This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
(2) optional body parts influencing the aerodynamics
Detailed discussion of alternative approaches at f2f-meeting
(3) step-less inertia
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 8
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.
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
(b) (b) Consideration of aerodynamic featuresConsideration 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
mass
CO2
TML TMH
Bandwidth of individual vehicle
TM
TM CO2
Aero CO2
individual values
for each feature
Aerodyn. worst case
No aerodynamic features installed
No aerodynamic features installed
CO2
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 10
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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 11
(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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 12
RR-Classn+2
SelectableTyres
Proposal: Three steps for Tyre selection for Road load determination
Vehicle Family
Aero Cd
Wheel Rim4
Rolling Resistance
(1) HighestRR-Class
RR-Classn+1
RR-Classn
Wheel Rim3
Wheel Rim2
Wheel Rim1
(2) Widest Tyre
(3) Consider Wheel Rims as aerodynamic
options
(3) Use wheel rim with highest aero
drag
option:
Open Issue:
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 13
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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 14
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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 15
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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 16
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?
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 17
Soak procedureAlternative 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
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 18
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.
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 19
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
Overview
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 20
1.1 Soak Temperature Tolerances1.2 Soak with forced Cooling down1.3 Test Cell Temperatures1.4 Tolerances of Humidity during Test Cycle2.1 Tolerances of Emission Measurement System2.2 Subtraction of Intake Air3.1 Inertia setting3.2 WLTC gearshift tolerance3.3 OBD during WLTC3.4 Preconditioning Cycle3.5 Preconditioning for Dilution Tunnel3.6 Tolerances for Dyno Load Setting3.7 Speed Trace Tolerances3.8 Handling of GSI3.9 Monitoring of RCB of all Batteries3.10 Exhaust Pressure before Remote Mixing Tee or CVS3.11 Proportional Fan Position3.12 Cycle Mode Construction3.13 Required Time for Bag Analysis3.14 Dilution Factor3.15 Dyno Operation Mode
Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Phase 2Phase 2
LabProcICE-154Part 1
LabProcICE-155Part 2
LabProcICE-156Part 3
WLTP-DTP-12Geneva, 16.01.2013
DTP Subgroup LabProcICE
slide 21
Validation phase 2
Evaluation of LabProcICE issues based on Validation 2 data base