Review of the European test procedure for evaporative emissions Giorgio Martini Institute for Energy and Transport Joint Research Centre

Scenario 2 Reduction of purging time in the test procedure Canister loaded to breakthrough after the pre-conditioning drive Conditioning drive: NEDC+ 2 x UDC Introduction of the 48-h diurnal test Expected result: Adoption of a more aggressive purging strategy over the urban part of the cycle + bigger canister (this will imply also a higher total purge volume target)

Scenario 2 + introduction of durability requirements for Scenario 2 plus Scenario 2 + introduction of durability requirements for Control of canister degradation As far as control of fuel permeation is concerned, it is assumed that in any case future vehicles will be equipped with low permeation (multi-layer) tanks with the following rate of introduction: Therefore no cost is considered (same as Scenario 2) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 35% 31% 26% 19% 11% 4% <1%

Scenario 3 Scenario 2 + introduction of durability requirements for Control of fuel permeation Control of canister degradation Expected result: Use of better material lowering the contribution of fuel permeation and improved canister durability Difference with Scenario 2 plus: Cost for multi-layer tanks are now considered on the basis of the phase-out rate suggested

Possible modifications to the current test procedure

Scenario 2 Reduction of purging time in the test procedure Canister loaded to breakthrough after the pre-conditioning drive Conditioning drive: NEDC+ 2 x UDC Introduction of the 48-h diurnal test Expected result: Adoption of a more aggressive purging strategy over the urban part of the cycle + bigger canister (this will imply also a higher total purge volume target)

After canister loading to breakthrough, the vehicle is currently driven in total through three (3) complete NEDC cycles, corresponding to 33 km drive length and 59 minutes drive time. This drive time is much longer than the drive time prescribed by the US two-Day diurnal test (31.4 minutes). Two options: The canister is loaded to break-through after the preconditioning drive: The drive time is reduced to 32.7 minutes / 15 km (1 complete NEDC cycle + 1 Part One) Same as above but the after canister loading the vehicle is driven through 1 complete NEDC + 2 Part One (UDC) : Drive time/distance reduced to 45.6 min / 19 km – This is the scenario evaluated in the cost/benefit analysis

Percentage of parking events GPS activity data recorded in urban areas show that on average more than 60% of the trips have a length below 5 km. The 90th percentile of the trip length is close to 20 km. Percentage of parking events lasting at least 12 hours preceded by a trip of a given distance Trip length (km) <5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percentage of parking events 55% 18% 10% 6% 3% 2% 1% 0%

Scenario 2 Reduction of purging time in the test procedure Canister loaded to breakthrough after the pre-conditioning drive Conditioning drive: NEDC+ 2 x UDC Introduction of the 48-h diurnal test Expected result: Adoption of a more aggressive purging strategy over the urban part of the cycle + bigger canister (this will imply also a higher total purge volume target)

The diurnal test is extended to 48 hours Two options: US-like approach. The 2 grams/test emission standard is referred to Hot Soak test + the worst of the two 1-day diurnal tests performed consecutively (the diurnal test is divided into two separate 24-hour diurnal tests) To refer the 2 grams/test emission standard to Hot Soak test + the total emissions measured over the 2-day diurnal test (the 48 hours diurnal test is considered as a single test). This second approach would be useful to reduce the contribution of fuel permeation to evaporative emissions – Of course this would replace any further requirement on fuel permeation

Scenario 2 + introduction of durability requirements for Scenario 2 plus Scenario 2 + introduction of durability requirements for Control of canister degradation As far as control of fuel permeation is concerned, it is assumed that in any case future vehicles will be equipped with low permeation (multi-layer) tanks with the following rate of introduction: Therefore no cost is considered (same as Scenario 2) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 35% 31% 26% 19% 11% 4% <1%

Three possible options proposed by OEM suppliers: OPTION 1: Certify vehicle using a pre-aged canister OPTION 2: Demonstrate <10% degradation on carbon used for evaporative family MONITOR: Continue monitoring in-use SHED results and in-use canister BWC

Scenario 3 Scenario 2 +: Introduction of durability requirements for Control of fuel permeation Control of canister degradation Expected result: Use of better material lowering the rate of evap test failure

In-use compliance tests extended to evap emissions Possible options: To lower the emission standard in order to reduce the maximum allowable permeation rate In-use compliance tests extended to evap emissions To introduce a conditioning procedure of the tank and of the fuel system in order to duly take into account the effect of ethanol on permeation Fuel containing ethanol has to be in contact with the tank inner surface for an appropriate number of weeks to get to stabilized permeation rate. Tank heated at 40 °C to accelerate the process (two weeks soaking?)