WLTP-DTP-12-2 - LabProcICE Progress…

advertisement
Progress Report
DTP Subgroup
Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines
(LabProcICE)
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 1
Overview
1) State of the working progress
2) Issues on DTP Level
3) Validation phases 2 and 3
4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues
5) Next steps
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 2
Meetings since DTP-11
•
several dates
Draft working team meetings
•
14. – 16.11.2012
Brussels workshop
- evaluation of validation 2 results
- road load determination
- joined meeting with EV Group
 minutes: LabProcICE-171
•
06.12.2012
Phone/web conference
- comparison of RLD methods
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 3
Overview
1) State of the working progress
2) Issues on DTP Level
3) Validation phases 2 and 3
4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues
5) Next steps
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 4
WLTP flexibilities (LabProcICE-151 / -152 / -153)
Even improved test procedures with tightened tolerances will allow to use
flexibilities in a systematic manner and might still lead to discrepancies between
type approval and 'real-world' CO2 values.
EU-Com proposal:
Correction / normalization of measured CO2 emissions
LabProcICE feedback:
 approach might shorten discussions on gtr test procedure tolerances
 impact on WLTP roadmap?
 Chair requested feedback on the feasibility of proposed normalization
methods (see Annex of LabProcICE-151)
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 5
Expected decision at DTP-12:
Implement such an approach
(a)
in WLTP gtr
or
(b)
on regional level only by interested contracting parties?
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 6
Test mass / vehicle selection / inertia classes
Review of DTP status:
Approach from T&E / NL / ICCT includes:
(1) vehicle test mass
 improved definition (incl. optional equipment, luggage/payload)
 Testing worst and in addition best case
(if requested by manufacturer)
(2) optional body parts influencing the aerodynamics
 Detailed discussion of alternative approaches at f2f-meeting
(3) step-less inertia
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 7
Open Issues
(a) Payload factors
Current LabProcICE proposal : M1 15%, N1 35% (based on EU data)
Analysis of data from Japan showed the following payload factors:
-non commercial usage:
10 to 15 %
-commercial usage:
30 to 35 %.
Solutions:
(1) Exclude payload from gtr test mass approach  regional decision
(2) Define 2 harmonized payload levels (low & high) in gtr, e.g. 15% and 30%.
 allocation to the respective vehicle classes on regional level.
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 8
(b) Consideration of aerodynamic features
• The vehicle shall be tested 3 times (3 coastdowns, 3 CO2 tests) to define the maximum
bandwidth for CO2 values
 TML without aerodynamic features
 TMH without aerodynamic features and worst case
• intermediate values for individual features to be calculated and added to TM CO2 value
• extrapolation within a certain range should be possible
Aerodyn. worst case
CO2
DCO2 Aero CO2
Bandwidth of
individual
vehicle
TM CO2
individual values
for each feature
No aerodynamic
features installed
No aerodynamic
features installed
mass
TML
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
TM
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
TMH
Consideration of movable parts
LabProcICE decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO2 impact
of such parts, e. g. spoiler, air shutters, level of vehicle:
(a)
Low impact:
“movable parts shall operate as intended under normal driving conditions”
(b)
Unknown impact:
- Worst case setting as starting point.
- Deviations depending on usage time or if the aerodynamic impact of
the worst case setting is below defined thresholds.
Japan supported option (b) because of unknown future parts and impacts
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 10
(c) Tyre selection criteria
1.
Select tyre from the worst rolling resistance class
(based on EU tyre labelling directive, RR measured in acc. with UN-R117,
tyres offered by manufacturer for series of production)
2.
Select widest tyre (offered by manufacturer for series of production) within
the worst class
EU-COM at DTP-11: consideration of tyre categories (C1, C2, …)
 proposal from ACEA expected for discussion in LabProcICE
3.
Open issue regarding wheel rim selection:
- rim with highest aerodynamic drag (worst case approach) or
- consider rims as aerodynamic options?
 decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO2 impacts
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 11
Proposal: Three steps for Tyre selection for Road load determination
Open Issue:
Aero Cd
Rolling
Resistance
Wheel Rim4
RR-Classn+2
(2) Widest Tyre
(1) Highest
RR-Class
Wheel Rim3
Wheel Rim2
Wheel Rim1
RR-Classn+1
(3) Use wheel rim
with highest aero
drag
option:
(3) Consider
Wheel Rims as
aerodynamic
options
RR-Classn
SelectableTyres
Vehicle Family
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 12
Method of subtraction of intake air
Aim:
measure low pollutant mass with higher accuracy by considering the pollutant level
that is contained in the combustion and intake air of the vehicle (LabProcICE-020)
 Concerns by US EPA / Japan
 DTP-08: Issue put on hold until results of validation and correlation show the
clear need and effect of the proposed method
 No measurements during validation 2
 Proposal withdrawn
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 13
Table of running resistances (LabProcICE-167 by PSA)
•
Need for table as an alternative to measurement methods agreed.
•
General objective by EU-COM:
default factors should represent worst case to prevent an incentive to use the
table instead of the measurement methods
 JRC will scrutinize the proposal  counterproposal if necessary
Comparison of RLD measurement methods
•
EU-COM at DTP-11: equivalency of methods to be evaluated
•
TelCo 6.12.2012 (LabProcICE-167 /-172 /-173)
 pros&cons + need for each method (coast down, torque meter, windtunnel)
 evaluation needs to be continued
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 14
Multimode gear boxes
Emissions testing proposal:
 Test agreed worst case
 Compliance with emissions standards in all modes
 Exemptions for modes used in very limited conditions
CO2 / FE testing proposal:
(a) Single default mode  test default mode
(b) No default mode or multi default modes
 test best and worst case, average results of both modes
Additional provisions:
- Manufacturer shall give evidence to authority about the emission
and fuel economy in the different modes
- Tested options be provided in test report, e.g. for In-Service-testing
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 15
Reservation with regard to default mode procedure by COM & NL
 proposal: average best and worst case even in case of a single default mode
DTP-9:
 validation 2: some labs should test all modes of single default mode vehicles
 decision on how to handle these vehicles afterwards
Validation2:
 no input  LabProcICE will keep proposal
___________________________________________________
GSI
•
Automotive Industry will provide proposal for GSI procedure
•
General question: follow fixed gear shift points and/or GSI?
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 16
Soak procedure
Alternative 1:
At least 6 hours and maximum of 36 hours until the engine oil temperature and
coolant, if any, are within 298 K ± 2 K.
(forced cooling down with open bonnet at the request of the manufacturer)
Alternative 2:
At least 12 hours and maximum 36 hours, with closed bonnet in soak area
environment without using a cooling fan.
Validation 2:
First evalution of results showed that vehicle temperatures after 6h with forced
cooling down show an equivalent temperature level to 12 -36 h
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 17
Objectives from EU stakeholders:
12 h soaking at 25°C is not representative for real life.
vehicle (oil) temperature criteria shall not be dropped (alternative 2)
Automotive industry:
real life benefits of vehicles with insulation are disregarded by setting a target
temperature
DTP-12 advice needed:
Principle approach to get a reproducible / normalized result:
1) defining a target setpoint vehicle temperature
and / or (?)
2) defining a representative soak method / time.
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 18
Overview
1) State of the working progress
2) Issues on DTP Level
3) Validation phases 2 and 3
4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues
5) Next steps
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 19
Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Phase 2
1.1 Soak Temperature Tolerances
LabProcICE-154
1.2 Soak with forced Cooling down
Part 1
1.3 Test Cell Temperatures
1.4 Tolerances of Humidity during Test Cycle
2.1 Tolerances of Emission Measurement System
LabProcICE-155
2.2 Subtraction of Intake Air
Part 2
3.1 Inertia setting
3.2 WLTC gearshift tolerance
LabProcICE-156
3.3 OBD during WLTC
Part 3
3.4 Preconditioning Cycle
3.5 Preconditioning for Dilution Tunnel
3.6 Tolerances for Dyno Load Setting
3.7 Speed Trace Tolerances
3.8 Handling of GSI
3.9 Monitoring of RCB of all Batteries
3.10 Exhaust Pressure before Remote Mixing Tee or CVS
3.11 Proportional Fan Position
3.12 Cycle Mode Construction
3.13 Required Time for Bag Analysis
3.14 Dilution Factor
3.15 Dyno Operation Mode
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 20
Validation phase 2
Evaluation of LabProcICE issues based on Validation 2 data base

LabProcICE in close cooperation with Heinz Steven
Last f2f meeting:
Review of preliminary results

documents: LabProcICE-154, LabProcICE-155, LabProcICE-156

Discussion of important issues with initial proposals

Conclusion: Final data base needed for concluding evaluation

Roadmap needs to be adapted!
Important: All Contracting Parties are encouraged to
evaluate the data base and come up with proposals
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 21
Validation phase 2 example – soak temperatures
6
Number of tests: 211 (no forced cooling down)
5
4
Increasing maximum deviation of
soak temperature
3
1
0
-1
Delta T [K]
2
-2
-3
soak temp tolerances: 90% of tests are
below ± 3 K of the set point
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
percentage of tests
T_min-ave
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
T_max-ave
-4
-5
70%
80%
90%
-6
100%
5 min average
slide 22
Validation phase 2 example – test cell temperatures
8
7
Number of tests: 949
6
5
Increasing maximum deviation of
test cell temperature during wltc
4
3
1
0
-1
Delta T [K]
2
-2
-3
-4
-5
Test cell temp tolerances: 90% of tests
are below ± 4 K of the set point
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
percentage of tests
T_min_amb
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
T_max_amb
-6
-7
70%
80%
90%
-8
100%
1 Hz data
slide 23
Validation phase 2 example – lab temperatures
Temperature
Soak and Test
Cell
+5 K
Soak Area 6 -3 6 h
Start of
Test
Test Cell during
Phase I I
Phase I I I
"no syst emat ic deviat ion"
Setpoint
-5 K
Actual Value
Phase I
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 24
Current EU legislation:
soak, test start and test cell temperatures have a tolerance of ± 5 K
Initial LabProcICE proposal for tolerances:
Soak tolerance:
± 3 K (5 min average)
Test start:
± 2 K (1 Hz values)
Lab temperature:
± 5 K (1 Hz values)
LabProcICE boundary conditions for lab temperature setpoint:
•
•
validation 2 setpoint: 25 °C
between 20 – 30 °C (harmonization with US)
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 25
Validation phase 3
Japan introduced status report (LabProcICE-165) at f2f meeting:
• Validation measurements are still on going.
• Main task: warming up procedure
 several options will be evaluated
 comparison between stabilized coast down after warm up and a
non-stabilized coast down will also be foreseen to evaluate benefit.
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 26
Possible issues for post-validation
•
GSI handling
•
Monitoring of RCB of all batteries
•
Handling of areodynamic options within test mass approach
•
Normalization methods
In addition:
•
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
Need to evaluate equivalency of RLD measurement methods by
further studies?
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 27
Overview
1) State of the working progress
2) Issues on DTP Level
3) Validation phases 2 and 3
4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues
5) Next steps
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 28
Open issues
LabProcICE open issues are listed in the gtr draft documents,
see comments of S. Dubuc (Drafting Coordinator)
Other proposals and work in progress items:
-
Deletion of on-board anemometer based coast down
method
-
Tyre conditioning
-
…
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 29
Overview
1) State of the working progress
2) Issues on DTP Level
3) Validation phases 2 and 3
4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues
5) Next steps
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 30
Next steps
•
Telephone Conference in February 2013 (tbc)
•
DC drafting sessions
•
f2f-Workshop in Brussels:
20.02.2013: hosted by AECC
21.02.2013: hosted by ACEA
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 31
Thanks for your attention.
LabProcICE contact:
Béatrice Lopez de Rodas - beatrice.lopez(at)utac.com
Konrad Kolesa - konrad.kolesa(at)audi.de
Stephan Redmann – stephan.redmann(at)bmvbs.bund.de
DTP Subgroup
LabProcICE
WLTP-DTP-12
Geneva, 16.01.2013
slide 32
Download
Related flashcards

Statistical theory

24 cards

Colossal statues

38 cards

Plotting software

51 cards

Create Flashcards