Analysis of the WLTP EU in-use database with respect to RDE-like trips, update of the presentation from 02.04.2015 by H. Steven 08.04.2015, modified 05.06.2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WLTP-EU DB short trip analyis 1 by H. Steven Overview of the WLTP-EU database short trip analysis.
Advertisements

WLTP Elaborated by the WLTP downscaling issues task force OIL #5 Proposal for modifications of the calculation parameter/coefficients.
1 Comparison of WLTP unified database distributions and WLTC rev2 distributions Heinz Steven WLTP WLTP-DHC
WLTP OIL #6, annex 2, sections 3.2 and 3.3 Determination of engine speeds, calculation of available power.
Working paper number WLTP-DHC Application of the development approach described in WLTP-DHC on ACEA’s EU database By H. Steven
1 Proposal for a downscaling procedure for the extra high speed phases of the WLTC for low powered vehicles within a vehicle class Technical justification.
WLTP-12-17e Status report about the work of the gearshift issues task force.
IE(DS)1 Many of the measures that are of interest in psychology are distributed in the following manner: 1) the majority of scores are near the mean 2)
Working paper number WLTP-DHC Comparison of different European databases with respect to road category and time periods (on peak, off peak, weekend)
RDE Working group Brussels, September 2015 Collection of NO x emissions data - First preliminary results RDE working group 14 September 2015 European Commission.
1 Analysis of in-use driving behaviour data delivered by vehicle manufacturers By Heinz Steven
1 Proposals of WLTC versions for low powered vehicles Heinz Steven WLTP.
IFM, Institute for Vehicle Technology and Mobility 1 Mobilität Motorcycle Noise Emission Proposal for a measurement method representing rural driving behaviour.
WLTP-12-17e Status report about the work of the gearshift issues task force.
RDE testing: how to define NTE emission limits?
Questions on cycle representativeness (French position) EU – WLTP 17 th of September 2013.
25 January 2016 European Commission - Joint Research Centre (JRC)
1 Comparison of the worldwide weighted WLTP database and EU regional database with WLTC rev3 and further modifications performed by JARI, JRC and HS Heinz.
Starting note on gearshift issues
WLTP-DHC Analysis of in-use driving behaviour data, influence of different parameters By Heinz Steven
Motorcycle Noise Emission
6 More about Statistical Diagrams and Graphs
Analysis of Fiat Ecodrive data
N. Ligterink, R. Cuelenaere
Improvement of Wind tunnel Measurement Process Status report
WLTP Modelling of fuel consumption and detection of driveability problems for “borderline” cars with different maximum speed caps. Heinz Steven
Random Cycle Generator
Analysis of Fiat Ecodrive data
RDE Regulation Commission Meeting
Status Januar Verification of test normality
RDE Task Force Meeting, 7th January 2014
Confirmation on application to EVs unique cycle
Development of the Japan’s RDE (Real Driving Emission) procedure
Questions on cycle representativeness
Analysis of WLTP European utility factor For OVC-HEVs.
RDE Task Force Meeting, 28th November 2013, Brussels
28th of November 2013, Brussels
Comparison of different gearshift prescriptions
RDE Regulation Random Cycle, Cycle Generation
Weighting Factors impact on WLTP CO2 emissions
absolutely essential first level
WLTP-21-04e Revision 1 Amendment proposals for annex 2 of GTR #15 from the cycle gearshift issues task force Heinz Steven
Analysis of the WLTP EU in-use database with respect to RDE-like trips, update of the presentation from by H. Steven , modified
Input ACEA Boundary Conditions.
Dutch driving behavior analyses | Norbert Ligterink
Analysis of the WLTP EU in-use database with respect to RDE-like trips, update and summary of previous presentations by H. Steven
Additional RDE trip indicator(s)
Institute for Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics
GTR Corrections, Open Points, Expert Proposals and Confirmations in GTR 15 1/2/2019.
Analyses related to dynamic effects in vehicle speed and NOx emission measurements by H. Steven
Analysis of the WLTP EU in-use database with respect to RDE-like trips, update of the presentation from by H. Steven
WLTP Database Analysising process: Use 95% of all trips
Overview of in-use driving behaviour data from different regions
PN-PEMS Progress update
16th of November 2013, Brussels
Proposal to replace 3 s rule by 2 s rule
WLTP Comparison of WLTP unified database distributions and WLTC rev2 distributions Heinz Steven
Emissions testing with PEMS versus random laboratory driving cycles
Boundary conditions - Status
Review of the European test procedure for evaporative emissions
Reg 85: Measurement of Net Power
WLTP Modelling of fuel consumption and detection of driveability problems for “borderline” cars with different maximum speed caps. Heinz Steven
Comparative study on the threshold speed
Comparison NEDC/WLTC Comparison of the influence of weighting factors as proposed by France on the validation 2 CO2 emission results for the WLTC By H.
RDE Task Force Meeting, 16th December 2013, Brussels
Analysis for WLTP UF development
WLTP-26-03e - Revision 1 Final amendments for annex 2 and status report about the programming code development subgroup Heinz Steven
Informal document GRPE Rev.1
Comparison of key parameters of EU WLTP database and WLTC version 5
Additional discussion points from the gearshift issues task force
Presentation transcript:

Analysis of the WLTP EU in-use database with respect to RDE-like trips, update of the presentation from 02.04.2015 by H. Steven 08.04.2015, modified 05.06.2015 1

Database and approach The European part of the WLTP database consists of customers 1 Hz in-use driving behavior data of 143 vehicles measured in 9 EU member states. The total mileage is about 400 000 km. Trips or journeys are indicated by numbers, but obviously not in a uniform manner. The average trip distance per vehicle varies from 1,7 km to 53,6 km. The average is 10,2 km. Therefore it is unlikely to find a sufficient number of PEMS-like trips, that would fulfil the distance and composition requirements with respect to speed classes (34% urban, 33% rural and 33% motorway with a tolerance of +/- 10% and at least 16 km distance for each speed class). 2

Database and approach This presentation will focus on v*a_pos_95 as upper dynamic boundary and RPA_05 as lower dynamic boundary. The database contains only 175 of PEMS-like trips, but when applying the requirements, that the average speed is between 15 km/h and 30 km/h and the stop percentage is >= 10%, this number decreases to 35 trips from 21 vehicles. Since this is by far not enough data for an assessment of dynamic boundary conditions like v*a_pos_95 and RPA_05, all trips, for which the conditions of annex IIIA of the draft PEMS regulation are fulfilled per speed class, were considered for the further analysis. 3

Results for the urban bin This results in 730 trips for the urban speed class. 27 of these trips have average speeds below 15 km/h with stop percentages varying from 23,3% to 60,7%. 68 urban trips have average speeds between 15 km/h and 30 km/h but stop percentages below 10%. 454 urban trips have average speeds above 30 km/h with stop percentages varying between 0,1% and 17,5%. Only 181 urban trips fulfil the requirements of annex IIIA of the draft RDE regulation (v_ave between 15 km/h and 30 km/h, p_stop >= 10%). The maximum stop percentage of these trips is 43,8%. 4

Results for the rural and motorway bins As one would expect, the number of trips >= 16 km distance for the rural speed class (vehicle speeds above 60 km/h up to 90 km/h) is significantly higher. Limiting the distance to the maximum of the urban speed class (67 km) and the maximum speed to 145 km/h results in 1130 trips. For the motorway bin (vehicle speeds > 90 km/h) 1851 trips could be found with distances from 16 km up to 597 km and maximum speeds up to 195 km/h. Limiting the distance to 67 km and the maximum speed to 145 km/h results in 1107 remaining trips. 5

v*a_pos percentiles Figures 1 and 2 show the results for each trip (v*a_pos_95 and v*a_pos_98 values) separately per speed bin versus average speed. RDE window means average speeds between 15 km/h and 30 km/h and stop percentages above 10%. 6

v*a_pos_95 vs v_ave Figure 1a 7

v*a_pos_95 vs v_ave Figure 1b 8

v*a_pos_98 vs v_ave Figure 2 9

v*a_pos percentiles Table 1 shows the overall results per speed bin for the 2%, 5% and 10% percentiles (RPA) and 90%, 95% and 98% percentiles (v*a_pos_95 and v*a_pos_98 based). Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of the stop percentages for trips with an urban distance between 16 km and 67 km and for the whole database. Figure 4 shows corresponding results for the stop durations. 10

Overall results Table 1 11

Distribution of stop percentages Figure 3 12

Distribution of stop durations Figure 4 13

Calculation of the time share above the modified threshold proposal In an additional calculation step the threshold proposals shown in figure 1 and figure 2 were applied to the joint v*a, v frequency distribution of the whole WLTP EU database, which was derived from the second by second data. The aim was, to calculate the time share above the threshold curve. The threshold curves are shown again in figure 5. The calculation results are shown in figure 6 and the overall shares above the thresholds in table 2. 14

v*a_pos threshold curves Figure 5 15

Time share above v*a_pos threshold Figure 6 16

Overall shares above thresholds Table 2 17

Results for RPA Corresponding results as shown in figure 1 but for RPA values are shown in figure 7. Figure 7 contains also proposals for lower thresholds intended to exclude too smooth driving. For the motorway class needs to be mentioned, that Sweden and the UK have speed limits (110 km/h, 112 km/h), that are only 20 km/h above the lower speed borderline of this class (90 km/h) and thus have a lower speed range for acceleration events. This explains the significantly lower RPA percentile values compared to the whole sample. This is considered in the proposals for the RPA threshold curves. 18

RPA versus v_ave Figure 7 19

New threshold proposal based on RPA_15 Figure 8 20

End of presentation, thank you for your attention! 21