-172 /-173)

pros&cons + need for each method (coast down, torque meter, windtunnel)

evaluation needs to be continued



slide 15

Multimode gear boxes

Emissions testing proposal:

Test agreed worst case

Compliance with emissions standards in all modes

Exemptions for modes used in very limited conditions

CO2 / FE testing proposal:

(a) Single default mode test default mode

(b) No default mode or multi default modes test best and worst case, average results of both modes

Additional provisions:

- Manufacturer shall give evidence to authority about the emission and fuel economy in the different modes - Tested options be provided in test report, e.g. for In-Service-testing



slide 16

Reservation with regard to default mode procedure by COM & NL

proposal: average best and worst case even in case of a single default mode

DTP-9:

validation 2: some labs should test all modes of single default mode vehicles

decision on how to handle these vehicles afterwards

Validation2:

no input LabProcICE will keep proposal___________________________________________________

GSI

• Automotive Industry will provide proposal for GSI procedure

• General question: follow fixed gear shift points and/or GSI?



slide 17

Soak procedureAlternative 1:

At least 6 hours and maximum of 36 hours until the engine oil temperature and coolant, if any, are within

298 K ± 2 K.

(forced cooling down with open bonnet at the request of the manufacturer)

Alternative 2:

At least 12 hours and maximum 36 hours, with closed bonnet in soak area environment without using a

cooling fan.

Validation 2:

First evalution of results showed that vehicle temperatures after 6h with forced cooling down show an

equivalent temperature level to 12 -36 h



slide 18

Objectives from EU stakeholders:

12 h soaking at 25°C is not representative for real life.

vehicle (oil) temperature criteria shall not be dropped (alternative 2)

Automotive industry:

real life benefits of vehicles with insulation are disregarded by setting a target

temperature

DTP-12 advice needed:

Principle approach to get a reproducible / normalized result:

1) defining a target setpoint vehicle temperature

and / or (?)

2) defining a representative soak method / time.



slide 19





5) Next steps

Overview



slide 20

1.1 Soak Temperature Tolerances1.2 Soak with forced Cooling down1.3 Test Cell Temperatures1.4 Tolerances of Humidity during Test Cycle2.1 Tolerances of Emission Measurement System2.2 Subtraction of Intake Air3.1 Inertia setting3.2 WLTC gearshift tolerance3.3 OBD during WLTC3.4 Preconditioning Cycle3.5 Preconditioning for Dilution Tunnel3.6 Tolerances for Dyno Load Setting3.7 Speed Trace Tolerances3.8 Handling of GSI3.9 Monitoring of RCB of all Batteries3.10 Exhaust Pressure before Remote Mixing Tee or CVS3.11 Proportional Fan Position3.12 Cycle Mode Construction3.13 Required Time for Bag Analysis3.14 Dilution Factor3.15 Dyno Operation Mode

Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Phase 2Phase 2

LabProcICE-154Part 1





slide 21

Validation phase 2

Evaluation of LabProcICE issues based on Validation 2 data base

LabProcICE in close cooperation with Heinz Steven

Last f2f meeting:

Review of preliminary results

documents: LabProcICE-154, LabProcICE-155, LabProcICE-156

Discussion of important issues with initial proposals

Conclusion: Final data base needed for concluding evaluation

Roadmap needs to be adapted!

Important: All Contracting Parties are encouraged to

evaluate the data base and come up with proposals



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

percentage of tests

Del

ta T

[K]

T_min-ave T_max-ave

slide 22

Validation phase 2 example – soak temperatures

Increasing maximum deviation of soak temperature

soak temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 3 K of the set point

soak temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 3 K of the set point

Number of tests: 211 (no forced cooling down)

5 min average



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

percentage of tests

Del

ta T

[K]

T_min_amb T_max_amb

slide 23

Validation phase 2 example – test cell temperatures

Increasing maximum deviation of test cell temperature during wltc

Test cell temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 4 K of the set point

Test cell temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 4 K of the set point

Number of tests: 949

1 Hz data



slide 24

Validation phase 2 example – lab temperatures

Soak Area 6 -36 h Start of Test

Test Cell during

Setpoint

+ 5 K

-5 K

TemperatureSoak and Test

Cell

"no systematic deviation"

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Actual Value



Current EU legislation:

soak, test start and test cell temperatures have a tolerance of ± 5 K

Initial LabProcICE proposal for tolerances:

Soak tolerance: ± 3 K (5 min average)

Test start: ± 2 K (1 Hz values)

Lab temperature: ± 5 K (1 Hz values)

LabProcICE boundary conditions for lab temperature setpoint:

• validation 2 setpoint: 25 °C

• between 20 – 30 °C (harmonization with US)

slide 25



slide 26

Validation phase 3

Japan introduced status report (LabProcICE-165) at f2f meeting:

• Validation measurements are still on going.

• Main task: warming up procedure

several options will be evaluated

comparison between stabilized coast down after warm up and a non-stabilized coast down will also be foreseen to evaluate benefit.



slide 27

Possible issues for post-validation

• GSI handling

• Monitoring of RCB of all batteries

• Handling of areodynamic options within test mass approach

• Normalization methods

In addition:

• Need to evaluate equivalency of RLD measurement methods by further studies?



slide 28





5) Next steps

Overview



slide 29

Open issues

LabProcICE open issues are listed in the gtr draft documents,

see comments of S. Dubuc (Drafting Coordinator)

Other proposals and work in progress items:

- Deletion of on-board anemometer based coast down

method

- Tyre conditioning

- …



slide 30





5) Next steps

Overview



slide 31

Next steps

• Telephone Conference in February 2013 (tbc)

• DC drafting sessions

• f2f-Workshop in Brussels:

20.02.2013: hosted by AECC21.02.2013: hosted by ACEA



slide 32

Thanks for your attention.Thanks for your attention.

LabProcICE contact:

Béatrice Lopez de Rodas - beatrice.lopez(at)utac.com

Konrad Kolesa - konrad.kolesa(at)audi.de

Stephan Redmann – stephan.redmann(at)bmvbs.bund.de

wltp-dtp-12 geneva, 16.01.2013 dtp subgroup labprocice slide 1 progress report dtp subgroup lab...

Documents