HDV CO2 emission certification 1 st meeting of the Editing board DG Growth Maciej Szymański 2.03.2015 Internal market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Meeting agenda Work of the Editing board: Objectives Structure Timeline Drafting and Expert groups Heavy-duty CO2 certification procedure building blocks Legal framework Review of the certification options Type-approval of components VECTO calculations and the role of the Type-Approval Authorities Conformity of production Next meetings
Editing board - objectives Analysis of the technical and administrative aspects regarding the legal implementation of a type-approval procedure for heavy-duty vehicles with respect to CO2 emissions Development of a complete procedure for the measurement and certification of the CO2 emissions of the heavy-duty vehicles Preparation of a legal text of the procedure to be introduced into the European legislation
Editing board objectives (2) What needs to be ensured? Robustness Cost effectiveness Accuracy Repeatability Reproducibility Flexibility (new categories, new technologies) Sustainability of the results Verification
Editing board timeline Trucks - legislative proposal to be ready by the mid of 2016 Busses (around one year delay) M2/N2 vehicles still to be decided
2015 February March April May June July August September October November December Editing Board (EB) Formation of EB Type approval approach defined Legal implementation defined Discussions about the certification procedure... 02-Mar 10-Apr 21-May 18-Jun 15-Jul Drafting Group (DG) DG meeting to be scheduled all 4 to 6 weeks Formation of DG Test procedures drafted Certification procdure drafted... Final text for legal process Expert/Technial Groups (TG) EG meeting schedule depending on Lot 4 progress Formation of TGs... Pilot Phase Involvement and information of stakeholders (TAA/TS/OEM/Suppl) Workshop 6
Editing board - structure Editing board Drafting board Expert group 1 Expert group
Editing board Expert groups Six Expert groups envisaged: Engine Axles Transmissions Air drag Tyres Auxiliaries Interested stakeholders should send an email to Leif-Erik Schulte (lschulte@tuev-nord.de) by the end of the week
Legal framework
Legal framework European type-approval framework currently applied to the measurement and certification of the CO2 emission values of light-duty vehicles CO2 emission testing procedure for heavy-duty engines already existing in the Regulation 595/2009 (Euro VI) Introduction of the heavy-duty whole vehicle fuel consumption and CO2 emissions into the European type-approval the most natural approach
Legal framework Options: New Regulation in co-decision New implementing Regulation under the (EC) 595/2009 New annex in the Regulation (EU) 582/2011 Amendments to the UNECE Regulation No. 49
Legal framework Questions Is the 'type-approval framework' the most suitable approach for the CO2 certification from heavy-duty vehicles? What are the stakeholders views on a development of a separate implementing Regulation under (EC) 595/2009?
Certification options
CO 2 Determination Methodology Overview Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Chassis Dyno Real Driving Reduced Testing Effort and Simulation Simulation based Engine Testing (HILS) Component Testing and Simulation (baseline option) Service Request 1 27/02/2015 15
CO 2 Determination Methodology Component Testing and Simulation Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Pros + Determination of vehicle specific CO2 emission / fuel consumption (no or only limited family concept needed) + High accuracy possible if use of default is minimized + Easy determination of CO2 emissions / fuel consumption for different mission profiles and payloads + No driver inlfuence + Good repeatability and reproducability Cons - Possible mismatch between simulation and reality - Possible misuse of tool or data handling - High testing effort on component level Service Request 1 27/02/2015 16
CO 2 Determination Methodology Reduced Testing Effort and Simulation Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Pros + Lower effort compared to baseline option Cons - Loss of accuracy - Loss of technology driver Option for niche products? Service Request 1 27/02/2015 17
CO 2 Determination Methodology Chassis Dyno Testing Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Pros + Real operation of complete system + Stable ambient conditions Cons - Family approach needed - Driver influence - Reproducability - Availability of test benches - No technology driver for single components Service Request 1 27/02/2015 18
CO 2 Determination Methodology Real Driving Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Pros + Real operation of complete system under realistic conditions Cons - Family approach needed - No repeatability, reproducability, comparability - No technology driver for single components Service Request 1 27/02/2015 19
CO 2 Determination Methodology Simulation based Engine Testing (HILS) Options D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Pros + High accuracy + Dynamic behaviour of engine included + Comparable option to D1 and D2 Cons - High engine testing effort - Family approach could become necessary to limit effort Service Request 1 27/02/2015 20
Costs Timeline Comparability between vehicles Technical feasibility Accuracy Stakeholder preference CO 2 Determination Methodology Summary Notes D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Simulation and component testing Simulation and reduced effort component testing Chassis dynamometer testing On-road testing (PEMS / fuel flow meters) Simulation and transient engine testing Preferred by both industrial and non-industrial stakeholders Alternative for niche vehicles. Lowest total estimated cost. Alternative for ex-post validation due to better real world representation of whole vehicle. Fleet coverage is diminished in comparison to simulation options (D1, D2 and D5). Alternative for ex-post validation due to best realworld representation of whole vehicle. Fleet coverage is diminished in comparison to simulation options (D1, D2 and D5). Least preferred option from industrial stakeholders. Alternative for hybrids. Highest total estimated costs. Service Request 1 27/02/2015 21
Certification options Questions Are there any other approaches which should be considered? Which approach from the analysed ones is the most suitable one for the CO2 certification from heavy-duty vehicles?
Certification procedure
Engine Axles Transmission Air drag VECTO Individual CO2 value CO2 value verification Tyres Auxiliaries
Certification issues Following aspects need to be analysed in a closer detail: Testing / type-approval procedures for components Responsibility for the CO2 related values VECTO calculation process Conformity of production (CoP) Responsibility for the final CO2 value
Type-approval of components
Type approval under 2007/46/EC step-by-step type-approval means a vehicle approval procedure consisting in the step-by-step collection of the whole set of EC typeapproval certificates for the systems, components and separate technical units relating to the vehicle, and which leads, at the final stage, to the approval of the whole vehicle; single-step type-approval means a procedure consisting in the approval of a vehicle as a whole by means of a single operation; mixed type-approval means a step-by-step type-approval procedure for which one or more system approvals are achieved during the final stage of the approval of the whole vehicle, without it being necessary to issue the EC type-approval certificates for those systems;
Component Supplier / Vehicle Manufacturer Type Approval Combinations Component Supplier Step-by-Step Engine Air Drag RRC *) Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Mixed CO 2 Single-Step Value Vehicle Manufacturer Engine Air Drag RRC *) Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Vehicle Manufacturer Service Request 1 27/02/2015 28
Type-approval of components type-approval of components as separate technical units (example, spray suppression systems, Regulation (EU) 109/2011) Suppliers provide to the TAA necessary documents CoP discussed with the TAA Special case for tyres as rolling resistance is not type-approved under the framework Directive.
Type-approval Engine Axles Transmission Air drag VECTO Individual CO2 value CO2 value verification Tyres Auxiliaries
Type-approval of components Questions Is the type-approval of components as separate technical units the most appropriate approach? In case a VM is a component manufacturer, is the mixed type-approval approach considered efficient? What should be the role of the TAA in ensuring the quality of the input data? How to ensure that a proper quality of data is provided for the rolling resistance of tyres?
Status of Test Procedures Engine Air Drag Reflects Status of White Book Version January 2014 Rolling Resistance Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Editing Board 27/02/2015 32
Status of Test Procedures Engine Engine Air Drag Rolling Resistance Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Editing Board Test procedure Defined and agreed Test conditions Defined and agreed Family definition Open / ongoing within ACEA Measurement equipment Accuracy of fuel measurement equipment to be discussed Default values No default forseen (Weighting factors for the WHTC road category correction agreed) Other open issues? 27/02/2015 33
Status of Test Procedures Air Drag Engine Air Drag Rolling Resistance Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Editing Board Test procedure Defined and agreed (maybe adjustments necessary) Test conditions Defined, maybe need for adjustments to increase accuracy Family definition Not part of the Annex yet, proposal made by ACEA Measurement equipment Mounting and calibration of anemometer General requirements for torque meters Default values Dependencies of Cd-value on yaw angle for the HDV classes Default Cd-values for small volume segments / segment where air drag influence is low Other open issues Need for correction of speed influence on RRC? 27/02/2015 34
Status of Test Procedures Rolling Resistance Engine Test procedure Proposal made by ETRTO and agreed Air Drag Test conditions Defined Rolling Resistance Family definition Defined Transmission Measurement equipment Defined Axle Default values Defined Auxiliaries Editing Board Other open issues Same value for same tyre for all OEMs CoP Process to be discussed? 27/02/2015 35
Status of Test Procedures Transmission Engine Air Drag Rolling Resistance Transmission Axle Auxiliaries Editing Board Test procedure Defined Test conditions Defined (for manual transmission and retarder) Family definition Not part of the Annex yet, proposal made by ACEA Measurement equipment Error calculation for equipment exceeding the requirements to be done Calculation of parasitic loads Default values Defined Other open issues Torque converter testing (incl. in Withebook 04/14) Automatic transmission testsing defined but not part of the Annex 27/02/2015 36
Status of Test Procedures Axle Engine Test procedure Defined Air Drag Test conditions Defined Rolling Resistance Family definition Not part of the Annex yet, proposal made by ACEA Transmission Measurement equipment Defined Axle Default values Defined (to be finally agreed) Auxiliaries Other open issues? Editing Board 27/02/2015 37
Status of Test Procedures Auxiliaries (Trucks) Engine Air Drag Test procedure Not necessary for trucks, buses are not included in Annex yet Test conditions ----- Rolling Resistance Family definition ------ Transmission Measurement equipment ------ Axle Default values Defined (open for some segments) Auxiliaries Other open issues Handling of new technologies Editing Board 27/02/2015 38
VECTO in the type-approval framework
VECTO calculations and the role of the Type-Approval Authorities CO2 value for each vehicle might be difficult to combine with the type approval approach Even for a narrowly defined type or variant a range of CO2 values might be too broad to be handled efficiently When a specific vehicle-type is type-approved, VM could include a statement that 'the CO2 value will be calculated by means of the VECTO tool'
Conformity of production
Conformity of production / Ex post validation - Principle: To ensure that the CO2 value put on the certificate of conformity corresponds to the actual performance of a vehicle - 3 options presented by TUV Nord during the last meeting: - Components - Process - Ex-post - The TAA should have a full control over the process - For the CoP procedure, the SiCo test (currently under development) could be used. Applicability and accuracy will be verified in the up-coming tests
Type-approval CoP of the process CoP of the production Complete vehicle verification Engine Axles Transmission Air drag VECTO Individual CO2 value CO2 value verification Tyres Auxiliaries
Conformity of production Questions Is the 3-level approach for the CoP an appropriate for ensuring the proper level of accuracy? Should VM take full responsibility for a heavy-duty vehicle CO2 value? Is a SiCo test an appropriate tool for the complete vehicle verification? What other tools could be considered?
Next meetings 10 April 21 May 18 June 15 July Meetings of the dedicated sub-groups will be convened according to the needs
Contact details Unit G.3 - Sustainable Mobility and Automotive Industry, DG GROW Margarida Teles Romao Margarida.TELES-ROMAO@ec.europa.eu Maciej Szymański Maciej.SZYMANSKI@ec.europa.eu CIRCABC: HDV CO2 - Editing board https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/79f256f4- ca4c-41d4-a18f-69b92f81f728