EURO 5 EFFECT STUDY FOR L-CATEGORY VEHICLES MCWG meeting

Transcription

1 EURO 5 EFFECT STUDY FOR L-CATEGORY VEHICLES MCWG meeting

2 PROJECT OUTLINE Tender ID: Title: Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles Tender No: 465/PP/GRO/IMA/15/11825 Contract No: SI Client: European Commission - DG-GROWTH Consortium performing the work: TNO - The Netherlands EMISIA - Greece Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics (LAT ) - Greece Heinz Steven Data Analysis and Consultancy (HSDAC) - Germany 2 Project introduction

3 MAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE STUDY Perform an experimental assessment and verification programme to underpin the measures within the Euro 5 stage. Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of possible post Euro 5 elements: in-service conformity testing requirements off-cycle emission requirements Expand PM limit scope and introduction of a PN emission limit for certain (sub-)categories of L-category vehicles. Based on the results, the Commission will consider introducing these new elements into future type-approval legislation (beyond Euro 5). A cost-benefit analysis is currently on going in these issues 3 This presentation contains the preliminary results for the measures within the Euro 5 stage Project introduction

4 PROGRAMME TASKS AND TIMING TASKS responsible nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun Type I test: WMTC EMISIA 1.2 Type II test: (increased) idle and free acceleration EMISIA 1.3 Type III test: Emissions of crankcase gases TNO 1.4 Type IV test: Evaporative emissions test EMISIA 1.5 Type V Durability of pollution control devices TNO 1.6 Type VII Energy efficiency tests TNO 1.7 Type VIII OBD EMISIA 2.1 Off-cycle emissions testing TNO 2.2 In-service conformity verification testing TNO 2.3 assessment of PM limit and introduction of a PN limit EMISIA 3 Validation programme and final report EMISIA MILESTONES responsible nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun Final report phase 1 JRC End of Task 1 and 2 Consortium draft Final report task 1 and 2 Consortium Final report phase 1-3 Consortium Presentation of the final report in Parliament Consortium Final presentation UN L-EPPR Consortium Final presentation MCWG Consortium Contract end MEETINGS nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun MCWG meetings M M M M M UN L-EPPR M M M M M Workshop Parliament M 4 Monthly review with Commission C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C M = live meeting C = conference call

5 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA) METHOD STATUS UPDATE

6 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW OF CBA Fleet data (new registrations and total stock based on national data) COPERT Baseline emission Factors Activity data (annual mileage driven and total vehicle-kilometers based on national data) Check and adjust with latest measurements at JRC, LAT, TNO Implementation date for Euro 5 & emission factors Assess future factors based on emission limits and technology development projections Emission modelling using SIBYL fleet dynamics (calculation of emission savings of Euro 5 over Euro 4) Technology assessment Cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per unit of mass of pollutants saved) Investment, H/W, TA, etc. costs 6 Cost-benefit analysis (Euro 5 limits, durability, OBD, evaporation,...) Cost Benefit Approach

7 3 SCENARIOS FOR THE FLEET/ACTIVITY DATA Baseline Business as usual after an initial sales rebound High growth Increased number of registrations reflecting a vibrant economy Low growth (1) Decreased number of registrations reflecting GDP presures vkm x 10 9 vkm x 10 9 vkm x 10 9 (1) This does not reflect market elasticity to vehicle prices 7 Discussed in this presentation Motorcycles: their contribution to activity dominates in all 3 scenarios (mainly due to shrinkage of mopeds sector and higher mileage/annual distance driven) Mopeds: their contribution to activity presents a decrease from 2010 to 2040 practically in all scenarios Mini-cars and ATVs: Small overall contribution to total activity but effects on local air quality Cost Benefit Approach

8 EMISSION FACTORS (EFS) A set of base emission factors (EFs) has been used to produce results on emission savings from the introduction of Euro 5. Sources utilized for legacy EFs: Previous (2009) environmental effect study (1) COPERT (2) TNO report on moped emission factors (3) New experimental JRC and LAT data In general, reliable EFs up to Euro 3 are already available from COPERT and previous (2013) environmental effect study (cross-checked with new JRC data) For Euro 4 and Euro 5, emission standard equivalencies, emission limits, or justified estimates based on the expected technology are used Emission factors deteriorate with age of vehicles, e.g. due to an aged catalyst, resulting in higher emissions after a few years of use (1) Ntziachristos et al. (2009) Study on possible new measures concerning motorcycle emissions, LAT Report 08.RE.0019.V4 (2) Computer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport, (3) van Zyl, P.S. (2015) Update emission model for two-wheeled mopeds, TNO 2014 R Cost Benefit Approach

9 EMISSION SAVINGS EXAMPLE Example of HC emission savings from with Euro 5 emission limits Baseline fleet All L-vehicles 9 ~509 kt HC will be saved when Euro 5 is introduced in 2020 for all L-vehicles ~52% emission savings over Euro period: HC savings / Euro 4 vehicle emissions = 509kt / 979kt = 52% ~26% benefit emission savings of the whole L-category fleet emissions period: HC savings / total L-fleet emissions = 509kt / 1,950kt = 26% emission savings (benefit) to be used in Cost Effectiveness-cost-benefit analysis Cost Benefit Approach

10 TYPE I: TAILPIPE EMISSIONS TEST AFTER COLD START

11 TYPE I TASK DESCRIPTION Background: A new driving procedure and emission limits are introduced at Euro 5 step for the Type I test Tailpipe emissions test after cold start Specific objective: Check technical feasibility and cost-benefit of revised testing procedure and associated emission limits Specific tasks Assessment of the applicability of WMTC Stage 3 to all L-category vehicle types Assessment of the appropriateness of the Euro 5 emission limits Assessment of the separate NMHC limit Assessment of the impact of ethanol in the reference fuel on the test type I results [Pending] 11 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

12 WMTC CYCLE IS NOT VIOLATED BY ANY OF THE VEHICLES MEASURED SO FAR 12 Vehicle Transmission Revised WMTC tests J05 L1e-A Fixed A maxs J06 L1e-B, low speed Fixed A J07 L1e-B, low speed CVT J10 L1e-B, low speed CVT J02 L1e-B, high speed Manual J03 L1e-B, high speed CVT J04 L1e-B, high speed CVT J12 L1e-B, high speed CVT J14 L1e-B, high speed CVT J17 L1e-B, high speed CVT J01 L6e-BP CVT J08 L7e-B1 CVT maxs J16 L7e-B1 CVT J09 L7e-B2 CVT J20 L7e-CP Fixed L2e-U Manual L5e-A Semi-automatic Remain to be L5e-B Manual measured L6e-BU CVT Legend A: demanded cycle acceleration was not met, this is no violation of the procedure maxs: demanded cycle speed was higher than the maximum design speed of the vehicle, this is no violation of the procedure Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

13 GENERALLY THE WMTC COVERS A WIDER ENGINE OPERATION AREA Vehicle Transmission Wider engine map area coverage [WMTC / ECE] J05 L1e-A Fixed WMTC J06 L1e-B, low speed Fixed Neutral J07 L1e-B, low speed CVT Neutral J10 L1e-B, low speed CVT Neutral J02 L1e-B, high speed Manual WMTC J03 L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC J04 L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC J12 L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC J14 L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC J17 L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC J01 L6e-BP CVT WMTC J08 L7e-B1 CVT WMTC J16 L7e-B1 CVT WMTC J09 L7e-B2 CVT WMTC 13 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

14 TYPE I: ASSESSMENT OF THE EURO 5 LIMITS

15 EMISSION SAVINGS EURO 5 INTRODUCED IN 2020 Emission savings for specific pollutant HC NO x PM CO Emissions savings (t) % benefit over Euro % 34.5% 51.6% 11.9% % benefit total L-fleet 26.1% 24.9% 24.2% 8.1% Emission savings split per L-category Mopeds 39.8% 30.9% 19.4% 29.8% Motorcycles 59.3% 50.5% 38.5% 69.8% Mini-cars 0.5% 18.3% 41.7% 0.09% ATVs 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.40% Significant emission savings in all major pollutants both in terms of absolute and relative reductions over projected L-vehicles fleet emissions Most of the reduction observed owed to motorcycles followed by mopeds 15 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

16 EURO 5 LIMITS FOR MOPEDS AND MOTORCYCLES COST-BENEFIT AND CURRENT ASSESSMENT (Values in Μ ) Cost-benefit over Mopeds 89 ± 55 Motorcycles 114 ± 83 Euro 5 introduction in Low cost estimate scenario (example) Costs (not price!) per vehicle ( period): Mopeds: /vehicle Motorcycles: /vehicle Costs may be significant but still environmental benefits are larger The Euro 5 limits are feasible with respect to timing and they are cost beneficial 16 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

17 EURO 5 LIMITS FOR MINI-CARS AND ATVs Mini-cars (L6e-L7e-C) Advanced technology is required for current diesel engines to meet the Euro 5 limits (technology costs may reach 10% of vehicle price) Pressure from urban air-quality targets and diesel bans in cities Different powertrains (electric, petrol, hybrid) can offer better candidates in meeting environmental and performance targets All terrain vehicles ATVs (L7e-B) Expected trend shifting ATVs and Side-by-Side vehicles from L-category to T- category (non road): Difficult to project future trends Road vehicles operate mostly in urban conditions, no mileage in highways: Significant impacts to local air-quality but not possible to quantify in the framework of the study 17 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

18 TYPE I: ASSESSMENT OF THE SEPARATE NMHC LIMIT

19 FIXED NMHC LIMIT IMPLEMENTATION Separate CH 4 limit critical for natural gas vehicles g/km value originated by mathematical equivalency not a value established by testing or a clear environmental target Alternative combined limit can be proposed to reduce testing and type-approval costs Retaining equivalency with Euro 5 limits for non NG vehicles: OPTION 1: THC TA < g/km * (1 + f CH4 ), assuming CH 4 drops with technology OPTION 2: THC TA < g/km + FIXED CH4, assuming CH 4 not further reduced Based on limited current Euro 4 measured data OPTION 1: f CH4 = 0.11 THC TA < g/km OPTION 2: FIXED CH4 = g/km THC TA < g/km More Euro 4 data required to finalise approach 19 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

20 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR MATHEMATICAL APPROACH FOR CH 4 (Values in Μ ) Cost-benefit over Mopeds 0.43 ± 0.05 Motorcycles 1.75 ± 0.18 Other vehicle types 0.50 ± Moderate benefits encountered due to zero environmental impact and reduction of testing and type approval burden when a mathematical approach with a fixed ratio is applied The mathematical approach is recommended as an alternative method to reduce testing and TA costs The alternative method and final limit to be proposed when testing is concluded Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits

21 TYPE III: CRANKCASE EMISSIONS

22 TYPE III CRANKCASE GASES TASK DESCRIPTION Background: Assessment of a test procedure to verify that engines are so constructed as to prevent any fuel, lubrication oil or crankcase gases from directly escaping, without being combusted, to the atmosphere from the crankcase gas ventilation system. Specific objective: Verify the two alternative test procedures set out in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 134/2014. Specific tasks: Carry out the Type III test on the test vehicles, identify and report any potential issue in the application of the two applicable test procedure described in Regulation (EU) No 134/2014, make recommendations to improve the test procedures if necessary. 22 Type III: Crankcase emissions

23 CRANKCASE EMISSION TEST METHODS BACKGROUND Basic method: Measure p crankcase over load-points on chassis dyno. p crankcase should be < p ambient Additional test method No 1: Connect plastic bag to the dipstick hole. The test is passed if no visible bag inflation occurs over conditions on chassis dyno of basic method Flowchart Type III Basic test P_crankcase < P_ambient no yes Perform additional test No 1 or alternative additional test No 2 accepted Alternative additional test method No 2: Leak check of the engine with compressed air. Test is passed if crankcase pressure remains at > 95% of the initial pressure after 5 minutes. fail yes or No1: Visible inflation of the bag no accepted fail no No2: Pressure >95% after 5 minutes yes accepted 23 Type III: Crankcase emissions

24 CRANKCASE EMISSIONS TESTING CURRENT ASSESSMENT Actual situation: Basic method is always performed during TA testing, most of the times this is not passed. When basic test is not passed during TA testing, most of the times additional test method 2 is chosen as alternative test. Assessment of basic and additional test method No1: Basic test and additional test method No1 both check if the crankcase ventilation system works properly, but do not check if the crankcase is gas leak-tight. Pulsations due to small crankcase volume are probably the root cause of failure for basic method, this is an issue specifically for typical L-category vehicle engines. The 5 litre sample bag used in the additional test method No1 is identical to demands for passenger cars, which is too large for most of the L-cat vehicles, especially for mopeds and light motorcycles. Assessment alternative additional test method No2: Checks if crankcase is gas leak-tight but it does not check if the crankcase ventilation system works properly; The crankcase pressure which occurs at full load is not simulated (if higher than 5 kpa). 24 Type III: Crankcase emissions

25 CRANKCASE EMISSIONS TESTING CURRENT ASSESSMENT Prevention of crankcase emissions is not guaranteed by the actual testing procedure Basic test and additional test no 1 can be passed when the engine is not gas leak-tight The alternative additional test no 2 can be passed while the crankcase ventilation system is not working The basic test and additional test no 1 are good methods to assess if the crankcase ventilation system works properly Minor revisions in the procedure are possible and will make the basic test and additional test no 1 better applicable to L-category vehicles. A provision to allow pulsations in the basic test Limit the size of the bag and relate the size to engine volume in additional test no 1 Alternative additional test no 2 is a good method to assess if the engine is gas leak-tight. An engineering assessment of the crankcase ventilation system by the TAA or TS shall always remain part of the procedure. 25 Type III: Crankcase emissions

26 TYPE IV: EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS

27 TYPE IV TASK DESCRIPTION Background: Fuel evaporation is a significant source of NMHC emissions and need to be reduced. Addition of EtOH in fuel may further aggravate the problem. Specific objectives: Examine the need to introduce SHED testing for special vehicle types and assess the impact of EtOH on fuel evaporation control Specific tasks: 1. Assessment of evaporative emission test procedure set our in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 134/2014, in particular the permeation and SHED test procedures 2. Investigation of the cost effectiveness of a 25% lower Euro 5 evaporative emission limit compared to the Euro 4 limit for vehicles subject to the SHED test 3. Investigation of the impact of fuel quality on he evolution of fuel permeation rate over time as well as the ageing effects of the carbon canister 27 Type IV: Evaporation emissions

28 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5 INTRODUCE FUEL SYSTEM PERMEATION TEST FOR L1E, L2E, L5E-B, L6E, L7E-B, L7E-C (Values in Μ ) Cost-benefit over Mopeds 37.5 ± 2.5 Tricycles (L5e-B) 3.0 ± 0.1 Other types (L6e-L7e) 7.5 ± 0.5 Current Assessment: Introduction of a permeation test has clear benefits High benefit scenario The benefit of permeation test is highest for mopeds because of the significant NMHC savings offered by low-permeability fuel tanks and their relatively low cost For L5e-B Tricycles, mini-cars and ATVs the benefits are lower because of the much smaller population of these vehicle types 28 Type IV: Evaporation emissions

29 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5 INTRODUCE SHED TESTING FOR L1E, L2E, L5E-B, L6E, L7E-B, L7E-C (Values in Μ ) Cost-benefit over Mopeds -1.5 ± 0.5 Tricycles (L5e-B) -0.5 ± 0.5 Other types (L6e-L7e) ± 4.5 Discussion High benefit scenario The NMHC savings of the SHED test are lower than the permeation test for all categories because there is no need to equip vehicles with low-permeability fuel tanks to pass the SHED test The costs are higher than for the permeation test mainly because of the R&D costs to develop the vapour control system (carbon canister, purging strategy, etc.) 29 Type IV: Evaporation emissions

30 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5 LIMIT OF 1.0 G/TEST FOR L3E, L4E, L5E-A AND L7E-A (Values in Μ ) Motorcycles and tricycles (L3e, L4e, L5e-A) Cost-benefit over ± 0.7 Discussion The NMHC savings of lowering the SHED test limit by 0.5 g/test are marginal because most of the emissions in real-world occur during longer parking events (above 24 hours) which are not captured by the current SHED test procedure Considering the additional costs for re-designing and calibrating the vapour control system there are no additional net benefits estimated 30 Type IV: Evaporation emissions

31 EVAPORATION EMISSIONS CURRENT ASSESSMENT Introduction of fuel system permeation testing for L1e, L2e, L5e-B, L6e, L7e-B and L7e-C is a measure technically feasible. Environmental benefits by far exceed technology costs. Introduction of SHED testing for L1e, L2e, L5e-B, L6e, L7e-B and L7e-C vehicles is not environmentally interesting as this mostly addresses breathing emissions while most evaporation emissions from these vehicles come from permeation losses Reducing the Euro 5 limit to 1 g/test for L3e, L4e, L5e-A and L7e-A makes little environmental difference as evaporation emissions of these vehicles mostly occur during longer parking events, which an 1-h long test does not address 31 Type IV: Evaporation emissions

32 TYPE V: DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS

33 TYPE V DURABILITY OF POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES Background: A physical method for ageing of emission control devices is proposed, together with a new mileage accumulation procedure. Specific objectives: Validate the new mileage accumulation cycle, the assigned deterioration factors and the useful life values Specific tasks: 1. Supplemental validation of SRC-LeCV, appropriateness of useful life distances and by when the AMA shall be phased out. 2. Assess the appropriateness of the useful life values defined in the Annex VII(A) of Regulation 168/2013 as well as of the deterioration factors to be used in the mathematical durability procedure. 33 Type V: Durability

34 THERMAL LOAD ASSESSMENT AS A BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE CYCLES Pre-catalyst temperatures are measured during different cycles with each vehicle A vehicle specific thermal model (based on the test data and vehicle specifications) predicts the exhaust gas temperature behavior for cycles that were not tested The thermal load of the cycles is calculated by applying the Arrhenius principle 34 Type V: Durability

35 TYPE V: DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS OBSERVATIONS IN THERMAL LOAD ASSESSMENT Differences between AMA and SRC-LeCV thermal load are mostly vehicle specific and highly depending on the vehicle classification; The AMA is in general as severe or less severe than the SRC-LeCV in terms of thermal load; The AMA thermal load is lower than the WMTC thermal load for vehicles which have a maximum speed higher than 130 km/h; The SRC-LeCV thermal load is especially more severe than the AMA and WMTC for vehicles with a maximum vehicle speed between 100 and 130 km/h; 35 Type V: Durability

36 3 SCENARIOS FOR THE DEGRADATION OF EFs Example for motorcycles A1 Sc. 1 Application of DF: Scenario representing current situation Mathematical method with potential loophole: very quick deterioration of catalyst (i.e. in ~2,000km for motorcycles) resulting in higher EF values in useful life (~35,000km) Sc. 2 Physical degradation: Method in which catalyst is being aged with actual mileage accumulation (i.e. physical degradation). Aged catalyst does not exceed the DF*EF 5 value in useful life (UL) Sc. 3 Stringent physical degradation: Scenario (method) similar to Sc.2, but with increased stringency, i.e., stronger thermal load for the catalyst. This requires that the EF should start from a lower value in order not to exceed the DF*EF 5 value at UL Type V: Durability 36

37 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OF PERFORMING PHYSICAL DEGRADATION (Values in Μ ) Cost-benefit over Mopeds -2.0 ± 2.0 Motorcycles 7.5 ± % additional emission reductions by performing physical degradation of the catalyst, instead of using the DF method

38 TYPE V: DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS CURRENT ASSESSMENT Physical ageing of the catalysts appears as an effective method in achieving durability of emission control systems, compared to the use of DFs Differences between AMA and SRC-LeCV thermal load are mostly vehicle specific and highly depending on the vehicle classification; AMA is not less stringent by definition than SRC-LeCV (in terms of thermal load and ageing effects) Vehicles at the border of the vehicles SRC-LeCV subclasses need further investigation with respect to their classification; Alternative procedures to reduce the testing burden for small manufacturers / low sales number vehicles need further investigation, for example bench ageing. 38 Type V: Durability

39 TYPE VII: ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST

40 TYPE VII TASK DESCRIPTION Background: The measurement of CO2 emissions, fuel/energy consumption of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles has been required since many years and the related procedure is defined in UN Regulation No 101. This procedure is now extended to L-category vehicles which however may have specific features requiring some fine-tuning of the above mentioned procedure. Specific objective: Verify and if necessary improve the test procedure to measure energy efficiency from L-category vehicles. Specific tasks: On the basis of the results of the tests on hybrid and electric vehicles, the contractor shall assess and verify the appropriateness of the test procedure for the measurement of energy efficiency (CO2 emissions, fuel/ energy consumption and range). 40 Type VII: Energy efficiency

41 TYPE VII: ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST CURRENT ASSESSMENT The sub-classification in some occasions leads to scientifically unexpected classification for electric and hybrid vehicles in comparison to a vehicle with a conventional powertrain and comparable performance. For example an electric vehicle with a maximum speed lower than 100 km/h is put into class 1. This means the electric vehicle drives the relatively mild WMTC class 1 while a comparable vehicle with a conventional powertrain would fall in a higher class and would drive a more demanding WMTC cycle. Therefor we recommend to introduce an engine power criterion in the (WMTC) subclassification criteria to better reflect the electric and hybrid electric powertrain The R101 testing for hybrid and plug-in hybrid is typically longer and more complex than that for conventional technology. As a result of the complexity of testing, the robustness of the procedure is reduced. 41 Type VII: Energy efficiency

42 TYPE VIII: FUNCTIONAL OBD REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE VIII TEST

43 TYPE VIII TASK DESCRIPTION Background: Environmental Study should report on all new types of vehicles in (sub-) categories L3e, L5e, L6e-A and L7e-A that shall, in addition to OBD stage I, also be equipped with OBD stage II at the Euro 5 level; Specific objectives: Assessment of the technical feasibility, benefits and costs from extending OBD-I (Euro 4) to OBD-II (Euro 5) for L3e-, L5e-A, L6e-A and L7e- A vehicles. Specific tasks: On-board diagnostic requirements expansion functionality OBD stage I to OBD stage II relevance for effective and efficient vehicle repair 2. Type VIII test - assessment of the OBD emission thresholds (OTLs) set out in the table laid down in Annex VI(B2) to Regulation (EU) No 168/ On-board diagnostic requirements assessment of the cumulative cost effectiveness of previous tasks and technical feasibility of supplemental OBD stage II Type VIII: OBD

44 MISFIRING MONITORING FEASIBILITY CURRENT ASSESSMENT Misfiring monitoring is a significant contributor to the longevity of emission control system and engine trouble diagnosis Differences between passenger cars and motorcycles introduce technical challenges: Extensive high engine speed (>5000 rpm) zone, most probably requires the adoption of an overall new misfiring detection technique to become possible Resonance and vibration, e.g. from chain driveline or the road, can be potentially correctible with enhanced filter algorithms Instabilities at low speed due to low inertia, may require fuel and intake air flowrate improvements and enhanced filter algorithms Feasibility of misfiring monitoring over a more narrow engine speed zone (avoiding very high engine speeds) is still under further investigation. 44 Type VIII: OBD

45 CATALYST MONITORING FEASIBILITY CURRENT ASSESSMENT The study team has taken stock of technical issues raised by manufacturers (1) Catalyst monitoring issues are model-design specific Catalyst-in-muffler configurations prone to backflow, expansion errors. Positioning, protection and cabling of downstream oxygen sensor additional complications For other concepts, e.g. underfloor or closed-coupled catalysts, only positioning and cable protection are relevant but less of a technical problem In general, exhaust lines of most L-vehs much more exposed than cars and part of the vehicle s character. Interventions in the exhaust not as straightforward as in cars It is understood that in cases, catalyst monitoring may require redesign of engine component orientation, exhaust line and catalyst(s) positioning Lower emission limits may also require positioning of the catalyst closer to the engine For some vehicles the catalyst monitoring implementation is already technically feasible today. For some other vehicles this requires further development. (1) Summarised in 04. ACEM presentation: ACEM proposals for Euro 5 implementation of MCWG Type VIII: OBD

46 Emissions [g/km] Specific Contract No. SI SPECIFICALLY BUILT OBD OTL ASSESSMENT MODEL Malf. 3 Malf. 1 Malf. 4 Detected due to threshold exceedance and repaired Undetected malfunction Malfunction 2 has no effect on emissions since it leads to a maximum level of 6 g/km < of current level of emissions Malf. 2 OBD threshold limit Emissions Malfunction indication =0 if no malfunction =x if malfunction x is active Mileage [*1000 km] Type VIII: OBD

47 MEASUREMENTS ON IMPACTS OF MALFUNCTIONS (SINGLE VEHICLE) Test Baseline (orig.) Cat. aged 0 Vehicle configuration Original Euro 4 catalyst Extra Euro 4 catalyst - as received Cat. aged 1 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 1 Cat. aged 2 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 2 Cat. aged - 3 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 3 Cat. aged - 4 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 4 No Cat. Failed O2 OEM Failed O2 - LAT No catalyst Failed O2 sensor as supplied by OEM (durability part) Failed O2 sensor as poisoned by LAT Failed O2 - Cut cables Failed O2 sensor cut cables by LAT Failed Injector - OEM Failed Injector - LAT Failed injector as supplied by OEM (durability part) Failed injector as clogged by LAT 47 Type VIII: OBD

48 UPCOMING OBD JRC Test fleet: Test protocol: Category L3e Plan for lab testing Small scooter Medium scooter Street bike 48 Catalyst state O2 sensor state New (test finished in Task 1.1) Aged No Catalyst New (test finished in Task 1.1) Failed poisoned Failed cut cables precond. WMTC hot WMTC cold IUC hot WMTC hot Type VIII: OBD

49 49 Specific Contract No. SI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study team wishes to acknowledge the JRC team for the excellent collaboration in organizing and executing the testing campaign All manufacturers that provided vehicles, components and support for testing