15th HDV CO2 EDITING BOARD MEETING CO2/Library/2019.03... · lorries and with generic mass as input for the CO2 calculation tool Examples for “Standard values”: • Provisions

1The information contained in this presentation remains the property of the IVT.

Institute of Internal Combustion Engines and Thermodynamics

15th HDV CO2

EDITING BOARD MEETING

Slides TU Graz, TNM, Sidekick Project Support

Stefan Hausberger, Martin Rexeis,

Martin Goschütz, Iddo Riemersma

15.03.2019, Brussels



Content

• Status quo elaboration of Annexes I to X

Contributions to Agenda Points

(3) Development of HDV CO2 certification for buses and medium lorries

• Established process to handle “notifications according to Article 10(2)”

(4) Implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2400

(5) AOB

• Information on “VECTO Hybrids” project



1) Status quo elaboration of Annexes

I to X



Annex I: „Classification of Vehicles in Vehicle groups….

New contents:

a) Nomenclature of vehicle subgroups and categories aligned to Regulation (EU) 2018/858 (vehicle approval)

b) Proposal on vehicle groups for buses and medium lorries(same system but new nomenclature)

c) Updated text on system for Factor Method for buses(same methods but amendments in text)



Annex I: a) Nomenclature

Term Definition Looks like

Lorry A vehicle that is designed and constructed exclusively

or principally for conveying goods [Regulation (EU)

2018/858, Annex I, Part C, point 4.1]. Lorries cover

vehicles of caetgories (N1), N2 and N3. Lorries cover:

• Rigid lorries

• Tractors

• Vans

Rigid lorry A lorry that is not designed or constructed for the towing

of a semi-trailer and that is not a van; according to point

(17) in Article 3 of the upcoming amendment of

regulation (EU) 2017/2400

Tractor (unit for

semi-trailer)A towing vehicle that is designed and constructed

exclusively or principally to tow semi-trailers.

[Regulation (EU) 2018/858, Annex I, Part C, point 4.3]

Van A lorry with the compartment where the driver is located

and cargo area within a single unit [Regulation (EU)

2018/858, Annex I, Part C, point 4.2].

Bus Motor vehicles for the carriage of passengers, i.e.

vehicles of categories (M1), M2 and M3




Vehicle sub-categories Description of vehicles

Light Lorry N1 and N2 not exceeding 5 tons maximum mass with engine type approval according to Regulation (EU) 595/2009 and a reference mass exceeding 2610 kg

Medium Lorry N2 exceeding 5 tons and not exceeding 7.4 tons maximummass with engine type approval according to Regulation (EU)595/2009 and a reference mass exceeding 2610 kg

Heavy Lorry N2 exceeding 7.4 tons maximum mass and N3 with enginetype approval according to Regulation (EU) 595/2009

Light Buses M1 and M2 not exceeding 5 tons maximum mass with engine type approval according to Regulation (EU) 595/2009 and a reference mass exceeding 2610 kg

Medium Buses M3 not exceeding 7.4 tons maximum mass with engine typeapproval according to Regulation (EU) 595/2009

Heavy Buses M3 exceeding 7.4 tons maximum mass with engine typeapproval according to Regulation (EU) 595/2009




Vehicle sub-categories Description of vehicles

Primary Bus “Bus chassis” with at least engine, transmission, axles andtyres but with generic data for the body for declaration of thevehicles CO-value. Parts of the auxiliaries shall be consideredin the Primary CO2 value with the specific technologiesmounted, other parts with the generic values according toAnnex III

Complete(d) Bus “Primary Bus” complete(d) with its final body and equipmentfor declaration of the CO2-factor

Final body and equipment Body, auxiliaries and any other equipment mounted to aPrimary Lorry or a Primary Bus until the final stage whichchanges weight, aerodynamics or auxiliary power consumptionin the input data of the simulation tool.




Term Description

Standard value Input values for the CO2 calculation tool in case that acomponent is not measured. Standard values reflectperformance of worst case component plus a certain tolerancemargin.

Standard body or trailer Body, trailer or semi-trailer defined in Appendix 4 to AnnexVIII with standardised dimensions for air drag testing oflorries and with generic mass as input for the CO2 calculationtool

Examples for “Standard values”:

• Provisions in Annex VI and VII for torque losses of drivetrain components

• Provisions in Annex VIII for CdxA

Examples for “Generic values” :

• Power consumption of auxiliaries

• Delta CdxA values for trailer influence on air drag

• Factor method: e.g. CdxA and mass for primary vehicle, fuel map and drivetrain losses

for calculation of CO2 factor for completed(d) vehicle



Annex I: Factor method

• Factor method proposed only for heavy buses

• For medium lorries, medium buses and heavy lorries only CO2

declaration for primary vehicle foreseen in next update

Explanation: factor method fits also for medium lorries, medium buses and vans but for

these vehicles a high number of 2nd stage manufacturers are on the market dealing

overall with a small number of multistage vehicles (approx. 18.000 M + N from 5t to 7.4t

p.a. Possibly <50% multistage with a CO2 share within HDV sector below 0.5%).

Most 2nd stage manufacturers of M and N <7.4t yet not involved in the process of CO2

declaration. Timeline for inclusion in next update therefore too short and relevance of

specific bodies on CO2 quite small.



Annex I: „Classification of Vehicles in Vehicle groups….

Summary of CO2-Factor approach for buses

“Extended Factor method”:

“CO2…” are the results from VECTO simulation with different input in each step:

“Final”……………………………….value for complete(d) bus

“Real chassis, std body”…..result for primary bus

“gen. chassis+body”………..result for bus with generic efficiencies for engine and transmission and generic body

“gen. chassis+real body”……result for bus with generic efficiencies for engine and transmission and real body

𝐶𝑂2𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 𝐶𝑂2𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝑆𝑡𝑑𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 ∙𝐶𝑂2𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦

𝐶𝑂2𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝑆𝑡𝑑𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 Eq. 1.1

𝐶𝑂2𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐶𝑂2𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦

𝐶𝑂2𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 Eq. 1.2

𝐶𝑂2𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 𝐶𝑂2𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙𝐶 ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠 ,𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 ∙ 𝐶𝑂2𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 Eq. 1.3



Annex I: Factor method

First analysis on accuracy of extended factor method performed

As example a group 4 lorry (18 tons TPMLM) was analysed.

generic dataset = mass, CdxA, engine data, gearbox, axle efficiency data(1).

The “factor method” applied for 4 variants of the vehicle:

• 2 sets of specific component data (engine map, drivetrain loss maps)

• 2 body variants (generic mass – 800 kg; generic CdxA – 0.5 m²)

Deviation of Factor method results to full VECTO simulation < 0.4%:

Efficiency data

(eng, gbx, axl) Body

Deviation CO2 [g/km] factor method compared to full

VECTO simulation

AverageLH-L LH-R RD-L RD-R UD-L UD-R MU-L MU-R

Spec 1 standard -800 kg 0.0% -0.1% -0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% -0.1% 0.0%

Spec 2 standard -800 kg 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% 0.3% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0%

Spec 1 standard - 0.5 m² -0.2% -0.2% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% -0.1% -0.1%

Spec 2 standard - 0.5 m² 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% -0.1% 0.0%

(1) Input files from vehicle model from the study on CO2 standards used as generic dataset



Annex I: b) Proposal on vehicle groups is listed in word file

Open issue: cycles for medium busesAs default we use same cycles as for heavy buses. But: application of different cycles for the medium buses than for heavy buses easier if we use different mission names!

Table 1.4

Vehicle groups for “Medium Buses”

Allocation of mission profile

and vehicle configuration Tbd: which cycles are representative for these vehicles?

Ax

le c

on

fig

ura

tio

n

Veh

icle

gro

up

Hea

vy

urb

an

Urb

an

Su

b-u

rba

n

Inte

r-u

rba

n

Co

ach

Co

mp

any v

ehic

le?

Oth

er u

se?

FWD MB1 G G G G ?

RWD MB2 G G G G ?

AWD MB3 G G G G ?

G =

Generic body and related components for simulation from Primary bus

manufacturer (generic data to be elaborated)

FWD = Front Wheel Driven

RWD = Single driven axle at rear

AWD = More than one driven axle



Presentation and discussion of technical annexes

Annex III: „Vehicle input information“ (1/2)

Status quo:

• First version of amended document distributed mid of February

• Feedback from ACEA TF5 available since then

• Remaining few open items related to details of “factor method” and Advanced

Auxilary Model (final decisions scheduled for VECTO development in Q2 2019)

New content:

• Definition of “corrected actual mass of the vehicle” extended to cover all vehicle

categories/types

• Definitions for vehicle dimensions (height, length, width) added

• Tables with input data now specify whether input data is relevant for:

• Heavy lorries

• Medium lorries

• Heavy buses (primary vehicle)

• Heavy buses (complete(d) vehicle)

• Medium buses




Annex III: „Vehicle input information“ (2/2)

New content (continued):

• Additional required input data added, e.g.

• Name and address of manufacturer of the complete(d) vehicle

• Vehicle specifications to allocate heavy buses to “parameter sub-groups”

• Input data related to “Advanced Auxiliary Model”

• Etc.

• Provisions for disabling of gears by vehicle manufacturer (i.e. independently from

certified transmission XML input data) added

6.2 Gear disabling

For the highest 2 gears (e.g. gear 5 and 6 for a 6 gear transmission) the vehicle manufacturer may

declare a complete disabling of gears by providing 0 Nm as gear specific torque limit in the input to the

simulation tool.

6.3 Verification requirements

Gear dependent engine torque limits according to point 6.1 and gear disabling according to point 6.2 are

subject to verification in the VTP as laid out in point X.X of Annex Xa.




Annex IV: „Manufacturer's records/customer information file“ (1/5)

Overview extended content:

Report files

He

avy l

orr

ies

(pri

ma

ry v

eh

icle

)

Me

diu

m lo

rrie

s

(pri

mary

veh

icle

)

He

avy b

us

es

(pri

ma

ry v

eh

icle

)

He

avy b

us

es

(co

mp

lete

(d)

ve

hic

le)

Med

ium

bu

ses (

pri

mary

ve

hic

le)

Manufacturers Records File (MRF) PART I PART I PART I PART Ia PART I

Primary vehicle Information File (PIF) PART III

Customer Information File (CIF) PART II PART II PART II PART II

New content





Changes MRF primary vehicle (PART I):

• “Max gross weight” changed to “Technical Permissible Maximum Laden Mass”

(correction)

• New vehicle specifications relevant for the heavy buses and medium lorries and medium

buses added (e.g. height integrated body)

• General wording introduced to be able to provide results for MJ/km for electric energy

from grid as well (labeled as “fuel type”)





Content MRF complete(d) vehicle (PART Ia):

1. Vehicle, component, separate technical unit and systems data

1.1. Primary vehicle data

only references via OEM data, VIN, hashes

1.2. Complete(d) vehicle data

main vehicle specifications with focus on specifications which are defined

after primary stage (mass, body dimensions)

1.3. Aerodynamics

1.4. Main auxiliary specifications

Level of detail to be discussed

1.5. Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS)

To be checked if (only) defined by the primary vehicle. If this is the case than ADAS

could be skipped here.

2. Mission profile and load dependent values (for each profile/load/fuel mode combination)

Results section contains final result for completed vehicle plus “factor”

3. Software and user information





Changes CIF (PART II):

• “Max gross weight” changed to “Technical Permissible Maximum Laden Mass”

(correction)

• New vehicle specifications relevant for the heavy buses and medium lorries and medium

buses added (e.g. height integrated body)

• Name and adress of the manufacturer of the complete(d) vehicle added

• General wording introduced to be able to provide results for MJ/km for electric energy

from grid as well (labeled as “fuel type”)

• “Fuel efficiency class of tyres of the motor vehicle in accordance with Regulation (EC) No

1222/2009 for each axle of the motor vehicle” introduced (was “average class”)

• Section on “CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of the vehicle (for each mission profile /

payload / fuel mode combination)“ generalised and brought into a list format (was tables,

now easy to reference and compatible to MRF)

• Customers only get results for last considered stage (i.e. complete(d) vehicle in case of

heavy buses)





Content PIF (PART III):

The primary vehicle’s information file shall be written by the simulation tool to forward all necessary

input data and input information from the primary vehicle manufacturer to the complete(d) vehicle

manufacturer. This information shall comprise:

1. Vehicle, component, separate technical unit and systems data

all VECTO inmput data from the primary vehicle BUT NOT:

engine: fuel map, correction factors

transmission, torque converter, angle drive, retarder axle: loss maps

2.0 Mission profile and load dependent values (for each profile/load/fuel mode combination)

3.0 Software and user information




Annex V: „Engine“(1/3)

Status quo:

• No update requirements identified for Annex V specifically for buses and medium

lorries

• Minor changes will be implemented, which are absolutely necessary for a

consistent piece of regulation (e.g. ambiguities in interpretation of legislative text

reported by OEMs or TSs/TAAs via EC’s JIRA system)

• For Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/318, a replacement of “1.1 times n95h” by

“nhi” in point 4.3.5.6.2 (2) of Annex V (definition of grid cells) was not accepted for

the argument that “all the work that has already been done with 1.1 times n95h

must be done again”:

(2) 2 vertical lines spaced at equal distance between engine speeds n30 and

1.1 times n95h for 9 cell grids, or 3 vertical lines spaced at equal distance between engine

speeds n30 and 1.1 times n95h for 12 cell grids.

• However, there remains a mismatch between text and respective figure and an

inconsistency with NTE method defined in EURO VI emission regulation

(Reg. (EU) No 582/2011, resp. UN/ECE Reg. 49 Rev.06 )



Problem: Definition of single grid cells for emission monitoring during FCMC in legislative

text does not match with control area

Blue dotted lines:

outer boundaries of

control area(subpoint (3) of § 4.3.5.6.1.1)

Red vertical lines:

Incorrect engine speed

boundaries of single

grid cells 1-9(subpoint (2) of § 4.3.5.6.2)

Black vertical lines:

Correct engine speed

boundaries of single

grid cells 1-9 as

originally intended

12

3

45

6

78

9





Solution:

Adapt text in Annex V

subpoint (2) of § 4.3.5.6.2

Exchange “1.1 times n95h” with “nhi”

Effects:

No effect on engine measurement procedures

No effect on FC/CO2 relevant data

Consistency in text of Annex V:

Currently different definitions of control area boundaries vs. grid cells

Consistency with NTE method defined in EURO VI emission regulation

(Reg. (EU) No 582/2011, resp. UN/ECE Reg. 49 Rev.06 )

Only different data evaluation for emission monitoring during FCMC

No effect on existing certificates for engines, since this is only pass/fail criterion

No major influence on average NOx values expected due to slight shifting of cell boundaries,

since whole area is covered by NTE method for EURO VI anyway

Could become effective from a specific date on and replace older version






Annex VI: „Transmission (1/4)“

Status quo:

• Content for medium lorries and buses complete


New content:

• Additional transmission technology added: slipping torque converter or input clutch

(technology used to prevent high- and low-frequency vibrations)

Loss in speed considered in calculation method for torque losses in option 1, 2 and 3

𝑇𝑙,𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑖𝑛, 𝑇𝑖𝑛, 𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟

= 𝑇𝑙,𝑖𝑛,min _𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 + 𝑓𝑇 ∗ 𝑇𝑖𝑛 + 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠_𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 ∗ 𝑇𝑖𝑛 + 𝑇𝑙,𝑖𝑛,min_𝑒𝑙 + 𝑓𝑒𝑙_𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 ∗ 𝑇𝑖𝑛 + 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑐𝑐 ∗ 𝑇𝑖𝑛

Loss correction factor:

𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑡𝑐𝑐 =∆𝑛𝑡𝑐𝑐

𝑛𝑖𝑛





• New testing method for transmission with an integrated differential (TMD),

which is e.g. installed in front-wheel drive vehicles

Method based on torque loss determination for axles with a test setup in T-arrangement:

2nd electric machine is optional;

in case of free rotating end of

the TMD the output has to be

rotatably locked against the

other output side

Example:

option 3, test setup A





• Exception added for all test setups

“It is allowed to perform the test without a separate bearing unit on the test rig at the

transmission input/output side if the transmission shaft on which the torque is measured

is supported by two bearings in the transmission housing which are able to absorb radial

and axial forces caused by the gearsets.”

• Standard values for torque converter characteristics provided to the simulation tool shall

only cover the range of v ≤ 0.95. The range of v > 0.95 is covered by standard values in

the simulation tool and removed from the annex.

• Clarification in the definition of operating points for production conformity testing

FTE

B

INPUT

E : Electric machine

T : Torque sensor

F : Flexible coupling

B : Bearing

TM : Transmission

Test setup A

TM

Example:

option 3, test setup A

FTE

B

INPUT

E : Electric machine

T : Torque sensor

F : Flexible coupling

B : Bearing

TM : Transmission

Test setup A

TM





• Standard torque loss values defined in appendix 8 for transmission with integrated

differential

• Speed loss maps of slipping TC lock-up clutch or slipping input side clutch added for

each gear to the transmission information document

• New input parameter for the simulation tool introduced for transmission with integrated

differential




Annex VII: „Axle (1/3)“

Status quo:

• Content for medium lorries and medium buses complete


New content:

• Adaptation of the measurement procedure for small axles

• Definition of new limits for the extent of the torque loss map

• Definition of new output torque steps and wheel speed steps

• Consideration of new max. wheel speeds for medium lorries and buses

Torque steps

250 Nm < Tout < 1000 Nm: 250 Nm steps

1000 Nm ≤ Tout ≤ 2000 Nm: 500 Nm steps


Tout > 10000 Nm: 2000 Nm steps

Speed steps: 50 rpm steps

heavy l

orr

ies,

he

avy b

us

es 50 Nm < Tout < 200 Nm: 50 Nm steps



Tout > 2000 Nm: 400 Nm steps

Speed steps: 100 rpm steps

me

diu

m lo

rrie

s,

me

diu

m b

us

es

10 kNm 2 kNm

90 km/h 110 km/h





• Precession in the assessment of total uncertainty of the torque loss for

test setups with two dynamometer on each output side

• New testing procedure for the determination of drag torque (6.3)

... test setup with two electric machines and two

torque sensors on each output is also permitted.

In this respect, both output shafts are driven

synchronously in driving direction.........

Drive at the output

Drive at the output

Drive at the input

single portal axle with different length

of the two output shafts have a high

deviation in rpm

-> no valid measurement





• Changes to axle information document

• Description of bearing type by (type / quantity / inner and outer diameter / width)

instead of (number / ID)

• “Number” replaced by “quantity”

• Definition of a standard torque loss value (η = 0,9) for all other axle technologies not

described in the annex

-> no blocking issues for new technologies not covered by the regulation

• Reference of the standard torque loss Tloss,std on the input side of the axle, as required in

the XML-files

• Correction in order for tolerances for axles measured in CoP after run-in and without run

in: SR, SRT HR, HRT

𝑇𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠,𝑠𝑡𝑑 =𝑇𝑑0 +

𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡𝜂 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑟




Annex VIII: „Air drag“ (1/6)

Status quo / Overview:

• Content for heavy buses is complete (except for number of vehicles to be

tested for COP)

• For medium lorries and medium buses the constant speed test (CST)

procedure has been implemented as testing method. Technical details still

under elaboration. Practical experience completely missing.

• Small refinement in general CST evaluation procedure implemented.

• CFD proposed by a non-common proposal from ACEA as a

“complementary method” to CST.

Details on next slides ...





Number of vehicles to be tested for COP:

• Figures from heavy lorries per OEM:

Number of CoP tested vehicles

Number of CoP relevant vehicles produced

the year before

2 ≤ 25,000

3 ≤ 50,000

4 ≤ 75,000

5 ≤ 100,000

6 100,001 and more

• Total market of heavy buses in EU-28: approx. 25 000 veh per year with several

(final stage) OEMs producing only several hundreds of vehicles per year.

• Alternative approach to define COP tests required to gain:

• A reasonable COP testing burden

• Guarantee a “deterrent“ effect





Number of vehicles to be tested for COP:

Possible solution for discussion:

• Apply similar correlation table (tests vs. produced vehicles) also for the “new” vehicle categories but

relate “produced vehicles” to the total number of vehicles per year in the EU (e.g. from registration

data from monitoring)

• Draw out the required number of vehicles by a random algorithm from the set of COP relevant

vehicles in the monitoring data Similar makes and model have to be tested for COP

• Further details to be elaborated, e.g.

• If a certain make and model is not on the market anymore, a further vehicle has to be drawn

• A particular OEM can not be selected for more than 1 COP test per year

• Features

• OEMs / vehicle families with higher production numbers will have higher probabilities to be

selected

• Still remaining probability that also very small OEMs could be asked to perform COP

• Fair burden for COP between different vehicle categories (lorries, buses etc.)

• Needs action on EU / cross national level responsibilities need to be defined

• “Random algorithm” to be defined in a legislative context





Medium lorries and medium buses:

• Constant speed test (CST) procedure has been implemented as

(reference) testing method

• Technical boundary conditions like anemometer position, validity criteria,

polar curve, standard values etc. under elaboration

• Only a single CST test performed in history for this vehicle segment!

• Having a robust method will require extensive pilot phase activities!

• Elaborating complementary methods to re-use WLTP data for VECTO

purposes (considering alignment with reference CdxA levels from) is still

possible but needs to be triggered by industry in parallel to pilot phase

activities needed for CST





Medium lorries:

Special topic standard body (“B-II”)

• Two different proposals for dimensions of standard box available (CLCCR proposal

rather the biggest box, ACEA proposal rather a typical box)

• ACEA furthermore considered to define two standard bodies (1x box, 1x platform)

and to allocate the CdxA value specifically dependent of the actual body type

• CO2 figure would be more accurate for a specific vehicle (“platform body

customer won’t understand high CO2 figues calculated for a big box vehicle”)

• Unless the “factor method” is applied for medium lorries any complete(d) vehicle

will have to be declared with the worst case “box” CO2 value, i.e. a platform

body from a non-first stage OEM would have a market disadvantage





CFD as complementary method to CST:

Status quo:

• A draft text elaborated by several ACEA OEMs is available for discussion

(not common ACEA proposal)

• Approach is based on very general validation requirements in accordance with

Regulation (EU) 2018/858 Annex VIII Appendix 1

• Commission has general concerns on the robustness of the proposed approach

Necessary steps to bring this topic forward:

• Industry to come to an common view and to elaborate a proposal considering the

concerns from Commission

• Perform practical validation of the approach

• Approach to be evaluated by independent expert(s)

• Timeline independent from extension of Regulation (EU) 2017/2400 to buses and

medium lorries




Annex IX: „Auxiliaries“ (1/3)

Status quo:

• Update of the text for lorries removing generic data finalised

• Adding the part relevant for heavy buses >90% finalized

• Main open topic is coverage of “Smart electric systems”

Draft test procedure (“Result cards”) as proposed by ACEA could be (partly)

replaced by generic VECTO HEV model elements to be designed in Q2 2019.

• Selected approach should be validated during PP1. Details on testing

procedure to be defined in Q2.

• Additional auxiliary technologies for steering system introduced:

• Technology “Dual displacement pump” split into two different control types

(mechanical and electronic)

• Technology “Full electric steering gear”

Text finalized, methods for VECTO still under discussion.





Status quo:

• Adding drafts for medium lorries and medium buses by taking over

the provisions from heavy lorries. Open issues:

a) To be checked if technologies match (most likely) and if some

particular technologies are missing.

b) How to handle HVAC for medium buses?

c) Elaboration of power consumption data for VECTO (most likely by

scaling of data from heavy lorries)

ACEA indicated to speed up their contribution. Next steps: drafts on a)

and b) to be completed until end of March. c) to be elaborated in Q2 2019

(generic data, not part of text in Annex)





Power take off (PTO):

• General issue:

Currently the drag losses of a PTO are only reflected in the VECTO CO2 value if the

device is mounted on a transmission and mounted already on the base vehicle.

This might lead to a change of in manufacturing process (PTOs not sold together with

transmissions but as a separate component body builders).

Options to settle this issue:

a) Coverage of complete(d) heavy lorries in the CO2 certification (not in next amendmend)

b) PTOs to be taken out of CO2 certification until a) is introduced (problematic)

• Development of a testing procedure for certification of PTO drag losses:

Proposal from ZF availalble, will be finalised until end of March.

To be discussed whether such a certification approach is reasonable taking into account

the general issue as mentioned above. Incorporation of testing procedure could be post-

poned until complete(d) heavy lorries are covered.




Annex X: „Tyres“ (changes between January and March)

Status quo:

• A second draft has been agreed within the tyre task force group

• Two open issues:

• Desire from experts is to include Wet grip (separate ETRMA proposal)

• For the CoP paragraph, frequency of tests and verification procedure, justification needed (separate ETRMA proposal)

New content:

• Article 13(8) moved to Annex X par. 3.2.(RRC determination procedure)

• Solution for inclusion of tyres outside classes C1-C2-C3 have been added by assigning a worst-case default RRC

• Fuel efficiency class of the tyre is reported per axle (not as vehicle average), and definition is harmonized with Annex IV (customer inf. file)

• Recommendation on tyre inflation pressure for air drag test (Annex VIII)

• Verification procedure has been improved on the use of the alignment equation to avoid cherry picking.




Annex X: „Tyres“ (Recommendation to Annex VIII on air drag)

Paragraph 3.3.1.2. point iii specifies that “Tyres inflated to the highest allowable pressure of the tyre manufacturer within a tolerance of ± 0.2 bar”. The tyre industry members are concerned since they

a) are uncomfortable having tyres inflated beyond the highest allowable pressure, and

b) indicated there is no appropriate reference to specify maximum pressure.

The group therefore would propose the following text:

iii. Tyres inflated within a tolerance of ± 20 kPa, according to the following tyre classes:

- C1 tyres inflated to the maximum cold pressure recommended by ETRTO of 320kPa for standard load tyres with Speed Symbol below or equal to T, and of 350 kPa for other tyres

- C2 and C3 tyres inflated to the test pressure marked on the tyre sidewall according to article 3 of UN R54”

- For tyres in the scope of UN R106 tyres inflated to the test pressure marked on the tyre sidewall according to article 3 of UN R106

For tyres in the scope of UN R75 consult the tyre manufacturer



2) Implementation of Commission

Regulation (EU) 2017/2400



Established process to handle “notifications

according to Article 10(2)”

Legislative Text:

„If the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of new vehicles cannot be determined

in accordance with Article 9(1) due to a malfunction of the simulation tool, the

vehicle manufacturer shall notify the Commission thereof without delay by means

of the dedicated electronic distribution platform.“

For this notification a distinct process was established on the

dedicated distribution platform CITnet/JIRA





Document with process description to be distributed by JRC





Important ticket information

5. The XML needs to be shared with the VECTO developers. Options:(1) Use JIRA private page (not configured yet, confirmation required for access by VECTO support) (2) Per email to [email protected] and [email protected] (preliminary until (1) is established)

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





“Need Info”

Keeping track of workflow in JIRA

“Approved” “In Deployment”

“Rejected” “Resolved”

“Open”

Ticket status as

displayed in JIRA



Planning of updates of VECTO tools related to

additional tyre dimensions

When What

30th of April

2019

Deadline for input related

to additional tyre

dimensions (see table to

the right)

31st of May

2019

Release of “release

candidate” tools (VECTO

sim, hashing tool).

Hashing tool can be used

for certification

immediately

1st of July

2019

Official release of VECTO

simulation tool

Quantity Unit Explanation

Wheel dimension

codetext

code to be applied by VECTO for

identification e.g. "315/70 R22.5"

Cross-sectional

width[mm]

Tyre aspect ratio [%]

Rim diameter [inch]

Tyre design

overall diameter[mm]

Inertia [kgm²]Optional figure1)

Inertia of total wheel (tyre and rim)

F factor [-]

Optional figure2)

Ratio between rolling circumference

and tyre design overall diameter

1) If no figure is provided, please provide typical mass for

tyre and rim.

2) If no input is provided, generic formulas will be used to

determine the parameter in the simulation tool



3) AOB

Information on VECTO hybrids project



Information on project “VECTO Hybrids”

Project launched by DG CLIMA in 11/2018

Contractor: TU Graz (subcontractors TNO Automotive, TNM)

Tasks Description Schedule

1) Extension of VECTO +

2) Testing, software

verification and

documentation

with regards to hybrid

technologies

Fully functional software covering relevant

electric hybrids architectures (parallel, serial

and power-split)

• Component models and options to

generate input data (incl. testing)

• Generic HEV control strategies

• Adaption of “Advanced Auxiliary Model”

Shall cover HEVs, P-HEVs and BEVs

Release end of 2019 for

testing and validation by

industry

Release of fully functional

and validated version in late

2020 (month 22 of contract)



Information on project “VECTO Hybrids”

Project launched by DG CLIMA in 11/2018

Contractors: TU Graz, TNO Automotive

Tasks Description Schedule

3) Analyse feasible options

to consider OEM specific

control strategies in a

future HDV CO2

certification

Analyse boundary conditions e.g.

• requirements arising from SIL/HIL

• Operational issues, e.g. calculation time

• Validation of black box systems e.g in the

VTP

• Software demands (e.g. forward architecture)

Demonstrator forward architecture to be

delievered as part of the contract

to be finished until early

2021

4) Technical support for

the VECTO tool

Continuation of the well established work-flow for

2nd level support, VECTO maintenance and bug

fixing

36 months starting in

April 2019

Documents

15th HDV CO2 EDITING BOARD MEETING CO2/Library/2019.03... · lorries and with generic mass as input for the CO2 calculation tool Examples for “Standard values”: • Provisions