RDE TOOL EVALUATION MEASUREMENTS BY BMW

Transcription

1 ZM-E-10, Bittermann, Brüne, Land RDE TOOL EVALUATION MEASUREMENTS BY BMW

2 RDE TOOL EVALUATION CONTENT Tool evaluation influence driving behavior influence of trip composition tool robustness test with 15 PEMS measurements with the same vehicle on the same road

3 RDE TOOL EVALUATION CONTENT Tool evaluation influence driving behavior influence of trip composition tool robustness with 15 PEMS measurements with the same vehicle on the same road

4 NOx [g/km] NOx [g/km] RDE TOOL EVALUATION AVERAGE NOX-EMISSIONS COMPARED TO 50% AND 90% PERCENTILE Ø real emissions weighted CLEAR Tool 50% windows EMROAD 90% window EMROAD ROUTE: BMW PEMS STANDARD 1/3 CITY, 1/3 RURAL 1/3 HIGHWAY 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 normal driver 320d Tool version V5 60 all norm. sev. soft extr. Abs. Windows % 17% 1% 25% NORMAL DRIVER except of the normal driving windows, no big differences 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 aggressive driver 320d Tool version V5 60 all norm. sev. soft extr. Abs. Windows % 14% 2% 63% AGGRESSIVE DRIVER significant differences correlation shows a strong dependency on the driving behavior

5 RDE TOOL EVALUATION CONTENT Tool evaluation influence driving behavior influence of trip composition tool robustness with 15 PEMS measurements on the same road validation latest CLEAR release new feature CITY-DRIVING

6 RDE TOOL EVALUATION:EMROAD TOOL COMPARISON OF PEMS DRIVE COMPOSITION SAME MEASUREMENT SHOULD LEAD TO SAME RESULTS AFTER TOOL PROCESSING original route: Start JRC head quarter rearranged route: Start on the top of sacromonte START START original PEMS drive rearranged PEMS drive

7 [%] RDE TOOL EVALUATION:EMROAD TOOL SAME MEASUREMENT DIFFERENT RESULTS AFTER JRC PROCESSING original PEMS drive rearranged PEMS drive modal average NOx [real emissions] EMROAD 50% perc. NOx same PEMS drive, re arrangement of the time tracking (start top of the mountain) same Ø NO x modal real emissions +30% NO x due to averaging window method

8 RDE TOOL EVALUATION CONTENT Tool evaluation influence driving behavior influence of trip composition tool robustness with 15 PEMS measurements with the same vehicle on the same road

9 RDE TOOL EVALUATION DETECTION OF NORMAL DRIVING [STATISTICAL APPROACH] boundary conditions heavy vehicle with SCR all trips with the same vehicle all trips on RDE BMW standard route Steyr different driving styles / different drivers statistical approach for the validation of the tool robustness

10 NOx NOx RDE TOOL EVALUATION DETECTION OF NORMAL DRIVING [STATISTICAL APPROACH] Ø real emission weighted TUG coefficient of determination Ø real emission 50% JRC NORMAL coefficient of determination CLEAR [TUG] TOOL EMROAD [JRC] TOOL NORMAL AGGRESSIVE NORMAL AGGRESSIVE CO2 [g/km] CO2 [g/km] CLEAR shows lower variance CLEAR is more robust

11 RDE TOOL EVALUATION Thank You for Your attention!

12 engine trq [Nm] engine trq [Nm] CO2_KV[g/s] (Rel.Häuf.) vehiclespeed[km/h] engine trq [Nm] CO2_KV[g/s] (Rel.Häuf.) RDE TOOL EVALUATION- BACKUP DETECTION OF NORMAL DRIVING konstante - pulsierende Fahrweise constant driving intermittent driving Time[s] konstante Fahrweise 99% 0.049% CO2_KV[g/s] EngineSpeed[U/min] constant driving pulsierende Fahrweise 3.4% 3.4% 6.8% 6.8% 62% 6.9% MAW=100 g/km CO2 CO2_KV[g/s] MAW=113 g/km CO2 intermittent driving EngineSpeed[U/min]

13 RDE TOOL EVALUATION- BACKUP DETECTION OF NORMAL DRIVING EMROAD (JRC) In this example the Ø CO2 window emissions between constant driving and intermittend driving are differing by 13%. The EMROAD Tool detects severe driving only in case of Ø CO2 emissions higher than WLTP + 25%. -> Driving situations with partially high load at moderate Ø CO2 emission would be classified as normal driving. CLEAR (TUG) Using the CLEAR method the different load conditions occuring at constant driving and intermittend driving are detected. -> Different loads conditions lead to different time distributions in the engine map and thus to a differing emission correction.