1 Supporting Analysis regarding Technology Deployment and Test Procedure Flexibilities for Review of the Light Duty Vehicle CO 2 Regulations, September 10 th, 2012. Service Request #6 under Framework Contract on Vehicle Emissions [No ENV.C.3./FRA/2009/0043] Presenters: TNO (Richard Smokers and Gerrit Kadijk)
2 CONTEXT of this study Over the last year indications accumulated that part of the CO 2 emission reduction observed in the Monitoring Mechanism may not be attributable to the application of CO 2 reducing technologies 9-10% between 2002 and 2009 on the basis of a preliminary evaluation of 6 petrol and 6 diesel vehicle models in Service Request 1 Effect included in scenario a) cost curves as this affects attainability of the 2020 target of 95 g/km
3 OBJECTIVES of this study Assist the Commission in understanding the extent to which technology deployment and utilisation of test cycle flexibilities may have contributed to achieving the reported reductions in light duty vehicle CO 2 emissions in the period 2002-2010, through assessment of: Level of technology deployment in the 2010 new vehicle fleet Potential of test cycle flexibilities Utilisation of test cycle flexibilities in the 2002-2010 period Contributions of technology deployment and utilisation of flexibilities to achieving the observed reductions in new vehicle average CO 2 emissions between 2002 and 2010
4 Overall methodology Identify test cycle flexibilities and estimate potential literature review bottom-up analysis of test procedures Estimate utilisation of test cycle flexibilities in 2002-2010 period consultation of type approval authorities and test houses Assess level of technology deployment in 2010 new vehicle fleet analysis of sales and production databases Compare contributions of technology deployment and utilisation of flexibilities to achieving the observed reductions in new vehicle average CO 2 emissions between 2002 and 2010
5 Hypothesis Observed reductions in 2002-2010 period can be explained by the combined effects of employed technologies, some small technical improvements and calibration, and utilisation of test procedure flexibilities
6 Contents & approach Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
7 Literature review Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
8 Literature review Objective: Conduct a literature review to identify any flexibilities available under type approval procedures and their impact on measured CO 2 emissions as detailed in public domain reports Methodology: Desk research to identify literature in public domain, potential sources include: technical papers, reports from independent test laboratories & universities, reports from pressure groups Consult independent technical bodies for advice on any available public domain literature
9 Literature review - Results A total of 15 reports were identified which directly and indirectly relate to the subject of flexibilities within current legislation and covered the following different topics: Vehicle coast down assessment by independent organisations NEDC test results by third party laboratories versus type approval test results Estimations of the effect of test process on cycle CO 2 result, including temperature effects
10 Literature review - Conclusions There is a measurable difference between type approval declared CO 2 and independently measured in service CO 2 Report 2 (Millbrook, 2011): several passenger cars tested using OEMsupplied coastdown data 38% of diesel vehicles, 83% of gasoline vehicles tested showed higher CO 2 emissions than type approval values Report 9 (TÜV Nord, 2010): Increased deviation between declared and measured CO 2 emissions from Euro 5
11 Literature review - Conclusions Report 8 (TU Graz, 2010) suggests that a contributing factor to smaller reductions in independently measured CO 2 than in declared CO 2 is likely to be manufacturing improvements that allow a smaller emissions margin to be used
12 Literature review - Conclusions Some of the difference between declared and independently measured CO 2 is likely to come from coast down derivation Some reports compare independently measured coast downs with those declared by the manufacturer Report 11 (Swedish Transport Administration and T&E, 2011) identifies several flexibilities in the determination of road load curves, e.g. wheel alignment, brake adjustment, ambient conditions, tyre choice / pressure / wear, test track characteristics, vehicle mass & body condition, transmission Report 10 (TÜV Nord, 2010): Reduction in road load of 20% at low speeds and 10% at speeds >40km/h corresponds to ~11% CO 2 reduction
13 Literature review - Conclusions Laboratory soak temperature is an allowable flexibility and its effect on CO 2 is quantified in several studies Reports 4, 6, 7 9 & 10 all consider this factor Indicated potential influence of available soak temperature tolerance on measured CO 2 result: approx. 2-4% (varies by source)
14 Literature review - Conclusions The effects of other key parameters (such as vehicle mass, rolling resistance, coefficient of drag and gear ratios) are discussed in several reports (Reports 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) Report 10 (BMU & TÜV Nord, 2010): test-based investigation Implementation of a combination of vehicle measures in the type approval test can yield total CO 2 reductions of ~20% Some of the reports contain simulation analysis results, investigating the potential sensitivity of CO 2 results to variations in each parameter
15 Results of 2010 TNO study of 3 Euro 5 vehicles The NEDC CO 2 test results with type approval road load settings are on average 11% higher compared with the OEM specified CO 2 emissions and with real world road load settings 21% higher
16 Assessment of legislation Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
17 Assessment of legislation Objective: Review the current legislation, specifically UN ECE R101, to identify and understand the full range of flexibilities allowed within the type approval procedures that may impact on measured CO 2 emissions Estimate the potential impact on CO 2 emissions (and noxious emissions) of allowable flexibilities identified in this task Assess any specific flexibilities in the test and evaluation procedures for hybrids and plug-in hybrids
18 Assessment of legislation Scope: The following areas of the legislation were considered: Selection of vehicle variant for certification, paying attention to e.g. family definitions Determination of road load factors, with focus on vehicle preparation for the coast down test, test track characteristics and testing circumstances, and execution of the coast down test Laboratory set-up, including e.g. the use of default dynamometer settings and test conditions Vehicle preparation for laboratory test Procedures for translating test results into type approval results
19 Assessment of legislation Scope (cont.) This Task also investigated the test and evaluation procedures for hybrids and plug-in hybrids to identify any new flexibilities that may arise due to implementation of new technologies. For example: Classification of hybrid vehicles Battery state-of-charge correction used for hybrids Testing of plug-in hybrids with different initial battery states of charge Incl. weighting involving measured value of electric range for plug-in hybrids
20 Assessment of legislation Methodology: The legislation and rules which govern the performance of CO 2 measurements under the NEDC for the purpose of new vehicle type approval were reviewed by experts, including those regularly involved in the testing of vehicles, to identify any potential flexibilities allowable within the scope of the regulation Several methods were used to estimate the CO 2 benefit: Use of formulae and data sourced from the literature review in Task 1 Use of engineering calculations from first principles, including vehicle simulation, to assess effects of vehicle & coast-down parameter variations Use of Ricardo empirical data to derive suitable formulae
21 Assessment of legislation - Results A number of allowable flexibilities were identified within the regulation, falling within the following categories: Family grouping of vehicles for CO 2 emissions type approval Those that affect derivation of the coast down curve Those that affect the Type I emissions test (NEDC) directly A detailed listing of flexibilities is shown on the following slide
22 Identified flexibilities Those that affect derivation of the coast down curve Wheel and tyre specification Tyre pressure Brakes Preconditioning Running-in period Ambient conditions Test track design Those that affect the Type I emissions (NEDC) test directly Reference mass Wheel and tyre specification, and rolling resistance Running in period of test vehicle Laboratory instrumentation and fuel specification Laboratory altitude (air density) Temperature effects Coast down curve or cookbook load terms Battery state of charge Gear change schedule and definition Driving technique DPF related Ki factor Declared CO 2 value
23 Estimated maximum potential of individual flexibilities Flexibility Fuel type CO 2 Utilising all flexibilities relating to the coast down test Gasoline -4.50% Diesel -4.50% Reduction in vehicle mass of 110kg (one inertia class) Gasoline -2.50% Diesel -2.50% Optimising wheel and tyre specification to increase rolling radius by 5% Gasoline -2% Diesel -2% Reducing overall rolling resistance by 20% Gasoline -2.80% Diesel -2.80% Increasing the running-in distance from 3000km to 15000km (for cookbook method only) Gasoline -5% Diesel -5% Implementation of all laboratory instrumentation flexibilities, to the full extent Gasoline -4.70% Diesel -4.70% Testing at a soak temperature of 30 C compared to 20 C Gasoline -1.70% Diesel -1.70% Using cookbook load factors compared to coast down terms, (applies to light goods vehicles Gasoline -3% and all-terrain vehicles only) Diesel -3% Starting the test with a fully charged battery (due to external recharging throughout the soak Gasoline -1% period) compared to a partially discharged battery Diesel -1% Using a higher gear at each stage of the NEDC test, for example 2 nd to 5 th gear rather than 1 st to Gasoline -6% 5 th gear Diesel -6% Using driving technique to minimise acceleration rate and vehicle speed within the tolerance Gasoline -1.20% allowed, compared to a test driven exactly to the target cycle Diesel -1.20% Extending DPF regeneration interval from 50 NEDC tests, to 100 NEDC tests to reduce Ki factor Gasoline N/A Diesel -0.30% Declaring for homologation a lower CO 2 value than has been achieved in testing: declared Gasoline -4% value is allowed to be up to 4% lower than the measured result Diesel -4%
24 Assessment of legislation Estimates of the possible impact on CO 2 emissions of applying the allowable flexibilities identified in this task individually ranged from 0.3% to 6% The % impact was calculated considering the change from one extreme limit of a tolerance to another (e.g. soak temp 30 C from 20 C) An indication was also given as to the potential impact of applying the flexibility on NO x, HC and CO emissions (increase, decrease, no impact)
25 Assessment of legislation Some flexibilities were also identified that are specific to hybrid vehicles only, in contrast to conventional internal combustion engine only vehicles These were identified as: Classification of hybrid electric vehicles CO 2 calculations for hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Determination of electric range Regenerative braking Gear shift schedule
26 Other flexibilities Flexibilities not related to bandwidths specified in the legislation: Road load test track surface condition (concrete or asphalt) Road load test track slopes Prepared tires (modified/ground profile) Inertia of wheels/tires (fluid or metal) Optimized resistance of wheel bearings and wheel alignment Optimized front cooling air inlet (summer and winter configuration) Optimized vehicle position (height and angle) Taping of body parts Definition of a standard vehicle (options reduce vehicle mass) Test modes of vehicle and engine management systems
27 Assessment of legislation - Conclusions A number of theoretically available flexibilities allowable within the regulations have been identified along with potential CO 2 benefit Flexibilities may not be practical to utilise in every vehicle, can also have an adverse effect on other emissions (e.g. increasing NO x ) Thus it cannot be assumed that each potential flexibility is available in every case No robust data is available to validate the extent to which the potential CO 2 benefits from flexibilities are additive There are likely to be complex interactions between factors An experimental study would be necessary to test cumulative effects
28 Assessment of legislation - Conclusions A number of flexibilities have been identified that are not related to bandwidths specified in the legislation. No quantitative information available on possible impacts
29 Assessment of past and present use of flexibilities Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
30 Why are there flexibilities? And why use them? Compliance testing needs to be achievable if there were no flexibilities, for example in cell temperatures, driving, analyser accuracy etc. each test would be invalid. Use for pollutant emissions compliance - because manufacturers need to obtain a Certificate of Conformity to sell vehicles As part of the compliance with CO 2 emissions regulations (avoiding or minimising financial penalties)
31 Flexibilities that were used in the past 1. Vehicle drive line preparation for decrease of rolling resistances. 2. Use of dedicated test track for determination of road load curve 3. Determination of road load curves at higher ambient temperatures. 4. Vehicle preconditioning at certain engine operating levels. This was mainly done for preconditioning purposes of the exhaust aftertreatment system. 5. Vehicle soak near 30 C. This measure gains a relative fast light-off of the catalyst. 6. Optimisation of forced cooling of the vehicle. 7. Application of dedicated test fuels (within the band of reference fuels), i.e. fuel without sulphur (< 10 ppm). This minimises the PM emission of a diesel vehicle (without DPF).
32 Consultations held Country Type organisation Name Date Position United Type Approval VCA March 2012 Principal engineer Kingdom Authority United Type Approval VCA March 2012 Engineer Kingdom Authority United Kingdom Test house Millbrook Proving March 2012 Principal engineer United Kingdom Ground Test house MIRA March 2012 Principal vehicle emissions engineer, and manager Netherlands Type Approval RDW April 2012 Inspector Authority Netherlands Type Approval RDW April 2012 Officer Authority Netherlands Test house TNO- Homologations April 2012 Test engineer and certification officer European 3 vehicle manufacturers March & April 2012 Not included in the draft report
33 Some comments on the type approval process The type approval process involves a degree of trust - Manufacturers do not want the TA authorities to think they are trying to operate outside the permitted limits. The TA process differs between the US, Europe and Japan There are areas of subjective interpretation, and it would be wrong to assume that the interpretation by all type approval authorities are the same. In Europe the type approval authority market is competitive. Manufacturers are clients because they pay for services.
34 Some comments on the use of flexibilities during the collection of coast down data Coast down test instead of cook book values used for most passenger car models, but for minority of LCVs Some aspects of the procedure are not specified, for example surface roughness Most coast down data is collected using the Idiada track in Spain, which appears optimised for coast down data Generally, the coast down data allows vehicle to vehicle comparison under controlled/repeatable conditions BUT the retarding resistances collected during coast down runs are not representative of retarding resistances for real road surfaces just as the NEDC is not representative of on the road driving
35 Some comments on the use of flexibilities during the Reg 101 test Dominant aspects were found to be The careful collection of coast down times (lowering dyno resistance) Use of instrumentation flexibilities Declaring lower CO 2 value Some aspects have high potential benefit but not really used, for example the use of a higher gear throughout NEDC Some aspects carefully managed, for example the state of charge of the battery, but not mentioned in regulations.
36 Overview of the type approval process Manufacturer s New vehicle specification Manufacturer s New vehicle model Used for Type approval testing TA testing following Directives and Regulations Whole vehicle Type Approval Certificate of Conformity e.g. E1*2001/.. Conformity of Production Testing In use compliance Testing Vehicle Sales
37 Does the COP procedure limit the use of flexibilities in the type approval procedure? COP test results are determined by 1. The specifications and properties of the test facilities 2. The specifications of the road load curves and test fuels 3. The specifications and condition of the vehicles Except for the condition of a production vehicle all COP conditions can be chosen equal to TA conditions. Therefore it is not expected that the COP procedure limits the use of flexibilities in the type approval procedure.
38 Quantifying the present utilisation of different flexibilities Listen to interviewee s overview Systematically raise each flexibility if not mentioned Assess responses, often qualitative, e.g. very rare, sometimes, usually and make estimates of % of times flexibility used Use tables from Tasks 1 and 2 to give the maximum CO 2 change From max change, and replies estimate actual impact E.g. if 20 C 30 C soak temperatures lead to 1.7% DCO 2 A 1 C change in mean soak temperature would lead to a 0.2% DCO 2 For coast down the 4.5% DCO 2 is a composite figure from T1 & 2, so disentangle components Also other recently adopted practices were also highlighted, leading to estimated other aspects
39 Maximum potential CO 2 benefits and current extent of utilisation wrt coast down times Flexibility Max possible Cars Vans Optimising wheel and tyre specifications 2.0% 0.00% Tyre pressure 0.0% 0.00% Brakes 0.0% 0.00% Preconditioning 0.5% 0.50% Running in period of test vehicle 1.7% 1.70% Ambient conditions 0.0% 0.00% Test track design 0.3% 0.30% Additional aspects of coast down times Use of carefully prepared tyres Other vehicle preparation not prohibited 2.0% 2.00% 2.0% 1.00% As for cars but only applies to 20% of vans, others use default dynamometer setting, where there is not influence from coast down flexibilities. Combined effect for coast down data collection 5.39% 1.08% Range for coast down data collection 3.3% - 7.5% 0.65% - 1.5%
40 Maximum potential CO 2 benefits and current extent of utilisation wrt Reg 101 test & coast down times Flexibility Max possible Cars Vans Reduction in vehicle mass 2.5% 0.25% 0.00% Optimising wheel and tyre specifications 2.0% 0.00% 0.00% Reducing rolling resistance by 20% 2.8% 0.00% 0.00% Running in period of test vehicle 5.0% 0.38% 0.38% Implementation of laboratory instrument flexibilities Temperature 0.3% 0.00% 0.00% CO 2 analyser 2.0% 1.00% 1.00% Coast down matching 1.2% 0.30% 0.30% Load applied 1.2% 0.30% 0.30% Fuel specification flexibilities 0.0% 0.00% 0.00% Soak temperature 30 C rather than 20 C 1.7% 0.17% 0.17% Using cook book figures 3.0% 0.00% 0.00% Using fully charged battery 1.0% 1.00% 1.00% using a higher gear throughout the NEDC 6.0% 0.00% 0.00% Using driving technique 1.2% 0.60% 0.60% Extending DPF 0.3% 0.05% 0.05% Declaring lower CO 2 value 4.0% 2.00% 2.00% Combined effect for Regulation 101 testing 5.90% 5.66% Range for Regulation 101 testing 3.06% - 9.24% 2.82% - 9.0% Combined effect for coast down data collection 5.39% 1.08% Range for coast down data collection 3.3% - 7.5% 0.65% - 1.5% Combined effect for whole CO 2 emissions test 11.0% 6.68% Range for whole CO 2 emissions test 6.2% - 16.0% 3.5% - 10.5%
41 Comparison of findings with other studies TÜV study Real emissions changed from 156.6 g CO 2 /km in 2004 5 to 143.8 g CO 2 /km in 2008 9, a reduction of 8.2% in 4 years Declared value changed from 160.4 g CO 2 /km in 2004 5 to 137.1 g CO 2 /km in 2008 9, a reduction of 14.7% in 4 years Additional reduction of 6.5% has occurred in these 4 years, in good agreement with the 8% ± 5% conclusion here
42 Concluding comments on current use of flexibilities There are differences between passenger cars and LCVs (principally regarding use of coast down data) No information on differences in use of flexibilities for car segments Overall changes in the last decade if the full range is used for each flexibility estimated to be around 11% for cars and 7% for vans BUT will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer It is estimated that the overall current use of flexibilities has generated an additional approximately 8% reduction in CO 2 emissions for cars, and 5% reduction in CO 2 emissions for light commercial vehicles Need to be careful of not confusing maximum possible CO 2 reduction potential and actual usage Need to be aware that all this is for the NEDC, which would change with introduction of WLTP drive cycle and the new test procedure
43 Assessment of technology deployment Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO 2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
44 Identified CO 2 reducing technologies for petrol vehicles engine options transmission options hybridisation driving resistance reduction other gas-wall heat transfer reduction optimising gearbox ratios / downspeeding (above 5) start-stop hybridisation mild weight reduction (~10% reduction on body in white) thermo-electric waste heat recovery direct injection, homogeneous automated manual transmission micro hybrid - regenerative breaking medium weight reduction (~ 25% reduction on body in white) secondary heat recovery cycle direct injection, stratified charge dual clutch transmission mild hybrid - torque boost for downsizing strong weight reduction (~40% reduction on body in white) auxiliary systems efficiency improvement thermodynamic cycle improvements e.g. split cycle, PCCI/HCCI, CAI continuously variable transmission full hybrid - electric drive lightweight components other than BIW thermal management mild downsizing (15% cylinder content reduction) between 50 - <75 Kw/l aerodynamics improvement medium downsizing (30% cylinder content reduction) 75 - <95 Kw/l tyres: low rolling resistance strong downsizing (>=45% cylinder content reduction) Above 95 Kw/l reduced driveline friction cam-phasing variable valve actuation and lift low friction design and materials
45 Identified CO 2 reducing technologies for diesel vehicles engine options transmission options hybridisation driving resistance reduction other Combustion improvements optimising gearbox ratios / downspeeding (above 5) start-stop mild (~10% reduction on body in white) thermo-electric conversion mild downsizing (15% cylinder content reduction) between 45 - <60 Kw/l automated manual transmission micro hybrid - regenerative breaking medium (~ 25% reduction on body in white) secondary heat recovery cycle medium downsizing (30% cylinder content reduction) 60 - <75 Kw/l dual clutch transmission mild hybrid - torque boost for downsizing strong (~40% reduction on body in white) Auxiliary systems improvement strong downsizing (>=45% cylinder content reduction) Above 75 Kw/l continuously variable transmission full hybrid - electric drive lightweight components other than BIW Thermal management Variable valve actuation and lift aerodynamics improvement tyres: low rolling resistance reduced driveline friction
46 Data sources for estimating the level of technology deployment Analysis uses data on new vehicle sales and production from the following IHS databases: Light vehicle Sales in EU 27 up to 3.5t (new vehicles sold per year) Light vehicle Production in EU 27 up to 3.5t (new vehicles produced per year) Light vehicle Engine in EU 27 up to 3.5t (new engines installed per year) These databases contain information that allows identification of the deployment of the CO 2 reducing technologies identified in SR1 Most technologies where assessed quantitatively, however due to a lack of available data others where assessed through discussions with subject matter experts.
47 Methodology for estimating the contribution of technology deployment 6 market segments: small / medium / large petrol & diesel Assess from IHS databases per segment the level of deployment in new vehicle sales for all technical measures Assess per segment the combined impact on CO 2 : per technology: deployment % x reduction potential reduction potentials based on technology table underlying cost curves for 2012-15 (see TNO/IEEP/LAT 2006) combine net reductions: take account of safety margin for dissynergies based on improved methodology developed in SR1 take effect of mass increase 2002-2010 into account using ΔCO 2 /CO 2 = 0.65 Δm/m take effect of power-to-weight ratio increase 2002-2010 into account see next slide
48 Effect of power-to-weight ratio increase Methodology: Select vehicle models (23) sold in 2010 with different versions Normalise vehicle models using base version (lowest ptw-ratio) Separate correlations for petrol and diesel over all vehicle models Petrol: CO 2 /CO 20 = 0.63 P m / P 0 m 0 Diesel: CO 2 /CO 20 = 0.42 P m / P 0 m 0 2002 power to weight ratio [kw/kg] 2010 power to weight ratio [kw/kg] difference [%] effect on CO 2 emissions [g/km] Petrol, Small 0.054 0.054 0.0% 0.0 Petrol, Medium 0.069 0.068-1.9% -2.3 Petrol, Large 0.108 0.133 23.3% 38.8 Diesel, Small 0.049 0.052 5.4% 2.8 Diesel, Medium 0.060 0.064 8.0% 5.2 Diesel, Large 0.066 0.083 24.6% 22.0 Average 0.059 0.061 3.8% 2.5
49 Methodology for estimating the contribution of technology deployment (cont.) Assess impact on market average CO 2 emissions in 2010 weigh impacts per segment over sales distribution in 2010 identify impact of sales shift between 2002 and 2010 incl. increased dieselisation by weighing 2002 CO 2 values over 2010 sales distribution Add estimated additional potential: small technological improvements: 2% improved calibration: 1%
other driving resistance reduction hybridisation transmission options engine options 50 Reduction Penetration Relative CO2 emission [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] 2002 2010 2002 2010 2002 2010 gas-w all heat transfer reduction 3.0 3.0 5.0 50.0 100% 99% direct injection, homogeneous 3.0 3.0 0.0 6.1 100% 100% direct injection, stratified charge 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 100% 100% thermodynamic cycle imporvements e.g. split cycle, PCCI/HCCI, CAI 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% mild dow nsizing (15% cylinder content reduction) betw een 50 - <75 Kw /l 4.0 4.0 8.0 35.0 100% 99% medium dow nsizing (30% cylinder content reduction) 75 - <95 Kw /l 8.5 8.5 2.0 3.0 100% 100% strong dow nsizing (>=45% cylinder content reduction) Above 95 Kw /l 12.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% cam-phasing 4.0 4.0 3.7 34.5 100% 99% variable valve actuation and lift 10.0 10.0 0.0 14.9 100% 99% low friction design and materials 2.0 2.0 5.0 35.0 100% 99% optimising gearbox ratios / dow nspeeding (above 5) 1.0 1.0 2.8 14.1 100% 100% automated manual transmission 4.0 4.0 7.3 11.6 100% 100% dual clutch transmission 4.0 4.0 0.0 3.1 100% 100% continuously variable transmission 5.0 5.0 1.2 0.3 100% 100% start-stop hybridisation 4.0 4.0 0.0 13.2 100% 99% micro hybrid - regenerative breaking 7.0 7.0 0.0 10.0 100% 99% mild hybrid - torque boost for dow nsizing 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% full hybrid - electric drive 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% mild w eight reduction (~10% reduction on body in w hite) 0.9 0.9 0.0 25.0 100% 100% medium w eight reduction (~ 25% reduction on body in w hite) 2.2 2.2 0.0 5.0 100% 100% strong w eight reduction (~40% reduction on body in w hite) 5.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 100% 100% lightw eight components other than BIW 1.0 1.0 0.0 25.0 100% 100% aerodynamics improvement 1.5 1.5 0.0 21.0 100% 100% tyres: low rolling resistance 2.0 2.0 5.0 52.0 100% 99% reduced driveline friction 0.5 0.5 0.0 7.0 100% 100% thermo-electric w aste heat recovery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% secondary heat recovery cycle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 100% auxiliary systems efficiency improvement 3.0 3.0 5.0 50.0 100% 99% thermal management 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 100% 100% petrol - medium Reduction Technologies Total result (relative to 2002 baseline) 98.5% 88.3% Reduction 1.5% 11.7% Reduction corrected for safety margin 1.5% 11.4%
51 Top down analysis of the contribution of deployed technologies NOTE: Shaded CO 2 emission level representations are derived by scaling 2009 segment averages with the ratio between the 2009 and 2010 EU TA average CO 2 emissions
52 About 70% of the net CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010 may result from technology deployment The top-down analysis indicates that some 8 g/km of the observed net reduction between 2002 and 2010 may not be attributed to the deployment of CO 2 reducing technologies. Item CO 2 [g/km] 2002 EU average TA CO2 emissions 166.6 impact of mass increase 2002-2010 9.5 impact of power-to-weight ratio increase 2002-2010 2.5 impact of segment shifts (incl. dieselisation) 2002-2010 -7.4 deployment of technologies 2002-2010 -18.5 calibration -1.4 small improvements -2.9 result sum 148.4 gap 8.1 2010 EU average TA CO2 emissions 140.4
53 CO 2 benefit from past and present use of flexibilities Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
54 Utilisation of flexibilities may account for 2/5 to 1/2 of the net CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
55 Utilisation of flexibilities may account for 40 50% of the net CO 2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010 It is estimated that in the time period 2002-2010 for passenger cars the impact of application of flexibilities on CO 2 emissions has increased by 6 11% between 2002 and 2010, with a likely mean of around 8% This equates to around 12 g/km For LCVs an increase by 4 6.4% between 2002 and 2010 is estimated with a mean of around 5%. Item CO 2 [g/km] 2002 TA average CO2 emissions 166.6 impact of mass increase 2002-2010 9.5 impact of power-to-weight ratio increase 2002-2010 2.5 impact of segment shifts (incl. dieselisation) 2002-2010 -7.4 result sum 171.2 gap 18.6 result sum 152.6 deployment of flexibilities 2002-2010 12.2 2010 EU average TA CO2 emissions 140.4
56 Further potential for utilising flexibilities Subject to further investigation Based on a numerical combination of the potentials of individual flexibilities the total potential would be around 25-30%. It is unlikely that all flexibilities can be combined and that each flexibility can be utilised to its full potential. The CO 2 impacts are not expected to be simply additive We estimate that up to now some 13% of this potential has been utilised. Assuming that some 20% of the total potential could be realistically utilised, another 5-10% reduction through utilisation of flexibilities would be available in the future, e.g. in relation to meeting the 2020 target of 95 g/km. This translates into 5-10 g/km.
57 Combining top-down and bottom-up analysis Assess literature Assess legislation Assess the level of the technology deployment in vehicle fleet Past use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) Present use of flexibilities (incl. consultation of type approval authorities) CO2 emission reduction resulting from technology deployment (2002 2010) CO2 emission reduction resulting from applying flexibilities (2002 2010) other reducing measures (e.g. calibration and small improvements CO2 emission reduction between 2002 and 2010
58 Approach Bottom-up: Quantification of the extent to which exploitation of the various flexibilities identified in Task 1 to 4 may have contributed to the observed reductions in average CO 2 emissions as measured on the type approval test between 2002 and 2010. Top-down: More evidence is obtained from a top-down consideration in Task 5, assessing the extent to which deployment of technologies has contributed to observed CO 2 emission reductions. The assessment has been carried out for different types of vehicles to assess whether it differs by vehicle size class or fuel.
59 Confronting the analyses of contributions from technology deployment and utilisation of flexibilities
60 Between 2002 and 2010 the majority of the reduction resulted from technology deployment Adding the reduction resulting from technologies and flexibilities leads to overlap. This may be caused by uncertainties in various elements of the assessment, e.g.: impact of changes in mass and power-to-weight ratio average extent to which flexibilities are exploited and their actual impact on CO 2 the average deployment level of technologies and their actual impact on CO 2 NOTE: Every manufacturer has its own considerations for application of flexibilities and application of technologies. The applied levels of flexibilities and technologies are not representative for all manufacturers or vehicle models. Item CO 2 [g/km] 2002 TA average CO2 emissions 166.6 impact of mass increase 2002-2010 9.5 impact of power-to-weight ratio increase 2002-2010 2.5 impact of segment shifts (incl. dieselisation) 2002-2010 -7.4 calibration -1.4 small improvements -2.9 deployment of technologies 2002-2010 -18.5 deployment of flexibilities 2002-2010 -12.2 result sum 135.2 overlap 4.1 2010 EU average TA CO2 emissions 140.4
61 Overall conclusions (1) The study identified a number of potential flexibilities allowable within the type approval procedure whose use may contribute to a reduction of CO 2 emissions as measured on the type approval test. From literature review and information from TA authorities and test houses it is clear that flexibilities are increasingly being used to lower CO 2 emissions of new vehicles on the TA test. For passenger cars it is estimated that the potential CO 2 reduction in 2010 due to additional use of flexibilities since 2002 is around 8% For LCVs: 5%
62 Overall conclusions (2) There is uncertainty in the degree to which the flexibilities identified as potentially being utilised in 2010 may be used in combination. The CO 2 impacts are unlikely to be simply additive. without more detailed investigation into the interactions between factors the potential cumulative effect of combined flexibilities may only be quantified as a range. The utilisation of allowable flexibilities in the type approval procedure may vary from vehicle model to vehicle model and OEM to OEM and there is no clear picture of how they are implemented in specific cases.
63 Overall conclusions (3) The study also identified the level of deployment of CO 2 reducing technologies, their potential CO 2 benefit, as well as the impacts of improved calibration and took into account the counter effects of increased mass for the period 2002 and 2010. Of the observed net reduction between 2002 and 2010 about 70% appears to be realised by deployment of CO 2 reducing technologies, including small optimisations / improved calibration. About 30% of the net reduction may be attributable to other measures. The estimate of the potential of test procedure flexibilities and their level of utilisation in the 2002 2010 period appears to explain this gap.
64 Overall conclusions (4) Overall, the evidence gathered indicates that it is likely that the reduction in fleet average CO 2 for passenger cars achieved between 2002 and 2010 has resulted from a combination of the implementation of CO 2 reducing technologies, small technical improvements and increased utilisation of allowable flexibilities within the type approval procedure. Subject to further investigation With regard to future utilisation of test procedure flexibilities a further potential of several g/km could still be available.
65 Contact details Richard Smokers tel. 31 88 86 68628 richard.smokers@tno.nl Gerrit Kadijk tel. 31 88 86 68487 gerrit.kadijk@tno.nl