1. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 1 Progress Report DTP Subgroup Lab Process Internal Combustion Engines (LabProcICE)WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013

2. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 2 1)State of the working progress 2)Issues on DTP Level 3)Validation phases 2 and 3 4)Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5)Next steps Overview

3. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 3 several datesDraft working team meetings 14. – 16.11.2012 Brussels workshop - evaluation of validation 2 results - road load determination - joined meeting with EV Group  minutes: LabProcICE-171 06.12.2012Phone/web conference - comparison of RLD methods Meetings since DTP-11

4. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 4 1)State of the working progress 2)Issues on DTP Level 3)Validation phases 2 and 3 4)Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5)Next steps Overview

5. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 5 WLTP flexibilities (LabProcICE-151 / -152 / -153) Even improved test procedures with tightened tolerances will allow to use flexibilities in a systematic manner and might still lead to discrepancies between type approval and 'real-world' CO 2 values.LabProcICE-151 EU-Com proposal: Correction / normalization of measured CO 2 emissions LabProcICE feedback:  approach might shorten discussions on gtr test procedure tolerances  impact on WLTP roadmap?  Chair requested feedback on the feasibility of proposed normalization methods (see Annex of LabProcICE-151)

6. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 6 Expected decision at DTP-12: Implement such an approach (a)in WLTP gtr or (b)on regional level only by interested contracting parties?

7. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 7 Test mass / vehicle selection / inertia classes Review of DTP status: Approach from T&E / NL / ICCT includes: (1) vehicle test mass  improved definition (incl. optional equipment, luggage/payload)  Testing worst and in addition best case (if requested by manufacturer) (2) optional body parts influencing the aerodynamics  Detailed discussion of alternative approaches at f2f-meeting (3) step-less inertia

8. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 8 Open Issues (a) Payload factors Current LabProcICE proposal : M1 15%, N1 35% (based on EU data) Analysis of data from Japan showed the following payload factors: -non commercial usage: 10 to 15 % -commercial usage: 30 to 35 %. Solutions: (1) Exclude payload from gtr test mass approach  regional decision (2) Define 2 harmonized payload levels (low & high) in gtr, e.g. 15% and 30%.  allocation to the respective vehicle classes on regional level.

9. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE (b) Consideration of aerodynamic features The vehicle shall be tested 3 times (3 coastdowns, 3 CO 2 tests) to define the maximum bandwidth for CO 2 values  TML without aerodynamic features  TMH without aerodynamic features and worst case intermediate values for individual features to be calculated and added to TM CO 2 value extrapolation within a certain range should be possible mass CO 2 TMLTMH Bandwidth of individual vehicle TM TM CO 2 Aero CO 2 individual values for each feature Aerodyn. worst case No aerodynamic features installed No aerodynamic features installed  CO 2

10. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 10 Consideration of movable parts LabProcICE decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO 2 impact of such parts, e. g. spoiler, air shutters, level of vehicle: (a) Low impact: “movable parts shall operate as intended under normal driving conditions” (b)Unknown impact: - Worst case setting as starting point. - Deviations depending on usage time or if the aerodynamic impact of the worst case setting is below defined thresholds. Japan supported option (b) because of unknown future parts and impacts

11. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 11 (c) Tyre selection criteria 1.Select tyre from the worst rolling resistance class (based on EU tyre labelling directive, RR measured in acc. with UN-R117, tyres offered by manufacturer for series of production) 2.Select widest tyre (offered by manufacturer for series of production) within the worst class EU-COM at DTP-11: consideration of tyre categories (C1, C2, …)  proposal from ACEA expected for discussion in LabProcICE 3.Open issue regarding wheel rim selection: - rim with highest aerodynamic drag (worst case approach) or - consider rims as aerodynamic options?  decision to be based on data regarding the expected CO 2 impacts

12. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 12

13. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 13 Method of subtraction of intake air Aim: measure low pollutant mass with higher accuracy by considering the pollutant level that is contained in the combustion and intake air of the vehicle (LabProcICE-020)  Concerns by US EPA / Japan  DTP-08: Issue put on hold until results of validation and correlation show the clear need and effect of the proposed method  No measurements during validation 2  Proposal withdrawn

14. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 14 Table of running resistances (LabProcICE-167 by PSA) Need for table as an alternative to measurement methods agreed. General objective by EU-COM: default factors should represent worst case to prevent an incentive to use the table instead of the measurement methods  JRC will scrutinize the proposal  counterproposal if necessary Comparison of RLD measurement methods EU-COM at DTP-11: equivalency of methods to be evaluated TelCo 6.12.2012 (LabProcICE-167 /-172 /-173)  pros&cons + need for each method (coast down, torque meter, windtunnel)  evaluation needs to be continued

15. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 15 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 CO 2 / 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

16. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 16 Reservation with regard to default mode procedure by COM & NL  proposal: average best and worst case even in case of a single default mode DTP-9:  validation 2: some labs should test all modes of single default mode vehicles  decision on how to handle these vehicles afterwards Validation2:  no input  LabProcICE will keep proposal ___________________________________________________ GSI Automotive Industry will provide proposal for GSI procedure General question: follow fixed gear shift points and/or GSI?

17. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 17 Soak procedure Alternative 1: At least 6 hours and maximum of 36 hours until the engine oil temperature and coolant, if any, are within 298 K ± 2 K. (forced cooling down with open bonnet at the request of the manufacturer) Alternative 2: At least 12 hours and maximum 36 hours, with closed bonnet in soak area environment without using a cooling fan. Validation 2: First evalution of results showed that vehicle temperatures after 6h with forced cooling down show an equivalent temperature level to 12 -36 h

18. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 18 Objectives from EU stakeholders: 12 h soaking at 25°C is not representative for real life.  vehicle (oil) temperature criteria shall not be dropped (alternative 2) Automotive industry: real life benefits of vehicles with insulation are disregarded by setting a target temperature DTP-12 advice needed: Principle approach to get a reproducible / normalized result: 1) defining a target setpoint vehicle temperature and / or (?) 2) defining a representative soak method / time.

19. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 19 1)State of the working progress 2)Issues on DTP Level 3)Validation phases 2 and 3 4)Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5)Next steps Overview

20. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 20 1.1 Soak Temperature Tolerances 1.2 Soak with forced Cooling down 1.3 Test Cell Temperatures 1.4 Tolerances of Humidity during Test Cycle 2.1 Tolerances of Emission Measurement System 2.2 Subtraction of Intake Air 3.1 Inertia setting 3.2 WLTC gearshift tolerance 3.3 OBD during WLTC 3.4 Preconditioning Cycle 3.5 Preconditioning for Dilution Tunnel 3.6 Tolerances for Dyno Load Setting 3.7 Speed Trace Tolerances 3.8 Handling of GSI 3.9 Monitoring of RCB of all Batteries 3.10 Exhaust Pressure before Remote Mixing Tee or CVS 3.11 Proportional Fan Position 3.12 Cycle Mode Construction 3.13 Required Time for Bag Analysis 3.14 Dilution Factor 3.15 Dyno Operation Mode Overview of LabProcICE Evaluation Issues for Validation Phase 2 LabProcICE-154 Part 1 LabProcICE-155 Part 2 LabProcICE-156 Part 3

21. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 21 Validation phase 2 Evaluation of LabProcICE issues based on Validation 2 data base  LabProcICE in close cooperation with Heinz Steven Last f2f meeting: Review of preliminary results  documents: LabProcICE-154, LabProcICE-155, LabProcICE-156  Discussion of important issues with initial proposals  Conclusion: Final data base needed for concluding evaluation  Roadmap needs to be adapted! Important: All Contracting Parties are encouraged to evaluate the data base and come up with proposals

22. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 22 Validation phase 2 example – soak temperatures Increasing maximum deviation of soak temperature soak temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 3 K of the set point Number of tests: 211 (no forced cooling down) 5 min average

23. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 23 Validation phase 2 example – test cell temperatures Increasing maximum deviation of test cell temperature during wltc Test cell temp tolerances: 90% of tests are below ± 4 K of the set point Number of tests: 949 1 Hz data

24. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 24 Validation phase 2 example – lab temperatures

25. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE Current EU legislation: soak, test start and test cell temperatures have a tolerance of ± 5 K Initial LabProcICE proposal for tolerances: Soak tolerance:± 3 K (5 min average) Test start:± 2 K (1 Hz values) Lab temperature:± 5 K (1 Hz values) LabProcICE boundary conditions for lab temperature setpoint: validation 2 setpoint: 25 °C between 20 – 30 °C (harmonization with US) slide 25

26. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 26 Validation phase 3 Japan introduced status report (LabProcICE-165) at f2f meeting: Validation measurements are still on going. Main task: warming up procedure  several options will be evaluated  comparison between stabilized coast down after warm up and a non-stabilized coast down will also be foreseen to evaluate benefit.

27. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 27 Possible issues for post-validation GSI handling Monitoring of RCB of all batteries Handling of areodynamic options within test mass approach Normalization methods In addition: Need to evaluate equivalency of RLD measurement methods by further studies?

28. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 28 1)State of the working progress 2)Issues on DTP Level 3)Validation phases 2 and 3 4)Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5)Next steps Overview

29. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 29 Open issues LabProcICE open issues are listed in the gtr draft documents, see comments of S. Dubuc (Drafting Coordinator) Other proposals and work in progress items: -Deletion of on-board anemometer based coast down method -Tyre conditioning -…

30. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 30 1)State of the working progress 2)Issues on DTP Level 3)Validation phases 2 and 3 4)Work in progress items / proposals / open issues 5)Next steps Overview

31. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 31 Next steps Telephone Conference in February 2013 (tbc) DC drafting sessions f2f-Workshop in Brussels: 20.02.2013: hosted by AECC 21.02.2013: hosted by ACEA

32. WLTP-DTP-12 Geneva, 16.01.2013 DTP Subgroup LabProcICE slide 32 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