1. LDV Real Driving Emissions: - Assessment work: status and open issues -
28th of November 2013, Brussels
European Commission DG - Joint Research Centre (JRC) - IET - Institute for Energy and Transport

2. Outline Objectives of the document Assessment criteria
Analysis or information required for the criteria
Work progress and “Shopping list”: Analysis and information still required for the methods
JRC MAW Method (EMROAD)
TUG (CLEAR)
TNO Binning Tool

3. Objectives of the document
To discuss and to propose the analysis required to provide the supporting information needed for the assessment criteria, with the aim to develop guidelines for the involved experts
To (possibly) distribute some work within the participating organizations (The major part shall remain with the method ‘owners’ to compile the results for their method and all vehicles)
If necessary, the proposals will be reviewed and adapted at each task force meeting

4. Assessment criteria (1)
ROBUSTNESS:
Ability to assess RDE performance
Ability to assess RDE performance under specific testing conditions
Ability to evaluate testing conditions (trip)
Data coverage
Robustness against uncertainties of data acquisition and data evaluation
Technological neutrality

5. Assessment criteria (2)
PRACTICABILITY:
PEMS testing effort
Availability and accuracy/reliability of input parameters
Simplicity of calculation steps
Possibility for independent RDE testing
Flexibility to be adapted to present and future emissions legislation

6. Assessment criteria & Analysis (1)
Ability to assess RDE performance
Ability to assess RDE performance under specific testing conditions
Ability to evaluate testing conditions (trip)
Data coverage
Results required from the different tools:
(A) (Normalised) Emissions (g/km)
(B) (Normalised) [Weighted and for the U/R/M]
(C) Generic trip characteristics (All methods)
(C) Results from indicators (method specific or not)
TUG, TNO - Driving dynamics
(D) Results from indicators (method specific or not)
Time is reduced to the normal time share.
Expected: The results from the (C) or (D) indicators shall be reflected/indicated on (A) and (B) results.

7. Assessment criteria & Analysis (2)
Robustness against uncertainties of data acquisition and data evaluation
Case studies (analysis not required for all tests/vehicles)
Data uncertainties: Sensitivity studies
Robustness of data evaluation 1: Performance of the DE methods for specific testing situations
Roundtrip clockwise and counterclockwise driving
Aggressive versus soft or normal driving style
Aggressive driving during part of a test
Other?
Robustness of data evaluation 2: Sensitivity of the method DE to their design parameters
TNO Binning: ?
CLEAR: target function?
MAW: Averaging quantity, Curve and CO2 tolerances

8. Assessment criteria & Analysis (3)
Technology neutrality
Description of the principles envisaged to adapt the methods to hybrid powertrains and alternative fuels
(Discussion) Implications in terms of testing (Parameters and quality required)
(Possibly) case studies with results (as for criteria A, B, C, D)

9. Quality and transparency
Elements:
A common database is used to conduct the analysis
The data within the database contains the elements for excluding the cold start and the DPF regeneration
For the upcoming resulys to be presented:
The version of the methods shall be indicated
The method owners shall maintain the traceability of the versions and list the changes and their potential implications upon the final results
The final results shall be aggregated for the last and best possible version of the method

10. Shopping list – MAW (1)
General results (See JRC technical presentations) JRC
Comments on and lessons learned from the general results ALL (JRC/DAIMLER)
Description of the calculation principles in ‘regulatory language’
Sensitivity of the “normal driving indicator” (CO2 in g/km) to identify high driving dynamics (mainly for motorway) JRC/ BMW
Justification for the preliminary proposal for the Normal driving tolerance (+/- 25%) and discussion JRC
Sensitivity of the method to the calculation settings (Reference quantity) and discussion of implications JRC / FORD?

11. Shopping list – MAW (2)
Minimum number of windows per U/R/M categories to complete a ‘valid’ test and potential implications if a test is partially invalidated JRC
Relationship between the values ‘normal driving indicator (CO2)’ and the driving conditions – Case studies – ALL
Justification for the preliminary proposal on the minimum number of windows in the different U/R/M catgories (10%) and discussion JRC
Variations of the MAW method to show how severe windows could be included (e.g. weighing function representing the distance to the CO2 curve) JRC
Other

12. Shopping list – TUG CLEAR (1)
General results TUG
Comments on and lessons learned from the general results ALL (JRC/DAIMLER)
Description of the calculation principles in ‘regulatory language’
Description of the methodology to derive the target functions (Power or CO2) using a (driving e.g. WLTP) database TUG
Description of the methodology/indicators to validate/invalidate the tests (partially or totally) TUG
Sensitivity of the method to the “target functions, discussion of potential implications TUG

13. Shopping list – TUG CLEAR (2)
Sensitivity of the method to the calculation settings (averaging...) TUG?
Other..?

14. Comparing the methods..
Comments and lessons learned on the general results with all methods
Providing information from the shopping list
Identify the concrete characteristics of the methods
‘Binning parameter’ strongly correlated with emissions