Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byEmilio Monti Modified over 5 years ago
1
Comparing EMROAD and the ACEA RDE Evaluation Tool
Pierre Bonnel Martin Weiss Joint Research Centre (JRC) IES - Institute for Energy and Transport Ispra – Italy
2
Introduction Purpose of both tools: Characterizing on-road emission measurements Principle problem: On-road emission tests cover longer distances than the NEDC Suitable approaches to characterize on-road emissions: - averaging the entire test - averaging sub-sections (e.g., averaging windows) Need to develop: - algorithms to determine length and sequence of sub-sections - methods to characterize average emissions
3
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool
4
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Time
5
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Time
6
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Time
7
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Δt = 1s Time
8
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Time
9
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Time
10
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Time
11
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Time Time
12
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Δt = 1s … Time Time
13
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Δt = 1s … Time Time
14
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Δt = 1s … Time Time
15
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Δt = 1s … Time Time
16
Methodology Different approaches to calculate averaging windows
EMROAD ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool Cum. CO2 Cum. CO2 … Δt = 1s Δt = 1s … Time Time EMROAD may exclude some cold-start emissions ACEA-RDE Evaluation Tool includes all emission measurements Number of windows may differ slightly among the two tools Differences in percentiles can be expected to be negligible
17
Methodology Characterizing averaging window emissions
Approach taken from the heavy-duty vehicle regulation 582/2011 Limits are defined as brake-specific emissions - Both parameters provide an indication about the deviation of in-use emissions from applicable emission limits
18
Methodology Light-duty vehicles – distance-specific emissions limit:
19
Methodology DR vs. CF: - Substituting mass of emissions by the product of distance-specific emissions and window distance
20
Comparison of results Recent PEMS tests of an Euro 6 vehicle (155g CO2/km) 1 test on each Route 1-3: rural-motorway, rural-urban, rural-uphill/downhill EMROAD ACEA Tool Test NOX in g/km Milano_ 0.134 Varese_ 0.095 SCM_ 0.276 Test No. of windows EMROAD ACEA Tool Deviation in % Milano_ 6917 6913 -0.1 Varese_ 5427 5414 -0.2 SCM_ 5531 5524
21
Comparison of results Averaging window NOX emissions
22
Comparison of results Averaging window NOX emissions
23
Comparison of results Averaging window NOX emissions – Comparison Deviation Ratio DR EMROAD ACEA Tool Deviation EMROAD-ACEA Tool in % Deviation EMROAD- ACEA in % 90% percentile 100% percentile 90% percentile 100% Milano_ 2.55 4.18 -0.1 0.1 Varese_ 2.43 2.42 2.90 2.89 0.0 0.5 SCM_ 6.39 9.56 9.55 Averaging window NOX emissions – Comparison Conformity Factor CF EMROAD ACEA Tool Deviation EMROAD-ACEA Tool in % Deviation EMROAD- ACEA Tool in % 90% percentile 100% percentile 90% percentile 100% Milano_ 2.57 2.58 2.98 2.99 -0.5 -0.2 Varese_ 1.97 2.09 2.10 -0.3 -0.6 SCM_ 5.26 5.28 5.41 5.43 -0.4
24
Conclusions Both tools yield similar but not identical results
Deviations are negligible in the context of the RDE-LDV working group ACEA RDE Evaluation Tool allows easy installation and straight forward use but is limited to the analysis of NOX emissions EMROAD is more complex and requires training prior to use Both tools are fit for use in the RDE-LDV working group Methodological choices on the algorithm for determining the averaging windows and the characterization of average emissions should be discussed within the RDE-LDV working group
25
Thank you! Joint Research Centre (JRC)
IET - Institute for Energy and Transport Ispra – Italy Pierre Bonnel Martin Weiss
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.