Third installment on Canadian research into EV battery durability.

Road map for Transport Canada’s research plans on Electric Vehicle Safety with NRC

Outlook format (.msg) e-mail file summarizing Canada’s NPRM and responses. It is anticipated that a Canadian proposal will be published in early 2019 to permit the proposed option of compliance to either the US or UN standard.

Update on Transport Canada VRU collision research.

Summary of initial Transport Canada research into the impact of vehicle use on electric vehicle battery performance and driving range. The research quantified losses in charging energy, useable battery energy, and driving range as travel distance rose.

US and Canada position on the draft fire exposure test for electric vehicles. Pursuant to Canadian testing, the US and Canada do not see a need for additional testing of electric vehicles (as opposed to ICE vehicles) because the battery and electric systems do not show any cause for special concern in vehicle fires. Battery pack testing could be considered in a later phase in the development of the safety regulation if warranted.

Revised presentation on a research project intended primarily to evaluate regenerative braking energy and CO2 emission differences between a 2-wheel dynamometer, a 4-wheel dynamometer and empirically determined rear-axle braking forces applied the same test conditions on a 2-wheel dynamometer. The expectation is that the two-wheel dyno tests will produce the highest regenerative braking energy and lowest CO2 emissions since it places 100% of the braking load on the rear axle.

5. Mr. Couroux reviewed document EVE-07-17e covering Agenda item 2 with a focus on action items. Mr. Couroux detailed which action items were completed or ongoing, including:

• EVE-7 Action 1, completed: Participants will continue to be invited to present on EV related topics and standardization at EVE IWG meetings.
• EVE-7 Action 2, completed: The EVE Secretariat continues to coordinate input to the VPSD document from EVE IWG membership. More specifically, the Secretariat will request an update on status of next draft of VPSD and the Chair will share the next version of the EV Reference Guide to seek further input from VPSD.
  • The Chair of the VPSD provided input prior to the 8th EVE meeting on how the Guide should include EV-related definitions being developed by the VPSD working group, and draft 3 of the Guide will be revised accordingly.
• EVE-7 Action 3, completed: The EVE Secretariat informed EVE of upcoming EV2013 meeting in Ottawa and for which data will be made available as soon as possible.
  • An email containing this information was sent by the EVE Secretariat to the EVE group on January 2nd, 2014.
• EVE-7 Action 4, completed: Mr. Olechiw has provided updates on the contracting process for Reference Guide drafting. Mr. Olechiw confirmed the consultant retained by the US EPA (FEV consulting) will continue to assist in the drafting of the Guide until the 9th EVE meeting.
• EVE-7 Action 5, completed: The EVE Secretariat will continue to follow-up with Mr. Wiaux concerning cold temperature data and will report back to EVE membership once it is available.
  • Mr. Couroux has contacted Mr. Wiaux for data and will report back to the EVE group once the data is available.
• EVE-7 Action 6, completed: The EVE Secretariat will update Section 5 (draft 1 of Guide) to reflect comments and circulate to EVE membership for review by October 31st, 2013.
• EVE-7 Action 7, completed: In parallel to Action 6, contracting parties will provide further input to Section 3 (draft 1 of Guide) to the EVE Secretariat by October 31st, 2013.
• EVE-7 Action 8, completed: Contracting parties will review and submit comments to Section 5 to Secretariat one week after it is distributed as per item 1) above (~November 7).
• EVE-7 Action 9, completed: The EVE Secretariat will develop new draft of the Guide (draft 2) and circulate to EVE membership one week after receiving comments on section 5 (~November 14).
  • Draft 2 of the Guide was circulated to the EVE group for comment on December 6th, 2013. Comments from various contracting parties, industry, and other GRPE working groups were received and integrated into the Guide to produce draft 3 (EVE-08-03).
• EVE-7 Action 10, completed: Mr. Olechiw will seek guidance from the GRPE Chair on obtaining input from WLTP IWG on EV Reference Guide and particularly on recommendations included in Section 5.
  • There is a meeting directly after the 8th EVE meeting between the EVE leadership and WLTP secretary, EV sub-group, WLTP sponsors (European Commission and Japan) and OICA to discuss how the EVE and WLTP can work together in the future on EV-related issues.
• EVE-7 Action 11, completed: The EVE Secretariat will distribute an invitation and the revised agenda ahead of the EVE-08 meeting.
  • The revised and final Agenda for the 8th EVE meeting is document EVE-08-02-Rev2.
• EVE-7 Action 12, completed: Once finalized, the EVE Secretariat will distribute an invitation noting the location and timing of the EVE-09 meeting to the EVE group. The agenda for the meeting will be circulated by the EVE Secretariat after being finalized at the EVE-08 meeting.
  • The EVE-09 meeting invitation is document EVE-09-01 and the draft agenda for the EVE-09 meeting is document EVE-08-04.

9. Mr. Couroux presented the draft EVE-09 meeting agenda (EVE-08-04) and no comments were made. The group was asked to inform the EVE Secretariat of their attendance to the meeting and willingness to participate in an EV Ride and Drive event, to be held after the EVE-09 meeting on February 19th, 2014. A final agenda and all documents for the EVE-09 meeting will be posted on the EVE website closer to the meeting.

ACTION 10: The EVE Secretariat will revise the EVE-09 agenda as required and post meeting documents on the EVE website closer to the meeting.

In Australian and Canadian testing, the WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian vehicle. This presentation includes further results and analysis to investigate and explain the differences.

Mr Belcher presented an updated summary of results from joint Australian and Canadian pole side impact crash test research (PSI-07-03). This update provided further details of oblique and perpendicular pole side impact tests of Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500s.

The WorldSID 50th percentile male dummy responses indicated a significantly lower AIS 3+ thorax injury risk for the Canadian model. It was noted that the thorax airbag in the Canadian market vehicle had deployed significantly earlier and was substantially larger than the thorax airbag in the Australian market vehicle. There had been significantly less kinetic impact energy absorbed through deflection of the dummy ribs in the Canadian vehicle and there was no evidence of a substantial increase in impact energy absorption for other body regions. The improved thorax responses observed for the Canadian model were therefore most heavily linked to earlier airbag deployment and more impact energy being absorbed by the larger thorax airbag design.

Results presented for repeated 32 km/h oblique pole side impact tests of the Canadian market Fiat 500 showed excellent repeatability in dummy responses and test configuration (alignment etc).

Mr Hogan noted that the degree of adaptation required for vehicles to meet a 32 km/h oblique pole test standard was likely to be relatively minor for countries with a substantial proportion of 5 star NCAP rated vehicles.

Ms Versailles added that many of the development costs associated with meeting a 32 km/h oblique pole test regulation have already been incurred by manufacturers who have designed vehicles to meet the FMVSS 214 pole side impact requirements. This means many manufacturers have already developed effective countermeasures that are already in production and costs will be likely to decrease with time.

Mr Belcher and Ms Tylko presented an updated summary of the joint Australian and Canadian pole side impact crash test research (PSI-06-04). This update focused on results of oblique and perpendicular pole side impact tests of Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500s.

It was noted that the Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500s were fitted with different airbag control modules, different side impact sensors (the Canadian model had a pressure sensor) and different side airbags. In particular, the Canadian market vehicle seat mounted thorax airbag was noted to provide more coverage of the WorldSID shoulder, upper arm and lower pelvis. The side airbags were observed to deploy earlier in the Canadian model. The side airbags in the Canadian model were of similar appearance to the side airbags shown in photos of US NCAP tested Fiat 500s. The main performance difference between the Australian and Canadian market vehicles was a substantially reduced thorax injury risk for the Canadian market vehicle. Repeated oblique pole side impact tests of the Canadian market Fiat 500 showed good repeatability.

Mr Hogan noted that the Australian market vehicle was a 5 star ANCAP rated vehicle and that it seemed likely that the North American vehicles had been engineered for different crash test requirements, which would include the FMVSS 214 pole test. Differences may therefore be at least in-part due to US pole side impact performance requirements.

Mr Limmer noted that the US Fiat 500 had also performed well in the IIHS side impact test.

ACTION: Australia/Canada to do further analysis of Australian and Canadian market Fiat 500 pole side impact test results for next meeting.

Summary of Rib Deflection Responses from Pole Side Impact Tests using WorldSID 50th percentile dummy with RibEye.

Transport Canada conducted a series of testing to compare the in-vehicle response of the WorldSID 5th female to the SIDIIs in various impact configurations. Results showed significant differences in deflection, independent of the crash configuration or struck side location. With the WorldSID, rib deflections did not exceed much more than 11 – 15 mm in the tests, even though there appeared to be clear loading of the thorax at that level. Additionally, the WorldSID injury measurements were much lower than the SIDIIs. Further testing is needed to isolate the mechanism contributing to the reduced chest deflection response. It was also noted that the introduction of multi-point sensing could aid in tracking fore-aft and vertical displacement.

In the discussion of the results, others observed similar issues and sometimes this can be attributed to the adjustment of the IR-TRACC, but it was pointed out that this may not explain the differences between the dummies. Humanetics stated that the WorldSID 5th female is more sensitive to oblique loading than the SIDIIs and recommended comparing injury risk using IARV instead. Additionally, it was noted that the effect of kinematic differences between the dummies and the inherent variability in crash testing should not be underestimated.

Ms Meyerson provided an update on the progress and activities of the Informal Group on the Harmonization of Side Impact Dummies (WorldSID group). It was noted that the WorldSID 50th male is likely to be completed in 2011, with injury risk curves potentially taking a little longer; the WorldSID 5th female is envisaged to be completed around 2013.

Ms Tylko provided an ISO WorldSID Positioning Sub-Committee Update (PSI-01-18). It was advised that the seating procedure would specify that the seat base be set to the lowest position, but that the procedure for the seat back angle was yet to be finalized. It was planned to hold an ISO workshop in January 2011 to finalize the seating procedure for the WorldSID 50th.

Mr Terrell presented a summary of pole side impact test procedures in use in regulatory or consumer crash test programs or proposed for use (PSI-01-13).

Ms Tylko presented a summary of recent Canadian oblique pole side impact research using the WorldSID 50th RibEye, WorldSID 50th IRTRACC, and ES-2re dummies (PSI-01-14).

Mr Belcher presented a summary of recent Australian oblique, perpendicular, and offset perpendicular pole side impact research using WorldSID 50th dummies (PSI-01-15).

There was discussion of the respective roles of the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact groups with regard to injury criteria and limits. Ms Meyerson suggested that the WorldSID group should be responsible for establishing injury risk curves for the WorldSID dummies and making recommendations on these curves, but that the pole side impact group should take responsibility for the injury criteria and limits to be applied in a pole side impact GTR. It was then agreed that the pole side impact group would be tasked with setting the injury criteria and limits for a pole side impact GTR.

Mr Hogan canvassed the Informal Group to obtain member’s views on the best pole side impact test method (oblique vs. perpendicular vs offset perpendicular), the most suitable impact speed, and the most suitable test dummy.

There was a clear consensus that the test procedure in a pole side impact GTR should utilise WorldSID dummies.

There was general agreement that it was premature to identify an agreed test procedure and that consideration of test procedures based on FMVSS 214, EuroNCAP and the offset perpendicular test recommended by APROSYS should be carried forward.

It was agreed that benefit cost analysis would be a major element in comparing the three candidate procedures. However, some members also expressed reservations about the capacity of available data sources to answer the necessary questions, as gaps and coding issues are known to exist for many field data sources. For example it was noted that distinguishing impact angle was difficult and that the choice of angle in a test procedure could be determined by the outcome being sought rather than the most common impact point.

Mr Terrell indicated a preference not to use the NCAP procedure as this did not load the thorax sufficiently.

Mr Limmer noted that introduction of WorldSID would constitute major change and that other changes should be minimised – a test procedure should be based on the current perpendicular or oblique test, although he favoured the oblique test as more robust.

Dr. Müller noted that Ford, and many other global automotive manufacturers supplied vehicles to both Europe and North America. For these companies, parts of the company would need to adjust if an oblique test was used, and other parts would need to adjust if a perpendicular test was used. However, there would be benefit from one harmonized procedure.

Mr Damm pointed out that there would be cost savings achieved by removing multiple side impact dummies from test procedures and replacing them with a globally agreed side impact dummy.

Ms Meyerson provided an update on the progress and activities of the Informal Group on the Harmonization of Side Impact Dummies (WorldSID group). It was noted that the WorldSID 50th male is likely to be completed in 2011, with injury risk curves potentially taking a little longer; the WorldSID 5th female is envisaged to be completed around 2013.

Ms Tylko provided an ISO WorldSID Positioning Sub-Committee Update (PSI-01-18). It was advised that the seating procedure would specify that the seat base be set to the lowest position, but that the procedure for the seat back angle was yet to be finalized. It was planned to hold an ISO workshop in January 2011 to finalize the seating procedure for the WorldSID 50th.

Mr Terrell presented a summary of pole side impact test procedures in use in regulatory or consumer crash test programs or proposed for use (PSI-01-13).

Ms Tylko presented a summary of recent Canadian oblique pole side impact research using the WorldSID 50th RibEye, WorldSID 50th IRTRACC, and ES-2re dummies (PSI-01-14).

Mr Belcher presented a summary of recent Australian oblique, perpendicular, and offset perpendicular pole side impact research using WorldSID 50th dummies (PSI-01-15).

There was discussion of the respective roles of the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact groups with regard to injury criteria and limits. Ms Meyerson suggested that the WorldSID group should be responsible for establishing injury risk curves for the WorldSID dummies and making recommendations on these curves, but that the pole side impact group should take responsibility for the injury criteria and limits to be applied in a pole side impact GTR. It was then agreed that the pole side impact group would be tasked with setting the injury criteria and limits for a pole side impact GTR.

Mr Hogan canvassed the Informal Group to obtain member’s views on the best pole side impact test method (oblique vs. perpendicular vs offset perpendicular), the most suitable impact speed, and the most suitable test dummy.

There was a clear consensus that the test procedure in a pole side impact GTR should utilise WorldSID dummies.

There was general agreement that it was premature to identify an agreed test procedure and that consideration of test procedures based on FMVSS 214, EuroNCAP and the offset perpendicular test recommended by APROSYS should be carried forward.

It was agreed that benefit cost analysis would be a major element in comparing the three candidate procedures. However, some members also expressed reservations about the capacity of available data sources to answer the necessary questions, as gaps and coding issues are known to exist for many field data sources. For example it was noted that distinguishing impact angle was difficult and that the choice of angle in a test procedure could be determined by the outcome being sought rather than the most common impact point.

Mr Terrell indicated a preference not to use the NCAP procedure as this did not load the thorax sufficiently.

Mr Limmer noted that introduction of WorldSID would constitute major change and that other changes should be minimised – a test procedure should be based on the current perpendicular or oblique test, although he favoured the oblique test as more robust.

Dr. Müller noted that Ford, and many other global automotive manufacturers supplied vehicles to both Europe and North America. For these companies, parts of the company would need to adjust if an oblique test was used, and other parts would need to adjust if a perpendicular test was used. However, there would be benefit from one harmonized procedure.

Mr Damm pointed out that there would be cost savings achieved by removing multiple side impact dummies from test procedures and replacing them with a globally agreed side impact dummy.