Chalmers University research paper concerning an investigation of pedestrian-driver communication and development of an external interface for automated vehicles.

Presentation on urban noise research at Chalmers University.

12. The expert from CAETS delivered a presentation (GRB-63-05) in which he argued in favour of a holistic and long-term approach to sound urban planning with a view to preventing negative effects on health and well-being of populations.

13. The expert from EC informed GRB about a study on how to enhance the sound test requirements for mopeds, three-wheeled vehicles in Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and replacement exhaust silencing systems for L categories (L1 to L5) in Regulations Nos. 92 before the European Union (EU) could accept these Regulations (GRB-63-18). This study included public consultations and had been launched in response to frequent requests by citizens to improve the sound level of mopeds and three-wheeled vehicles as well as of replacement silencers for all L-category vehicles. On a similar note, the expert from EC reported about the ongoing public consultations on the EU Environmental Noise Directive1 (GRB-63-18-Add.1).

14. Based on the outcome of the study, the expert from EC proposed a set of collective amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (GRB-63-03, GRB-63-05, GRB-63-07, GRB-63-08, GRB-63-09). The experts from France, Germany, IMMA and OICA delivered a number of remarks on these documents. GRB invited all experts to transmit their written comments, if any, to the expert from EC. Finally, GRB decided to continue consideration of these amendment proposals at its next session based on official documents to be submitted by the expert from EC.

5.c. New Approach by Chalmers
Dr. Johan Davidsson showed a new approach (WCWID-2-05) on how to develop injury criteria risk functions based on the data he presented in former meetings. The risk functions will be generated in following way:

a) Generate risk functions for the 17 groups included in the Davidsson and Kullgren IRCOBI 2013 paper will be generated. Data will be turned into binomial data by groping the data into better or worse than a state of the art.
b) Each accident that is included in the Folksam data base and for which there is accident reconstruction data available will be included in a large volume regression analysis. The main disadvantage is that the crash severity is unknown (a generic pulse and seating position is used in the reconstructions) and risk curves will be to some degree influenced by the generic pulse used in the accident reconstructions.

This approach can be used not only for NIC but also for Forces and Moments.

JD is aiming to provide this data for the London meeting.

Revised version of the additional slides concerning the seat performance criteria for rear-impact testing presented during the session.

4.a. Evaluation of Seat Performance Criteria for Rear-end Impact Testing: BioRID II and Insurance Data

Johan Davidsson (JD) presented a common study of Chalmers and Folksam on the evaluation of seat performance criteria based on insurance data (WCWID-01-03). The presentation was an update of GTR7-14-02. The study was performed within the EEVC work programme by EEVC WG12 (see report WCWID-01-09):

Approach for the study is to compare claim rates for different seats in the Folksam insurance data with BioRID II metrics from tests for the same seats.

The focus is on neck injury and very few thoracic or lumbar spine injuries/claims are contained in the Folksam database.

Two risk levels:
1. Symptoms for more than one month in case of initial symptoms
2. Permanent medical impairment in case of initial symptoms (with no financial incentive to claim this level of symptom)

The Chalmers/Folksam/EEVC study uses 150 cases per seat (IIHS used a minimum group size of 30 cases, which may explain the weak correlations that they reported).

In Sweden, the risk for a given vehicle has reduced over 10 years, indicating that the assessment of injury by the medical profession has become stricter. This has been compensated for in the study by normalising to the 2005 risk level.

The risk for different seats cf. the NIC was shown as an example. Philippe Petit (PP) asked if the differences were tested for significance, because the range is quite small. This was not the case. Norbert Praxl (NP) asked if confounding factors were controlled like e.g. delta-v?

JD replied that there was no information on delta-v, but ensured that the groups were not very light or very heavy vehicles. The Volvo and Saab had a step-change in seat design on a
vehicle platform of very similar mass and structure.

Koshiro Ono (KO) asked whether the patients’ medical records were re-reviewed by the study in order to confirm the diagnosis and the severity of WAD. This was not the case, but for the permanent injury rating there is a considerable effort that the patient has to go to in order to be classified, with little reward.

Overall, NIC showed the best correlation with risk, both at the symptoms > 1 month and the permanent medical impairment levels. OC-T1 x-axis relative displacement and L1 x-axis acceleration correlated with long-term injury risk. Neck extension and T1 x-axis acceleration may be candidates, but appear to be sensitive to inclusion or not of outliers.

Limitations of the study include:
• Changes to the dummy over time
• Changes since the seats in the study were tested
• Correlation coefficients were maximum 0.72.

PP noted that there is a very strong assumption that the pulse is the same over time, even for an identical vehicle. In France, it was observed that the average speed of fatal collisions
was increasing until automatic ticketing was introduced, when it dropped 5%. JD: 2009 pulses likely to be more severe than 1999, due to changes in the vehicle structures.

Agnes Kim (AK) noted that the study is based on Folksam data and that means Swedish drivers, who are more likely to sit in a ‘standard’ position than US drivers, who tend to have a
very poor, non-standard posture. BL: This is the data we need – the regulator can only assume that a driver is sitting in a good position with a correctly adjusted seat, and ensure that they are provided with a minimum level of safety in this case if they take this care. The seat-belt doesn’t protect you if you don’t wear it, but it is still required to be fitted. AK pointed out that in regulations to date we take due care to ensure that if an occupant is somewhat out of position they will still be protected, but the rear impact is somewhat different.

Annette Irwin (AI) asked whether the BioRID predicts that the risk is, as would be expected, lower in the heavier vehicles. JD replied that he can’t answer this question based on this data, but other studies have done this.

Status report on research and validation programs concerning:

• HILS Model Library
• WHVC Test Cycle
• System Work Concept
• Rated Power Determination for a Hybrid Vehicle
• Family Concept-Validity of Certification
• Validation Test Phase 2 (VTP2) Validation Results−Sub-presentations of VOLVO, MAN and IVECO
• VTP2 conclusions & discussion of further actions

Presentation of the results of the validation test program 1 and status of test program 2 (Chassis dyno test program at JRC, HDH drive cycle investigation, and HILS/SILS model verification) and review of open issues for drafting the GTR text.

Mr. Silberholz gave a brief summary of the work achieved during validation test program 1 (pages 3 to 10 of HDH-15-04). He reported that extensive changes on models and model structure have been made. The new structure is component library based and enabled implementation of a flexible signal data bus, which allows adding more signals on the data bus. There was positive feedback from and good cooperation with the OEMs. The next model release is planned for the end of October, and would need to be tested again by the OEMs.

It was agreed that the additional testing of the models should not be a show-stopper for the drafting work. Mr. Silberholz confirmed that the models are described well enough for the drafting process, and could be inserted in their current stage.

Mr. Six presented a detailed analysis of the HDH drive cycle (WHVC with road gradients) on pages 11 to 33 of HDH-15-04. Parts of the investigations were done in conjunction with the chassis dyno tests at JRC. He concluded that the minicycle approach very well aligns WHVC and WHTC. This is considered a solid basis for the new test cycle. The approach considers added and removed payloads for positive and negative work, thereby matching of positive WHTC work independent of test weight (i.e. slopes will adjust work). A great benefit is that negative work is independent of test weight, so that adequate recuperation energy is always available. This better reflects real world operation for different payloads. A summary of the methods analyzed (minicycle, 30 sec average, individual slope, fixed slope) is shown on page 32. The final test cycle proposal of the institutes is a minicycle approach with positive and negative WHTC work, which is a clear improvement over the flat WHVC approach.

The detailed test results are shown on pages 36 to 48 for the Volvo bus and on pages 50 to 59 for the MAN bus. An analysis of the Iveco results is not available, since HILS modelling is still under construction. Additional chassis dyno tests are planned for early 2014.

Mr. Silberholz presented open issues for the drafting on pages 61 to 75 of HDH-15-04. Those issues were discussed in detail and will be taken into account during the further drafting process. The most prominent ones are listed below:

• Handling of gearboxes and shift algorithms; the Japanese regulation allows both generic and OEM specific model for automatic transmission.
• Definition of the rated power of a hybrid system; institutes were asked to check the US EPA approach and to make a proposal.
• How to deal with vehicles which by design cannot reach the maximum WHVC speed; it was suggested to scale power down, but EPA raised some concerns; Japanese approach should be checked.
• Work (engine or system) to be used for the emissions calculation. Mr. Dekker made clear that NL have concerns about the systems approach. The chairman concluded that there seems to be some diverging views within the group and that this will be an important topic to be discussed at 16th HDH meeting.
• Equivalency between post-transmission powertrain test, HILS with verification on chassis dyno and HILS with verification on system bench (pre-transmission powertrain test).

This report is the final report of the work done by the Universities of Technology in Chalmers, Graz and Vienna and research institute TNO performed within the research program on an emissions and CO2 test procedure for Heavy Duty Hybrids (HDH). This report specifically refers to Validation Test Program 1 (VTP1) under the contract for “Developing the Methodology for Certifying Heavy-Duty Hybrids based on HILS”.

Update on development and validation of the new hybrid heavy-duty vehicle test cycles.

4.1 Presentation by research institutes on validation test program 1

Working paper HDH-14-03e is a joint presentation of the three institutes tasked with conducting validation test program 1.

Prof Fredriksson started with an overview of the new model structure (pages 4 to 12). Rationale for the new model structure was a greater flexibility of the modeling approach that allows various combinations of engines, gear boxes and energy storage systems. The new model structure for serial and parallel hybrids was made available for testing at the end of April. It includes a comprehensive component model library, a new signal naming convention based on AUTOSAR and the restructuring of the vehicle models. Relevant powerpack components were included in the library toolbox, while previously developed models were transferred into the model library. The models will be further developed until the end of June 2013 based on feedback from OICA members and other stakeholders.

Mr. Silberholz reported on positive feedback from OEMs on the new model structure. Open issues from the discussions are the actuation of different brake systems in the driver model and time vs. distance based slope pattern. He continued with a detailed analysis of the road slope calculation methods (30 sec moving average method vs. minicycle approach, pages 15-19). The two options are considered not directly comparable due to big deviations in resulting reference power pattern. Reason is that the WHTC denormalization method leads to operation points at lower loads and speeds for hybrid powertrains. Therefore, the WHDHC calculation tool may be not suitable any longer. Further investigations on this item will continue.

As a conclusion of validation test program 1, extensive changes on models and model structure were made, the next model release (including stakeholder remarks) will be available shortly, the comprehensive model and work program documentation will start, and drive cycle modifications need further investigation.

Working paper HDH-13-03e is a joint presentation of the three institutes tasked with conducting validation test program 1.

Mr. Six started with a general overview of the progress achieved (pages 3 to 12). He then presented the structure of the thermal models. The battery model was optimized and can be used for capacitor, as well.

Prof. Fredriksson presented the new model structure (pages 13 to 27). Task was to set up a data bus system in the model that allows various combinations of engines, gear boxes and energy storage systems. With the current Japanese open source model, it is difficult to set up such data bus system. Therefore, the models need to be restructured. Two types of interfaces are proposed, the physical interface that is related to how different components are connected physically, and the signal interface that is related to the control/sensor signals needed for the ECUs. For the gtr, the physical interface should be specified, while for the signal interface only a minimum set of signals can be specified. If other signals or more complex models are needed for the simulation, it will be possible for OEMs to include those without affecting the model structure.

The new model structure will be made available by the end of April for testing. Comments are essential to improve the model.

Mr. Six then went on with the drive cycle investigations (pages 28 to 38). Rationale was to develop a method for the WHVC with slopes (also proposed by Japan in 4.2.1) to produce similar emissions results than on the WHTC for conventional vehicles. The method divides the WHVC into mini-cycles and calculates for each mini-cycle the WHTC/WHVC work difference and transforms it into average mini-cycle slopes (page 32). Emissions results based on simulation look promising. It was decided to check both the 30 sec average slope according to Japanese proposal and mini-cycles approach during validation test program 2. The mini-cycle calculation tool will be uploaded to the HDH website.

Mr. Silberholz presented under test methodology investigations the major items that need to be decided for the gtr (pages 39 to 48). He proposed that OEM specific models should be permitted. He further proposed to use on-road measurements for model verification rather than chassis dyno tests. Another item is the gear shift duration that is not included in the Japanese model. EPA is concerned that the HILS cycle might be less transient than in the vehicle. Since most of the issues are questions/proposals for further evaluation, they are handled under 7.2.

Page 40: it was agreed that the use of OEM specific models should be allowed. However, validation and verification of such models need to be ensured for the gtr.
Page 41: standardized component tests will remain in the gtr, but further discussion is necessary, if OEM specific component tests are needed.
Page 42: model verification by means of on-road tests will be investigated during validation test program 2. Powertrain verification will be added.
Page 43: OEM specific interface model need to be approved by TAA during certification process. Further discussion on what can/cannot be included in interface model is needed.
Page 44: multiple ECUs have been on the screen for quite some time. It was agreed that a master ECU would need to be defined, with supportive ECUs to be integrated via interface or software emulation.
Page 45: boundary conditions for re-certification need to be defined in the gtr; but the issue will have to be finally solved between OEM and TAA.
Page 46: information document is outside the scope of the gtr, will be handled by regional authorities.
Page 47: vehicle independent emissions certification will be discussed after validation test program 2.
Page 48: signal frequency will be discussed later; 1 Hz, 10 Hz, 50 Hz will be investigated during validation test program 2.

Prof. Hausberger presented the proposal of the institutes for validation test program 2 (pages 49 to 54). He indicated that TU Graz was able to do the vehicle testing. It was however agreed to accept the offer from JRC to do the vehicle testing and the overall organization. It was further agreed that the institutes should do the final evaluation of the HILS method, since they had done most of the development work.

Testing will start with the Volvo parallel hybrid bus in early May, followed by the MAN serial hybrid bus in early June and the Iveco parallel hybrid truck around the end of June. The OEMs are asked to arrange for a meeting among themselves and JRC to set up a test program and timetable. JRC will be responsible for the coordination of the program. Chassis dyno testing will be done with emissions measurement, on-road testing in accordance with the PEMS rules, but w/o emissions measurement. Engine testing on HILS cycle will be done at OEMs premises.

EPA requested to get the vehicle specifications. EPA further requested to receive an ECU for HILS testing. The Chairman encouraged bilateral discussions between EPA and OICA to solve the issue before the 14th HDH meeting.

Working paper HDH-13-03e is a joint presentation of the three institutes tasked with conducting validation test program 1.

Mr. Six started with a general overview of the progress achieved (pages 3 to 12). He then presented the structure of the thermal models. The battery model was optimized and can be used for capacitor, as well.

Prof. Fredriksson presented the new model structure (pages 13 to 27). Task was to set up a data bus system in the model that allows various combinations of engines, gear boxes and energy storage systems. With the current Japanese open source model, it is difficult to set up such data bus system. Therefore, the models need to be restructured. Two types of interfaces are proposed, the physical interface that is related to how different components are connected physically, and the signal interface that is related to the control/sensor signals needed for the ECUs. For the gtr, the physical interface should be specified, while for the signal interface only a minimum set of signals can be specified. If other signals or more complex models are needed for the simulation, it will be possible for OEMs to include those without affecting the model structure.

The new model structure will be made available by the end of April for testing. Comments are essential to improve the model.

Mr. Six then went on with the drive cycle investigations (pages 28 to 38). Rationale was to develop a method for the WHVC with slopes (also proposed by Japan in 4.2.1) to produce similar emissions results than on the WHTC for conventional vehicles. The method divides the WHVC into mini-cycles and calculates for each mini-cycle the WHTC/WHVC work difference and transforms it into average mini-cycle slopes (page 32). Emissions results based on simulation look promising. It was decided to check both the 30 sec average slope according to Japanese proposal and mini-cycles approach during validation test program 2. The mini-cycle calculation tool will be uploaded to the HDH website.

Mr. Silberholz presented under test methodology investigations the major items that need to be decided for the gtr (pages 39 to 48). He proposed that OEM specific models should be permitted. He further proposed to use on-road measurements for model verification rather than chassis dyno tests. Another item is the gear shift duration that is not included in the Japanese model. EPA is concerned that the HILS cycle might be less transient than in the vehicle. Since most of the issues are questions/proposals for further evaluation, they are handled under 7.2.

Working paper HDH-12-03e is a joint presentation of the three institutes tasked with conducting validation test program 1.

Mr. Six started the presentation with a general overview of the progress achieved. Development of the driver models for the different approaches (WHVC and WHDHC) has been finished. Inclusion of non-electric components has been largely finalized, and the development of the thermal models will be completed within the next two weeks. From meetings with OEMs (see page 7), it was reported that a fully vehicle independent approach does not seem to be feasible, and that some OEMs considered that a SILS approach would be preferred over HILS. Most commonly used powerpack components are already included in the component library with a planetary gearbox model added recently. The component list will be checked, if vehicles for validation test program 2 are identified.

Mr. Silberholz continued with the description of the thermal models (task 1.6). Details of task 1.6 are shown on pages 9 to 17. The thermal model for the aftertreatment system (ATS) has been finished, the models for the coolant and lube oil circuit will be finished by the end of January, and the models for battery and electric motor will be finished within the next week and validated by the end of January.

Investigation into the different drive cycle options (WHVC vs. WHDHC) is an important part of validation test program 1. The results are shown on pages 18 to 34 for the serial hybrid. The two options only lead to comparable positive traction work, if the WHVC is accompanied with slopes. Even then, the power distribution over rotational speed at the wheel hub is different between the two options, as shown on page 27. Using the WHTC as basis leads to highly fluctuating torque signals that may cause ECU errors, as already indicated by Japan at the 11th HDH meeting. In order to solve the problem, curve smoothing is necessary. Curve smoothing was demonstrated to have no significant impact on the positive work (page 31) nor on the power distribution (page 32).

The major focus of Task 2 is currently the restructuring of the models, which is a prerequisite for setting up the data bus system needed for the component library. The results are shown on pages 37 to 44. The restructuring requires two types of interfaces (page 39). The physical interface is related to how different components are connected together, physically. The signal interface is related to control/sensor signals needed for the ECU. The proposed solution is the port based approach shown on pages 40 to 42. This approach allows easy interchanging of components including integration of OEM subsystems.

Status of the work towards developing a methodology for certifying heavy-duty hybrids based on “hardware in the loop simulation” (HILS).

Mr. Six started with the presentation of working paper HDH-11-04-Rev1. First, he indicated that the paper is a joint presentation of the three institutes involved. The institutes have a regular exchange of information.

The basis for the development of the serial hybrid simulator is the Japanese open source model for a serial hybrid provided by JARI. As a first step, an ECU control strategy with different ICE operation points was added to the model. Further, a driver model for the WHVC approach was developed. Details of task 1.1 are shown on pages 5 to 10.

Task 1.2 covers the development of a driver model appropriate for the WHDHC approach. Rationale for the WHDHC approach is to be in closer agreement to the test procedure for conventional ICEs. It is therefore essential that the driver model allows running the simulator with test cycles consisting of power and rpm at the wheel hub and at the power pack shaft.

This requires two PID controllers, cycle reference tables and a watchdog system that prevents too aggressive control parameters, such as gradients. Task 1.3 covers the extension of the simulator with a library of non-electric components. Details of tasks 1.2 and 1.3 are shown on pages 13 to 18.

In order to develop the software ECU in a manner as realistic as possible, input of the OEMs is needed. An interface list and a component list were submitted to the OEMs for review and have been uploaded to the HDH webpage. Meetings with OEMs are planned to start in November 2012. The OEM input is specifically needed for task 1.5 (additional powerpack components) and task 1.6 (thermal models).

Mr. Silberholz continued the presentation with an overview of the thermal models. Thermal models are considered for the aftertreatment system (ATS), for the coolant and lube oil circuit, and for battery and electric motor. The ATS thermal models have been implemented in Simulink and are currently being validated with existing measurement data. Measurements for the parameterization of the thermal model for coolant and lube oil are currently conducted on an engine test bed. The thermal models for battery and electric motor are under preparation in cooperation with the Institute Electrical Measurement and Measurement Signal Processing at TU Graz. OEM input and validation is needed after the implementation. Details of task 1.6 are shown on pages 22 to 34.

After implementation of the models, simulation runs and validation of basic functions will be conducted. While relatively simple control strategies will be used for the model validation, the simulation runs are suggested to be based on largely realistic control strategies. Generic values, measurement data of the institutes and measurement data from OEMs (if available) will be used as input data. Task 1 is planned to be completed by the end of January 2013.

Task 2 (adaptation of the HILS simulator for parallel hybrids) will start in October 2012. The institutes propose that the model validation and simulation should be done with vehicles intended for validation test program 2. Task 3 includes the description of the test procedure and the user manual for the software. It was indicated that the Task 3 can only be on schedule, if the HILS structure is retained. Establishment of a component library, as favored by the HDH IWG, does not fit into the current HILS model.

Status of the work towards developing a methodology for certifying heavy-duty hybrids based on “hardware in the loop simulation” (HILS).

Proposal from the research institutions involved in assessing and adapting hardware-in-the-loop simulation (HILS) methodologies to the evaluation of heavy-duty hybrids for the anticipated second phase work to produce a HILS tool for use in GTR 4 hybrid vehicle provisions.

Assessment of hardware-in-the-loop simulation (HILS) methodologies and proposals for enhancements (e.g. more topologies, component library, temperature signals to include cold start tests).

Work package 3: Extension of hardware-in-the-loop simulation (HILS) to non-electrical hybrids currently not
covered by Kokujikan No. 281.