Scope

Buses and Trucks to be excluded because the normal use condition (i.e. vibration condition) is different between cars and Buses/Trucks. And the industry has very few data for buses and trucks.

Action item 5: Chinese delegation with Bus/Truck OEM will prepare the research data to make proposal whether we include buses / trucks in the scope of this GTR or not by next meeting. For the scope of vehicle weight, co-sponsors will ask USA to agree that 4536kg to be read as 4500kg (according to S.R1)

Action item 6: UL is requested to confirm their agreement on the term of “rupture” explained by OICA by next meeting. (secretary will ask UL)

Action item 7: Secretary will check the consistency with the wording of the definitions with VPSD IWG’s by next meeting.

The agreement in this EVS meeting will be written in black (EVS group agreed in principle, but will remain in the [ ] awaiting input from USA and/or UL due to their absence.

5.1.1 will be clarified in line with the discussion of buses and trucks.

5.1.1.1 first paragraph and 5.1.1.2 will be deleted since this 5.1 will be the requirement for whole vehicle.

5.1.1.2.4 Isolation resistance

EVS IWG will delete the comments from UL and accept the text in the GTR draft proposal, but need the secretary to double check with UL for their comments.

5.1.1.2.4.3 will be kept till the decision for HFCV will be conducted.

Chinese delegation gave their technical presentation on the study for protection against water effect. She clarified the need for the water protection and why we need the GTR for this.

The history of ISO standard 6469-3 and its contents can be provided by OICA to China.

Action item 8: EVS IWG agreed to ask China to establish a task force group on the requirements and test procedure of protection against water for the whole vehicle, participated by OICA, Japan, and maybe USA.

5.1.3 to be kept as general sense and if somebody raise the necessity, we are open to rewrite it.

A representative of UL joined the meeting by telephone during the second day of discussion.

5.X3. Energy level of battery at test was discussed.

Action item 9: Chinese delegation will prepare and provide the text to the members prior to the next meeting with justification for energy level may include the warning for the drivers.

5.X4: The warning system can be identified into 2 part. Simple warning of system failure and further warning for the driver.

Action item 10: Japan will come back to explain their general concept for warning system by the next meeting.

5.X5, 5.X6: Protection during charging to be included in each functional requirement and not be identical as one requirement. The feeding energy externally, it can be also treated general requirement as well.

Action item 11: 5.X5,5.X6, description will move to 4, general requirement part. For the boundary issue to be discussed has been explained as vehicle related part, so that the paragraph to be re-written by Co-sponsors by next meeting.

5.2.1 to be renamed as general concept.

UL had justified their proposal hearing from OICA’s explanation for the sentence 5.2.2.

5.2.2.1 UL also understood that 60 second mentioned from them is unnecessary.

Energy option discussion between USA and OICA did not reach the conclusion yet.

Action item 12; EVS IWG agreed to ask OICA/USA (TBD) to establish the task force group for Low electric energy, 5.2.2.2., joined by China or other members are invited.

For physical protection 5.2.2.3 OICA had had discussions on this, Battelle are performing a study for NHTSA and the outcome from this study will be helpful for define likelihood of this occurrence – other parties are welcome to join discussions.

5.2.3 to be retitled as REESS requirements for whole vehicle post-crash.

Action item 13: OICA and USA will have further discussion on physical protection 5.2.2.3. and conclude by next meeting(TBC).

Answering UL and other party’s comments for the fire hazard 5.2.3.3, OICA suggested deleting this requirement with UL’s agreement at the next meeting.

UL explained their comments on internal short circuit for the information sharing purpose. She also mentioned they are including US government, are still gathering the data to establish the requirement and/or methodology.

Action item 14: UL is requested to confirm their agreement on fire hazard 5.2.3.3. with further discussion with OICA by next meeting. (Secretary will ask UL)

The contents of functionality will be confirmed with US delegation before next meeting.

For the REESS safety part, we shall separate chapter for in-use and post-crash. 5.3 for in-use, and 5.4 to be newly established for post-crash. Each requirement will be categorised accordingly with its contents.

There are also some discussions whether whole vehicle and REESS separate.

Action item 15: EVS IWG agreed to ask OICA to establish the task force group to study further about electrolyte leakage with the justification and maybe with test procedure joined by China, EU, and maybe USA.

Canada questioned to add the “smoke” as a criteria to avoid, and OICA reply “smoking” itself does not harm and do not prohibit the necessary system venting to avoid fire risk. EVS with agreement of China, EU, Japan, and OICA concluded not to add “smoke”.

Action item 16: EVS IWG agreed to ask OICA to establish the task force group to review and address the outstanding questions and comments for the requirements and test procedure for Vibration, Thermal Shock and Cycling, Mechanical Impact, Mechanical shock, Mechanical integrity, and External short circuit protection joined by Japan, EU, China, and maybe USA.

The group will work only focus on the parts with comments for the time being.

Drop test will be cancelled from this EVS requirement since it is very much related for transport of the battery safety. The cancellation itself will be confirmed later.

Penetration test for the vehicle level to be recognised as mechanical shock and/or mechanical integrity, so that those requirements can be considered the situation and cover this phenomenon.
USA will also be required to confirm to the cancellation.

For the fire resistance, short and long, and enclosure thermal containment requirements, EVS IG will wait USA research or input and reserve.

For the environmental exposure, EVS decided to wait USA for their input.

External short circuit, over-charge protection, over-discharge protection, and over-discharge protection for the time being change nothing until further work was required by EVS.

The idea on the management of gas exhaust proposed by Japan was agreed but Japan still need to come back for open type REESS and hazardous issue.

Action item 17/ Japan will propose texts with justification for three items 5.X12, 5.X13, 5.X14 with support from OICA by next meeting.

Creepage distance was withdrawn with agreement.

For the chemical compatibility, EVS decided to make this issue open, and still ask all members input for this.

Action item 18: REESS safety post-crash requirements in chapter 5.4 will be re-organized accordingly with outline table order by secretary and distribute to the members by the end of 2013.

Requirements with regard to the cell /module level to be re-numbered as 5.5. (former chapter 6)

JAMA presented the definition of cell, module, and pack. She mentioned it is hard to define module since the cell was defined in current GTR draft proposal. This issue will be deeply related GTR principle part, the discussion will be continued.

China gave three presentations on cell level nail penetration test, crash test for cell level, and oven test justification for ²⁰⁰ degree temperature.

OICA questioned the situation for nail penetration for cell level, and it cannot be check crash simulation. The purpose of test to be discussed.

OICA proposed the cell level crash test to be conducted when the OEM install the REESS at the very front or rear end of the vehicle which has big risk for heavy damage from the crash but in the other case, some consideration is expected. Also OICA asked the clarification of “module” here.

OICA commented oven test for cell level for its necessity. It can be quality issue not to safety issue. We have already ISO test protocol for that and no need to have new one.

Action item 19: EVS IWG agreed to ask China to establish the task force group to study and discuss further, and will come back with justification and test protocol for the cell/module/system level requirement including thermal propagation joined by Japan, Korea, OICA, and maybe USA.

SOC level at the test condition was discussed. China proposed to conduct the test with SOC 100%, Japan proposed 95%. Japan generally agree with China with 2 pragmatic approach, keeping full 100% charge is very difficult and for hybrid vehicle, maximum charge level could be used if OEM can show its maximum usage level of battery.

Action item 20: EVS IWG agreed to ask Japan to establish the task force group to study and discuss SOC issue including the definition of “normal operating SOC range” joined by China, EU, Germany, OICA, and maybe USA.

Japan made a presentation regarding their research for propagation. Answering to the question of OICA, Japan showed its intention to focus on Li-ion battery for this study.

Korea explained about their concept of component based fire resistance test A and B. The detailed questions are raised and EVS decided to establish task force also for this, led by Korea, join with China, Japan, OICA, and maybe USA.

Action item 21: EVS IWG agreed to ask Korea to establish the task force group to study and discuss fire resistance test procedure of REESS 7.2.6.3.2 joined by China, Japan, OICA, and maybe USA.

Action item 22: All the task force groups’ leaders are requested to report their proposal and timeline to solve the issue by four weeks prior to the next meeting. Co-sponsors will establish the web conference to review the progress of each task force group around January 2014.