Feed-back approach on RLD

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Current status of alternative warming up procedure Annex 4 § (OIL#19) WLTP-06-25e T. Yamaguchi, Japan
Advertisements

OIL#19 Alternative warm-up procedure (JAPAN proposal) 14th of January, 2015 WLTP rev1e.
WLTP Number of Tests Different Options And Their Consequences IWG in Stockholm, Christoph Lueginger, BMW WLTP-10-26e.
Real-world emissions in the EU: An overview of recent evidence and policy implications Peter Mock, Anup Bandivadekar APEC VFEL Workshop Singapore March.
WLTP wind tunnel concept
A simple performance measurement framework A good performance measurement framework will focus on the customer and measure the right things. Performance.
1 Proposal for a downscaling procedure for the extra high speed phases of the WLTC for low powered vehicles within a vehicle class Technical justification.
Assessment Criteria for the Acceptability of Cycle and Testing Procedure Informal working document DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 1 Assessment Criteria.
Representative road load test procedure Peter Smeds – Swedish Transport Administration Iddo Riemersma – Transport & Environment WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-029,
WLTP 6th DTP Meeting Geneva DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 1 Parameter Setting for Validation 2 DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines.
WLTP-E-Lab Sub Group Progress report WLTP-DTP-E-LabProc-012 Leader: Per Ohlund / Kazuki Kobayashi.
GTR proposal for Roadload determination JAPAN June 2015 WLTP-11-13e.
National Legislation on in- service inspections and the PED.
ACEA comments on EU WLTP issues EU WLTP, 30 TH OF NOVEMBER November 2015.
Combined approach for vehicle test weight, stepless inertia and vehicle selection 18 January 2012 DTP meeting Geneva Revised proposal by The Netherlands.
Representative road load test procedure Peter Smeds – Swedish Transport Administration Iddo Riemersma – Transport & Environment WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-040a.
New COP for WLTP André Rijnders Senior advisor vehicle emissions and fuels Vehicle Standards Development RDW, The Netherlands 1 Conformity of production.
NEDC/WLTP correlation process Meeting of TCMV on 17 November 2015
WLTP gtr Annex 9 Determination of Method Equivalency - Progress Report
WLTP ANNEX 4, ROAD LOAD CALCULATION Proposal for calculating the road load of individual vehicles C. Lueginger, BMW; A. Feucht, Audi WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-202.
Dual-axis dyno Taskforce Status Report WLTP-IWG meeting April 2016 Iddo Riemersma (T&E) Christoph Lueginger (BMW) WLTP-14-04e.
WLTP IWG ISC Taskforce: Starting note
India’s Comments on EPPR (Part-B2)
ISO/IEC
Use Cases Discuss the what and how of use cases: Basics Benefits
Mr. Nepimach Czech Ecological Institute
Improvement of Wind tunnel Measurement Process Status report
NMi WIM standard Cock Oosterman NMi Certin
SiCo ACEA position RESULT slides proposal.
Outcome TFCS-11// February Washington DC
Pilot phase - Learnings
Fuel consumption measurement in LDVs WLTP 2nd act Working Group
Regulation series WLTP-24-03e_Appendix 4
WLTP-E-Lab Sub Group Progress report WLTP-DTP-E-LabProc-012
Informal document No. GRPE (70th GRPE, January 2015, agenda item 3(b))
ACEA Comments to Commission’s note of April Editing Board
Improvement of Family definitions
Analysis of WLTP European utility factor For OVC-HEVs.
Proposal for a mid vehicle concept
Input on wind tunnel criteria discussions
LDV Real Driving Emissions: - Drafting of physical PEMS protocol –
IVECO Proposal for Revised CoP Procedure
Draft WLTP Phase 2 – carryover from 1b – Annex 4 Starting note on split runs in coast down testing WLTP-14-18e Within phase 1b, practically all tolerances.
European and Economic Social Committee
ASEP IWG Report to GRB 65th
Submitted by the experts of OICA
WLTP Validation2 for RLD ~ Validation test plan by Japan ~
Fuel Cell Vehicles - Required corrections in xxx-2016
variations in tyre pressure and road surface
Correlation Improvements
ASEP, from 2005 to 2019 Background informations and future works
COP statistic proposal for UN-WLTP
Pilot project: Analysis of the relevance of influencing factors when determining CO2 emissions and fuel consumption during type approval of passenger cars.
Tyre Industry contribution
HDV CO2 certification CoP provisions
Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines
Full load curve proposal
COP statistic proposal for UN-WLTP
Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines
Setting Performance Objectives/ Targets
COP procedure for Europe
DTP Lab Process ICE: Open Issues
Status report 4WD dynamometer taskforce
Reg. EC 1151/2017 Annex I subpar Annex I subpar 4.2
Title : Alternative warm-up procedure WLTP rev1e by Japan
Some remarks on ACEA COP presentation 7 May 2019
Conformity-of-Production
National Legislation in the Pressure Sector and the PED
UNECE WLTP COP task-Force Revision on testing Frequency
Combined approach for vehicle test weight, stepless inertia and vehicle selection Revised proposal by The Netherlands (Andre Rijnders ), T&E (Iddo Riemersma)
Presentation transcript:

Feed-back approach on RLD Implementation options for feed-back approach on road load determination Iddo Riemersma – Transport & Environment EU-WLTP meeting 15 October 2012 - Brussels

Problem description Customer expectation: Realistic fuel consumption figures Required: Test procedure aiming at representative conditions for production vehicles (cycle, road load, temperature etc.) Road load not tested on production vehicle but on a pre-production vehicle, at a special test track and under ideal conditions ‘Flexibilities’ in current ISO 10521 road load test procedure: this offsets the homologation test results

Justification data TU Graz measured 9 to 24% higher CO2 emissions compared to TA value on 6 production vehicles by applying actual measured road load. T&E road load study showed on average 11% higher CO2 due to non-representative road load VTT measured 28% difference between reported and measured CO2, using actual road-load factors

Different approaches Feed forward approach Feed back approach Requirements Requirements Coast down test vehicle Road load data Production vehicle Requirements Requirements Requirements Requirements Coast down test vehicle Road load data Production vehicle Road load data

Objectives WLTP More representative test cycle and test procedure, leading to representative fuel consumption/CO2 emissions Level playing field for manufacturers Closing the gap between actual and homologation road-load helps to achieve these objectives Only way to close the gap is to check road-load of production vehicles (feed-back approach) All subsequent testing will be based on realistic road-load

Options for feed-back approach Check on paper Verify road-load relevant components/settings of production vehicles Check by measurement Verify actual road-load on a run-in production vehicle

Check on paper Easy to implement, e.g. in CoP Cost-effective solution, little administrative burden Simple verification procedure, no extra tolerances BUT: No guarantee on a representative road-load Tight vehicle requirements and tolerances needed

Check by measurement Best guarantee on a representative road-load Implementation via ISC or independent in-use verification Limited vehicle requirements and tolerances needed BUT: Extra tolerance range needed for production variance (and if applicable: user influences) Practical difficulties / extra costs

Implementation details Sample size Should be balanced against added costs Based on road-load consistency between vehicles Related to sanctioning measures Sample timing/frequency Better towards start of production Allow sufficient run-in time

Implementation details Tolerance Road-load variation due to production variance, user influences, test conditions, test-to-test variation Balanced tolerance: not too wide, not too narrow Alternative: manufacturer declared road load New or in-use production vehicle New vehicle: more repeatable result In-use vehicle: more representative result

Implementation details Embedded or alongside legislation Easy option: add to existing requirements (CoP or ISC) Objective option: independent verification programme Execution of verification Manufacturer (easy, but possibly unrealistic road-load) Technical Service / Type-approval authority Independent test house (objective road-load, but more difficult to organise)

Recommendations Road-load verification by measurements Testing of in-use vehicles Verification testing at independent test houses 3 to 5 vehicles per vehicle family (or family group) Manufacturer declared road-load (not to exceed) Road load verification separated from type-approval Obligation for road-load verification laid down in EU legislation (with execution and sanctioning details)

Next steps Discussion is needed on: The necessity of a feed-back approach for road-load How to establish a feed-back loop (options) Implementation details and their relations How to embed the feed-back approach into EU legislation