GAR | AMEVSC-08-05

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Document Title	Comments on document AMEVSC-08-02
Reference Number	AMEVSC-08-05
Date	27 Apr 2012
Summary	Knorr-Bremse comments on the OICA comments to document GRRF/2012/2 (Proposal for Supplement 10 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13).
Source(s)	Knorr-Bremse
Rulemaking Area(s)	AMEVSC and UN R13 Heavy-Duty Braking
Meeting(s)	AMEVSC \| Session 8 \| 10-11 May 2012
Downloads
UNECE server	.pdf format
Excerpts from session reports related to this document
AMEVSC \| Session 8 \| 10-11 May 2012			Using AMEVSC-08-05e as a basis and taking into account the comments in AMEVSC-08-10e, the proposal tabled at the 72nd GRRF (GRRF/2012/2 (AMEVSC-07-10e)) was review paragraph-by-paragraph and point-by-point. The results of this review are given in document AMEVSC-08-11e with the major amendments being: ► Appendix 1 paragraph 1.3. o Clarified that the simulation tool can only be used in a braking system type-approval when the vehicle parameters of the vehicle to be type-approved are included in the simulation tool and when the value of each parameter is within the validated range of the simulation tool. o Clarified that a vehicle manufacturer using an externally sourced simulation tool must carry-out at least one confirmation test and that any subsequent confirmation tests resulting from a simulation tool modification are subject to a discussion between the vehicle manufacturer, the Technical Service and the Type-approval Authority. ► Appendix 2 paragraph 1.1. – all listed parameters divided into 2 types and placed in 2 new sub-paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2. o Parameters that do not have a numerical value within the simulation model, but are important in understanding the capability of the simulation tool in paragraph 1.1.1. o Parameters that do have a numerical value within the simulation model in paragraph 1.1.2. o Footnote clarifies that the simulation tool must not include all the parameters listed in paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2., but any parameter that is not specifically accounted for shall be a limitation on the use of the tool. o Changes within the parameter: ► Gearbox ► In addition to moving gearbox type with examples to paragraph 1.1.1., gearbox characteristics are added to paragraph 1.1.2.. This allows both the suitability of the tool to be established with regard to the different gearbox types, and the way in which they are taken into account within the tool to be identified. ► Brake ► In addition to moving brake type with examples to paragraph 1.1.1., brake characteristics are added to paragraph 1.1.2.. This allows both the suitability of the tool to be established with regard to the different brake types, and the way in which they are taken into account within the tool to be identified. ► Additional steering axles ► The word “additional” and the examples deleted. This removes the any confusion with regard to the word “additional” as the item now clearly applies to all steered axles. The wording “working principle” in brackets indicates that the influence of the steering axle(s) on the vehicle stability function has to be considered in the simulation tool. ► Drive train option ► Additional examples added for clarification o Additional parameters ► While the listing of parameters in paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2. are considered to represent a minimum check list, it was recognised that a simulation tool manufacturer might wish to included additional parameters, e.g. tyre characteristic value, suspension characteristic value. Therefore, the introducing sentence to paragraph 1.1.2. includes the wording “at least” to clarify (ensure) that additional parameters – as considered desirable by the simulation tool manufacturer – can be added to the simulation tool. ► Appendix 2 paragraph 1.4.2. o Paragraph structure revised to clarify that the requirement is a minimum specification for the simulation tool. ► Appendix 3 o Appendix 3 brought inline with the amendments made to Appendix 2. The proposed new paragraph 2.5.1. to Appendix 2 – document AMEVSC-08-09e – was discussed, with the result being shown in document AMEVSC-08-12e and the clean text taken into AMEVSC-08-11e. ► Similar idea to Annex 11 Appendix 2 paragraph 1.2.1. ► Part of the appendix and not a transitional provision with specific dates, as it will be a supplement o The change does not justify a series of amendments status ► It was considered that very few simulation tools have been validated. ► Any modification to the simulation tool that affects its scope of application will necessitate a re-validation of the tool.