18. The Chair of the informal group on Gaseous-Fuelled Vehicles (GFV) presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/6/Rev.1, proposing to amend UN Regulation No. 83 regarding the simultaneous use of gas and petrol under certain conditions on some bi-fuel vehicles equipped with petrol direct injection systems. He also introduced GRPE-64-21 (updating GRPE-64-06), proposing to amend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/6/Rev.1 for issues concerning the G20 and G25 reference fuels. Responding to a question from the expert from OICA, the GFV Chair clarified that the proposal assured the necessary accuracy needed for type approval. Similar proposals concerned UN Regulation No. 115 (para. 63.).
19. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/11/Rev.1, proposing to align UN Regulation No. 83 with the Regulation (EU) No. 566/2011. He explained that the initial transposition of the Euro 5 requirements could not take these amendments into account because they have been published later. He also underlined that clarity has been introduced to the definition of cold start, in response to the concerns raised by the expert from Poland at the sixty-third GRPE session.
20. The expert from the UK requested to revise the amendment proposed for paragraph 5.2.3., Table A so that the text “particulate number” is replaced by “particle number”.
21. The secretariat introduced GRPE-64-15, containing a proposal to delete the references made to Annex 4 in Supplements 1 and 2 to the 06 series of amendments (Revision 4) to UN Regulation No. 83, since they include changes to Annex 4, while Annex 4 is missing from the text of the Revision 4 of the UN Regulation.
22. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/6/Rev.1, as amended by GRPE-64-21, as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/11/Rev.1, incorporating the amendments proposed in GRPE-64-15 and correcting it as indicated below:
Paragraph 5.2.3., Table A, replace “particulate number” by “particle number”.
GRPE requested the secretariat to submit these two proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their November 2012 sessions, as Supplement 3 to the 06 series of amendments to the UN Regulation No. 83.
Mr. Rijnders notes that in the UNECE website document 2012/7 was listed as pertaining to R.83. In fact this pertains to R.115. Mr. Seisler will contact Pierpaolo Cazzola (GRPE secretariat) to make the necessary change.
Mr. Harry Scheule (Continental) Amendment presents the CLEPA document Regulation R83 and document GRPE Working Document GRPE/2012/6 regarding the use of petrol in gas mode and its limitation for bi-fuel gas vehicles and the verification during type approval.
In Appendix 1 and 2 of GRPE/2012/6, it is proposed to determine the amount of consumed fuel during the type 1 test by measuring the weight of an additional external fuel tank for the gaseous fuel (NG or LPG or H2). From the CLEPA point of view this procedure might entail practical and safety problems during development and type approval. For that reason CLEPA proposes an alternative procedure in order to determine the fuel consumption of petrol and the gaseous fuel in the test cycle as an equivalent option as a new Appendix 3.
Alternative proposal by CLEPA
- - Based on the injection time and flow rate through the fuel injectors
- - Values should be available in the ECU or in the additional gas control unit (GCU).
- - Implement a new Parameter ID for generic SCAN tool (J1979/ISO 15031-5)
Comparison of fuel consumption has been made for engine management systems and the exhaust of the system.
What needs to be done by the car industry?
- - A new PID has to be requested at J1979- community. (All vehicles according to R.83 have to support ISO 15031-5 = J1979.)
- - The new PID has to be implemented into the engine management or in the controller of the secondary fuel system.
Advantage of the proposed method is:
- - Weighing of an external and separate CNG tank is not required
- - No risk of gas leakage or contamination
- - Mpetrol could be easily verified by comparison with the Fuel Consumption calculated based on the bag analysis.
- - Mpetrtol and Mgas could be verified by calculation of resulting CO2 emission of Mpetrol and Mgas and comparison with the C02-Emission based on the bag analysis.
- - Mpetrol and Mgas could be verified by comparison with the injection pulses; if the pulses on both kinds of injections, Mpetrol and Mgas must increase.
AEGPL would support this change. But they would prefer an official test based on official data.
The discussion surrounds whether this method can be used for type approval because the data is provided by the manufacturer it is not necessarily good enough to use for type approval. Mr. Rijnders makes a point that a lot of this data may not give a good picture of the amount of energy consumed. It also is a complicated procedure to adopt. Mr. Dekker (TNO) indicates that the data from the manufacturer would have to be ‘trusted.’ For manufacturers the method is fine but not necessarily from a regulatory view. But it is agreed that the suggested method is an ‘elegant’ alternative to weighing the gas in an external cylinder. But Mr. Rijnders has some doubts about bringing this recommendation to the GRPE at this stage of its development.
There is a way of cross checking the petrol and gas values and adding them together: Portion of injection gasoline mass to portion of injection natural gas mass. The only requirement is to prove that the amount of injected petrol has to be lower than 20%.
This method would have to be justified as a good alternative at the GRPE. Mr. Scheule can work to improve the test, and that we would work in the GFV group for alternatives to this methodology (different than weighing-the-tank methodology). While there are concerns about safety these should not be the principle reasons for changing the test procedure. There is general agreement that this method is an ‘elegant’ solution and is an improvement over the weighing methodology and that it has merit. But some few questions still need to be answered and CLEPA will work to revise the method and satisfy questions at an upcoming GFV, but not necessarily in the short-term for the June GFV session. CLEPA will try to demonstrate that the method be made more robust from a type approval perspective. Mr. Schuele agrees that it is good to have the feedback from this group in order to refine the methodology. The proposal is much more likely to have success at the GRPE once a consensus is achieved at the GFV.
View on GRPE formal documents for R83 and R115 (highlight discussion at GFV-20 and anticipated at GRPE-64). With respect to informal documents on which the two formal ones are based, in line with comments received in GRPE-63rd and as agreed by the group in GFV-18th, only that concerning R 115 has been subject to a significant modification: new requirements for petrol use in the gas mode have been restricted to direct injection petrol engines.
GFV-21-02 aims at introducing a mass correction factor for CNG reference fuel G25 in both documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2012/6 and /7. A minor correction for the formulae used in both documents and for both gaseous fuels is highlighted: the proposed requirements make reference to gas ratios in percentage while the formulae generate decimal numbers. Attendees agree to correct the formulae making them consistent with the related requirements. Mr. Piccolo commits to drafting a proposal to be circulated to the group for final approval before tomorrow.
16. Mr. Rijnders informed the group that the changes to Regulation 83 and Regulation 115 were approved by the GRPE. The Technical Committee for Motor Vehicles (TCMV) in Brussels will vote on this regulation next week to mandate the Commission to vote positively in WP.29 in November 2012.
17. The new proposal tabled by CLEPA (GFV-22-02) represents an updated version of the document GFV-20-03 that was presented by Harry Scheule (Continental/CLEPA) and discussed at the last GFV in Bologna, 14-15 May 2012. Winfried Langer (CLEPA/Bosch) introduced the new document: since the weighing-of-gas-tank procedure, which the current amendments are based on, may, from CLEPA’s viewpoint, raise practical and safety problems during development and type approval. An alternative method is proposed for the identification of gas fuel mass as calculated by the ECU, making use of the injection time and flow rate through the fuel injectors,
18. Ms. Leifheit (ACEA/VW) said that she has not had a chance to check this alternative approach with her colleagues. She would have preferred to see the document earlier, therefore, they cannot make any comments but it looks very promising.
19. Mr. Del Alamo (NGVAE) also indicates that the document looks very good but that some more time is needed to review the proposal.
20. Mr. Piccolo (AEGPL) agrees that, even if based on proprietary data, the use of ECU outputs is undoubtedly more ‘elegant’ than the weighing procedure, and, if accepted by the authorities, it would be a valuable alternative to gas tank weighing, that could still be the method in the event of a dispute.
21. Mr. Dekker sees some potential problems regarding 2% accuracy measuring CO2. The 2% error in CO2 can mean a 10% error in petrol consumption in percentage. The proposed validation procedure of ECU data needs further investigation and, furthermore, a detailed legal text about this process must be included in the regulation. The advantage of the weighing method is that it can be checked. So, additional work has to be done to get a consistent proposal.
22. As regards the errors, Mr. Langer points out that 2% error in the petrol mass would imply a 2% error in the CO2 by calculation.
23. Mr. Rijnders understands that the work of the OEM can be accurate, but from the regulator’s view as a type approval procedure they have to be able to check.
24. Mr. Rijnders indicates that we must wait for OICA/ACEA’s response. He suggests that by December the GFV members should make comments in a written paper so the issue can be discussed again in January 2013. He asks CLEPA to prepare in detail, in the next two-three weeks, two informal documents (both R. 83 and R. 115) for the GRPE January 2013 session, possibly taking into account the comments expressed today. These informal documents will be sent to the GFV members before the end of October for consideration. Deadline for comments from GFV members must be provided by the end of November/early December Thereafter CLEPA will try to revise their proposals in accordance with the collected comments. If needed, a possible telephone conference can be arranged in December among GFV members in advance of the January 2013 GFV. Otherwise, the final drafts will be dealt with directly in the January 2013 GFV.