1. HDV CO2 Editing Board Meeting
Presentations from TUG
Brussels, 26th of April 2016

2. Content (1) Welcome and introduction (2) Adoption of the draft agenda
(3) Expert Groups – state of play, open points and the way forward
(4) Outcomes of the pilot phase
(5) CoP and ex-post verification procedures
(a) Paper on the CoP and ex-post verification procedure
(b) SiCo – results from the pilot phase
(c) Ex-post verification – chassis dyno vs test track vs on-road testing
(6) 2nd draft of the certification procedure
(7) Presentation of the electronic sealing of the documents
(8) Preliminary discussion on technologies not included currently by VECTO
(9) AOB

3. Feedback from pilot phase
Feedback collected in table format.
Review provided by:

4. Feedback from pilot phase
Feedback is analysed in expert groups (engine, air drag, transmission, axle,…).
Corresponding amendments in technical annexes or software shall be documented
Input from feedback
378 comments received:
162 on air drag test
69 on transmission
36 on engine
30 on axle
28 on General issues
18 software
5 on auxiliaries
1 tires
Reaction from expert group

5. 2) Status of Expert groups: Engine: Summary of feedback from pilot phase
Topic
Feed Back
Full load curve
Definitions to be improved and differences transient / steady state to be considered
Measurement
More precise definitions of boundary conditions (T, H, p), limitation of auxiliary engagement, Fc frequency to be defined, adjust test sequence timing
Evaluation tool
More checks and flexibility demanded, display demanded points etc.; adjustment for new family concept (WHTC correction factor), better documentation, option to be embedded in different test bed systems
Emissions
Better link to EU6 criterion pollutant tests suggested, better definition of exhaust components to be measured and of evaluation rules needed. Close loopholes for test cycle specific optimisations.
Family concept
More precise description needed
COP
Description missing

6. 2) Status of Expert groups: Engine: Recent developments in test procedure
Topic
Update
Emission compliance
Full emission compliance checks in WHTC cold and hot
Fuel map checked according to OCE NTE requirements
Measurement procedure
Revision of map grid definition and limitation of WHTC-CorF limited to ≥ 1 to be robust against unwanted “optimisations”
Separate WHTC-CorF for each individual engine (covers variation in calibration + parts of CO2 cluster concept)
Auxiliary configuration for both, FC mapping + WHTC, still under discussion in EEG
Accuracy requirements for measurement devices still under investigation by OEMs
Proposed stringent limits for ambient air conditions still under investigation by OEMs
Ambiguous/Unprecise definitions in R49  need to be specified precisely
Handling of diesel fuel properties (use of specific or default heating value and g-CO2/J open)
Alternative fuels
Definition of fuels open (e.g. which CNG quality)
Specification of measurement systems open
CO2-cluster concept
Main concept agreed: HW and SW definition, other variations in engine calibration covered by WHTC-CorF and COP
COP
General concept still open: testing procedure, tolerances etc.

7. 2) Status of Expert groups: Air drag: Summary of feedback from pilot phase
Topic
Feed Back
VECTO Air drag tool
Suggestions for improvements (“declaration mode”, better diagnosis of invalid measurements, error handling, etc.)
Validity criteria
Validity criteria for ambient conditions and measurement data as defined for pilot phase are very strict  hard to gain a “valid test”
Repeatability of test procedure
Variations up to 12% in CdxA value observed
Tolerances for measurement systems
Requirements for accuracy of measurement systems (torque meters, anemometer) cannot be met or are not defined precisely
Tyre specifications
Review of definitions requested (tread depth, pressure)
Definitions of norm bodies and trailers
Definitions are very strict  review requested
Special vehicle configurations
Technical annex does not cover:
Vehicles which cannot be operated with limiter at 15km/h
Vehicles with controlable areodynamic devices
Technical Annex
Paragraphs containing not verifyable recommendations to be removed

8. 2) Status of Expert groups: Air drag: Recent developments in test procedure
Topic
Feed Back
Validity criteria
Validity criteria updated, further review in progress
Tolerances for measurement systems
Requirements for accuracy of measurement systems specified more precisely. Some items still open.
Tyre specifications
Tyre specification updated
Definitions of norm bodies and trailers
Definitions revised
Technical Annex
Paragraphs containing not verifyable recommendations removed
Family concept
Method mainly agreed. Elaboration of final wording open.
COP
Method clear (full retest). Still discussions on tolerance.

9. 5) Ex-post verification test (“SiCo”) options and work planned
Nearly fixed is:
The entire vehicle will be measured using a fuel flow meter and a torque meter at wheel rims
The measured cycle (most likely torque and rpm at wheels) will be used as input for VECTO. Auxiliaries shall be considered by generic values.
The measured and the simulated fuel consumption will be compared based on positive work at the wheels [g/kWh]  validation of VECTO input for engine, transmission and axle.
Tolerances for the deviation shall be defined.
Options under discussion:
Run steady state on the chassis dyno (allows any loads at the wheels but not feasible for all HDV categories)
Run steady state on test track: needs braking trailer to run at higher load points
Run transient test on the chassis dyno (WHVC or CO2-VECTO cycle)
Drive in real world traffic, e.g. with ISC trip boundary conditions

10. 5) Ex-post verification test (“SiCo”) options and work planned
Basis for selection:
Feasibility: any technical reason that an option cannot be tested
Uncertainty and reproducibility: Verification testing needs a reasonable low uncertainty and a good reproducibility to be meaningful
Robustness: the lower the chances for test specific optimisations, the better
Costs and infrastructure availability
Main open issue: Assessment of uncertainties related to the single options
Work planned:
Bottom up analysis of uncertainties from: *Measurement equipment *Auxiliary Engagement *Transient effects (engine, gear shifts) *Temperature effects on engine and transmission efficiencies *Spread in serial production engine, transmission, axle  average and maximum cumulated deviations to be expected
Top down analysis of uncertainties from pilot phase and additional tests (differences VECTO vs. measurements)

11. 5) Ex-post verification test (“SiCo”) options and work planned
Actual work:
Form for data collection for 1) and 2) distributed
Data provided by ACEA and TUG for bottom up and top down.
Analysis ongoing.
Data collection for bottom up analysis: Maximum deviation per component and per measurement device
Data collection for top down analysis:
Total deviation measurement-VECTO per test
Etc. for other SiCo options

12. 5. List of new technologies/ fuels that are not covered by VECTO
Fuels: Current fuel mapping proposal is only valid for EN590 fuels and provides gfuel/h and gCO2/h is calculated by fuel factor “gCO2/gfuel”
Options for alternative fuels:
Define mass flow measurement (same test points as for EN590) and the fuel factor “gCO2/gfuel” which can be generic or fuel specific (measure mass fraction C). Relevant for CNG, LPG, Biofuel blends
Not applicable for dual fuel engines without definition of test procedure when which fuel share is allowed. Next steps: wait for ACEA demands?
ADAS: options elaborated, details and decisions open, implementation in VECTO open. Next steps: look for funding?
Hybrids: options elaborated, details and decisions open. Implementation in VECTO open. Next steps: we suggest to make “VECTO demonstrator” to test different options check for artefacts, etc.
“Eco Innovations”: how shall technology be handled, that cannot be simulated by VECTO? Exclude in first phase?

13. Backup slides

14. 3) Status of VECTO software Updates available since V3.0.2 (March 2016)
Feature
Comment
Driver model
Further improvements in driver strategy (handling of “special cases”)
„Pwheel“ mode
Mode for recalculations of “SiCo” (already available in VECTO2.2)
„Measured speed“ mode
Mode for recalculations of “Proof of concept” tests (already available in VECTO2.2)
„Engine only“ mode
Mode for simulation of engine dyno tests (already available in VECTO2.2)
Bug fixing and model development
32 JIRA issues resolved
+ other 25 JIRA „support“ issues

15. 3) Status of VECTO software API Definition and implementation
Work so far performed at TUG:
Discussion of XML-structure for declaration input data
Definition of XML-schema (XSD) for declaration input data
Refactoring of input data handling to support API
Implementation of VECTO API (separate DLL distributed with VECTO3.0.2)
Support in testing at industry
Efforts not covered by LOT4 budget, financing t.b.d. with industry
Open issues
Data integrity handling („sealing“ and „signing“ of input & output) Decision on reqiurements and methods necessary a.s.a.p.!
Revision of input and output data according to final data and model structure
Declaration output ( XML document for EEA monitoring db, other demands not clear yet)
XML input data option also for „Engineering mode“ (t.b.d.)

16. 3) Status of VECTO software Work in progress for 3
3) Status of VECTO software Work in progress for 3.1 release (June 2016)
Feature
Explanation
Status
Run time optimisation
Identification and fixing of performance “bottle necks” (logging, search of operating point etc.)
Test calculations shows performance increase by a factor of 4 to 5 (e.g. 2min  25sec)
Limited potential for further improvements. Tbd.: Is simulation of “reference loading” only sufficient for customer information?
95%
Integration of Ricardo code on bus auxiliaries
Code as available from Ricardo in integrated into 2.2 and 3.1.
Methods (and GUI) completely unchanged (only minor adaptions for compatibility)
Extensive set of test cases analysed (3.1 vs. 2.2 vs )
Feature will be distributed to bus group in VECTO3.0.3 in May.
90%
Update of gear shift strategy for MT and AMT
Implementation of updated ACEA method
50%
Update of coasting strategy 5%

17. 3) Status of VECTO software Overall timeline

18. SiCo – State of play / 1 Issue Current status
Testing method a) Steady state vs. transient
Elaborate steady state test procedure as basic option for first phase of legislation. Compare with possible on-road transient test procedure in parallel for effectiveness.
b) Chassis dyno vs. on-track
Elaborate testing method which can be executed using both options
c) Limitations of on-track testing related to high power conditions
Solution could be “braking trailers”. Systems at the moment only available in US. EU OEMs first have to gather practical experience with these systems  will be not ready in 2016!
2) Test points a) Definition
b) Number of points
c) Point selection
gear and target values for engine speed and wheel power
duration of test points (ca s) and number of repetitions (ca. 3)
± tolerances for average values, e.g. ± 10rpm, ± 5kW
± tolerances for 1Hz values e.g. ± 25rpm, ± 15kW (=steady state criterion)
approx. 10 to 12 seems reasonable and practicable
Options: a) all points calculated by VECTO according to relevance for specific vehicle + random offsets
b) Define e.g. 12 areas, where test points have to be selected from (only meaningful if independent testing)

19. SiCo – State of play / 2 Issue Current status
3) Handling of auxiliaries
Deactivate auxiliaries during meaurement as good as possible
Record engine cooling fan speed + compressor activiation
Discard data with active compressor
Consider power consumption of engine cooling fan (SiCo specific generic function of fan speed + engine rated power)
Other auxiliaries: Use default data for power consumption from HDV CO2 mission profiles
4) Handling of CdxA testing as part of SiCo
Verification of CdxA value seems only reasonable with constant speed tests as defined in CdxA component testing. Similar method also foreseen for COP.  No additional benefit in SiCo
5) Test evaluation and calculation of VECTO reference result
Calculations to be performed after physical testing by TAA or any party which has access to VECTO input data
Measure for comparison: g fuel per wheels
Pass fail criterion to be elaborated (per single point or weighted average?)
Tolerance to be elaborated (further testing + error propagation law)
6) Others
a) Selection of vehicles
b) Number of vehicles
b) Run- in provisions
TA chooses vehicles to be tested and claims from customer?

20. 6. Monitoring parameters (metrics etc)
Proposal for data to be reported by VECTO to Monitoring db see:
Data_HDV_CO2_draft_ xlsx