1 / 26

Progress Report DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines (LabProcICE) Bern, 17.4.2012

Progress Report DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines (LabProcICE) Bern, 17.4.2012. Overview. State of the working progress Issues on DTP level Input for validation 2 4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5) Next steps.

jamessims
Download Presentation

Progress Report DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines (LabProcICE) Bern, 17.4.2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Progress Report DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines (LabProcICE) Bern, 17.4.2012

  2. Overview • State of the working progress • Issues on DTP level • Input for validation 2 • 4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues • 5) Next steps

  3. 1.1) Meetings since DTP 8January 2012 • several dates Draft working team meetings • 29.02.2012 Telephone Conference minutes: LabProcICE-114 • 13. – 14.03.2012 Brussels workshop minutes: LabProcICE-125

  4. 1.2) LabProcICE / DTP roadmap DTP11 slide 4

  5. Open roadmap issues affecting LabProcICE Duration of validation 2 until October 2012 (6 months)? Evaluation of results and reporting to DTP 11 in Sept 2012? Evaluation of road load data applying gtr until Sep/Oct 2012 (responsibility?) Beginning of confirmation tests (when?) Decision of issues on DTP level before confirmation test required? Need for detailed DTP roadmap / milestones Validation relevant input, gtr drafting (incl. definitions), …  coordinated meeting schedule (e. g. necessary conferences with DC & other subgroups) slide 5

  6. 1.3) OIL, gtr draft, definitions Open issues list LabProcICE-111(will be updated soon) • gtr draft • DC Master draft out-dated LabProcICE-112(see DC documents) •  updated in tel/web conferences with DC • Annex 6 (Test procedure & conditions) • Annex 5 (Test Equipment & Calibration) • … slide 6

  7. Definitions Current status:- LabProcICE gtr draft (LabProcICE-112)- Gaseous Fuel definitions (GFV-18-02) - DC documents (WLTP-2012-002/-003/-004)(replacing LabProcICE-049 /-050) WP.29:Task Force Group under GRPE to develop a frame system of terms, definitions and classifications regarding vehicle propulsion systems(see WP.29-156-26) Next steps: - Separate meetings with DC and representatives from all subgroups will be scheduled by DC - Definitions will be imported into a database. slide 7

  8. Overview • State of the working progress • Issues on DTP level • Input for validation 2 • Work in progress items / proposals / open issues • Next steps slide 8

  9. Vehicle test mass & inertia classesDTP8 status: see WLTP-DTP-08-02/ -04 Combined approach includes: improved definition of vehicle test mass(incl. optional equipment, luggage/payload) step-less inertia approach optional body parts influencing the aerodynamics Testing worst case and in addition best case (if requested by manufacturer) slide 9

  10. Vehicle test mass during Validation phase 2:(see parameter setting list) mandatory testing with TMH (mass with all optional equipment) testing TMH and TML (without optional equipment) at some labs. Note: If the maximum mass of options is not known, the actual options mass of the vehicle should be derived by weighing it and subtracting the unladen mass. _____________________________________________________________ General concern: Payload factors (M1 15%, N1 35%)  see LabProcICE-117 by Japan and LabProcICE-118 by PSA/Renault slide 10

  11. Discussion at DTP9: Combine current proposal with RLD tyre selection criteria? test TMH/TML with worst/best aerodynamic and worst/best tyre class roadload data see DTP-09-13, DTP-09-14 by NL, T&E, icct Current DTP proposal: selection of tyre according to rolling resistance classes choose tyre from worst class (2nd worst if more than 3 classes). Japanese proposal (see LabProcICE-126):  tyre selection class independent slide 11

  12. Influence of tyre selection? slide 12

  13. Approach needs to be discussed in connection with family concepts see initial discussion document by Bill Coleman (DTP-09-02) Analysis of family concepts in ECE R83.06- test families - definitions - modifications of the vehicle type - extensions to type approval slide 13

  14. Multimode gear boxes • Emissions testing proposal:Test agreed worst case Compliance with emissions standards in all modes Exemptions for modes used in very limited conditions • CO2 / FE testing proposal: • (a) Single default mode test default mode • (b) No default mode or multi default modestest best and worst case, average results of both modes • Additional provisions: • Manufacturer shall give evidence to authority about the emission and fuel economy in the different modes- Tested options be provided in test report, e.g. for In-Service-testing slide 14

  15. Selectable switch design Selectable shift lever design The specific mode always returned to, when the ignition key is turned on from off. (In case of mode A, B, and C, if A is always activated when the ignition key is turned on from off, the A mode is “default mode.” The position appeared initially to drive the vehicle forward, after started the engine. (In case of [P-R-N-D-S-L], D is default mode.) • Japan proposal (LabProcICE-119) • … for excluded modes: • - Reverse position (transmission) - Special off-road modes • - Low position (auto. transmission) • … for definition of default mode: slide 15

  16. COM and NL: Reservation with regard to default mode procedure  proposal: average best and worst case even in case of a single default mode Validation phase 2:  some labs will test all modes of single default mode vehicles  decision on how to handle these vehicles afterwards ___________________________________________________ GSI To be tested in validation 2 (if available). slide 16

  17. Overview • State of the working progress • Issues on DTP level • Input for validation 2 • 4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues • 5) Next steps slide 17

  18. VTF documents which are continously reviewed/ updated by LabProcICE: (note: current revisions are provided by VTF manager)  Parameter setting list: Major amendments since DTP 8: • Test mass and inertia approach – provision for missing data TMH/TML • Position of temperature sensor precised (“outlet” of the cooling faninstead of „in thevicinity”). • Excel data sheet for reporting of results •  Mode Construction • - review of DHC proposals by DTP experts (LabProcICE/EV) • - amendment of UTAC/JRC to allow subsequent testing slide 18

  19.  Global Test Matrix New:  Evaluation Issues for Validation 2 (DTP-09-10:Guidance document by ACEA) ___________________________________________________ Road Load Determination - excluded from validation phase 2- Japan requires validation of RLD procedure, ACEA agrees. - gtr changes to ISO are relevant for regional correlation exercises  RLD Validation to be included in WLTP roadmap slide 19

  20. Overview • State of the working progress • Issues on DTP level • Input for validation 2 • 4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues • 5) Next steps slide 20

  21. Road Load Determination • Japanese proposals (see LabProcICE-120rev1) on: - Vehicle preperation - Preconditioning - Analysis of test result Table of Running resistances(seeLabProcICE-121 by PSA) - Default running resistance table values changed to cope with actual values • More data from heavier “light duty vehicles” would be needed. Reservation by COM: Default factors should be representative of worst case  use of table should not be incentivised • JRC will scrutinize the proposal slide 21

  22. Measurement Equipment • 40 CFR Part 1066 (see LabProcICE-124) • Succeeding legislation for current US regulation (40 CFR part 86) • Issues of the HDV legislation (40 CFR part 1065) shall be adopted for LDV • Final rulemaking planned for late 2012 Conclusion from ME experts: •  PM weighing room specifications have to be discussed with EPA •  Requests concerning analytical gases have to be clarified with EPA •  1066 compliant test cells are WLTP compliant as well slide 22

  23. Measurement methods of HC emissions acc. to R 83.06(see DTP-07-13 by Poland) • Comments were reviewed by ME experts • Modification consists of introducing the cutter efficiency for ethane in the NMHC calculation (consistency with gtr4). • principal agreement • LabProcICE developed gtr draft proposal (see LabProcICE-123) • Correction also needs to be integrated in R83 •  Poland or GFV Informal Group slide 23

  24. Overview • State of the working progress • Issues on DTP level • Input for validation 2 • 4) Work in progress items / proposals / open issues • 5) Next steps slide 24

  25. Small teams (LabProc, ME, RLD) will continue work on draft gtr / OIL / definitions • Additional Tel/web conferences, e. g. evaluation of first results of Validation Phase 2 • Evaluation of new test procedure during Validation Phase 2 • Next face-to-face workshop:22nd May 2012, Brussels (COM)

  26. Thanks for your attention. LabProcICE contact: Béatrice Lopez de Rodas - beatrice.lopez(at)utac.com Konrad Kolesa - konrad.kolesa(at)audi.de Stephan Redmann – stephan.redmann(at)bmvbs.bund.de

More Related