WLTP-E-Lab Sub Group Progress report WLTP-DTP-E-LabProc-088
-
Upload
destiny-espinoza -
Category
Documents
-
view
48 -
download
0
description
Transcript of WLTP-E-Lab Sub Group Progress report WLTP-DTP-E-LabProc-088
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!