EURO 5 EFFECT STUDY FOR
L-CATEGORY VEHICLES
22.9.2016 MCWG meeting
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
PROJECT OUTLINE
Tender ID:
Title: Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles
Tender No: 465/PP/GRO/IMA/15/11825
Contract No: SI2.713570
Client: European Commission - DG-GROWTH
Consortium performing the work:
TNO - The Netherlands
EMISIA - Greece
Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics (LAT ) - Greece
Heinz Steven Data Analysis and Consultancy (HSDAC) - Germany
2 Project introduction
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
MAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE STUDY
Perform an experimental assessment and verification programme to
underpin the measures within the Euro 5 stage.
Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of possible post Euro 5 elements:
in-service conformity testing requirements
off-cycle emission requirements
Expand PM limit scope and introduction of a PN emission limit for
certain (sub-)categories of L-category vehicles.
Based on the results, the Commission will consider introducing these new
elements into future type-approval legislation (beyond Euro 5).
A cost-benefit analysis is currently on going in these issues
This presentation contains the preliminary results for the measures within
the Euro 5 stage
3 Project introduction
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
PROGRAMME TASKS AND TIMING
4
TASKS responsible nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1.1 Type I test: WMTC EMISIA
1.2 Type II test: (increased) idle and free acceleration EMISIA
1.3 Type III test: Emissions of crankcase gases TNO
1.4 Type IV test: Evaporative emissions test EMISIA
1.5 Type V – Durability of pollution control devices TNO
1.6 Type VII – Energy efficiency tests TNO
1.7 Type VIII OBD EMISIA
2.1 Off-cycle emissions testing TNO
2.2 In-service conformity verification testing TNO
2.3 assessment of PM limit and introduction of a PN limit EMISIA
3 Validation programme and final report EMISIA
MILESTONES responsible nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Final report phase 1 JRC
End of Task 1 and 2 Consortium
draft Final report task 1 and 2 Consortium
Final report phase 1 - 3 Consortium
Presentation of the final report in Parliament Consortium
Final presentation UN L-EPPR Consortium
Final presentation MCWG Consortium
Contract end
MEETINGS nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec jan feb mrt apr mei jun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
MCWG meetings M M M M M
UN L-EPPR M M M M M
Workshop Parliament M
Monthly review with Commission C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
M = live meeting
C = conference call
2015 2016 2017
2015 2016 2017
2015 2016 2017
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)
METHOD STATUS UPDATE
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW OF CBA
Fleet data
(new registrations and total stock based on national data)
Activity data
(annual mileage driven and total vehicle-kilometers based on national data)
Implementation date for Euro 5 & emission factors
Emission modelling using SIBYL fleet dynamics
(calculation of emission savings of Euro 5 over Euro 4)
Cost-effectiveness analysis
(cost per unit of mass of pollutants saved)
Cost-benefit analysis
(Euro 5 limits, durability, OBD, evaporation, ...)
COPERT Baseline emission Factors
Check and adjust with latest measurements at JRC, LAT, TNO
Assess future factors based on emission limits and technology
development projections
Technology assessment
Investment, H/W, TA, etc. costs
6 Cost Benefit Approach
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
3 SCENARIOS FOR THE FLEET/ACTIVITY DATA
Baseline
Business as usual
after an initial sales
rebound
High growth
Increased number of
registrations reflecting
a vibrant economy
Low growth(1)
Decreased number of
registrations reflecting
GDP presures
vkm x 109 vkm x 10
9 vkm x 10
9
Motorcycles: their contribution to activity dominates in all 3 scenarios (mainly due to shrinkage
of mopeds sector and higher mileage/annual distance driven)
Mopeds: their contribution to activity presents a decrease from 2010 to 2040 practically in all
scenarios
Mini-cars and ATVs: Small overall contribution to total activity but effects on local air quality
(1) This does not reflect market
elasticity to vehicle prices
7 Cost Benefit Approach
Discussed in this presentation
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
8
EMISSION FACTORS (EFS)
A set of base emission factors (EFs) has been used to produce results on
emission savings from the introduction of Euro 5. Sources utilized for legacy
EFs:
Previous (2009) environmental effect study(1)
COPERT(2)
TNO report on moped emission factors(3)
New experimental JRC and LAT data
In general, reliable EFs up to Euro 3 are already available from COPERT and
previous (2013) environmental effect study (cross-checked with new JRC data)
For Euro 4 and Euro 5, emission standard equivalencies, emission limits, or
justified estimates based on the expected technology are used
Emission factors deteriorate with age of vehicles, e.g. due to an aged catalyst,
resulting in higher emissions after a few years of use
Cost Benefit Approach
(1) Ntziachristos et al. (2009) Study on possible new measures concerning motorcycle emissions, LAT Report 08.RE.0019.V4 (2) Computer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport, www.emisia.com/copert (3) van Zyl, P.S. (2015) Update emission model for two-wheeled mopeds, TNO 2014 R11088
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
EMISSION SAVINGS EXAMPLE
Example of HC
emission savings from
with Euro 5 emission
limits
Baseline fleet
All L-vehicles
~509 kt HC will be saved when Euro 5 is introduced in 2020 for all L-vehicles
emission savings (benefit) to be used in Cost Effectiveness-cost-benefit analysis
~52% emission savings over Euro 4
2020-2040 period: HC savings / Euro 4 vehicle emissions = 509kt / 979kt = 52%
~26% benefit emission savings of the whole L-category fleet emissions 2020-2040 period: HC savings / total L-fleet emissions = 509kt / 1,950kt = 26%
9 Cost Benefit Approach
TYPE I: TAILPIPE EMISSIONS TEST AFTER
COLD START
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE I – TASK DESCRIPTION
Background: A new driving procedure and emission limits are introduced
at Euro 5 step for the Type I test – Tailpipe emissions test after cold start
Specific objective: Check technical feasibility and cost-benefit of revised
testing procedure and associated emission limits
Specific tasks
Assessment of the applicability of WMTC Stage 3 to all L-category
vehicle types
Assessment of the appropriateness of the Euro 5 emission limits
Assessment of the separate NMHC limit
Assessment of the impact of ethanol in the reference fuel on the test
type I results [Pending]
11
Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
WMTC CYCLE IS NOT VIOLATED BY ANY
OF THE VEHICLES MEASURED SO FAR
Legend A: demanded cycle acceleration was not met, this is no violation of the procedure
maxS: demanded cycle speed was higher than the maximum design speed of the vehicle, this is no violation of the procedure
Vehicle Transmission Revised WMTC tests
J05 – L1e-A Fixed A maxS
J06 – L1e-B, low speed Fixed A
J07 – L1e-B, low speed CVT
J10 – L1e-B, low speed CVT
J02 – L1e-B, high speed Manual
J03 – L1e-B, high speed CVT
J04 – L1e-B, high speed CVT
J12 – L1e-B, high speed CVT
J14 – L1e-B, high speed CVT
J17 – L1e-B , high speed CVT
J01 – L6e-BP CVT
J08 – L7e-B1 CVT maxS
J16 – L7e-B1 CVT
J09 – L7e-B2 CVT
J20 – L7e-CP Fixed
L2e-U Manual
Remain to be
measured
L5e-A Semi-automatic
L5e-B Manual
L6e-BU CVT
12 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
GENERALLY THE WMTC COVERS A WIDER
ENGINE OPERATION AREA
Vehicle Transmission Wider engine map area
coverage [WMTC / ECE]
J05 – L1e-A Fixed WMTC
J06 – L1e-B, low speed Fixed Neutral
J07 – L1e-B, low speed CVT Neutral
J10 – L1e-B, low speed CVT Neutral
J02 – L1e-B, high speed Manual WMTC
J03 – L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC
J04 – L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC
J12 – L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC
J14 – L1e-B, high speed CVT WMTC
J17 – L1e-B , high speed CVT WMTC
J01 – L6e-BP CVT WMTC
J08 – L7e-B1 CVT WMTC
J16 – L7e-B1 CVT WMTC
J09 – L7e-B2 CVT WMTC
13 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
TYPE I:
ASSESSMENT OF THE EURO 5 LIMITS
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
EMISSION SAVINGS
EURO 5 INTRODUCED IN 2020
Emission savings for specific pollutant 2020-2040 HC NOx PM CO
Emissions savings (t) 509 336 140 909 6 627 776 285
% benefit over Euro 4 52.0% 34.5% 51.6% 11.9%
% benefit total L-fleet 26.1% 24.9% 24.2% 8.1%
Emission savings split per L-category
Mopeds 39.8% 30.9% 19.4% 29.8%
Motorcycles 59.3% 50.5% 38.5% 69.8%
Mini-cars 0.5% 18.3% 41.7% 0.09%
ATVs 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.40%
Significant emission savings in all major pollutants both in terms of absolute and relative
reductions over projected L-vehicles fleet emissions
Most of the reduction observed owed to motorcycles followed by mopeds
15
Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
16
EURO 5 LIMITS FOR MOPEDS AND MOTORCYCLES
COST-BENEFIT AND CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Costs (not price!) per vehicle (2020-2040 period):
Mopeds: 83-93 €/vehicle
Motorcycles: 39-48 €/vehicle
Costs may be significant but still environmental benefits are larger
The Euro 5 limits are feasible with respect to timing and they are cost beneficial
(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit
over 2020-2040
Mopeds 89 ± 55
Motorcycles 114 ± 83
2020 Low cost estimate scenario (example)
Euro 5 introduction in 2020
Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
EURO 5 LIMITS FOR MINI-CARS AND ATVs
Mini-cars (L6e-L7e-C)
Advanced technology is required for current diesel engines to meet the Euro 5
limits (technology costs may reach 10% of vehicle price)
Pressure from urban air-quality targets and diesel bans in cities
Different powertrains (electric, petrol, hybrid) can offer better candidates in meeting
environmental and performance targets
All terrain vehicles – ATVs (L7e-B)
Expected trend shifting ATVs and Side-by-Side vehicles from L-category to T-
category (non road): Difficult to project future trends
Road vehicles operate mostly in urban conditions, no mileage in highways:
Significant impacts to local air-quality but not possible to quantify in the framework
of the study
17
Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
TYPE I:
ASSESSMENT OF THE SEPARATE NMHC
LIMIT
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
FIXED NMHC LIMIT IMPLEMENTATION
Separate CH4 limit critical for natural gas vehicles
0.032 g/km value originated by mathematical equivalency – not a value
established by testing or a clear environmental target
Alternative combined limit can be proposed to reduce testing and type-approval
costs
Retaining equivalency with Euro 5 limits for non NG vehicles:
OPTION 1: THCTA < 0.068 g/km * (1 + fCH4), assuming CH4 drops with technology
OPTION 2: THCTA< 0.068 g/km + FIXEDCH4, assuming CH4 not further reduced
Based on limited current Euro 4 measured data
OPTION 1: fCH4 = 0.11 → THCTA < 0.075 g/km
OPTION 2: FIXEDCH4 = 0.015 g/km → THCTA < 0.083 g/km
More Euro 4 data required to finalise approach
19 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
FOR MATHEMATICAL APPROACH FOR CH4
Moderate benefits encountered due to zero environmental impact and reduction
of testing and type approval burden when a mathematical approach with a fixed
ratio is applied
The mathematical approach is recommended as an alternative method to
reduce testing and TA costs
The alternative method and final limit to be proposed when testing is concluded
(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit over
2020-2040
Mopeds 0.43 ± 0.05
Motorcycles 1.75 ± 0.18
Other vehicle types 0.50 ± 0.05
20 Type I: WMTC and Emission Limits
TYPE III:
CRANKCASE EMISSIONS
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE III – CRANKCASE GASES
TASK DESCRIPTION
Background: Assessment of a test procedure to verify that engines are so
constructed as to prevent any fuel, lubrication oil or crankcase gases from directly
escaping, without being combusted, to the atmosphere from the crankcase gas
ventilation system.
Specific objective: Verify the two alternative test procedures set out in Annex IV
to Regulation (EU) No 134/2014.
Specific tasks: Carry out the Type III test on the test vehicles, identify and report
any potential issue in the application of the two applicable test procedure
described in Regulation (EU) No 134/2014, make recommendations to improve
the test procedures if necessary.
22 Type III: Crankcase emissions
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
CRANKCASE EMISSION
TEST METHODS BACKGROUND
Basic method:
Measure pcrankcase over load-points on chassis
dyno. pcrankcase should be < pambient
Additional test method No 1:
Connect plastic bag to the dipstick hole. The test
is passed if no visible bag inflation occurs over
conditions on chassis dyno of basic method
Alternative additional test method No 2:
Leak check of the engine with compressed air.
Test is passed if crankcase pressure remains at
> 95% of the initial pressure after 5 minutes.
Basic test
P_crankcase
<
P_ambient
Flowchart Type III
accepted yes
No1:
Visible
inflation of
the bag
No2:
Pressure
>95% after
5 minutes
Perform ‘additional test No 1’
or
‘alternative additional test No 2’
no
accepted no
accepted yes
fail
fail
yes
no
23 Type III: Crankcase emissions
or
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
Actual situation:
Basic method is always performed during TA testing, most of the times this is not passed.
When basic test is not passed during TA testing, most of the times additional test method
2 is chosen as alternative test.
Assessment of basic and additional test method No1:
Basic test and additional test method No1 both check if the crankcase ventilation system
works properly, but do not check if the crankcase is gas leak-tight.
Pulsations due to small crankcase volume are probably the root cause of failure for basic
method, this is an issue specifically for typical L-category vehicle engines.
The 5 litre sample bag used in the additional test method No1 is identical to demands for
passenger cars, which is too large for most of the L-cat vehicles, especially for mopeds
and light motorcycles.
Assessment alternative additional test method No2:
Checks if crankcase is gas leak-tight but it does not check if the crankcase ventilation
system works properly;
The crankcase pressure which occurs at full load is not simulated (if higher than 5 kPa).
CRANKCASE EMISSIONS TESTING
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
24 Type III: Crankcase emissions
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
Prevention of crankcase emissions is not guaranteed by the actual testing procedure
Basic test and additional test no 1 can be passed when the engine is not gas leak-tight
The alternative additional test no 2 can be passed while the crankcase ventilation
system is not working
The basic test and additional test no 1 are good methods to assess if the crankcase
ventilation system works properly
Minor revisions in the procedure are possible and will make the basic test and additional test
no 1 better applicable to L-category vehicles.
A provision to allow pulsations in the basic test
Limit the size of the bag and relate the size to engine volume in additional test no 1
Alternative additional test no 2 is a good method to assess if the engine is gas leak-tight.
An engineering assessment of the crankcase ventilation system by the TAA or TS shall
always remain part of the procedure.
CRANKCASE EMISSIONS TESTING
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
25 Type III: Crankcase emissions
TYPE IV:
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE IV – TASK DESCRIPTION
Background: Fuel evaporation is a significant source of NMHC emissions and need to be
reduced. Addition of EtOH in fuel may further aggravate the problem.
Specific objectives: Examine the need to introduce SHED testing for special vehicle
types and assess the impact of EtOH on fuel evaporation control
Specific tasks:
1. Assessment of evaporative emission test procedure set our in Annex V to
Regulation (EU) No 134/2014, in particular the permeation and SHED test
procedures
2. Investigation of the cost effectiveness of a 25% lower Euro 5 evaporative
emission limit compared to the Euro 4 limit for vehicles subject to the SHED test
3. Investigation of the impact of fuel quality on he evolution of fuel permeation rate
over time as well as the ageing effects of the carbon canister
27 Type IV: Evaporation emissions
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5
INTRODUCE FUEL SYSTEM PERMEATION TEST FOR L1E, L2E, L5E-B, L6E, L7E-B, L7E-C
Current Assessment:
Introduction of a permeation test has clear benefits
The benefit of permeation test is highest for mopeds because of the significant NMHC
savings offered by low-permeability fuel tanks and their relatively low cost
For L5e-B Tricycles, mini-cars and ATVs the benefits are lower because of the much
smaller population of these vehicle types
(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit over
2020-2040
Mopeds 37.5 ± 2.5
Tricycles (L5e-B) 3.0 ± 0.1
Other types (L6e-L7e) 7.5 ± 0.5
High benefit scenario
Type IV: Evaporation emissions 28
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
Discussion
The NMHC savings of the SHED test are lower than the permeation test for all
categories because there is no need to equip vehicles with low-permeability fuel tanks
to pass the SHED test
The costs are higher than for the permeation test mainly because of the R&D costs to
develop the vapour control system (carbon canister, purging strategy, etc.)
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5
INTRODUCE SHED TESTING FOR L1E, L2E, L5E-B, L6E, L7E-B, L7E-C
High benefit scenario
Type IV: Evaporation emissions 29
(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit over 2020-
2040
Mopeds -1.5 ± 0.5
Tricycles (L5e-B) -0.5 ± 0.5
Other types (L6e-L7e) -30.5 ± 4.5
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
Discussion
The NMHC savings of lowering the SHED test limit by 0.5 g/test are marginal because
most of the emissions in real-world occur during longer parking events (above 24
hours) which are not captured by the current SHED test procedure
Considering the additional costs for re-designing and calibrating the vapour control
system there are no additional net benefits estimated
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS CBA EURO 5
LIMIT OF 1.0 G/TEST FOR L3E, L4E, L5E-A AND L7E-A
Type IV: Evaporation emissions 30
(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit over 2020-
2040
Motorcycles and tricycles
(L3e, L4e, L5e-A) -31 ± 0.7
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
EVAPORATION EMISSIONS
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Introduction of fuel system permeation testing for L1e, L2e, L5e-B,
L6e, L7e-B and L7e-C is a measure technically feasible.
Environmental benefits by far exceed technology costs.
Introduction of SHED testing for L1e, L2e, L5e-B, L6e, L7e-B and
L7e-C vehicles is not environmentally interesting as this mostly
addresses breathing emissions while most evaporation emissions
from these vehicles come from permeation losses
Reducing the Euro 5 limit to 1 g/test for L3e, L4e, L5e-A and L7e-A
makes little environmental difference as evaporation emissions of
these vehicles mostly occur during longer parking events, which an
1-h long test does not address
31 Type IV: Evaporation emissions
TYPE V:
DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE V – DURABILITY OF POLLUTION
CONTROL DEVICES
Background: A physical method for ageing of emission control devices is
proposed, together with a new mileage accumulation procedure.
Specific objectives: Validate the new mileage accumulation cycle, the assigned
deterioration factors and the useful life values
Specific tasks:
1. Supplemental validation of SRC-LeCV, appropriateness of useful life distances
and by when the AMA shall be phased out.
2. Assess the appropriateness of the useful life values defined in the Annex VII(A)
of Regulation 168/2013 as well as of the deterioration factors to be used in the
mathematical durability procedure.
33 Type V: Durability
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
THERMAL LOAD ASSESSMENT AS A BASIS
FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE CYCLES
34 Type V: Durability
Pre-catalyst temperatures are
measured during different
cycles with each vehicle
A vehicle specific thermal
model (based on the test data
and vehicle specifications)
predicts the exhaust gas
temperature behavior for
cycles that were not tested
The thermal load of the cycles
is calculated by applying the
Arrhenius principle
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE V: DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS
OBSERVATIONS IN THERMAL LOAD ASSESSMENT
Differences between AMA and SRC-LeCV thermal load are mostly vehicle
specific and highly depending on the vehicle classification;
The AMA is in general as severe or less severe than the SRC-LeCV in terms
of thermal load;
The AMA thermal load is lower than the WMTC thermal load for vehicles
which have a maximum speed higher than 130 km/h;
The SRC-LeCV thermal load is especially more severe than the AMA and
WMTC for vehicles with a maximum vehicle speed between 100 and 130
km/h;
35 Type V: Durability
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
3 SCENARIOS FOR THE DEGRADATION OF EFs
Example for
motorcycles A1
Sc. 1 Application of DF: Scenario representing current situation
Mathematical method with potential loophole: very quick deterioration of catalyst (i.e. in ~2,000km for motorcycles) →
resulting in higher EF values in useful life (~35,000km)
Sc. 2 Physical degradation: Method in which catalyst is being aged with actual mileage accumulation
(i.e. physical degradation). Aged catalyst does not exceed the DF*EF5 value in useful life (UL)
Sc. 3 “Stringent” physical degradation: Scenario (method) similar to Sc.2, but with increased
“stringency”, i.e., “stronger” thermal load for the catalyst. This requires that the EF should start from a
lower value in order not to exceed the DF*EF5 value at UL 36
Type V: Durability
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OF
PERFORMING PHYSICAL DEGRADATION
17-19% additional emission reductions by performing physical degradation of the
catalyst, instead of using the DF method
(Values in Μ€)
Cost-benefit
over 2020-2040
Mopeds -2.0 ± 2.0
Motorcycles 7.5 ± 12
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE V: DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Physical ageing of the catalysts appears as an effective method in achieving
durability of emission control systems, compared to the use of DFs
Differences between AMA and SRC-LeCV thermal load are mostly vehicle
specific and highly depending on the vehicle classification;
AMA is not less stringent by definition than SRC-LeCV (in terms of thermal
load and ageing effects)
Vehicles at the border of the vehicles SRC-LeCV subclasses need further
investigation with respect to their classification;
Alternative procedures to reduce the testing burden for small manufacturers /
low sales number vehicles need further investigation, for example bench
ageing.
38
Type V: Durability
TYPE VII:
ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE VII – TASK DESCRIPTION
Background: “The measurement of CO2 emissions, fuel/energy consumption
of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles has been required since many
years and the related procedure is defined in UN Regulation No 101. This
procedure is now extended to L-category vehicles which however may have
specific features requiring some fine-tuning of the above mentioned
procedure.”
Specific objective: “Verify and if necessary improve the test procedure to
measure energy efficiency from L-category vehicles.
Specific tasks: “ On the basis of the results of the tests on hybrid and electric
vehicles, the contractor shall assess and verify the appropriateness of the test
procedure for the measurement of energy efficiency (CO2 emissions, fuel/
energy consumption and range).”
40 Type VII: Energy efficiency
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE VII: ENERGY EFFICIENCY TEST
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
The sub-classification in some occasions leads to scientifically unexpected classification for
electric and hybrid vehicles in comparison to a vehicle with a conventional powertrain and
comparable performance.
For example an electric vehicle with a maximum speed lower than 100 km/h is put into
class 1. This means the electric vehicle drives the relatively mild WMTC class 1 while a
comparable vehicle with a conventional powertrain would fall in a higher class and would
drive a more demanding WMTC cycle.
Therefor we recommend to introduce an engine power criterion in the (WMTC) sub-
classification criteria to better reflect the electric and hybrid electric powertrain
The R101 testing for hybrid and plug-in hybrid is typically longer and more complex than
that for conventional technology. As a result of the complexity of testing, the robustness of
the procedure is reduced.
41
Type VII: Energy efficiency
TYPE VIII:
FUNCTIONAL OBD REQUIREMENTS
AND TYPE VIII TEST
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
TYPE VIII – TASK DESCRIPTION
Background: Environmental Study should report on all new types of vehicles in
(sub-) categories L3e, L5e, L6e-A and L7e-A that shall, in addition to OBD stage I,
also be equipped with OBD stage II at the Euro 5 level;
Specific objectives: Assessment of the technical feasibility, benefits and costs
from extending OBD-I (Euro 4) to OBD-II (Euro 5) for L3e-, L5e-A, L6e-A and L7e-
A vehicles.
Specific tasks:
1. On-board diagnostic requirements — expansion functionality OBD stage I to
OBD stage II — relevance for effective and efficient vehicle repair
2. Type VIII test - assessment of the OBD emission thresholds (OTLs) set out in
the table laid down in Annex VI(B2) to Regulation (EU) No 168/2013
3. On-board diagnostic requirements — assessment of the cumulative cost
effectiveness of previous tasks and technical feasibility of supplemental OBD
stage II 43
Type VIII: OBD
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
MISFIRING MONITORING FEASIBILITY
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Misfiring monitoring is a significant contributor to the longevity of emission control
system and engine trouble diagnosis
Differences between passenger cars and motorcycles introduce technical challenges:
Extensive high engine speed (>5000 rpm) zone, most probably requires the
adoption of an overall new misfiring detection technique to become possible
Resonance and vibration, e.g. from chain driveline or the road, can be potentially
correctible with enhanced filter algorithms
Instabilities at low speed due to low inertia, may require fuel and intake air flowrate
improvements and enhanced filter algorithms
Feasibility of misfiring monitoring over a more narrow engine speed zone (avoiding
very high engine speeds) is still under further investigation.
44 Type VIII: OBD
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
CATALYST MONITORING FEASIBILITY
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
The study team has taken stock of technical issues raised by manufacturers(1)
Catalyst monitoring issues are model-design specific
Catalyst-in-muffler configurations prone to backflow, expansion errors. Positioning,
protection and cabling of downstream oxygen sensor additional complications
For other concepts, e.g. underfloor or closed-coupled catalysts, only positioning and
cable protection are relevant but less of a technical problem
In general, exhaust lines of most L-vehs much more exposed than cars and part of the
vehicle’s character. Interventions in the exhaust not as straightforward as in cars
It is understood that in cases, catalyst monitoring may require redesign of engine
component orientation, exhaust line and catalyst(s) positioning
Lower emission limits may also require positioning of the catalyst closer to the engine
For some vehicles the catalyst monitoring implementation is already technically feasible
today. For some other vehicles this requires further development.
45 Type VIII: OBD
(1)Summarised in 04. ACEM presentation: ACEM proposals for Euro 5 implementation of MCWG 22.09.2016
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
SPECIFICALLY BUILT OBD OTL
ASSESSMENT MODEL
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mileage [*1000 km]
Em
issio
ns [g
/km
]
Malf. 3
Malf. 1
Malf. 4
Malf. 2
Emissions
Malfunction indication =0 if no malfunction =x if malfunction x is active
Detected due to threshold exceedance and repaired
Undetected malfunction
Malfunction 2 has no effect on emissions since it leads to a maximum level of 6 g/km < of current level of emissions
OBD threshold limit
46 Type VIII: OBD
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
MEASUREMENTS ON IMPACTS OF
MALFUNCTIONS (SINGLE VEHICLE)
Test Vehicle configuration
Baseline (orig.) Original Euro 4 catalyst
Cat. aged – 0 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - as received
Cat. aged – 1 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 1
Cat. aged – 2 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 2
Cat. aged - 3 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 3
Cat. aged - 4 Extra Euro 4 catalyst - aged to level 4
No Cat. No catalyst
Failed O2 – OEM Failed O2 sensor as supplied by OEM (durability part)
Failed O2 - LAT Failed O2 sensor as poisoned by LAT
Failed O2 - Cut cables Failed O2 sensor cut cables by LAT
Failed Injector - OEM Failed injector as supplied by OEM (durability part)
Failed Injector - LAT Failed injector as clogged by LAT
47 Type VIII: OBD
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
UPCOMING OBD TESTING @ JRC
Test fleet:
Test protocol:
Category Plan for lab testing
L3e • Small scooter
• Medium scooter
• Street bike
Catalyst
state
New (test finished in Task 1.1)
• precond. WMTC hot
• WMTC cold
• IUC hot
• WMTC hot
Aged
No Catalyst
O2
sensor
state
New (test finished in Task 1.1)
Failed – poisoned
Failed – cut cables
48 Type VIII: OBD
Specific Contract No. SI2.713570
“Euro 5 Effect study for L-category vehicles”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study team wishes to acknowledge the JRC team for the excellent
collaboration in organizing and executing the testing campaign
All manufacturers that provided vehicles, components and support for testing
49
Top Related