160 likes | 182 Views
This document outlines JAMA's understanding of the proposed test procedure for reducing evaporative emissions, presenting recommendations for each scenario, including reduction of purging time, doubling tests, durability enhancements, and OBD considerations. The text delves into technical measures and issues for each scenario and provides insights on canister improvements, piping changes, size-ups, and impacts on vehicle components. JAMA's positions on introducing durability requirements and OBD mandates are also discussed, with justifications provided. The document concludes with support for scenario 2 with a lead time requirement and emphasizes the need for clarity on test conditions by 2012 for implementation from 2017.
E N D
30th JulyEvaporative emission WS Euro6EvaporativeemissionJAMARecommendation
2 Contents • Outline on proposed test procedure (JAMA’s understanding) • Recommendation on each scenario • 2-1. Scenario1(Reduction of purging time) • 2-2. Scenario2 (Scenario1+2DBL) • 2-3. Scenario3 (Scenario2+Durability) • 2-4. Scenario3+ (Scenario3+OBD) • 3.Conclusion
3 Contents • Outline on proposed test procedure (JAMA’s understanding) • Recommendation on each scenario • 2-1. Scenario1(Reduction of purging time) • 2-2. Scenario2 (Scenario1+2DBL) • 2-3. Scenario3 (Scenario2+Durability) • 2-4. Scenario3+ (Scenario3+OBD) • 3.Conclusion
4 1. Outline on Proposed test procedure
<Comparison of current test procedure and proposed procedure> • Outline on Proposed test procedure Proposed Test procedure Test procedure in US Current Test procedure Preconditioning drive Canister loading Canister loading Soak:12-36h Scenario1 Canister loading Preconditioning drive(18km) Part1+2×Part2 Conditioning drive (19km) Part1+Part2+2xPart1 Conditioning drive Hot soak loss test Conditioning drive(15km) Part1+Part2+Part1 Hot soak loss test Soak Soak 2g/test Scenario2 Hot soak loss test 1DBL 1DBL Worst 1day Worst 1day Soak 1DBL 1DBL <Additional> Durability OBD 1DBL Hot soak test + Worst 1 DBL Scenario3 2g/test Scenario3+
6 Contents • Outline on proposed test procedure (JAMA’s understanding) • Recommendation on each scenario • 2-1. Scenario1(Reduction of purging time) • 2-2. Scenario2 (Scenario1+2DBL) • 2-3. Scenario3 (Scenario2+Durability) • 2-4. Scenario3+ (Scenario3+OBD) • 3.Conclusion
2. Recommendation on each scenario Air cleaner Breather line Fuel cap Purge valve Air filter Canister Air line 2way valve Inlet pipe Cut of valve Fuel tank <Outline on Evaporative system in EU>
Air cleaner Breather line Fuel cap Purge valve Air filter Canister Air line 2way valve Inlet pipe Cut of valve Fuel tank 2-1. Recommendation on scenario1 [Reduction of purging time] <Technical measure & Issue> Purge valve => Purge volume UP For HEV, additional measure might be necessary HV車等は 更にUPする 可能性あり Pipe diameter => UP Issue: Big layout change is necessary. ( In the worst case, plat form change might be necessary)
9 2-1. JAMA recommendation on scenario1 [Reduction of purging time] - Enough lead-time is necessary for full model change. (5 years are necessary for technical development in case it becomes necessary to change plat form) - Align the driving pattern with emission test (Part1+2xPart2 : 18km)
Air cleaner Breather line Fuel cap Purge valve Air filter Canister Air line 2way valve Inlet pipe Cut of valve Fuel tank 2-2. Recommendation on scenario2 [2DBL] <Technical measure & Issues> Canister ⇒1. Improved carbon 2. Size-up For HEV, additional measurethat lower a pressure loss might be necessary ex) Canister ⇒ Size-up by using pellet carbon Pipe diameter ⇒ UP Issue: Big layout change is necessary. (In the worst case, the plat form change might be necessary)
2-2. Recommendation on scenario2 [2DBL] <Impact by canister size-up & Countermeasure> Top view Where? How to install? Fuel tank In case canister size-up is necessary, the impacts on vehicles (body, P/F area etc) is significant. ex) 0.7L in-tank canister in EU ⇒2.0L US canister
12 2-2. Recommendation on scenario2 [2DBL] Enough lead-time is necessary for full model change. (5 years are necessary for technical development in case it becomes necessary to change plat form)
2-3. Recommendation on scenario3 [Durability] Durability Requirements should not be introduced • <Justification> • LAT evaluation showed the impact from E10 fuel on permeation performance and durability of the canister is low. • 2. The system which is ethanol fuel compatible have been introduced from Euro5. • (With progress of introduction of new vehicles in near future, deterioration of evaporative emission in the market by ethanol fuel becomes smaller.) • 3. Test burden should be increased unnecessarily
2-4. JAMA position on scenario3 [OBD] OBD Requirements should not be introduced • <Justification> • JRC under-estimated the OBD cost. • We estimated more than 3 times. • 2. We do not believe that it becomes cost-effective.
15 Contents • Outline on Euro6 draft test procedure (JAMA understanding) • JAMA position on each scenario • 2-1. Scenario1(Reduction of purge distance) • 2-2. Scenario2 (Scenario1+2DBL) • 2-3. Scenario3 (Scenario2+Durability) • 2-4. Scenario3+ (Scenario3+OBD) • 3.Conclusion
3. Conclusion • JAMA support scenario2 on the condition of 5 years lead time => need to clarify the test condition by the end of 2012 to introduce new requirement from 2017 • JAMA recommend to align the driving pattern with emission test about conditioning drive.