1. Exhaust Emissions Light Duty-PMP-2017/2018 Sub23nm Round Robin Tero Lähde

2. Current status
All European laboratories (except 3rd JRC measurement) have conducted their measurements
Equipment finally returned to JRC
US, Japanese and Chinese laboratories have expressed their interest to participate in the RR
Lets talk about this at the end of the presentation

3. PMP 23nm (In-Lab systems, evaporation tube)
PN23 from all European labs of the campaign
COLD start, between lab. Var 22 %
Labs 3, 7 deviate over 22 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 16 %
Labs 3, 7 deviate over 16 % from mean
In general, PMP23 data can be considered consistent
Background
PCRF
NB!
Work with outliers
Still in progress

4. Lab 5 with background problem
One of the labs had a backgroung problem
Some uncontrolled maintenance
BG was not constant over the
campaign/cycles
Blue graph calculated:
Red graph – min(Red graph)
After reduction qualitatively inline
with CS-instruments
However, Excluded from comparisons

5. Lab 2 with PCRF problem in PMP
Problem seen most clearly in PMP10
Suspected that PMP-system was not adjusted for extra flow of PMP10 CPCs
PMP10 excluded from comparisons
PMP23 to be decided

6. Two d50=10 nm CPCs at PMP sampling
The CPCs were comparabe
The TSI10 had some issues
Maintenance due flow problems
TSI10 used after CS2 to verify results
CS2 had internal leakage (maintenance)
AM10 used here as PMP10 CPC
COLD and HOT start
WLTC-phases
R=0.999

7. PMP 23nm (In-Lab systems, evaporation tube)
Lab 5, with BG problem here excluded
PMP23/ WLTC
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.09
0.08
CoVL
0.16
0.22
COVR
0.18
0.23
Variability within labs (repeatability), CoVr
In-lab CoVr, HOT ≈ COLD start
Variability between labs, CoVL
CoVL, higher for COLD than HOT START
Reproducibility coefficient of variation in labs, CoVR
CoVR, higher for COLD than HOT START
PCRF BG

8. CS1,23nm (catalytic stripper)BG
COLD start, Coefficient of Var 14 %
Labs 3, 4, 6 deviate over 14 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 7 %
Only Lab 5 deviates over 7 % from mean
Better Reproducibility (COVR) than PMP
Lower (between lab) CoVL than PMP
In-Lab variabilities, CoVr, CS1≈PMP
CS123/ WLTC
PMP23/ WLTC
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.08
CoVL
0.07
0.14
0.16
0.22
COVR
0.12
0.18
0.23

9. CS2, 23nm (catalytic stripper)
COLD start, between lab. Var 27 %
Labs 4, 6 deviate over 27 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 18 %
Labs 4, 6,7 deviate over 18 % from mean
CoVL and CoVR, highest for CS2 BG
CS1,23
PMP23
CS2,23
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.07
CoVL
0.14
0.16
0.22
0.18
0.27
COVR
0.12
0.23
0.28

10. PN23 combined When normalized to overall average (100) 23 nm
Averages for COLD start were
PN23(PMP)=103,
PN23(CS1)=101
PN23(CS2)=96
for HOT start
PN23(PMP)=108,
PN23(CS1)=97
PN23(CS2)=95
Lab 5, excluded
PCRF-issues
PMP
Internal leakage
CS2
Background

11. PMP 10nm (AM10) COLD start, between lab. Var 14 %
Excluded
Lab 5, with BG problem
Lab 2, PMP, PCRF problem
COLD start, between lab. Var 14 %
Lab 6 deviates over 14 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 14 %
In general, PMP10 data seem consistent.
PMP10/ WLTC
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.08
0.15
CoVL
0.14
COVR
0.16
0.20

12. CS1, 10nm (internal) COLD start, Coefficient of Var 15 %
Excluded
Lab 5, with BG problem
COLD start, Coefficient of Var 15 %
Labs 1, 3 and 6 deviate over 15 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 9 %
Only Lab6 deviates over 9 % from mean
Better Reproducibility (COVR) than PMP
Lower between lab CoVL at HOT than PMP
Higher between lab CoVL at COLD than PMP
In-Lab variabilities, CoVr, a bit lower for
CS1 than PMP
CS110/ WLTC
PMP10/ WLTC
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.08
0.12
0.15
CoVL
0.09
0.14
COVR
0.19
0.16
0.20

13. CS2, 10nm (internal) COLD start, Coefficient of Var 26 %
Excluded:Lab 5, with BG problem, Lab 3, CS2 leakage
CS2, 10nm (internal)
COLD start, Coefficient of Var 26 %
Lab 4 deviates over 26 % from mean
HOT start, between lab. Var 23 %
Only Lab6 deviates over 23 % from mean
Lower between lab CoVL and
Reproducibility (COVR) than CS1, or PMP
CS1,10
PMP10
CS2,10
HOT
COLD
CoVr
0.08
0.12
0.15
0.10
0.07
CoVL
0.09
0.14
0.26
0.28
COVR
0.19
0.16
0.20
0.27
0.29

14. PN10 combined
PMP
102
CS1
103
CS2 94
PMP 97
CS1
103
CS2
100

15. Summary, In-Lab variation
In-Lab variation, CoVr
PN23
CoVr was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
The In-Lab repeatability was good
PN10
CoVr was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
The highest Coefficient of variation (COLD) was found for PMP-instrument
the PMP PN10 instrument was external and transported from –lab-to-lab

16. Summary, Variation between Labs
Inter-Lab Coefficient of variation, CoVL
PN23
CoVL was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
Inter-lab variation was higher for HOT start than for COLD start WLTCs
The lowest CoVL was for CS1 (0.07,0.12) while for PMP and CS2 CoVL was higher.
The PMP PN23 instrument was expected to vary between the laboratories while CS2 was relatively high due to issues
PN10
CoVL was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
The highest CoVL (both COLD, HOT start) was found for CS2-instrument
The Inter-Lab variation, CoVL, was practically on the same level for PN10 and PN23

17. Summary, Reproducibility
Reproducibility, CoVR
PN23
CoVR was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
The lowest CoVL was for CS1 (0.12,0.14) , the highest for CS2 ( ).
PN10
CoVR was between (COLD) and (HOT) for all the instruments
The lowest CoVR was for CS1 (0.19,0.12) , the highest for CS2 ( ).

18. Conclusions
The results showed that the reproducibility of the PMP 10 nm measurements remains the same as with the 23 nm levels (20-23%)
The same conclusion was drawn from both Golden instruments
The reproducibility with the best performing instrument was 16-19% for both 23nm and 10 nm measurements (the worst 28-29%)
The results did not show at this point the necessity of the catalytic stripper for this vehicle
23nm, COLD
PMP
CS1
CS2 r 8% 6% 7% L
22%
14%
27% R
23%
16%
28%
10nm, COLD
PMP
CS1
CS2 r
15%
12% 7% L
14%
28% R
20%
19%
29%
23nm, HOT
PMP
CS1
CS2 r 9%
10%
13% L
16% 7%
18% R
12%
22%
10nm, HOT
PMP
CS1
CS2 r 8%
10% L
14% 9%
26% R
16%
12%
27%

19. Problems
Some instrument transportation was delayed because of customs problems.
Solved, but took some months of extra time.
The car was requested for maintenance and the oil was changed.
JRC will check if there is comparability issues after the oil change.
Now the car is being aged and will be measured afterwards
All European measurements (except 3rd JRC) already conducted
Continuation of the RR outside Europe?
Comparability issues between Europe and others if continued with current vehicle
GPF RR?

20. Any questions? Tero Lähde, Barouch Gieckhaskiel, Giorgio Martini ,