LDV Real Driving Emissions: - Assessment work: status and open issues - 28th of November 2013, Brussels European Commission DG - Joint Research Centre (JRC) - IET - Institute for Energy and Transport

Outline Objectives of the document Assessment criteria Analysis or information required for the criteria Work progress and “Shopping list”: Analysis and information still required for the methods JRC MAW Method (EMROAD) TUG (CLEAR) TNO Binning Tool

Objectives of the document To discuss and to propose the analysis required to provide the supporting information needed for the assessment criteria, with the aim to develop guidelines for the involved experts To (possibly) distribute some work within the participating organizations (The major part shall remain with the method ‘owners’ to compile the results for their method and all vehicles) If necessary, the proposals will be reviewed and adapted at each task force meeting

Assessment criteria (1) ROBUSTNESS: Ability to assess RDE performance Ability to assess RDE performance under specific testing conditions Ability to evaluate testing conditions (trip) Data coverage Robustness against uncertainties of data acquisition and data evaluation Technological neutrality

Assessment criteria (2) PRACTICABILITY: PEMS testing effort Availability and accuracy/reliability of input parameters Simplicity of calculation steps Possibility for independent RDE testing Flexibility to be adapted to present and future emissions legislation

Assessment criteria & Analysis (1) Ability to assess RDE performance Ability to assess RDE performance under specific testing conditions Ability to evaluate testing conditions (trip) Data coverage Results required from the different tools: (A) (Normalised) Emissions (g/km) (B) (Normalised) [Weighted and for the U/R/M] (C) Generic trip characteristics (All methods) (C) Results from indicators (method specific or not) TUG, TNO - Driving dynamics (D) Results from indicators (method specific or not) Time is reduced to the normal time share. Expected: The results from the (C) or (D) indicators shall be reflected/indicated on (A) and (B) results.

Assessment criteria & Analysis (2) Robustness against uncertainties of data acquisition and data evaluation Case studies (analysis not required for all tests/vehicles) Data uncertainties: Sensitivity studies Robustness of data evaluation 1: Performance of the DE methods for specific testing situations Roundtrip clockwise and counterclockwise driving Aggressive versus soft or normal driving style Aggressive driving during part of a test Other? Robustness of data evaluation 2: Sensitivity of the method DE to their design parameters TNO Binning: ? CLEAR: target function? MAW: Averaging quantity, Curve and CO2 tolerances

Assessment criteria & Analysis (3) Technology neutrality Description of the principles envisaged to adapt the methods to hybrid powertrains and alternative fuels (Discussion) Implications in terms of testing (Parameters and quality required) (Possibly) case studies with results (as for criteria A, B, C, D)

Quality and transparency Elements: A common database is used to conduct the analysis The data within the database contains the elements for excluding the cold start and the DPF regeneration For the upcoming resulys to be presented: The version of the methods shall be indicated The method owners shall maintain the traceability of the versions and list the changes and their potential implications upon the final results The final results shall be aggregated for the last and best possible version of the method

Shopping list – MAW (1) General results (See JRC technical presentations) JRC Comments on and lessons learned from the general results ALL (JRC/DAIMLER) Description of the calculation principles in ‘regulatory language’ Sensitivity of the “normal driving indicator” (CO2 in g/km) to identify high driving dynamics (mainly for motorway) JRC/ BMW Justification for the preliminary proposal for the Normal driving tolerance (+/- 25%) and discussion JRC Sensitivity of the method to the calculation settings (Reference quantity) and discussion of implications JRC / FORD?

Shopping list – MAW (2) Minimum number of windows per U/R/M categories to complete a ‘valid’ test and potential implications if a test is partially invalidated JRC Relationship between the values ‘normal driving indicator (CO2)’ and the driving conditions – Case studies – ALL Justification for the preliminary proposal on the minimum number of windows in the different U/R/M catgories (10%) and discussion JRC Variations of the MAW method to show how severe windows could be included (e.g. weighing function representing the distance to the CO2 curve) JRC Other

Shopping list – TUG CLEAR (1) General results TUG Comments on and lessons learned from the general results ALL (JRC/DAIMLER) Description of the calculation principles in ‘regulatory language’ Description of the methodology to derive the target functions (Power or CO2) using a (driving e.g. WLTP) database TUG Description of the methodology/indicators to validate/invalidate the tests (partially or totally) TUG Sensitivity of the method to the “target functions, discussion of potential implications TUG

Shopping list – TUG CLEAR (2) Sensitivity of the method to the calculation settings (averaging...) TUG? Other..?

Comparing the methods.. Comments and lessons learned on the general results with all methods Providing information from the shopping list Identify the concrete characteristics of the methods ‘Binning parameter’ strongly correlated with emissions