WLTP-10-30-rev1e - Number of tests

WLTP-10-30-rev1e
OIL #27 Number of tests
Status report
April 2015
JAPAN
Status report
• After Geneva meeting , there are two task force web meetings.
• The criterion to use declared value is a still controversial issue. As EU and
Japan have a difference view/pricy, we decided for both EU and Japan to
bring the proposed number as the criterion to find the landing point.
• Which selectable mode should be use for criteria pollutant testing, either
predominate mode or emission worst mode is still open issue.
• We also have other issues, criterion for EVs (range criterion included) and
averaging method for final value determination.
• We are expecting finalizing all these issues by #12 IWG as planed, having
TF web meeting in between each IWG.
Discussion points for CO2/FC
#
Points
EU proposal at
Geneva
Japan proposal
1
CO2 /FC criteria
for acceptance of
declared value
for ICE.
Test value <
“Declared valuedCO2”
Test result has to
be better than the
declared value.
Test value < “Declared
value + 1.8 %”
Worse side has
tolerance.
Re-declare
allowed.
Re-declare allowed.
2a Re-declare when
the test result
was “worse”
than the
declared value.
2b Re-declare when
the test result
was “better”
than the
declared value.
Declared CO2
value is not
necessarily
declared before
testing. Can be
declared during
process.
Worst case value should
be always allowed to take
in order to avoid retest.
Re-declare NOT allowed.
Note
Ex) If,
Declared = 100g
criteria = 0g
Test result = 101g
then
Re-declare = 101g
Ex) If,
Declared = 100g
criteria = 0g
Test result = 99g
then
Re-declare = 99g
Discussion points for CO2/FC
#
Points
EU proposal at
Geneva
Japan proposal
Note
3
When test
result exceeded
regulation
standard.
All results must comply
with the criteria
pollutant emissions
standards.
All results must
comply with the
criteria pollutant
emissions
standards.
Agreed.
4
CO2 /FC
Tolerance for
acceptance of
declared value
for Electrified
vehicle.
To be discussed
after ICE
discussion.
5
Averaging
method for
phase specific
and whole cycle
value.
To be discussed
Discussion points for Criteria pollutant
#
Points
EU proposal at
Geneva
Japan proposal
6
Criteria value
for ICE.
(i.e. dp or x%)
dp1
dp2
R1 < 0.9 x Limit
R2 < Limit
7
predominant
mode or
emission worst
mode for
criteria
pollutants
testing
No.
Yes.
Emission test with
predominant only.
Emission test with
worst selectable
mode.
Note
Manufacturer
must comply
with emission
standard with
emission worst
case regardless.
Still open issue.
Discussion points for CO2
#
Purpose
Points
1
CO2/FC
Criteria value for ICE.
(i.e. dco2 or x%)
2
CO2/FC
Re-declare allowed or
not.
3
Criteria
pollutants
Criteria value for ICE.
(i.e. dp or x%)
4
Criteria
pollutants
Which Selectable mode
should be used.
5
CO2/FC/Rang
e
Criteria value for EVs.
(i.e. dco2 or x%)
6
CO2/FC/Rang
e,
Criteria
pollutants
Averaging method for
phase specific and
whole cycle value.
Apr.
May.
Jun.
Jul.
Sep.
IWG#10
TF
IWG#11
TF
IWG#12
Discuss after criteria concept agreed
Japan proposal at Pune
EU proposal at Geneva
*All results must comply with the criteria pollutant
emissions standards.
First test*
R1＜（Declared – dp1)
CO2 test result (or
averaged results)
has to be better
than declared
value. No tolerance
at worse side.
yes
Declared value accepted
no
Second test*
(R1+R2)/2＜（Declared – dp2)
yes
Declared value accepted
no
CO2
Third test*
Pollutants
(R1+R2+R3)/3＜L
no
Rejected
(R1+R2+R3)/3
yes
(R1+R2+R3)/3 value accepted
Criteria value for ICE(CO2/FC)
EU
JAPAN
CO2
CO2
+ 1.8 %
Declared
dco2_i
Declared
Use declared
value.
Use declared
value
1st
R1
- dCO21 %
+1.8% (2 sigma)
2nd
(R1+R2)/2
- dCO22 %
+1.8% (2 sigma)
Average of three
Average of three
3rd
Re-declare
No re-declare allowed at better case.
Criteria value for ICE (CO2/FC)
Criteria value for ICE (Pollutants)
EU
JAPAN
criteria pollutant
Declared
dpi
Use declared
value
1st
R1
- dp1 %
10% ( i.e. R1< 0.9 x L)
2nd
R2
- dp2 %
0% (i.e. R2 < L)
3rd
Average of three
N/A
Final value
Remark
Average of R1 and R2(if applicable)
All test must comply with the criteria
pollutant emission standard
All test must comply with the criteria
pollutant emission standard
Slides for discussion
Predominant or emission worst case mode?
For criteria pollutant testing,
Emission Limit
Mode
SPORT
Emission worst
Japan is concerning like this case.
According to current GTR......Next page
MORMAL
ECO
Predominant
Predominant or emission worst case mode?
Current GTR
1.2.6.5.2. Automatic shift transmission
1.2.6.5.2.1
Vehicles equipped with automatic shift transmissions shall be tested in the predominant drive
mode. The accelerator control shall be used in such a way as to accurately follow the speed
trace.
1.2.6.5.2.2.
Vehicles equipped with automatic shift transmissions with driver-selectable modes shall
fulfill the limits of criteria emissions in all automatic shift modes used for forward driving.
The manufacturer shall give appropriate respective evidence to the responsible authority.
Provided the manufacturer can give technical evidence with the agreement of the responsible
authority, the dedicated driver-selectable modes for very special limited purposes shall not be
considered (e.g. maintenance mode, crawler mode).
1.2.6.5.2.3.
The manufacturer shall give evidence to the responsible authority of the existence of a
predominant mode that fulfils the requirements of 3.5.10. in section B of this gtr. With the
agreement of the responsible authority, the predominant mode may be used as the only mode
for the determination of criteria emissions, CO2 emissions, and fuel consumption.
Notwithstanding the existence of a predominant mode, the criteria emission limits shall be
fulfilled in all considered automatic shift modes used for forward driving as described in
paragraph 1.2.6.5.2.2.
What is the appropriate respective evidence?
Test result? Technical report?
Predominant? Worst case?
Number of tests
TVH
TVL
Emission
（worst)
CO2 , FC
(predominant)
Min : 1
Max : 2
Min : 1
Max : 3
Min : 1
Max : 3
If Emission worst mode and predominant mode are same.
Emission worst test will be conducted with CO2 ( or FC ) test
at the same time.
EU and Japan proposal
EU proposal for CO2
1st test (dCO2_1)
[%]
Japan proposal for CO2
2nd test (dCO2_2)
[%]
1st and 2nd test
+ 1.8%(2σ)
[%]
- 0.45%(σ/2)
- 0.9%(σ)
Use declared
value
1st
Declared
Declared
16%
Use declared
value
84% fail, 16% pass
= 84% of vehicles need two or three tests.
2nd 64% fail (=76%x84%), 36% pass (=24%x84%+16%)
3rd
Declared
24%
Use declared
value
2% fail, 98% pass
= 64% of vehicles need three tests.
0% fail, 100% pass, including
first test
Average of three.
Average of three.
120%
100%
vehicles need second tests
vehicles need three tests
Expected number of tests
80%
60%
1.0
1.2
40%
20%
0%
dCO2_2
dCO2_1
15.9%
2.3% 0.0%
1.2%
84.1%
1.8
69.1%
1.4
50.0%
30.9%
2.2
2.0
25.0%
2.5
69.1%
52.6%
2.0
64.0%
1.0
34.6%
7.4%
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
JPN
proposal
3.0
Expected Number of tests
expected number of tests
EU
proposal
Assumptions for calculation;
• Average (µ) = 0
• Standard deviation (σ) = 0.9 %
• Judgment for second test is based on the average value of first and second tests.
(i.e. σ for second test = 0.9/root (2) %)
END

Download Report