status report and discussion paper for number of tests at wltp tokyo iwg in 2015 japan wltp-12-15e

Status report and Discussion paper for Number of tests

at WLTP Tokyo IWG in 2015

JAPAN

WLTP-12-15e

Status report• In the Geneva IWG and GRPE, we are advised to harmonize dCO2 value rather

than CP option. However it was difficult to agree one harmonized dCO2 among CPs. TF proposal today is that dCO2 value should be determined by CP.

• Regarding GTR drafting, the first version of draft text was circulated on 20th of July not only to the Number of tests TF, but also to Subgroup-EV as we advised at Geneva IWG.

– On 25th of August, we had Number of tests TF web meeting. EV issues were discussed in Subgroup-EV web meeting as well.

– A lots of good comments/suggestions were made by participants and reflected to GTR text.

• No controversial discussion are remaining ( I hope..), the draft GTR should be ready to adoption with final check by stakeholders .

Draft GTR for Number of tests

Derive cycle value – declares value

Manufacture declares total cycle value according to Table A6/1. (per 1.1.2.3.2. )

RCB correction and Ki factor shall be applied before comparison. (per 1.1.2.2. )

Derive cycle value – declared value4.1.2. Utility factor-weighted charge-depleting mass emission of gaseous and particulate emission compounds for OVC-HEVsApart from the CO2 mass emission, the charge-depleting gaseous and particulate mass emission compounds shall not be weighted by the utility factors.The utility factor-weighted CO2 mass emission MCO2,CD shall be calculated using the following equation:

(5)4.3.1. Utility factor-weighted charge-depleting electric energy consumption based on the recharged energy from the mains for OVC-HEVsThe utility factor-weighted charge-depleting electric energy consumption based on the recharged energy from mains shall be calculated using the following equation:

(21)(22)

4.3.4.2. Electric energy consumption determination of the applicable WLTC test cycle valueThe electric energy consumption of the applicable WLTC test cycle based on the recharged electric energy from the mains and the all-electric range shall be calculated using the following equation:

(26)4.4.4.1 Determination of cycle-specific equivalent all-electric rangeThe cycle-specific equivalent all-electric range shall be calculated using the following equation:

(51)

[Only for reference]Annex 8 descriptions.

Derive cycle value – flowchart

First Test

Any of criteria pollutant > Limityes

All criteria in table A6/2 within the “first test” row are fulfilled.

noyes

Second Test


no

yes

Third Test


Rejected

no

Declared value or Average of three accepted, depending on judgment result of each value,.

according to paragpaph1.1.2.3.6.

All declared values and emissions

Accepted

no

no

All criteria in table A6/2 within the “second test” row are fulfilled.

Figure A6/1Flowchart for the Number of Type 1 Tests

Only total cycle value shall used in flowchart. (per 1.1.2.1. )

Criteria pollutant limit has to be satisfied at all tests. (per 1.1.2.3.1. )

Criteria for Number of tests is in table A6/2.

Derive cycle value – flowchartTable A6/2 Criteria for Number of tests

For ICE, NOVC-HEV and OVC-HEV Charge Sustaining test.

Test Judgement parameter

Criteria pollutants

[g/km]

CO2

[g/km]

First test

First test results ≤ Regulation limit × 0.9

≤ Declared value × dCO21(2)

Second test

Average of first and second test results

≤ Regulation limit × 1.0(1)


(1) Each test result also shall be fulfilled the regulation limit. (2)dCO21 and dCO22 shall be determined according to 1.1.2.3.8. of this Annex

For OVC-HEV Charge Depleting test.


Criteria pollutants

[g/km]

CO2

[g/km]

AER

[km]

EAER

[km]

First test

First test results ≤ Regulation limit × 0.9(1)


≥ Declared value × 1.0


Second test


≤ Regulation limit × 1.0(2)




(1) “0.9” shall be replaced by “1.0” for charge depleting test for OVC-HEV, only if the charge depleting test contains two or more applicable WLTC cycles. (2) Each test result also shall be fulfilled the regulation limit. (3)dCO21 and dCO22 shall be determined according to 1.1.2.3.8. of this Annex

For PEV.


Electric energy consumption

[Wh/km]

AER

[km]

First test

First test results ≤ Declared value × 1.0 ≥ Declared value × 1.0

Second test


≤ Declared value × 1.0 ≥ Declared value × 1.0

Electric consumption(EC) for OVC-HEV are NOT used in flowchart “Figure A6/1”. The declared EC is taken as the type approval value if declared CO2 value is accepted (per 1.1.2.3.3. )

Special provision only for OVC-HEV CD testing.1. 0.9 criteria instead of 1.0 for criteria pollutant. (see table)2. 1.0 criteria instead of dCO2 for CO2 emission.(per 1.1.2.3.8.)

If all criteria on the Table A6/2 are fulfilled, all values declared by the manufacturer are accepted. If any of the criteria on the Table A6/2 is not fulfilled, then need another test (up to three tests).


First Test


All criteria in table A6/2 within the “first test” row are fulfilled.

noyes

Second Test


no

yes

Third Test


Rejected

no

Declared value or Average of three accepted, depending on judgment result of each value,.

according to paragpaph1.1.2.3.6.

All declared values and emissions

Accepted

no

no

All criteria in table A6/2 within the “second test” row are fulfilled.

Figure A6/1Flowchart for the Number of Type 1 Tests

Always take an average of available test results for criteria pollutants. (per 1.1.2.3.9. )

Manufacture can re-declare to the worse side to reduce test, if they want. (per 1.1.2.3.7. )

1.1.2.3.6. After third test, the average results of the three tests is calculated. If all criteria on the “second test” row of Table A6/2 are fulfilled by these average results, all values declared by the manufacturer are accepted as the type approval value. If any of the criteria on the “second test” row of Table A6/2 is not fulfilled , the declared value is taken as the type approval value if the corresponding criterion on the “second test” row of Table A6/2 is fulfilled by average result, and the average results are taken as the type approval value if the corresponding criterion on the “second test” row of Table A6/2 is not fulfilled by average result.

After third test, judgment is depending on each parameters, according to 1.1.2.3.6.


dCO2 is CP option, dCO2_1: -1.0% to +2.0% (0.990 to 1.02) dCO2_2: -0.5% to +2.0% (0.995 to 1.02) except that, OVC-HEV CD testing(dCO2 = 0.0%(1.00)).

Determination of phase value – CO2 ,FC

where,

is the average CO2 result for the L phase test result(s) in [g/km] is the average CO2 result for the M phase test result(s) in [g/km] is the average CO2 result for the H phase test result(s) in [g/km] is the average CO2 result for the exH phase test result(s) in [g/km] DL is theoretical distance of phase L [km]DM is theoretical distance of phase M [km]DH is theoretical distance of phase H [km]DexH is theoretical distance of phase exH [km]

Phase specific values for CO2 and FC are adjusted by CO2_AF to match the declared cycle CO2 value. (per 1.1.2.4.1. and 1.1.2.4.2. )

Take arithmetic average of all test results in case of the declared cycle value is not accepted. (per 1.1.2.4.1.2. and 1.1.2.4.2.2.)

Determination of phase value – EC, AER, EAER

1.1.2.4.3. Phase specific value for electric energy consumption, all electric range and equivalent all electric range.

1.1.2.4.3.1. The phase specific electric energy consumption, all electric range and equivalent all electric range are calculated by taking, the arithmetic average of the phase specific values of the test result(s), without an adjustment factor .

1.1.2.4.3.1. Take arithmetic average of valid tests for PEV EC, AER and EAER, without adjustment factor.

Each phase L+M (regional option) L+M+H(+Ex-H)

EM CO2 FC EC Range EM CO2 FC EC Range EM CO2 FC EC Range

ICE NA NA ○ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA○

Annex 7

3.2.1

○Annex 7

3.2.1

○Annex 7

6.

NA NA

NOVC-HEV NA NA ○ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA○

Annex　 7

3.2.1

○Annex 7

3.2.1

○Annex 7

6.

NA NA

OVC-HEV

CS NA NA ○ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA○

Anx 6 1.2.9/

Anx 8 4.1.1.2

○Anx 7 3.2.1/

Anx 8 4.2.1.3

○Anx 7 6./

Anx 8 4.2.1.3

NA NA

CD NA NA NA ○ ○(*3) NA NA NA NA○(*5)

Annex　 8

4.4.1.1

NA○

Annex 　 8

4.2.1.1

○Annex 　 8

4.2.1.2

○Annex　 8

4.3.1.3

○(*2)

Annex　 8

4.4.1.2

4.4.1.3

4.4.1.4

Combined

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA○

Annex 　 8

4.1.1.3

○Annex 　 8

4.2.1.4

○ Annex 　 8

4.2.1.5

NA NA

PEV NA NA NA ○ ○(*1) NA NA NA NA○(*5)Annex 8

4.4.2.2

NA NA NA○

Annex 8

4.3.2.2

○(*1)

Annex 8

4.4.2.1

FCV NA NA ○(*4) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ○(*4) NA NA

Emission complianceIn each cycle

○ : agreed (*1) AER(*2) EAER,Rcda,Rcdc(*3) EAER,Rcda(*4) consumed H2 / km(*5) AER,EAER

Parameters for electrified vehicles(include working items)

Reference only

EU proposal for CO2 Japan proposal for CO2

1st 84% fail, 16% pass = 84% of vehicles need two or three tests.

50% fail, 50% pass

2nd 64% fail (=76%x84%), 36% pass (=24%x84%+16%)= 64% of vehicles need three tests.

25% fail,75% pass, including first test

3rd Average of three. Average of three.

EU and Japan proposal for ICE

Use declared value

Use declared value

Declared Declared Declared- 0.9%(σ)

16%

- 0.45%(σ/2)

24%

[%] [%] [%]

+/- 0.0%

1st test (dCO2_1) 2nd test (dCO2_2) 1st and 2nd test

Use declared value

expected number of tests for ICE

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) %)

Initial JPN proposal

dCO2_1 [σ]dCO2_2 [σ]

EU proposal

2.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.52.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

2.3%15.9%

30.9%

50.0%

69.1% 69.1%

84.1%

0.0% 1.2%7.4%

25.0%34.6%

52.6%64.0%

1.0 1.21.4

1.82.0

2.22.5

vehicles need second testsvehicles need three testsExpected number of tests

Expe

cted

Num

ber o

f tes

ts

Current JPN proposal

status report and discussion paper for number of tests at wltp tokyo iwg in 2015 japan wltp-12-15e

Documents