Euro6d-RDE Package#4 EVALUATION METHODS Auto Industry Position Following 07/08Nov 17 RDE-LDV 29Nov 17

Transcription

1 Euro6d-RDE Package#4 EVALUATION METHODS Auto Industry Position Following 07/08Nov 17 RDE-LDV 29Nov 17 ACEA TF-RDE SUB-Group EVALUATION METHODS / HYBRIDS

2 Euro6d-RDE REGULATION: THE FINAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT o Definition of Eur06d-RDE Package#4 will conclude in the next few weeks, representing the culmination of a significant amount of work: o Regulation (EC) No. 2007/715 Recital 4 In March 2001 the Commission launched the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) programme, the major elements of which are outlined in a communication of 4 May This has led to the adoption of a thematic strategy on air pollution by a communication of 21 September One of the conclusions of the thematic strategy is that further reductions in emissions from the transport sector (air, maritime and land transport), from households and from the energy, agricultural and industrial sectors are needed to achieve EU air quality objectives. In this context, the task of reducing vehicle emissions should be approached as part of an overall strategy... o Regulation (EC) No. 2007/715 Recital 15 The Commission should keep under review the need to revise the New European Drive Cycle as the test procedure that provides the basis of EC type approval emissions regulations. Updating or replacement of the test cycles may be required to reflect changes in vehicle specification and driver behaviour. Revisions may be necessary to ensure that real world emissions correspond to those measured at type approval... o In response the European Commission s RDE-LDV Technical Committee has been working since 2011 to develop Euro6d-RDE regulations. 2

3 INDUSTRY POSITION: RESULTS EVALUATION o Trip normalization by energy / power demand been the fundamental principle of voted RDE regulation since the RDE-LDV Technical Committee began work in o Engineering for 18/19MY RDE Step#1 and 20/21MY RDE Step#2 applications has been undertaken on the basis that the results will be evaluated by a viable method of normalisation based on CO2 (as the best available measure of energy / power): o Moving Averaging Windowing Wjvalue for each window determined by CO2 vs. Characteristic Curve... o Power Binning results evaluation by normalisation to a standardised power frequency distribution... (from CO2, unless wheel hub torque measured) o Plus CO2ratio introduced by Package#3 for PHEVs in CS mode. 3

4 RDE RESULTS EVALUATION METHODS: DEVELOPMENTS THROUGH 2017 o Critical issues have been identified with these current RDE Results Evaluation Methods and the ACEA team have worked proactively through 2017 to support RDE-LDV in understanding these issues and proposing viable alternatives : o Moving Averaging Windowing mathematical anomalies. o Power Binning emissions characterisation variations. o CO2 ratio for PHEVs bias against EV mode. o And as we progressed towards the conclusion of Package#4, it was anticipated that an acceptable solution was at hand... 10Apr 17 23Oct 17 4

5 07/08 NOVEMBER 2017 RDE-LDV TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING o However at RDE-LDV on 07Nov17 data was presented -from testing over a limited range of RDE conditions & therefore CO2 values: o The ACEA team are therefore compelled to re-state our position... o Suggesting that this proves there is no link between CO2 and any RDE emissions for all Light Duty / Light Commercial Vehicles. o And therefore Results Evaluation for all Euro6d-RDE tests should be by calculation of non-normalised Pollutant / Distance, to be introduced as soon as possible. 5

6 INDUSTRY POSITION: AS REVIEWED THROUGHOUT 2017 o The laws of physics dictate that emissions are fundamentally a function of energy conversion. o This is how other emissions standards are defined, e.g... o Heavy Duty Vehicles and Gas Central Heating = g/kwh o Power Generation and Solid Fuel Boilers = g/m 3 o Light Duty Vehicle legislation, in all markets, has been the exception to this, with limits defined in terms of exhaust emissions / distance. o However, to date, this is without exception based on reference test cycles which provide the link between distance and energy for each individual vehicle. o Euro6d-RDE is the first legislation to break with this principle, specifying Not To Exceed limits to be complied with during any real world driving across a wide range of Boundary Conditions. 6

7 INDUSTRY POSITION: EMISSIONS = fn(co2) o In exactly the same way that driving further will require more energy, produce more CO2 and emit more emissions: Denying this is effectively suggesting that you could drive for any greater distance with the same absolute emissions as any lesser distance... which makes no physical sense. o Then driving in different conditions, that require more energy / distance, will result in correspondingly more emissions / distance: o This needs to be taken into account when evaluating RDE Emissions performance. 7

8 INDUSTRY POSITION: INDIVIDUAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS o Eu6d-RDE is to be assessed across the full range of each individual Boundary Condition as now specified in the Regulation. Ambient Temperature & Altitude V.A+ & RPA 90% payload +Ve Altitude Gain (Total & Urban) 8

9 INDUSTRY POSITION: WORST CASE COMBINATIONS OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS o However it is the requirement to declare capability including at the worst case combination of Boundary Conditions, e.g: 0 C 90% Payload 1200m/100km +ve Altitude 95% V.A+ etc. AND Valid RDE Trip o Where the engineering challenge becomes extreme, against a very low probability of real world occurrence (i.e. 4 x 5 th %ile= ). o Therefore the impact of the over-engineering (CO2, Additional weight, Package, engineering time and cost versus benefit, etc.) required to maintain emissions performance is not justified by any significant benefit to air quality. o It is for this reason that Results Evaluation by CO2 Normalisation continues to be critical. 9

10 INDUSTRY POSITION: FURTHER REVIEW OF LATEST Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA o A modified Results Evaluation idea was therefore discussed at RDE-LDV on 08Nov 17: o Combining non-normalisation in a range around the WLTP CO2 g/km reference, where RDE results may well be relatively insensitive to cycle energy. o With normalisation by CO2 at higher cycle energies > more extreme RDE tests to honour the physics involved. 10

11 INDUSTRY POSITION: FURTHER REVIEW OF LATEST Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA o As we proceed past 01Sep 17, when Eu6d-Temp (RDE up to and including Package#3) came into force, an increasing body of data is becoming available from vehicle applications being developed to comply with this legislation and currently undergoing testing, across a wide range of conditions, in preparation for Type Approval. o It is now therefore possible for the ACEA team to analyse some of this data, assess against the new Evaluation Method idea, and present the results and our conclusions. o The following slides represent data from: o Vehicles being tested across a range of RDE Boundary Condition combinations. o Up to & inc.90% Payload plus95%ile Driving (V.A+) plus1200m/100km +vealt. Gain, etc. o With analysis of Intermediate Results, as per Reporting File#1 Appendix o Against RDE/WLTP CO2 [g/km] ratio Total Trip vs. WLTC; Urban vs. Ph1+2 11

12 INDUSTRY POSITION: INDICATIONS FROM LATEST Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA o What you will see from this data analysis is that... o RDE testing against combinations of Boundary Condition extremes results in significantly higher cycle energies > CO2 ratios than typical real world driving / RDE testing. o The trend of all results, when considered across this wide range of RDE test conditions, demonstrate an increase vs. CO2. o MAW & PB continue to do their best to emulate random number generators. o However the Package#3 Manufacturer Choice of one method orthe other (AnnexIIIa3.1.0) does provide a Euro6d-Temp legal situation against the worst case tests / results experienced; although this is very much a roll of the dice. o CO2 Ratio normalisation provides an understandable, physically valid and consistent response... but does not result in a zero, let alone negative, slope of Final Emissions vs. CO2 as trip work increases. 12

13 JRC DATA (DIESEL EGR, LNT, SCR) EC PROPOSAL FOR EVALUATION 7 NOV VS7.PDF Typical Severe 13

14 JRC DATA (DIESEL EGR, LNT, SCR) EC PROPOSAL FOR EVALUATION 7 NOV VS7.PDF Typical Severe 14

15 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE D1 (DIESEL EGR, DOC, SCRF) Typical Severe 15

16 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE D1 (DIESEL EGR, DOC, SCRF) Typical Severe 16

17 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE D2 (DIESEL EGR, LNT, DPF, SCR) 17

18

19 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE D3 (DIESEL EGR, DOC, SCRF) 19

20 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE D3 (DIESEL EGR, DOC, SCRF) 20

21 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G1 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) 21

22 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G1 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) 22

23 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G2 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) Including low E150% Heavy Fuel 23

24 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G2 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) Including low E150% Heavy Fuel 24

25 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G3 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) Including low E150% Heavy Fuel 25

26 Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA: VEHICLE G3 (GDI DEVELOPMENT DATA) Including low E150% Heavy Fuel 26

27 INDUSTRY POSITION: INDICATIONS FROM LATEST Eu6d-TEMP VEHICLE DATA o As can be seen from the data presented... o Analysis of trends in emissions results confirms that they increase with CO2 (~Cycle Energy) when assessed across a sufficiently wide range of RDE test conditions. o This is not in any way a surprise as it is just confirmation of the fundamental physics involved, when considering energy conversion and pollutant creation in an internal combustion engine and the operating principles involved in all aftertreatmentcontrol technologies, which cannot be avoided. o Therefore Eu6d-RDE results evaluation by CO2 Ratio Normalisation is a physically valid proposal... however the alternative implementation of this approach, as discussed at RDE-LDV on 08Nov17, can be considered. o However: from review of latest data, this does need to bring CO2 Ratio Normalisation into full effect by 25% -in order to avoid moving the goalposts, vs. MAW -or-pb, for Eu6d-Temp applications now in the final stages of preparation for Type Approval. 27

28 RDE RESULTS EVALUATION METHOD: UPDATE BASED ON LATEST DATA ANALYSIS o Revised definition of new Results Evaluation Method idea, following latest data analysis: +20% 146 x 1.2 = x 1.2 = 175 o For Package#4 > Euro6d-Temp: o RWCR1=20%: Providing non-normalised emissions / distance evaluation of results over the 20% range from the WTLP reference, to cover Typical RDE testing. o RWCR2=25%: To transition to results evaluation by CO2 ratio, for more severe testing. 28

29 AECC DATA FROM 23NOV 17 RDE PACKAGE#4 EVENT o We have also taken the opportunity to review the very useful data summarised in AECC s presentation material released from their 23 November event... o While not describing RDE testing against the full range of worst case Boundary Conditions. o Which is understandable as the full requirements of Eu6d-RDE are extremely challenging. Actual Eu6d NTE: CF=1.0 (PEMS Margin = 0.5) o The data clearly demonstrate the overall trend of increase in emissions with Cycle Energy (CO2) ~ even if not every test point lies on a line, due to many other variables in play. 29

30 AECC DATA FROM 23NOV 17 RDE PACKAGE#4 EVENT o And shows that a ratio of 1.2 will cover Typical and a degree of Severitised RDE testing: RDE/WLTP Ratio: o Compared to experience that only Extreme testing, against multiple worst case Boundary Conditions, experiences higher Cycle Energies and thus CO2 ratios >>> 1.25 o Therefore, overall, aligning well with ACEA s proposal for CO2 ratio normalisation of RDE results from 1.20>1.25 RDE/WLTP ratio; for PHEV as well as all other P/T technologies. 30

31 RDE RESULTS EVALUATION METHOD: FUTURE UPDATE o Increasing the range of non-normalised results, before transition to CO2 ratio evaluation, could potentially be considered for introduction at a later date... o After evaluation of more data as results become available from testing performed to the final Eu6-WLTP regulations / once clarification on which WLTP CO2 values are to be used in RDE results analysis has been provided in order to determine the typical real world driving (/ RDE) to WLTP CO2 ratio. o However for any major new increase in stringency, such as non-normalised results across all RDE Boundary Condition ranges & combinations, sufficient lead-time is required for the development of all-new powertrain and aftertreatmentsystem combinations Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Eu6d-T(New Types) Package#4 Eu6d-T(All Reg) Eu6d-F(New Types) Eu6d-F(All Reg) New Powertrain & A/T System Dev't Productionisation, Validation & Type Approval 31

32 RDE RESULTS EVALUATION METHOD: DEFINITION o RDE Result Evaluation: RDE Final Result/km (t,u) = RDE Intermediate Result/km (t,u) x Result Evaluation Factor (t,u) o For Non-PHEV: R.E.F. (t,u) = fn(rde CO2 g/km (t,u) / WLTP CO2 g/km (t,ph1+2) ) o And for PHEV: R.E.F. = fn(rde CO2 g/km ICE / CS WLTP CO2 g/km ICE ).: R.E.F. (t,u) = fn RDE CO2 g/km (t,u) x 0.85 CS WLTP CO2 g/km (t,ph1+2) ICE-Ratio RDE(t,u) With R.E.F. = 1.0 IF [m (t,u),co2 / m wltc,co2 ] <

33 RDE RESULTS EVALUATION METHOD: CONCLUSIONS CO2 RATIO o We therefore request consideration of... o The magnitude of challenge already placed by Euro6d-RDE: any single test (= snapshot of emissions capability) assessed against NTE limits, vs. the reality of the physics involved. o In comparison to the share of the Air Quality challenge to be set for Light Duty Vehicles, vs. other sources of emissions. o And the impact of last minute changes in the Regulations, with significant further impact to the stringency of requirement, against the impossibility to respond within any realistic product development cycle. o The Results Evaluation situation as of Eu6d-RDE Package#3 does need to be addressed. o Results Evaluation by CO2 ratio is the only physically valid and consistent approach, viable for application to all powertrain technologies, that has been identified so far... and should be implemented in Package#4, for Euro6d-Temp and -Final. 33

34 Further Items To Be Addressed By Package#4 34

35 FURTHER CHANGES DISCUSSED AT 07/08NOV 17 RDE-LDV: CHAR. CURVE / TOL1 Validity check to exclude abnormal driving Definition of CO2 Characteristic Curve as the reference for average driving pattern WLTC-reference RDE #2 NEDC road load coefficients + scaling factors: 20% / 10% / 5% WLTC-reference RDE#3 WLTP road load coefficients + scaling factors: 20% / 10% / 5% Suggested at RDE-LDV Nov 16 WLTC-reference WLTP road load coefficients no scaling factors Example(urban) same vehicle: RDE#2: RDE#3: RDE-LDV Nov 16: CO2 urban: 200g/km + 20% = 240g/km CO2 urban: 220 g/km + 20% = 264g/km CO2 urban: 220g/km*FCF + 0% 230g/km Basis foremroad-ldv development changesin WLTP roadloadswerenot Correctiontooriginal EMROAD-LDV taken into account development General average assumption: 1,2 x CO2 WLTP withnedc roadloads CO2 WLTP withwltp roadloads Correct definition of CO2 Characteristic Curve is the essential base: * no scaling factors on WLTP-CO2 values for reference curve * no need to correct Tolerance 1. 35

36 ALSO DISCUSSED AT 07/08NOV 17 RDE-LDV: CO2 VALUES FOR RDE ANALYSIS HOWEVER FURTHER ISSUE W.R.T. PHEV... o From 07Nov 17 RDE-LDV discussion about clarification of which WLTP values to be used for all RDE analysis..? o ACEA view is that only viable option for ISC is to use values from each vehicle s CoC: o However there appears to be an added complication for PHEVs, as the CoCwill only detail the CD+CS Mode combined value. o Therefore clarification on WLTP values for RDE analysis needs to include definition of how the PHEV Charge Sustaining mode data is to be determined > from which source? 36

37 GASOLINE HEAVY FUEL: E150 >= 84% o Experience continues to indicate that Heavy Fuel with E150% at the worst-case end of the EN228 spec. presents a challenge to the latest GDI+GPF technology... when combined with multiple other Boundary Conditions. o The 95%ile limit was removed from Package#3 in Oct 16, as is an issue for ISC and should be dealt with by Package#4. o Therefore this should be introduced in Package#4 to ensure that the Euro6d-RDE represent a stringency of challenge which is proportionate to the market conditions. o If not for the full duration of Eu6d, then an E150 >= 84% limit for applications Type Approved before would create a more manageable situation w.r.t. the accelerated introduction of RDE PN limits &.: brand new GPF technology. 37