Session 6 | Seoul | 18-20 Nov 2014
1. Welcome and Introductions

Welcoming remarks: Mr. Kowon Sokchang, Director General for Motor Vehicles Policy, Bureau of the Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of the Republic of Korea.

The delegation of European Union, on behalf of the IWG, showed its appreciation to Korean Government for their kind generosity and hospitality, as well as the facility and support during the meeting.

Self-introduction of participants (Ms. Chen of China assumed the role of the Chairman during the 6th IWG EVS meeting).

On Day 2 of the session, the Chairperson, Mr. Nguyen and other representatives joined the meeting by telephone.
Mr. Nguyen, in capacity of the official chairperson of this informal group expressed his appreciation for all the effort of participants and Ms.Chen for her good work assuming the chairmanship role. He also provided an update from previous WP.29 and GRSP sessions. He reminded again all participants to complete the “research outline table” by the end of this meeting to bring it up to date.

2. Approvals

The agenda of 6th EVS meeting was approved with a slight modification of the order of the agenda.

EVS-06-02 | Draft agenda for the 6th EVS informal group session
EVS-06-16 | Revised draft agenda for the 6th EVS informal group session

The meeting minutes of the 5th EVS meeting were reported and approved by all participants.

EVS-05-28 | Draft report of the EVS informal working group on its 5th session

The action items list from the 5th EVS meeting were shared and approved by all participants.

EVS-05-27 | Action items from the 5th EVS informal working group session
3. Reports on UN activities

Relevant information from163rd and 164th Session of WP29 was verbally reported by Secretary. During the 163rd session the Chairman of the IWG EVS requested and obtained endorsement from the Executive Committee AC.3 and WP.29 to extend the mandate of the IWG for one additional year until the end of 2015. This would be the target date for submittal of a draft GTR to the 58th session of Working Party on Passive Safety, GRSP, in December 2015.

Ms. Chen of China, as vice chairperson of the EVE IWG, provided a summary of the 10th, 11th, 12th EVE sessions. She informed that the first phase has been completed. The EVE IWG has completed a reference guide that identifies gaps and areas that need further discussions or possible GTR efforts. The IWG has begun the second phase of the activity Reports from these meetings are available on the UNECE EVE website.

4. Update on ongoing and planned research and rulemaking activities

Mr. Gorney from USA (NHTSA) presented the status and results of REESS safety research in United States. This is an on-going research. The first phase is completed with some limited data and draft test procedures. The next phase is to validate the test procedures and to generate additional test data. (These tests could extend beyond 2015). The summary presentation was on sequential vehicle system tests and BMS Performance including DC Level 3 Fast Charge, Single Cell Thermal Runaway Initiation, Comprehensive Vehicle System Test and several others. The presentation and draft copies of the test procedures are posted on the UNECE EVS website. In addition, Mr. Gorney informed that a workshop on stranded energy is planned for early next year and he suggested that it could be combined with the next EVS meeting in Washington D.C. He also suggested that some of the research items may eventually be proposed as safety requirements for the GTR.)

EVS-06-33 | NHTSA draft BMS failure test mode report "BMS Failure Mode Test Report: DC Charging Interface: Test Procedure, Test Report and Graphs"--Excerpt from the DRAFT Test Procedures developed by NHTSA provided as a contribution to the work on electric vehicle safety GTR provisions.
EVS-06-34 | NHTSA draft RESS isolation stress test procedures and report Excerpt from the DRAFT Test Procedures developed by NHTSA provided as a contribution to the work on electric vehicle safety GTR provisions.
EVS-06-35 | NHTSA draft Single Cell Thermal Runaway Initiation (SCTRI) test prodedure and report Excerpt from the DRAFT Test Procedures developed by NHTSA and provided as a contribution to the work on electric vehicle safety GTR provisions.
EVS-06-36 | NHTSA draft Vehicle Sequential Testing after 5000 Mile Preconditioning test procedures and report Excerpt from the DRAFT Test Procedures developed by NHTSA and provided as a contribution to the work on electric vehicle safety GTR provisions.
EVS-06-37 | NHTSA draft Vibration and Thermal Cycling Test procedures and report Excerpt from the DRAFT Test Procedures developed by NHTSA and provided as a contribution to the work on electric vehicle safety GTR provisions.

Listing of EV and battery regulations and standards:
Mr. Kim who is representing the Korean battery industry made a presentation regarding their lithium ion battery R&D activities including industry status on Korean Government behalf.

Mr. Kim also kindly answered all the questions from IWG members with clarifications and justifications of each test requirements and test protocols.

EVS-06-22 | The activities of Li battery standardization in xEV in Korea
EVS-06-29 | Lithium Ion Battery (LiB) R&D and Standardization in Korea
5. Development of the GTR: Revision of the outline table

Outline of the GTR: The Secretary of EVS IWG asked all the participants again to review and update the GTR outline by the end of this meeting. The research items that are not being considered as part of the requirements in the GTR will be identified and noted in the part A of the GTR.

EVS-06-15 | Electric vehicle safety: Outline table for future plan Table of elements for inclusion in the proposed electric vehicle safety GTR, including notes on associated research programs and their anticipated completion dates.

Outline table review:
The IWG reviewed the Outline table, item by item, to understand the status of each research item in order to reach a common understanding among all IWG participants regarding the status of each item and whether the IWG is on track or not to achieve the EVS GTR mandate. The Outline table was updated according to the outcome of this review exercise.

All the participants are requested to prepare presentations of their proposal and/or research data regarding the Outline of EVS GTR items if there are any plans and intentions for further discussion (e.g. the US on isolation resistance).

The EVS asked [USA] to lead discussions to identify the warning signal to the drivers for the REESS unusual case including low energy level warning and report to the IWG by the next meeting. China, Japan, OICA and SAE showed their intention to support these activities and the chairperson commented all other contributions from the contracting parties are also very much welcome as well. According to the discussions this may evolve to be a new TF.

The Secretary will reorganize the outline table chart, gathering some requirements related to each item, and will attach the updated Outline table with the meeting minutes for distribution to EVS IWG members.

TF leaders to inform the secretariat by the next meeting which areas are ready for drafting, which ones are open issues and which are the ones that can be dropped from the GTR.

EVS-06-15 | Electric vehicle safety: Outline table for future plan Table of elements for inclusion in the proposed electric vehicle safety GTR, including notes on associated research programs and their anticipated completion dates.
6. Development of the draft GTR: Report from Task Force No. 1

Task Force 1 – water immersion and isolation resistance:
Mr. Liu Anlong, on behalf of the leader of TF1, reported the progress status of TF1. OICA commented that it is very hard to detect a failure and that it makes very little sense to include double or multi failure in the safety regulation. OICA proposed to establish a compromise failure scenario to ensure acceptable safety level in the TF1.

Japanese delegation mentioned that in the case of water intrusion, it will not happen such as a double loss of isolation failure. US delegation agreed to Japan from the point of their field incident research.

Chinese delegation replied that they agree to have a technical discussion especially to establish a case study for double isolation failure and ask TF1 leader to plan further meeting within one month.

TF1 will draft its proposal for the draft GTR by the middle of 2015.

EVS-06-07 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 1 (Protection Against Water)
7. Development of the draft GTR: Report from Task Force No. 2 and 3

Task Force 2 – low electricity energy option:
Mr. Schmidt, as the leader of TF2, reported on the progress and status of discussion between OICA and United States government.

OICA proposed an amendment to the test to change integration limits for the total energy calculation.

Mr. Nguyen informed that NHTSA had received a petition submitted by OICA proposing to include the barrier option as alternative option. NHTSA will study the petition for consideration.

The TF2 will continue to work the US Department of Transportation as well as the members of the IWG on this issue.

EVS-06-18 | Progress briefing of the EVS Task Force No. 2 (Low Electric Energy)

Task Force 3 – electrolyte leakage:
Mr. Tripathy, as the leader of TF3, reported the progress and work plan of TF3.

OICA suggested that the toxic leakage is the crucial [aspect] and hence need to concentrate on this area in the TF3, because the electrolyte will evaporate quite quickly and get into gas.

The US representative pointed out that the measuring method of leakage could be important but technically very difficult and suggested to discuss how to establish the methodology. The definition of toxic will be also discussed volume wise and contents wise.

TF3 leader responded to the US that zero leakage could be done by a visible inspection in the case of aqueous leakage, both inside and outside the vehicle. Because the technology to avoid electrolyte leakage is a developing technology, TF3 and the experts agreed to continue the discussions.

The JRC commented there is a need to validate there is no leakage, including in a vaporous state to identify the volatile organic components.

TF leader also agreed to discuss the gas leakage measuring methodology with the US representative, in particular in reference to the clarification of aqueous leakage measurement and new requirements for non-aqueous leakage. Post-crash results will be available in January 2015.

The work of TF3 should be completed by April 2015.

EVS-06-03 | Draft minutes of the meeting of the Electric Vehicle Safety Task Force No. 3 held on 15 October 2014
EVS-06-08 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 3 (Electrolyte leakage)
EVS-06-19 | Progress report presentation of the EVS Task Force No. 3 (Electrolyte leakage)
8. Development of the draft GTR: Report from Task Force No. 4

Task Force 4 – REESS in-use testing:
Mr. Guse, as the TF4 leader, reported on the progress of the task force. China commented on their appreciation of the task force effort and informed that it is considering harmonization with ISO standards for in-use requirements such as vibration test frequency input, but would appreciate more evidence. The representative of USA asked TF4 and China to share their research data and the rationale for in-use requirements including vibration test. OICA had expressed the need to separate safety requirements from durability/reliability issues. The EVS Informal working group asked TF4 to continue the discussion and exchange of data/information regarding the test protocols for inclusion in this regulation and to report back their findings to the informal working group.

The TF4 leader also made three amendment proposals to the text of the current EVS GTR draft for post-crash safety (EVS-06-04e), the definition of working voltage (EVS-06-05e), and introduction of the 48 V system with exploratory presentation of the system (EVS-06-06e). The informal group agreed to discuss further on the inclusion of the 48 V vehicles in the scope of the GTR. The secretary will modify the GTR draft accordingly based on these proposals and keep in square brackets for the further discussion at the next EVS meeting.

Mr. Guse also indicated that the TF would need at least until mid-2015 to complete its tasks (e.g. vibration, thermal cycle. REESS test protocol complying both with the type approval and self-certification).

EVS-06-04 | Proposal for GTR draft amendment on electric vehicle post-crash safety Proposal to exempt rechargeable energy storage system components that are not energized during driving from post-crash protection requirements.
EVS-06-05 | Proposal for the electric vehicle safety GTR draft on the definition of working voltage Recommendation to use the working voltage definition from GTR No. 13 (hydrogen fuel cell vehicle safety) in order to facilitate the application of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR under self-certification regimes.
EVS-06-06 | Proposal to amend the working draft GTR on electric vehicle safety with regard to 48V systems
EVS-06-09 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 4 (REESS In-use Test Protocol)
9. Development of the draft GTR: Report from Task Force No. 5 and 6

Task Force 5 – cell/module/system test:
Dr. Xiao, as TF leader l, reported on the progress of TF5 including the Chinese proposal for three test procedures on nail penetration, oven, and crush test at the cell/module level.

OICA made its comment that inclusion of a nail penetration test in a regulation may create a technical barrier for the high density battery at the cell level.

The US representative also suggested TF5 to think about penetration test as vehicle level propagation test, and cell level penetration test can be kept as research item for design and product development. For the crush test, the US will prepare its result data from their research as soon as possible. The US would like TF5 to show the safety correlation at the cell level test to the safety at the vehicle level.

Answering the Canadian proposal to use the penetration test to check the integrity of the cell/module/system external casing, OICA expressed its opinion that the objective of the penetration test is not to simulate a crash worthiness test (i.e. simulating an object penetrating into the REESS), instead it simulates an internal short circuit event in the REESS.

Japanese delegation also mentioned that cell level penetration test is important while it is not directly related to vehicle safety. Since we are discussing vehicle safety regulation, how to combine cell level test into the GTR framework should be discussed further.

TF5 leader has agreed to have vehicle level propagation test as vehicle homologation test, but still believes the necessity to have cell level test to increase the battery safety which contributes to the whole vehicle safety level as a result. TF5 leader also rationalised that while there is still no way to stop the propagation once a fire has started within the REESS at cell level, then the test must require that no fire occurs at the incident. The best way to increase safety level can be the combination of cell level test and system level test.

OICA commented that all three tests have less influence to avoid the internal short circuit within the REESS since it is the quality control issue.

The chairperson commented that the internal short circuit incident is a serious phenomenon so that avoiding it is the first priority.

The US representative commented that the propagation issue is the most important since we cannot control internal short circuit perfectly for the time being.

Japanese delegation agreed with USA and emphasised that the main cause of internal short circuit comes from manufacturing error and not design error, so that it is very hard to detect future risk of production error by cell level homologation test with few cell representing all cells.

Japanese delegation, Mr. Fukuzawa made a presentation on propagation including their study results. He explained that the safety of the vehicle will be secured at vehicle level assuming that cell level incidents are unavoidable for the time being.

OICA had a question whether this system level test can solve all the incidents in the market, so they prefer having reliable warning system for the driver in the case of a thermal incident, to focus on keeping the driver and the occupants safe and minimise the risk and damage caused by thermal incident. Case scenario can be discussed technically and taken into consideration.

Dr. Xiao, as representative of China, made the presentation for the propagation study of China.

OICA representative commented that homogeneous heating is not representative of a realistic failure mode and that conducting a cell level testing magnifies the risk, questioning the necessity of the crush test at the cell level because there are already more representative tests at vehicle and/or system level. Because the technology of lithium-ion battery has not fully matured, OICA stressed the importance of research of thermal runaway and propagation in more depth.

US explained its stance towards propagation, admitting there is no correlation between the cell and system levels, yet testing at both levels is unavoidable for the time being and the phenomenon and mechanisms are very different by the type of REESS, and it is a response functional issue. All the research is not completed yet. Initiation of the thermal propagation is the key.

Japan agreed about the importance of initiation of the thermal propagation and to establish the certain way of that is very important even Japan itself has not finished its study yet.

The EVS IWG asked the TF5 leader to come back with a clear definition of internal short circuit including its risk, how to improve the safety of occupants in the vehicle, and its correlation with propagation phenomenon.

Since new tasks of TF5 are to define the internal short circuit and thermal propagation all the current proposals from TF5 (initial three tests proposals) was withdrew for further discussion.
The TF5 leader was asked to develop a meeting plan and to invite as many as interest experts as possible due to the importance of this task. The US (NHTSA) in particular has been requested to participate actively.

EVS-06-10 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 5 (Cell/Module/System Test Requirements)

Task Force 6 – state of charge:
Dr. Kawai, as the leader of TF6, provided a status report of the task force. He expects to conclude TF6 task team activity at its next face to face meeting expected in early next year if agreement is reached for the actual text proposal for SOC setup test protocol.

The US participant questioned how 50% range of SOC was decided. He also recommended to use a more technically correct wording to explain the SOC. US will join the discussion of TF6 and provide data from the US research.

OICA answered that the manufacturers can show the vehicle SOC operating range and its limit, and it helps being accountable and fair. It varies by a REESS type and manufacturer and it is very difficult to define one single number, test protocol, type of vehicle for the time being.

During the last face-to-face meeting, the TF6 leader drafted a new proposal for SOC. TF and IG members are invited to provide their comments on this proposal by the end of December 2015.

The EVS IWG asked TF6 to prepare a proposal for the draft GTR by next EVS meeting in 2015.

EVS-06-11 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 6 (State of Charge)
EVS-06-17 | Presentation on the progress of the EVS Task Force 6 (State-of-Charge)
10. Development of the draft GTR: Report from Task Force No. 7 and 8

Task Force 7 – fire resistance:
Mr. Jung, as the leader of TF7, reported the research result, its activities, and action plan.

OICA expert showed its appreciation for the TF work, but also showed his objection for the long duration fire resistance test. He believes that this requirement is much more severe than the requirement for vehicles with internal combustion engines.

US quoted the test result data from Canada and trying to define the appropriate and equivalent of new “long duration” for the fire resistance test..

China will report the fire test result with 20 minutes duration at the next EVS meeting.

TF7 will continue to discuss, with supportive data from the US, Canada, China, and others , what is the appropriate test protocol for a long duration fire test along with its purpose (i.e.; keep escaping time, responding time for fire fighter, etc).

TF7 leader also gave the presentation of the research result of Korean government regarding the actual fire test protocol switching from gasoline fire to burner fire and its technical justification. They used a mock-up this time, and when they use the battery test the results will be reported to the EVS IWG.

OICA reminded that the research should not discriminate against the electrical vehicles (as opposed to conventional gasoline vehicles) when comparing the test methods with UNECE R100.

EVS-06-12 | Status report of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 7 (Fire resistance)
EVS-06-38 | Progress report of EVS Task Force 7 (Fire Resistance)-revised

Task Force 8 – scope study:
Mr. Wu Yichao, as the leader of TF8, provided its progress. TF8 found in their technical study that some criteria and/or test protocol of current requirement of EVS GTR can be applied for commercial vans, and some such as mechanical integrity test or cell safety test can differ from those applicable to passenger cars.

OICA mentioned they are in positive stance toward the expansion of GTR scope. However, OICA questioned about the general concern that the priority can be considered as personal car and commercial car. Too wide expansion of GTR scope as the initial stage will increase the complexity of the GTR and OICA is concerned that inclusion of commercial vehicles would take too long since some tests are not compatible between passenger and commercial vehicles.

China also raised the issue whether this task force should identify the scope expansion for all heavy duty car or buses and coaches only. In general, trucks have less people to carry than buses and the safety requirements would be very different among the vehicle classes, so that the framework needs to be carefully considered in the GTR discussion.

After the round table discussion, Japan, United States, and China agreed to continue the discussion of possible future potential expansion of the GTR scope to heavy duty area.

TF8 will draft the requirements for heavy vehicles in an annex of this GTR including a definition for heavy duty vehicles by the next EVS IWG meeting. Depending on further discussion, IWG will decide on the actual vehicles’ scope for the GTR. For those tests that appear to be applicable to all vehicle categories, they can be directly referred to in the main GTR document. An open invitation to participate has been extended to the US truck manufacturers.

Annex can mainly consist of the mechanical integrity part, however, all TFs’ inputs are expected to TF8 allowing for other requirements to be specified for heavy duty vehicles.

EVS-06-13 | Notes from the 17 October 2014 meeting of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR Task Force No. 8 (Heavy-duty electric vehicles)
EVS-06-27 | Battery System Test Project and Test Methods’ Adaption to Heavy Commercial Vehicles EVS Task Force 8 progress report on the adaptation of electric vehicle test methods to heavy-duty electric vehicles.
11. Development of the draft GTR: Update GTR draft proposal

The EU asked whether the gas management issue of the Japanese proposal could only cover in-use but not post-crash. Japan agreed to consider the possible expansion of its scope for post-crash and should come back with a revised proposal of the gas management as soon as possible by the next EVS IWG.

Regarding the warning system, the EU provided a written remark referring to the UNECE R130 on AEBS. The EVS IWG awaits a detailed explanation from the EU by the next meeting and is expected to conclude the whole sentence for warning system. The text proposal might be amended accordingly.

The Korean proposal sentence #4.3 was agreed and included in the draft EVS GTR without [ ].

Hydrogen emissions during the charge procedures of the REESS requirement added in the annex part of the GTR draft was introduced and the EVS IWG asked all the participants to review the sentences of Hydrogen related part of annex and make comments by the next EVS IWG.

EVS-06-14 | Working draft of the Electric Vehicle Safety GTR: Version 4

Pending Action items – review:
Action item 5: status of VPSD reported. The Secretary will check the consistency of wording. Remains as open action item

Action item 6: comments to be provided to Japan regarding the warring system for BMS failure – all delegations

Action item 7: Chinese delegation prepared the actual draft proposal of GTR to define the low energy battery warning. The EVS IWG asked China to lead a further discussion to complete their proposal for low energy battery warning (taking a full account of the ongoing work of the WG on tell-tale lights, implying cross WG cooperation) by next EVS IWG. OICA and other stakeholders are expected to join.

Action item 8: Japan as the secretary of IWG prepared the answer to the Action item 8 from #5 EVS IWG. The EVS IWG asked USA to lead a further discussion to complete their proposal for the boundary issue in case of feeding and charging by the next EVS IWG. OICA and other stakeholders are expected to join. Provided there is no common standard for charging it is expected that this will be a contribution to Part A of the GTR.

Action item 11: all participants are requested to review Japan’s proposal for an annex regarding gas management.

12. Future plan (mandate extension) for establishing the GTR

Future meetings:
7th IWG meeting: week of March 16th in France, Paris
8th IWG meeting: week of June 1st in United States, Washington D.C
9th IWG meeting: week of September 14th in China, detailed venue will be announced later.

13. Wrap up of the meeting

The action items are reviewed and agreed (see the attachment at the end of the session report) by the participants with changes reflected by the discussion about specific issues.