WLTP-E-Lab Sub GroupProgress report

WLTP-DTP-E-LabProc-088

Leader: Per Ohlund / Kazuki Kobayashi

Lab process-EV meeting in Paris Face to Face meeting was held on 5th and 6th of

March at PSA in Paris. Open issues were discussed. Mode construction Shorten test procedure for BEV Utility factor RCB correction Break off criteria and so on. Next meeting will be held in May.

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

7&11 End of charge criteria No agreement Still open Can start

14 RCB correction window

Depends on Mode construction To be decided by confirmation tests results

Can start

19 Calculation method of CD to CS break off criteria

No agreement Still open Can start

20 Soak condition with forced cooling

Follow ICE recommendation.

Except the soaking with charging.

Battery temperature should be within the criteria

Will be closed Can start

21 Vehicle classification ACEA proposal under development Still open Can not start

22 End of charge criteria No agreement Still open Can start

Open issues of E-lab sub group

Impact for Confirmation testCan start: To be discussed until JuneCan not start: To be decided before confirmation test

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

7&11 End of charge criteria No agreement Still open

To be discussed

Can start

Driving cycle [/]

Fully Charged

Recharging

Ch

arg

ing

Con

dit

ion

[A

h]

Recharge

Test n

(transient)

soak

ΔE0 ΔE1

Counter Proposal

1.E0/E1:Criteria (Japanese regulation less than10% )

2.Average E0&E1 for electric consumption calculation

3.Test WLTC and AER city continuously (to be optional in stead of 1or 2 )

No3To conduct

continuously

Electric consumption =ΔE/Electric rangeHow to guarantee ΔE is important to calculate correct electric consumption.

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

14 RCB correction window

Depends on mode construction To be decided by confirmation tests results

Can start

NEDC WLTC

Fuel consumption (l/100km) 6.655 6.940

Driving distance (km) 10.966 23.274

1% fuel energy per cycle (MJ) 0.23053 0.51022

Max RCB criteria (Ah) -0.202 -0.447

Equivalent CO2 (g/km) n.a -5.445

According to VP2 result,

To be same as NEDC CO2 value, the criteria should be 0.5% (in case L-exH).

In case each phase correction should be decided by actual test result.

Therefore it should be considered after confirmation test.

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

19 Calculation method of CD to CS break off criteria

No agreement

=>Based on Cycle energy demand

To be discussed

=>Closed

Can start

explanation

ACEA 　 proposal

The break-off criteria for the charge-depleting test is reached when the relative net energy change as shown in the equation below is less than 4 per cent.

Relative net energy change [per cent]

= _________NEC____________

Cycle energy demand of the test vehicle

Japanese proposal

The break-off criteria for the charge-depleting test is reached when the relative net energy change as shown in the equation below is less than [x] per cent.

Relative net energy change [per cent]

＝ _________NEC_______ ___

Consumed fuel energy during the CS-cold test

Merit Demerit

ACEA　proposal

・ The criteria would be calculated before CD test.CS and CD can be conducted separatelyTechnology neutral: criteria independent of the efficiency of the power train (as hard to reach for a very efficient PT as for a low efficient PT) (*)Also DEKRA confirmed in VPII the applicability of the cycle energy demand based BoC.

・ Necessary to calculate Cycle energy demand of the test vehicle for beak off criteria before test.

・ The criteria of the vehicle which has a few generative efficiency would be narrow.

・ Not including deceleration energy(regenerative energy).

The impact of the regenerative energy on the BoC is rather small and negligible for the final FC and CO2 values.

Japanese　Proposal

・ Fuel consumption is including deceleration energy.

this is not technology neutral, as it takes into account the PT efficiencies

・ similar thinking with ISO.SAE

GTR intention is to create robust and worldwide applicable test procedures

・ Necessary to conduct CS test before CD test.

Comparison ACEA vs Japan with ACEA Comments (27.02.2013)

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

20 Forced cooling Follow ICE recommendation.

Except the soaking with battery charging.

In case forced cooling, Battery temperature should be within the criteria.

Follow ICE

Will be closed

Can start

To be charged without forced cooling!

Battery temperature within criteria

70 90

22

34

120 135

Class3

Class2

Class1

L3+M3+H3 (+ExH3)(ver.5.3)

L3+M3+H3(ver.5.1)

L2+M2+L2 L2+M2+H2

L1+M1+L1L1+L1+L1

L2+M2+H2(+ExH2)PMR

Maximum speed

Japan proposed to use Maximum speed in R68 .Maximum speed means:For electric vehicle, the highest average value of the speed, which the vehicle can maintain twice over distance of 1 km.To move on Confirmation test , Based on R68

A power of OVC-HEV should be considered.Motor power +ICE powerMotor power or ICE powerHybrid system power?

To move on Confirmation test,No classification=>Class 3 all vehicle

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

21 Vehicle classification No agreement

For confirmation test is as following

ACEA proposal under development

Can not start

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

22 Shorten test procedure

Depends on mode construction which will be decided in Tokyo meeting

Still open

=>To be postponed phase 2

Can start

Japan proposed Shorten test procedure based on SAE1634.

According to additional test by Japan, it was shown that significant time reduction was provided with small amount of error in ranges.

ACEA welcomes the idea to develop a shortened range test procedure based on MCT

ACEA needs more time to elaborate on the JP MCT proposal 　 and proposed to postpone later stage (Phase 2).

Japan still require 4 phase value.

To accept mode construction, this procedure is necessary.

Or need to consider counter proposal.

Proposed shorten test procedure with MCT based on SAE J1634

Shorten　test　procedure　for　WLTC MCT)（

The　distance　exclude　CSCmLow Middle High Ex- High Total

12.36 19.04 14.32 16.5 62.22 km

2356 1732 910 646 5644 sec

km

Eachphase

Low Middle＋ High Ex- High＋31.40 30.82

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Time　(s)

Speed　(km/h)

WLTC　v5

Low3.09km589s

Middle4.76km433s

High7.16km455s

Ex- High8.25km323s

CSCM55mph89km/ h（ ）

CSCE55mph89km/ h（ ）

Low13.09km（ ）9min　49s

High17.16km（ ）7min　35s

Ex- High18.25km（ ）5min　23s

Middle14.76km（ ）7min　13s

Low23.09km（ ）9min　49s

Middle24.76km（ ）7min　13s

To　prevent　uneven　condition,　number　of　Low/ Middle１）　　　should　be　several　times.Before　CSCm　and　after　CSCm　should　be　same.２）

Low33.09km（ ）9min　49s

High27.16km（ ）7min　35s

Ex- High28.25km（ ）5min　23s

Middle34.76km（ ）7min　13s

Low43.09km（ ）9min　49s

Middle44.76km（ ）7min　13s

Phase Measured Range

(SCT)

Estimated Range

(MCT)

Comparison

SCT vs MCT

Low 177.1km 183.2km 6.1km 3.6%

Middle 170.1km 172.9km 2.8km 1.7%

High 147.3km 146.1km 1.2km 0.8%

Ex-High 98.5km 99.5km 1.0km 1.1%

The results show that the error was small. Thus, it is considered that the shorten test procedure with MCT is usable.

Time reduction effect with the shorten test procedure with MCT

　　 The measurement of AER and AER city with SCT consumed 2days.

　　 The measurement of four ranges with MCT consumed 3:30.

Estimated Range with MCT

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

24 Methodology to make Utility factor

Solution1

Global harmonized utility factor

Solution2

Global harmonized UF calculation based on US/EU/Japanese data and traffic volume regarding charging behavior . (note, data from EU is still unavailable)

Still open Can start

25 Fractional of Utility Factor

Use fractional Utility factor Closed Can start

26 Number of Utility factor

Depends on Mode construction Still Open

To be discussed after Tokyo meeting

Can start

Tokyo meetingIt is agreed to apply regional Ufs at least for Phase I.EU commission confirm Japanese proposal.The harmonization of the methodology will be submitted by seems not to be possible.

Discussions to reach for a globally harmonized methodology and a globally harmonized UF will go on.

WLTP harmonized Utility Factor

Japan studied harmonized Utility Factor.

According to SAEJ2841, the base data used for the calculation of each Urban and Highway mode are separated by the average vehicle-speed 38.41mph.

This method give harmonized UF is calculated by this classification below;

Low-Highway as Urban / Extra-highway as HighwayAccumulative　average　speed km/h（ ） Accumulative　avelage　speed(mile/ h） Urban　or　Highway

Phase specification ver.5.3 ver.5.1 ver.5.3 ver.5.1 ver.5.3 ver.5.1Low Time　(seconds) 590 590

Average　speed km/h)（ 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 11.7 11.7 UrbanMiddle Time　(seconds) 433 433

Average　speed km/h)（ 39.3 39.5 27.5 27.6 17.1 17.2 UrbanHigh Time　(seconds) 455 455

Average　speed km/h)（ 56.4 56.7 36.4 36.6 22.6 22.7 UrbanExtra-high Time　(seconds) 323 323

Average　speed km/h)（ 92.0 92.0 46.4 46.5 28.8 28.9 High　wayTotal　WLTC Time　(seconds) 1800 1800

Average　speed km/h)（ 46.4 46.5 28.8 28.9 Urban

region total urban,rural motorway weightingratio

J APAN 6.54E+11 6.54E+11 1EU 3.25E+12 3.25E+12 5US 4.77E+12 3.33E+12 5

1.4376E+12

Harmonized　UF　for　L,M,H Exponential　fitting　equation　by　weighting　ratio　of　J apan,　EU　,US　urban.　y　=1-EXP(14.703*(Rcda/400)̂ 6-52.463*　(Rcda/400)̂ 5+71.349*(Rcda/400)̂ 4-49.240*(Rcda/400)̂ 3+21.592*(Rcda/400)̂ 2-11.081*(Rcda/400)-0.020)

Harmonized　UF　for　exH Same　as　US　high　way　UFy　=1-EXP(- (4.89*(Rcda/1.609/399.9)+5.49*(Rcda/1.609/399.9)̂ 2-23.3*(Rcda/1.609/399.9)̂ 3+28.3*(Rcda/1.609/399.9)̂ 4-11.5*(Rcda/1.609/399.9)̂ 5))

urban<38.41mphSame　as　SAE　 J 2841

Number　of　vehicle　*　drivingdistance

Harmonized　Utility　Factor

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Rcda(km)

UF

fleet　UFfleet　Urbanfleet　HwyJ APANECE

UF統一 案harmonized UF

Harmonized　Utility　Factor

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400Rcda(km)

UF

fleet　UFfleet　Urbanfleet　HwyJ APANECE

UF統一 案harmonized UF

Red line: harmonized UF(L-H)

Harmonized UF (exH)

Japanese proposal

Item

NoIssue Solution Status Impact for

confirmation test

27 Break time between cycle for CD test

Solution1

Rolling measuring bag to analyze during test.

Solution 2

Span check, zero check and calibration before and after charge depleting test.

Between the test cycle, only bag analyzing. Needed time for analysis about 15 minutes without calibration.

Still open

To be discussed

=>Both solutions are accepted as an option.

Can start

Break time between two WLTC´s during Charge Depleting testThe break time between two WLTC´s in CD is too shortReasons: In the break time bag 4 has to be analyzed, after this all bags have to be evacuated and purged, after this all analyzers gets a calibration longer than 10 min!The certification mode (that means a calibration before all bag measurements) need a break time around 40 min. In case of a diesel measurement in which the Hot-FID is measuring modal the THC, there is no possibility to use this to measure the background THC-emission in the sample bag.This case ensures break times of over 40 min.Furthermore there are bag holding times in the procedure > 20 min

ACEA reported

Additional comment

Pointed out by Korea, it is necessary to consider

vehicle selection issue as ICE subgroup.

Thank you for your attention!