STUDY ON EURO 5 SOUND LEVEL LIMITS OF L-CATEGORY VEHICLES

Transcription

1 STUDY ON EURO 5 SOUND LEVEL LIMITS OF L-CATEGORY VEHICLES MCWG meeting, On behalf of the European Commission

2 GENERAL INFORMATION Tender ID: Title: Study on Euro 5 sound level limits of L-category vehicles Tender No: 524/PP/GRO/IMA/16/1131/9316 Contract No: SI of the Consortium with the European Commission - DG-GROW Consortium performing the work: EMISIA - Greece TNO - The Netherlands Ricardo Deutschland GmbH - Germany Heinz Steven Data Analysis and Consultancy (HSDAC) - Germany 2

3 BACKGROUND L-category vehicles continue to be source of complaints with respect to their (excessive) levels of sound emissions, often perceived as disturbing noise Excessive noise levels constitute a major nuisance for many European cities, contribute in quality of life degradation, and may be harmful for public health Recent advances in regulatory front (UN Regs. Nos. 9, 41, 63, 92) focused on improvements in the testing procedure and provisions for better market surveillance, enforcement, anti-tampering measures, and replacement silencers Current (Euro 4) sound level limits have been basically transferred from limits already applicable since the 1990 s (Directive 97/24/EC chapter 9) and remain (almost) unchanged for ~20 years 3

4 CURRENT SITUATION EURO 4 SOUND LIMITS Vehicle category Current limit db(a) UNECE Regulation L1e-A 63 R63 63 L1e-B v max 25km/h 66 R63 66 L1e-B v max > 25km/h 71 R63 71 L2e 76 R9 76 Limit according to Reg. (EU) 168/2013 db(a) L3e PMR R41 75 engine capacity 80cm 3 L3e 25 < PMR R cm 3 < engine capacity 175cm 3 L3e PMR > R41 80 engine capacity > 175cm 3 L4e 80 R9 80 L5e 80 R9 80 L6e-A 80 R63 80 L6e-B 80 R9 80 L7e 80 R UN Regulation 41 already acceded by the EU regulatory context UN Regulations 9, 63, 92 expected to be acceded in Sept. - Oct For L3e: the lower values set out in UN R41 have been developed as equivalent to previous ones to take account for differences in the test procedure

5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Investigate the potential for new sound limits of L-category vehicles at Euro 5 step and make a justified proposal, taking into account: the citizen s needs and opinions of interested stakeholders (feedback gathering) the evolution of sound levels of approved vehicle types (actual vehicle testing) the technical and economic feasibility in the medium term range (cost-benefit analysis) The new sound limits will be accompanied by an appropriate timeframe The ultimate objective is to protect the environment and human health, by providing an improved sound level range for L-vehicles, and contribute in the reduction of the so-called noise pollution from these vehicles 5

6 PROJECT TASKS AND TIME PLAN 1. Task 1: Estimate of sound level limits for all L-categories (Oct. 16 Jan. 17) a) Feedback gathering stakeholder survey b) Literature review EMISIA, HSDAC Completed 2. Task 2: Verification of sound level limits (Jan. 17 Apr. 17) a) Actual vehicle testing sound measurements b) Processing of results 3. Task 3: Cost-benefit analysis (Mar. 17 Aug. 17) a) Input data, scenarios, first results b) Improvements, final CBA results 4. Task 4: Validation tests (Mar. 17 Jun. 17) a) Additional vehicle testing sound measurements b) Noise Source Ranking (NSR) RICARDO In progress TNO In progress RICARDO In progress 5. Task 5: Proposal for limit values and reporting (Jul. 17 Oct. 17) 6 Final sound limits proposed by the study and recommendations

7 TASK 1: ESTIMATE OF SOUND LEVEL LIMITS FOR ALL L-CATEGORIES RESULTS AND FINDINGS FROM THE FEEDBACK GATHERING STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 7

8 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY Objectives In-depth understanding of the wishes, demands, and requirements of stakeholders directly involved in the implementation of (possible) new sound limits (manufacturers, authorities, etc.) Take into account the opinion of the recipients of possible benefits from improved sound limits (concerned citizens, municipalities, associations, environmental organizations, etc.) Approach Technical questionnaire sent to a large number of various stakeholder groups Collection of responses, processing of questionnaires, analysis and main findings Structure of questionnaire Section 1: Technical issues related to sound limits Current status (Euro 4), improved (Euro 5) sound limits, absorbent fibrous materials, ASEP Section 2: Contribution of L-category vehicle components to sound emissions Section 3: Cost/benefit impact from the expected sound emissions reduction 8 New vehicles, existing fleet

9 POSITIVE RESPONSES FILLED IN QUESTIONNAIRES Industrial stakeholders Technical entities Social partners National authorities 37 positive responses (satisfactory feedback, considering the technical nature of questionnaire) Most responses (54%) are from technical entities; this enhances the validity of results regarding their technical content 9 On the other hand, social partners showed their interest despite the technical nature of questions (46% of responses); this shows the continuous interest and necessity to further decrease sound emissions

10 COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES RECEIVED FROM 10 Industry & manufacturers: ACEM, ATVEA From IT: Piaggio, ANCMA, Arrow, LeoVince, Termignoni, MIVV, Lafranconi Silenziatori National responses (TSs, TAAs, transport departments, market surveillance, enforcement): DE (2), ES (2), NL, SE, IE, CH (2) Outside Europe: CN (2) Cities & organizations (environmental, noise concerned, motorcycle, consumer, other): Budapest, Madrid, Rotterdam (2) ANEC, FEMA, FIA From DE: UBA MOTORRADLAERM.DE - BUND für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland Anwohnerinitiative gegen Verkehrslärm in Hattingen ALD - Arbeitsring Laerm der DEGA (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Akustik e.v.) Anonymous responses: DE (2), FR (2), NL 1 individual response (not representing an organization)

11 MAIN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SURVEY Social partners The majority of social partners (~94%), especially non-bikers and environmental organizations, want a significant decrease in sound limits. However, this percentage is interpreted as a general requirement to reduce the excessive sound emissions (noise) produced by the inappropriate usage of vehicles and rider behaviour (i.e. illegal aftermarket exhaust, tampering, aggressive riding, etc.). Industrial stakeholders Manufacturers have significant concerns about lowering sound limits, as this measure alone is not considered sufficient, if not combined with better enforcement of regulations, countermeasures against illegal aftermarket mufflers, and antitampering measures. Furthermore, it entails the risk to drive even more customers to purchase illegal aftermarket systems to increase the sound. 11 National authorities (TSs, TAAs, etc.) They express an intermediate position (in-between social partners and industry), suggesting a moderate reduction in sound limits, depending on the vehicle type and (possibly) excluding some categories. This reduction should be combined with specific technical improvements in the test procedure (ASEP) in order to be more representative of real-driving conditions. Reducing the noise from L-vehicles does not only depend on lowering the type approval sound limits

12 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY FOR LOWER LIMITS Technical knowledge is available and existing technology is mature enough, so that current (Euro 4) limits are quite easily achievable for most of the L-categories Additional technology (possibly) required to achieve lower (Euro 5) limits: Bigger silencers (with potential impact on vehicle package and, perhaps, a problem for small vehicles) Better shielding and covering by silencing foam, new absorber material, modifications of the inlet and exhaust systems Better engine design and optimization for noise and vibration, optimization of combustion process, specific ECU software Concerns that specific vehicle categories (super-sport trial and enduro motorcycles, ATVs) may have additional technical difficulties 12

13 RESPONSES RELATED TO LOWER LIMITS PROPOSAL Q7: Considering that sound level limits need to be improved, what kind of range of limits could potentially be achieved? All responses Social partners Authorities and industrial stakeholders The opinions of the survey participant present differences, however, in any case, the responses from social partners and national authorities converge to the conclusion that a 2-3 db(a) reduction can be achieved in a period of 3-5 years (time period required for the industry to adapt to lower Euro 5 sound limits) 13 On the other hand, the position of manufacturers is that a longer period is required, i.e., 5-6 years for a 1-2 db(a) reduction, due to technical difficulties and additional technology requirements

14 ECONOMIC ISSUES RELATED TO LOWER LIMITS 14 Very uncertain parameter, most of the survey participants are not in the position to provide an indicative estimate of the cost that will be possibly incurred from the introduction of lower Euro 5 sound limits for the new vehicles Two main opinions in opposite direction Opinion 1: Additional technological improvements may increase the vehicle cost Opinion 2: Currently, a lot of money and effort is spent in sound design, no indication that designing for lower limits is necessarily more costly Other parameters to consider: Cost depends on the expected reduction, the first db can be not so costly to achieve, but the further the reduction, the higher will be the cost for additional dbs (more sources become critical and this increases the cost) Cost is a vehicle-specific parameter depending on the power output, engine (speed/rpm), cylinder capacity, etc.

15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM LOWER LIMITS All participants agree that there will be no environmental benefit, if lower limits will not be combined with: Better enforcement, effective market surveillance, road-side checks and periodical inspections, etc. Anti-tampering measures, i.e., making manipulations more difficult, forbidding certain illegal replacement silencers, etc. More environmentally friendly rider behaviour Improvements in the test procedures in order to be more representative of real-driving conditions, sound emissions outside ASEP area, incorporation of ASEP into type-approval procedure (not self-certification), etc. If the above items will not be in a package together with lower limits, the gap between real-world and type-approval sound emissions will not close 15

16 TASK 1: ESTIMATE OF SOUND LEVEL LIMITS FOR ALL L-CATEGORIES LITERATURE REVIEW 16

17 cum frequency Specific Contract No. SI KBA DATABASE: DISTRIBUTION OF TA SOUND LEVELS L1 VEHICLES 100% 90% 80% L1, v_max <= 25 km/h L1, v_max >= >25 45 km/h Euro 4 limit L1 25km/h Euro 4 limit L1 >25km/h 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Type approval value in db(a) 17

18 cum frequency Specific Contract No. SI KBA DATABASE: DISTRIBUTION OF TA SOUND LEVELS L3, L5, L7 VEHICLES Euro 4 limit 100% 90% L3, PMR > 50, engine capacity > 175 cm³, ECE R L3, PMR > 50, engine capacity > 175 cm³, EU-reg. Euro 4 limit L3 80< eng. cap. 175cm 3 (EU Reg. 168/2013) L3 PMR >50 (UN Reg ) L4, L5, L6, L7 L3 >175cm 3 (EU Reg. 168/2013) 80% 70% 60% 50% L3, PMR > 50, 80 cm³ < engine capacity <= 175 cm³, EU reg L3, 25 < PMR <= 50, engine capacity > 175 cm³, EU reg. L3, 25 < PMR <= 50, 80 cm³ < engine capacity <= 175 cm³, EU reg. L5 L7 40% 30% 20% 10% 18 0% Type approval value L_drive in db(a)

19 test UN R41 test according to EU Reg. 168/2013 Specific Contract No. SI FINDINGS FROM THE KBA DATABASE ANALYSIS Vehicle category Current limit db(a)* Percentage of vehicles with lower type approval values than corresponding limit -1 db -2 db -3 db -4 db -5 db -6 db -7 db L1e-B v max 25km/h % 20.7% 6.4% L1e-B v max > 25km/h % 31.7% 13.6% 4.8% L3e 25 < PMR 50 (80 cm³ < eng. cap. 175 cm³) % 31.8% 16.1% 7.4% 2.7% 2.0% 0.5% L3e 25 < PMR 50 (eng. cap. > 175 cm³) L3e PMR > 50 (80 cm³ < eng. cap. 175 cm³) L3e PMR > 50 (eng. cap. > 175 cm³) L3e PMR > 50 (eng. cap. > 175 cm³) % 76.7% 37.9% 23.8% 14.6% 1.5% % 23.1% 6.5% 3.2% 3.2% % 38.1% 18.5% 8.5% 4.1% 1.2% 0.7% % 61.2% 32.9% 21.2% 11.8% 5.3% L5e-A % 24.6% 13.8% 5.1% 2.2% 0.7% 0.7% L7e-B % 21.3% 7.4% 2.5% 19 * L3e vehicles tested according to EU Reg. 168/2013 or UN R41, hence, limit set accordingly in this table

20 THE FUTURE OF SOUND LIMITS FOR OTHER ROAD VEHICLES Indicative categories of cars, buses from Reg. (EU) 540/2014 shown here Reg. (EU) 540/2014 already defines lower sound limits for road vehicles in the future (phases 2, 3) For passenger cars, from 72 db(a) today to 70 db(a) in 2020/2022 and 68 db(a) in 2024/2026 For buses, from 78 db(a) today to 77 db(a) in 2020/2022 and 76 db(a) in 2026/ Indication for similar action to be undertaken for L-category vehicles

21 TASK 1: ESTIMATE OF SOUND LEVEL LIMITS FOR ALL L-CATEGORIES FIRST PROPOSAL ESTIMATE FOR LOWER LIMIT VALUES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CBA MODEL (BASED ON THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY AND LITERATURE REVIEW) 21

22 FIRST PROPOSAL ESTIMATE FOR LOWER LIMITS It seems that there is (potential) room for improvements (lower sound limits) with technical measures The analysis of the KBA database reveals that there are already vehicles typeapproved with 1, 2, or even more dbs, lower values than the regulatory limits A 2 db(a) reduction for all L-categories can be considered as a justified proposal to be examined by the CBA in Task 3 (as a starting point / moderate scenario) Further reductions can be considered for specific vehicle categories as an alternative / ambitious scenario Techno-economical feasibility to be examined 22

23 UNDER TASKS 2 AND 4: ACTUAL VEHICLE TESTING SOUND MEASUREMENTS 23

24 OBJECTIVES, CURRENT STATUS AND PLAN 24 The objective of including testing of sound levels in the study: To establish current sound levels of state of the art vehicles Vehicles have been selected with type approval levels under or on the current limit and with recent homologation certificates (no more than 2-3 years) Vehicles rented for the needs of the project and tested unmodified L1e-B vehicles testing and processing of results: completed 3 vehicles tested (brand new) L3e vehicles testing: completed 18 th of March, measurements under processing 3 vehicles tested (with low mileage), 1 remaining (scheduled for April 2017) L5e, L6e, L7e vehicles testing: scheduled for April vehicles to be tested

25 TESTING L1e-B VEHICLES (MOPEDS) 3 different vehicles tested according to UN R63 L1eB-LS: Scooter 50cc (CVT) with physical restriction to 25km/h (MOFA) L1eB-HS: Scooter 50cc (not restricted) L1eB-HS: Manual 50cc All vehicles were equipped with 4-stroke engines Displacement Transmission Number of Gears Rated Power Rated Speed Max speed Tyre Pressure 49.9 cm 3 CVT n/a 2.7 kw 8000rpm 25 km/h f:1.6 /r:1.8 bar 49.4 cm 4 CVT n/a 2.4 kw 7500rpm 45km/h f:2.0/r:2.2 bar cm 5 Manual kw 8000rpm 45km/h f:2.25 /r:2.25bar 25

26 TESTING PROCEDURE - TEST IN MOTION L1eB-LS: Vehicle approach the line AA at constant speed of 25km/h (wide open throttle) Constant speed 25km/h between lines AA and BB Release of Throttle after line BB L1eB-HS: Vehicle approach the line AA at constant speed of 30km/h WOT acceleration between lines AA and BB Release of Throttle after line BB 3 consecutive runs, and 2 values were calculated (averaging Run1 and Run2, then Run2 and Run3) Test in Motion 26

27 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS - TEST IN MOTION All 3 tested vehicles comply with conformity of production criteria from UN R63 ( 8) Measured levels are within 1 db(a) from UN R63 (Annex4) maximum admissible sound level values Measured levels are within 3 db(a) from type approval value (1 to 3 db(a) variation) MOFA results are on the limit due to vehicle speed 1km/h higher than expected restrictor Lmotion Sound Level [db(a)] Measured Run12 Run23 Type approval Limit UN R63 Conformity +1dB(A) vs Limit +3 db(a) vs Type approval L1eB-LS: Scooter 50cc restricted (MOFA) On the limit (depending on restrictor accuracy) L1eB-HS: Scooter 50cc Yes L1eB-HS: Manual 50cc Yes 27

28 RESULTS OF L1eB-HS (SCOOTER 50CC) Engine speed variation visible (CVT related) But little influence on maximum value of sound pressure level results Final result from Run1 and Run2 71 db(a) Final result from Run2 and Run3 71 db(a) Left Right Rpm AA Rpm PP Km/h AA Km/h PP Run Run Run

29 Hz db(a) Pa Hz db(a) Pa db(a) Pa db(a) Pa Specific Contract No. SI SPECTRAL RESULTS OF L1eB-HS (SCOOTER 50cc) Sound Pressure level Left Right Maximum 2.1m Spectrum at maximum of sound pressure level m Right :dominant frequency m 500Hz and above 3kHz Right side higher by ~1dB(A) Maximum m AA PP BB m Spectrum Left z_axis left : 250Hz Hz Spectrum Right Left / Right difference: dominant source related to distinct sub-systems m z_axis m z_axis Run 3 of 3 10

30 SUMMARY OF THE TEST IN MOTION About regulatory limits All 3 vehicles are on the legal limit for UN R63 or above by 1 to 2 db(a), despite having approval values 1 db(a) below limit All 3 vehicle comply with conformity of production criteria, therefore are legal On the restricted scooter (MOFA), precision of the restrictor can influence the results (vehicle would most likely comply if tested at precisely 25km/h) About sound profile All vehicles have higher values on right side (exhaust side) Frequency profiles (dominant frequencies) are very different between vehicles On scooter 50cc, frequency profiles between left and right are different, indicating that subsystems dominant on each side are not the same (and are close to each other in level) 30

31 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS STATIONARY NOISE Important variation with regard to approval values Scooter 50cc (unrestricted) : 2dB(A) below approval value Restricted scooter (MOFA): 4dB(A) above approval value Manual 50cc: 8 db(a) above approval value Note: No legal requirement regarding stationary noise value Standing Noise Microphone position (UN R63) Stationary test Lstationary Sound Level [db(a)] Measured Type approval L1eB-LS: Scooter 50cc restricted (MOFA) L1eB-HS: Scooter 50cc L1eB-HS: Manual 50cc

32 TESTING L3e VEHICLES (MOTORCYCLES) Tests finished on 18 th of March, values currently under processing Tested vehicles: Scooter 125cc Motorcycle 800cc Scooter 650cc Preliminary results: All vehicles comply with their approval values (with 0 to 1.5 db(a) margin) Additional testing conditions have been included in the tests (ASEP+) in order to investigate more real-world representative driving conditions 32

33 TASK 3: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS BUILDING THE CBA MODEL 33

34 OBJECTIVES, CURRENT STATUS AND PLAN Objectives Cost-benefit calculation will be performed in order to conclude the feasibility and viability of the proposed sound level limits for L-category vehicles Approach and current status Methodology similar to previous study (UN Regulations Nos. 9, 63, 92), but with some modifications, shown below: Take into account reduced illegal exhausts and tampering in next years More focus on single events for particular road situations Potentially, higher valuation for noise reduction Industry costs specific to limit reduction only (we do not take into account any changes in the exhaust replacement market, as done in the previous study) Data collection underway on representative noise levels, relevant roads and areas, traffic flow rates, industry costs 34 Plan CBA runs from March to August 2017, first analysis results are planned in May

35 KEY PARAMETERS TO CONSIDER Most affected areas: Dwellings along touring routes in whole EU Quiet and residential areas in evening and night hours (in Southern EU on all roads due to higher presence of L-vehicles) Single noise events (L pafmax ) are also significant besides average levels (L den and L night ) Noise levels of compliant vehicles can be relatively high under certain conditions, times and locations (comparable to or higher than heavy duty vehicles) New limits should address the above issues + better enforcement 35

36 NEXT STEPS PROJECT MILESTONES April-May 2017 Continue and finalize all vehicles testing processing of results CBA input data and methodology finalized, first analysis results June 2017 Refinements in CBA First intermediate report September-October 2017 Final limit values proposed by the study and their justification Final report 36

37 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION