Tony Greszler, Volvo

Global Harmoniza-on of GHG Regula-on October 22, 2013 GHG Workshop Anthony Greszler Volvo Group Truck Technology Volvo Group Truck Technology
October 22, 2013
Why Harmonize? •  GHG emissions anywhere has the same global impact. •  Technology differen-a-on should be driven by market requirements, not regulatory divergence. –  Limited resources for development should be applied as broadly as possible. –  Increasing sales volume of efficiency technology will lower the cost and increase u-liza-on. –  Global market for technology increases compe--on, innova-on, and reduces cost. –  Minimize cost of tes-ng and compliance verifica-on. •  HD GHG regula-ons are complex and regulators also have limited resources. –  Adop-ng harmonized processes can draw on collec-ve resources to improve simula-ons, tes-ng, and overall process. –  Broaden the scope of technologies that can be included. ACEA Workgroup CO2-­‐HDV General overview of exis/ng CO2 cer/fica/on procedures HDV CO2 values by
chassis dyno tests
CO2 values by simulation
(tested input data)
CO2 values by
engine bench tests
Fuel consump-on on engine based cycle Drive train Only engine based Full Vehicle engine cer-fica-on (test bench) and vehicle cer-fica-on (simula-on) separately with generic engine fuel map Chassis dyno test for base type vehicle, simula-on-­‐based approach for variants. Simula-on-­‐based approach with OEM specific cer-fied input data Only US uses engine cert : certification in definition
: certification defined
Existing CO2 certification procedures are very different, but all use
simulation to be able to handle vehicle3 configuration and operation variation.
ACEA CO2-­‐HDV Task Force 1 Premises to select approach for a CO2 cer/fica/on HDV 1.  CO2/FE values have to be “realistic” for all vehicle variants and CO2 reduction
in real world must be determined with sufficient accuracy.
ð Avoid engineering for certification rather than customer application
ð “Realistic” means a representative value for the specific vehicle applications
ð Relative accuracy is more important than absolute accuracy
ð Guide customers in purchase decisions
2.  Should cover as many CO2 reduction technologies as possible, but
measurement procedure needs to be repeatable, robust and practicable
ð A reasonable combination of simulations and tests is needed
3.  Effort/resources for CO2- determination must be reasonable for OEM’s
ð Need to provide a CO2 value for each vehicle variant in an appropriate duty cycle
ð Only by simulation can the number of vehicle variants and operations be managed
ð A balance between number of vehicle variants considered and effort is crucial
4. Should incentivize the most cost-effective efficiency technologies to promote
customer acceptance
Only a simula/on based full vehicle approach is able to fulfill the premises. 4
ACEA CO2-­‐HDV Task Force 1 Adapted from ACEA Workgroup CO2-­‐HDV Process to develop a harmonized approach Agree on major premises
There are 2 premises which are fundamental to developing a new regulation:
1. Full vehicle approach versus engine separately
2. Simulation based approach versus chassis dyno
+
Take existing concepts/methods
Fuel map test procedure
191 192
1800
187.95
9
18
1400
1200
800
210
400
200
0
400
20
2 5
2 1 10
5
194
195
198197
199
200
205
1000
600
3
19
6
19
Moment [Nm]
1600
210
0
20
1989
19
6
197 19
195 192
191
1 90
2000
4
19
2200
194
2400
230
235
220
215 225
210
200199198 205
197
195
193
190
Tire labeling system
Segmentation concept
Cycle definition concept
21
5
250
260
280
300
800
235
225
220
Air drag test procedures
0
23
2450
24
Bin concept
Simulation tools/models
350
320
360 400340
450
1200
1600
Drehzahl [1/ min]
20002200
+
Define needed method enhancements (examples)
Include vehicle drag
More cycles needed
Include drivetrain impact
More accurate/comparable air drag test procedure
Goal: global harmonized CO2 regulation5 concept with appropriate region specifics
ACEA CO2-­‐HDV Task Force 1 ACEA Workgroup CO2-­‐HDV Parts within a HDV CO2 cer-fica-on procedure 0 General approach 1 Simulation tool
2 Vehicle segmentation
3 Body and trailer
Each topic requires careful evalua/on and inputs. But we must first agree on the fundamental process. 4 Cycles
5 Fuel map
6 Total vehicle drag
7 Auxiliaries
8 Controls
9 Weight definition
10 Metrics
11 Hybrids
6
ACEA CO2-­‐HDV Task Force 1 Volvo Harmoniza-on View •  Globally Harmonize Vehicle simula-on model Input formats (duty cycle, components) Component characteriza-on (e.g.. engine map, accessories, -res) Complete vehicle only. No component requirements. Metrics ECO feature process Valida-on tes-ng Default value process Concern: •  Do not Harmonize EPA typically requires much more –  Stringency (target values) documenta-on and verifica-on of –  Duty cycle (speeds, loads, grades) cer-fica-on inputs. Need to balance –  Labeling of FE & GHG accuracy with regulatory burden. –  Default values •  To be Determined – 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
Vehicle categories Driver model Voca-onal Vehicle approach Aero measurement and simula-on Trailer configura-ons Mul-ple applica-on profiles for a single vehicle is ok for FE declara-on but problema-c for regula-on. Vehicle Model Approach •  Complete vehicle model must include –  Major vehicle characteris-cs • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Aerodynamics Rolling resistance Appropriate accessory loads Idle control technology Speed control –  Major drivetrain components • 
• 
• 
• 
Engine efficiency map Transmission gearing, efficiency, shif control (or controller in loop) Axle ra-o, driven/non-­‐driven axles, efficiency Energy recovery u-liza-on •  Op-onal at discre-on of regulators and/or manufacturers (could be in base model or handled under innova-ve technology approach) –  Accessory controls –  Driver management –  Innova-ve technology COMPUTER SIMULATION 1 2000
1400
1200
400
200
Target speed vs. distance Slopes vs. distance 200
2 10
600
3
19
1 94
195
198197
199
205
1000
800
0
400
Cycles for each vehicle class 187.95
9
18
6
19
Moment [Nm]
1600
210
20
2 5
2 1 10
5
Mandatory data for GHG/FE simula.on implemented in simula.on tool 191 192
1800
2 0909
11968
1 97 19
195 192
4
191
19
1 90
2200
194
2400
230
235
220
215 225
210
200199198 205
197
195
193
190
Major elements of a “Simula/on based approach“ 21
5
250
260
280
300
800
235
225
2 20
0
23
40
2245
350
320
360 400340
450
1200
1600
Drehzahl [1/ min]
20002200
Cer/fied engine fuel map Cer/fied air drag, driveline drag, rolling resistance auxiliary drag Cer$fied input data from OEMs Addi/onal OEM specific data: Transmission and axle ra/os /re sizes, … Trailer/body specifica/on Specifica/on of one standard trailer and/or body for each vehicle class Vehicle class & weight defini/on Vehicle class specific weight defini/on for simula/on/test Metrics g/t-­‐km or mile g/m³-­‐km or mile g/passenger-­‐km or mile Simula/on tool (provided by legisla-ve bodies) Concept to cover vehicle control strategies 1. Generic models/algorithms ðe.g. driver model for manual transmissions 2. Generic technology-­‐specific models/algorithms ðe.g. models for standard accessories 3. Generic models/algorithms + OEM-­‐specific parameter ð e.g. speed control ð OEM’s parameter need to be verifiable Result from simula.on ðCO2/FC values ð Average speed 9 Vehicle Simula-on Model •  One vehicle simula-on model should be suitable to work everywhere. –  Minimize the cost of model development and maintenance. –  Provide clarity and consistency to vehicle developers. –  Inputs can vary by locality, vehicle type, and applica-on •  Concern over regulatory control requirements –  Need to freeze model under each regulatory jurisdic-on –  Establish global process for maintenance and updates with implementa-on flexibility –  Allow for flexibility on which inputs are required or op-onal Duty Cycle & Component Inputs –  Duty Cycles •  Include load, grade, speed •  Distance based with step changes in speed profile 100
90
Geschwindigkeit
[km/h]
speed (km/h) •  To facilitate a common model, inputs need common formats, even if inputs are locally unique 80
70
60
50
40
30
Resul-ng speed profile dending on vehicle performance/driver model 20
10
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Strecke
Distance [km]
(km) 3
3.5
–  Components (engine, transmission, axles, accessories, etc) 4
•  Common input allows for the same test results to be applied everywhere •  Tires: adopt global test procedure o  Provide mechanisms for supplier indemnifica-on (e.g. EPA -re rolling resistance) ROLLING RESISTANCE 12 Tire rolling resistance A harmonised method of measuring -re rolling resistance based on ISO 28580 should be established. The values from the -re labelling system for rolling resistances should be taken to determine the rolling resistance of the vehicle/vehicle combina-on. Tire labelling system Rolling resistance Wet grip
index
External
noise of
the tire
Specific measured rolling resistance values are used (e.g. 4.55 kg/t, not the BIN data (4.1 ≤ RRC ≤ 5.0) The -re labelling data are used as input data to determine rolling resistance of the vehicle / vehicle combina-on. 12 Aero Measurement and Simula-on •  Harmonized aero approach between US and EU is less important since tractors are unique. –  Common test procedure • 
• 
• 
• 
Coast-­‐down, constant speed, wind tunnel? Yaw correc-ons Measurements Test facility requirements –  Common accepted input methods for varia-ons •  CFD, scale tests, interpola-ons •  Binning method –  Common procedure to correct between cer-fied test and individual vehicle inputs Typical Drag Variation with Yaw
Angle
Ø Significantly higher yaw impact on commercial trucks
1.6
Typical Range of Weather and Traffic
Induced Yaw Values
1.4
Heavy Truck
Light & Medium Truck
Van & SUV
Passenger Car
CD
CD (Yaw = 0°)
1.2
Sources:
NASA
NRC
UMD
UT
SAE
AIAA
1.0
0
10
Yaw Angle, deg
20
Trailer Integra-on •  Tractors must be designed for aerodynamic match to trailers. •  Tractor aero features do not all work well with both aero and non-­‐aero trailers. •  It is essen/al that tractor designs are forward looking, not backward. •  Regulators should specify the best current or even future trailers for evalua/ng combina/on drag. Fuel Mapping Proposal for Modern Engines with Complex Control Strategies Complex modern controls do not limit the u/lity of engine mapping for vehicle simula/on. • All truck OEM’s use vehicle simula/ons to target engine calibra/on and to predict fuel consump/on in customer applica/ons •  Very accurate for comparing incremental differences in fuel economy from engine and vehicle improvements. • Correc/on factors based on typical on-­‐road engine duty cycles can be applied to Steady state maps to account for transient behavior. • A panel of experts has been chartered by ACEA, JAMA, and EMA to propose best engine mapping methods. Proposed Phase II Engine Mapping Approach •  Historically, manufacturers have used steady state fuel maps to characterize fuel rate during vehicle cycle simula/ons to predict customer real world fuel economy. •  A Phase 2 simula/on methodology • Use actual fuel maps (not one map for all manufacturers and all applica/ons) • Cri/cal step towards achieving realis/c simula/on results. • Results in more representa/ve characteriza/on of CO2 emissions over vehicle drive cycles vs. using cer/fica/on cycles which are designed to restrict criteria emissions over the en/re range of engine opera/on. 18 05/21/2013 FUEL MAP 9 Correc-on factor process for fuel map A steady-­‐state fuel map does not consider transient engine behavior and the consistency between WHTC-­‐ test and a steady-­‐state-­‐fuel-­‐map-­‐test has to be secured. A correc-on factor process is therefore proposed. Full harmonisation of
test method
Illustra/on of correc/on factor process Corrected steady-­‐state fuel map Measured steady-­‐
state fuel map Torque x rpm (compare fuel consump/on of WHTC test with calculated fuel consump/on based on WHTC measured WHTC load/speed spectra and steady-­‐state fuel map) = Torque Correc/on factor or factors for transient effects. FC simula-on results to be mul-plied with correc-on factor rpm FC simula-on with a corrected steady-­‐state fuel map gives good correla-on with reality and consistency to NOx/PM cer-fica-on. Verifica/on of Mapping Accuracy from EU Study EU Vehicle Segmenta/on and Duty Cycle Proposal Need to add trailer configura/ons and targets for tractors. Adds complexity. Current US regulatory vehicle segments may be adequate. GHG/FE Regula-on Metrics •  Measurement must account for vehicle freight capacity (or people for buses and coaches). •  Ton-­‐miles is the current GHG/FE metric –  Tons are fixed for a vehicle segment –  No allowance is made for extra tons by reducing vehicle weight (but only 20-­‐30% of loads are grossed out) •  Volume (cube-­‐miles)is applicable to the majority of long-­‐haul van applica-ons –  Since volume is in the trailer, a volume based metric might make sense for trailers •  Metric changes should be considered as new regula-on evolves. ECO Feature Evalua-on •  Any technology not included in base model should qualify. –  Even if well-­‐established, credit should be given for applica-on to any specific truck. •  Evalua-on process should be harmonized –  Avoid mul-ple tes-ng unless warranted by duty-­‐cycle differences –  Maximize the global applica-ons –  Use standardized tests methods (SAE type tests) when applicable. Volvo Harmoniza-on Summary •  Globally Harmonize – 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
Vehicle simula-on model Input formats (duty cycle, components) Component characteriza-on (e.g.. engine map, accessories, -res) Complete vehicle only. No component requirements. Metrics ECO feature process Valida-on tes-ng Default value process •  Do not Harmonize – 
– 
– 
– 
Stringency (target values) Duty cycle (speeds, loads, grades) Labeling of FE & GHG Default values •  To be Determined – 
– 
– 
– 
– 
Vehicle categories Driver model Voca-onal Vehicle approach Aero measurement and simula-on Trailer configura-ons VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY Thank You