euro 5 effect study for l-category vehicles · previous (2013) environmental effect study...

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



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



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



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



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


Discussed in this presentation



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

http://www.emisia.com/copert



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%


TYPE I: TAILPIPE EMISSIONS TEST AFTER

COLD START



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



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




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



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




J17 – L1e-B , high speed CVT WMTC

J01 – L6e-BP CVT WMTC

J08 – L7e-B1 CVT WMTC




TYPE I:

ASSESSMENT OF THE EURO 5 LIMITS



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




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




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:

ASSESSMENT OF THE SEPARATE NMHC

LIMIT



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




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


TYPE III:

CRANKCASE EMISSIONS



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



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


or



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




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


TYPE IV:

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS



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



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



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.)


INTRODUCE SHED TESTING FOR L1E, L2E, L5E-B, L6E, L7E-B, L7E-C

High benefit scenario


(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



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


LIMIT OF 1.0 G/TEST FOR L3E, L4E, L5E-A AND L7E-A


(Values in Μ€) Cost-benefit over 2020-

2040

Motorcycles and tricycles

(L3e, L4e, L5e-A) -31 ± 0.7



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



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



THERMAL LOAD ASSESSMENT AS A BASIS

FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE CYCLES


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



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;




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

euro 5 effect study for l-category vehicles · previous (2013) environmental effect study...

Documents