status report and discussion paper for number of tests wltp iwg at geneva in june japan wltp-11-20e

Status report and Discussion paper for Number of tests

WLTP IWG at Geneva in June

JAPAN

WLTP-11-20e

Status report• The criterion to use declared value is a still controversial issue. In the Stockholm meeting (#10IWG),

Japan proposed the compromised criteria which was to set both dCO2_1(criteria for first test) and dCO2_2(criteria for second test) to be zero. Which means the manufacturer’s declared CO2 is acceptable as final value if the test result was equal or better than the declared value.

• In the Stockholm meeting, IWG decided to ask each contracting party to respond their position by the next TF meeting. Proposed option were, – Option A: Both dCO2_1 and dCO2_2 to be zero. – Option B: Two separate criteria, one for independent lab and the other for non-independent lab( e.g.

manufacturer lab). – Option C: Leave dCO2_1 and dCO2_2 to be a regional option.

• In the TF web meeting (18th, May), EU stated that they would like the option C with lower limit of -1% for dCO2_1 and -0.5% for dCO2_2 (e.g. EU -1% and -0.5% ,and Japan 2% and 1%), while Japan prefers option A. (waiting for the other CP’s stance.)

• 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.

Discussion paper

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

EU positionConclusionsThe Commission services recognize that the differences of the EU and Japan views for the values for dCO2

1and dCO22 mainly result from differences in the certification systems.

In the EU the type approval tests are largely under the control of the manufacturer, since they are performed in close collaboration with a technical service, who is contracted by the manufacturer and will therefore act in the interest of the manufacturer (within the legal limits of course). As a consequence the statistical analysis of tests used for type approval purposes cannot be considered as fully random (e.g. if a test does not deliver the result "expected" by the manufacturer it can simply be disregarded and repeated).In Japan the certification testing is in the hands of a single public body.As a consequence the Commission services recommend the following:The WLTP GTR should specify lower limit values dCO2

1= -1% and dCO22 = -0,5%, which are

considered as appropriate for the EU following the JRC analysis.Contracting parties may specify values for regional regulatory purposes: dCO2

1(reg) dCO21 and

dCO22(reg) dCO2

2, e.g. dCO21(Japan) = 2% and dCO2

2(Japan) = 1% (or any other values that seem to be appropriate)

email from Mr. Steininger on 14th May

CP option with Lower limit (dCO2_1 = -1%, dCO2_2= -0.5% ）

Japan position

CP option with,Upper limit (dCO2_1 = 1.8%, dCO2_2= 1.8% ） andLower limit (dCO2_1 = -1%, dCO2_2= -0.5% ）

The other issues for OIL#27

#27-1 criteria values

Criteria pollutants

CO2 related:CO2/FC/EC

Range:AER/EAER/Rcda

ICENOVC HEVOVC HEV CS

dp1:-10%

dp2:0%

dco2_1:CP optionLower limit:

-1.0%.

Upper limit:+1.8%

dco2_2:CP optionLower limit:

-0.5%.

Upper limit:+1.8%

N/A N/A

OVC HEV CD dp1:0%

N/A dr1:0%

dr2:0%

PEV N/A N/A dr1:0%

dr2:0%

d: Proposal for discussion

c: Proposal for discussion

a: Values seems agreed to be in

GTR.

b: Proposal for discussion

1st test (R1)

2nd test (R2)

yes

no

R1 accepted

Flow A: Criteria pollutants

Rejected

yes

yes

(R1 + R2)/2 accepted

#27-2 Number of flows and parameters

no

R1 > EM Limit

R1 ≦EM Limit x 0.9

R2 > EM Limit

1st test (R1)

Rejected

yes

R1 accepted

no

R1 > EM Limit

For ICE, NOVC HEV and OVC HEV CS For OVC HEV CD only

Note: R1 is a emission component (cycle value) which is closest to the limit in percentage.

Note: This flowchart is applicable only if the CD contains two or more WLTC cycles.R1 is emission result for each cycle in CD test ( cycle value).

1st test (R1)

2nd test (R2)

3rd test (R3)

yes

(R1+R2+R3)/3accepted

Declared value accepted

Flow B: CO2/FC/EC Flow C: AER/EAER/RcdaParameter used for the flow;

“EC” for PEV.“CO2” for the others.

Parameter used for the flow;“AER” for all vehicles.

1) R1 and R2 are cycle value ( not phase value).

R1 ≦（ Declared +

dco2_1)

(R1+R2)/2 ≦（ Declared +

dco2_2)

yes

yes

1st test (R1)

2nd test (R2)

3rd test (R3)

yes

(R1+R2+R3)/3accepted

Declared value accepted

1) R1 and R2 are cycle value ( not phase value).

R1 ≧（ Declared - dr_1)

(R1+R2)/2 ≧（ Declared - dr_2)

yes

yes

#27-3 Averaging methodCriteria pollutants

CO2/FC/EC AER/EAER/Rcda

#1:Cycle average value for the re-test judgment after second test.

ICE, NOVC HEVOVC HEV CS

(R1+R2)/2(= final value)

(R1+R2)/2 N/A

OVC HEV CDN/A

(only one test is required)

(R1+R2)/2 (R1+R2)/2

PEV N/A (R1+R2)/2 (R1+R2)/2

#2:Cycle average value as final value after third test.

ICE, NOVC HEVOVC HEV CS

N/A(maximum two tests

are required)(R1+R2+R3)/3 N/A

OVC HEV CDN/A

(only one test is required)

(R1+R2+R3)/3 (R1+R2+R3)/3

PEV N/A (R1+R2+R3)/3 (R1+R2+R3)/3

#27-3 Averaging methodCriteria pollutants

CO2/FC/EC AER/EAER/Rcda

#3:Phase average value as final value after third test.

ICE, NOVC HEVOVC HEV CS N/A (R1+R2+R3)/3 x AF N/A

OVC HEV CD N/A (R1+R2+R3)/3 x AF (R1+R2+R3)/3

PEV N/A (R1+R2+R3)/3 x AF (R1+R2+R3)/3

#4:Phase average value as final value after second test.

ICE, NOVC HEVOVC HEV CS N/A (R1+R2)/2 x AF2 N/A

OVC HEV CD N/A (R1+R2)/2 x AF2 (R1+R2)/2

PEV N/A (R1+R2)/2 x AF2 (R1+R2)/2

Proposal,An adjustment to each phase value in order to correlate with its cycle value is not necessary (i.e. AF = AF2 = 1.0). Arithmetic mean of phase value to be used as a final phase value.Justification,A. Error will be restricted by dCO2 criteria within certain range, B. Some values don’t correlate with cycle value by nature, C. avoid burden and keep GTR simple.

#27-3 Averaging method

𝐴𝐹 2=𝐶𝑂 2𝑑 eclared [g / km ]

𝐶𝑂2¿ [ g / km ]where2 [g/km] [g/km] [g/km]

[km]

[km] [km]

* All “CO2” should be replaced by “EC” for PEV with the unit of “Wh/km”

Potentially, AF2 can be calculated as follows for example. However we propose not to use this formula but using AF/AF2 to be 1.0 to make GTR simple.

#27-4 Independence of the determination flow

1st test Pass -completed Fail(average) Pass -completed

Final value Average of two Declared value Declared value

2nd test Fail to 90% Pass(average) Pass(average)

Flow A:Criteria pollutants

Flow B: CO2/FC/EC

Flow C: AER/EAER/Rcda

example A

1st test Fail to 90% Pass -completed Pass -completed

Final value Average of three Average of three Average of three

2nd test Pass -completed Pass(average) Fail(average)


Flow B: CO2/FC/EC


example B

3rd test Pass Fail(average) Pass(average)

Use all valid test results for the calculation for final value.Re-test is allowed up to three times if failed at 1st or 2nd test.

In case of fail at 2nd test after the same flow completed at 1st test, retest should be allowed up to 3rd test.

EU proposal for CO2 Japan proposal for CO2

#27-5 Re-declare

Use declared value

Use declared value

Declared Declared Declared- 0.9%(σ) - 0.45%(σ/2)

[%] [%] [%]

+/- 0.0%

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

Use declared value

Re-declared allowed

Re-declared allowed

Re-declared allowed

Re-declare is allowed only if manufacturer re-declares a declared value to be worse than initial declared value.

#27-5 worst case emission test?

Vehicle HVehicle L Vehicle M

emis

sion

For example, vehicle M equips a lower efficient catalyst than vehicle H. The vehicle M’s emission can exceed standard.

EM STD

Cycl

e en

ergy

High efficient catalyst

poor efficient catalyst

How should we handle this case? Should vehicle M be tested at TA process or not?

Highest cycle energy

lower cycle energy

Discussion points for CO2# Purpose Points Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Sep.

IWG#10 TF IWG#11 TF IWG#12

1 Criteria pollutants/CO2/Range

Criteria values. (i.e. dp/dco2/dr)


Number of flow charts and parameters to be used in the flow


Averaging method for phase specific and whole cycle value.


Independence of the determination flow

5 CO2/Range Re-declare allowed or not.

6 Criteria pollutants

Which Selectable mode should be used. (Worst case emission should be tested?)

#27-3 Averaging method

𝐴𝐹=𝐶𝑂2𝑎𝑣 𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 [ g / km ]

𝐶𝑂 2¿ [ g / km ]where [g/km] [g/km] [g/km]

[km]

[km] [km]

* All “CO2” should be replaced by “EC” for PEV with the unit of “Wh/km”

#27-4 Independence of the determination flow

1st test Fail to 90% Pass(completed) Pass(completed)

2nd test Pass(completed) Not used


Flow B: CO2/FC/EC


Final value Average of two declared value declared value

1st test Pass(completed) Fail Fail


Flow B: CO2/FC/EC


3rd test Fail to 90% Not used Fail(completed)

2nd test Pass Pass(completed) Fail

Final value 1st test result declared value Average of three

example A

example B

Proposal: If a determination flow chart is completed, then the determination flow chart is independent from the others. (i.e. not affected by the results which are performed after the completion.)

initial proposal rejected at TF

status report and discussion paper for number of tests wltp iwg at geneva in june japan wltp-11-20e

Documents