Propulsori Termici (a.y.

2016 2017)
- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Calculation of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from a

passenger car over a driving cycle

Federico Millo (Politecnico di Torino - Dip. Energia)

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

NEDC
140

Speed (km/h)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Time (s)

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

NEDC
First step: calculating the engine operating points over the NEDC

Engine operating points

bmep

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

First step: calculating the engine

operating points over the NEDC
140

1
Fres = Fr + Fa + Fs = r mg + C x Av 2 + mg sin
2

Speed
(km/h)

Velocit (km/h)

120
100
80

Fres = F0 + F1 * v + F2 * v 2

60
40
20
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Tempo (s)

Time (s)

Km
* 60
v

h
p marcia
rpm[rpm] =
2 R0 [m] * 3,6

PmT [kW ] = Fres v + mtras

dv
v
dt

Pm[kW ]
bmep[bar ] = 1200
rpm V [dm 3 ]
4

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

DRIVELINE
Engine
Crankshaft

Clutch

Gear shift

Wheels

Axle shaft

eng = wheel gear final

5

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

COAST DOWN
mtras

dv
= F0 + F1v + F2 v 2
dt

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

DRIVELINE
Engine
Crankshaft

Clutch

Wheels

Gear shift

Axle shaft

mapparent mvehicle + J wheel

1
+ J eng
2
r

2
gear
2final

r2
7

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Instantaneous
BMEP [BAR]

BSFC map

ENGINE SPEED [RPM]

Fuel Consumption

Cumulated
Fuel Consumption

FUEL
CONSUMPTION
l/100km
km/l
8

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

CO2 emissions

n f = nCO2 + nCO + nHC

mCO2

CO
mf
f

mCO2 mCO mHC

+
+
mf = nf f =
CO
CO HC
2

mCO2 [ g / km] =

f [kg / dm3]
0.0315

V [l / 100km]

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Simple model limits

1.

Thermal transient during warm-up

not taken into account.

2.

Real vehicle speed profile not

simulated.

75

Speed
(km/h)

Velocit (km/h)

70
65
60
55
50
45
185

190

195

200

205

Tempo (s)

Time (s)

10

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Simple model limits

4.

Transmission efficiency variations with

load not taken into account
Transient conditions not taken into
account: driving cycle simulated as a
sequence of steady state conditions.

eff

Rendimento (-)

3.

1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0

0,1

0,2

0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Coppia/Coppia massima (-)

Torque/Torque

0,8

0,9

max

Although with some limitations, the analysis allows a number of issues to be

evaluated, such as for instance:

effects on fuel consumption of variations of gear ratios, coast down, vehicle

mass

effects of fuel cut-off, start&stop

11

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Real world driving cycles vs. NEDC

Real world driving cycles
NEDC

120

160

100

140

80

Velocit (km/h)

Velocit (km/h)

140

60
40

120
100
80
60
40

20

20

0
0

200

400

600
Tempo (s)

800

1000

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Tempo (s)

12

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Type approval values and real drive emissions

The lack of correlation with the real world operating conditions, can be attributed to:
1. real world driving, which is definitely more dynamic than the NEDC (i.e. show higher vehicle
accelerations/decelerations due to more aggressive drivers behaviors and different traffic
conditions);
2. real world vehicle mass which is generally higher than type approval;
3.

road incline;

4. environmental conditions

14

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP vs NEDC
Several studies have demonstrated the significant
discrepancy between the type approval test and
the real world driving conditions.
The gap between real-world driving conditions
and type approval test has forced the European
Commission to replace the NEDC with the
Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test
Procedure (WLTP) starting from Sept. 2017.

NEDC

Units
s
km
km/h
km/h
Durations
Stop
s
Constant Driving
s
Acceleration
s
Deceleration
s
Shares
Stop
%
Constant Driving
%
Acceleration
%
Deceleration
%

Duration
Distance
Mean Velocity
Max Velocity

WLTP

NEDC
1180
11,0
33,6
120,0

WLTP
1800
23,3
46,5
131,3

280
493
247
539

226
98
762
730

23.7
41.8
20,9
45.7

12.6
5.4
42,3
40.6

15

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP vs NEDC

The test conditions for the two driving cycles

are different, influencing the CO2 emissions
The test mass for the WLTP test cycle
(TMH) is higher that the NEDC one
(TMEU), because it is necessary to
consider the weight of optional
equipment
= + 100

= + + 100 + 0,15
100

Where UM is the curb mass of the vehicle,

OM is the mass of optional equipment and
LM is the technically permissible laden
mass

R oad Load Variation

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

The WLTP requests for the vehicles equipped with a manual transmission a specific
definition of the gear shift profile dependent on the vehicle characteristics (engine,
transmission and road load), than for the NEDC cycle the gear profile is fixed with the
possibility to use the sixth gear on the Extra-Urban Phase

NEDC Gear P rofile

W LTP Gear P rofile

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

NEDC/WLTP Engine Speed

For the NEDC cycle the gear

shift strategy is the same for
both vehicles

For the WLTP cycle the gear shift

strategy is different for the two
vehicles as prescribed by the Type
Approval procedure
17

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP Engine Operating Points

Along the WLTP cycle the internal combustion engine operates along the
Full Load Curve It is necessary to limit the engine power using the
18
Full Load Curve

19

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP vs NEDC
The introduction of the WLTP is
expected to significantly impact on fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions, due to
the
significantly
different
engine
operating conditions.

WLTP

Vehicle:
European Mid-Size Passenger Car
50 kW - DI 1,3L Diesel Engine
Curb Mass: 1068 kg
WLTP CO2 = 145 g/km
NEDC CO2 =123 g/km

NEDC

20

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP vs NEDC
EX. HIGH=0,73 MJ/km

MIDDLE= 0,51 MJ/km

LOW= 0,46 MJ/km

HIGH=0,53 MJ/km

Energy required by the vehicle on

the WLTP: 0,60 MJ/km

UDC=0,35 MJ/km

EUDC= 0,40 MJ/km

Energy required by the vehicle on the

NEDC: 0,40 MJ/km

The higher severity of the WLTC produces a significant increase of energy required by the
vehicle.

21

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

WLTP vs NEDC

Nevertheless, the higher power demand of the WLTC can produce an improvement of the
engine average efficiency

WLTP = 0.31
NEDC = 0.25

WLTP CO2 = 145 g/km

NEDC CO2 =123 g/km

Note: conversion from NEDC CO2 into WLTP CO2 is engine and
vehicle dependent and currently under investigation !

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

22

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

CO2 emissions: the European Commission position

As part of the European Climate Change Programme, the European Commission carried out a
review of the strategy for the CO2 emissions reduction based on the voluntary committment of
OEMs to achieve an average CO2 emission of 120 g/km by 2012.
The conclusion of the review was that the voluntary approach has delivered a solid CO2 reduction
but has not been as successful as hoped.
Given the slower than expected progress to date, the 120g CO2/km target could not be met by
2012 without additional measures.
The new legislation (Regulation 443/2009/EC, adopted on 23 April 2009) defined a limit value
curve of permitted emissions of CO2 for new vehicles according to the mass of the vehicle.
The curve is set in such a way that a fleet average for all new cars of 130 grams of CO2 per
kilometre is achieved (target for 2015, with a further long term target of 95 g/km for 2020).
To meet the EU CO2 emission target of 120 g/km, a further emission reduction of 10 g/km is to
be provided by additional measures, such as the use of biofuels.
The regulation was phased-in over the period from 2012 to 2015.
Manufacturers had to meet their average CO2 emission targets in 65% of their fleets in 2012,
75% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 100% from 2015.
The new legislation imposed an excess emissions premium to manufacturer if their average
emission levels are above the limit value curve.
This premium is based on the number of grams per kilometre (g/km) that an average vehicle sold
by the manufacturer is above the curve, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold by the
manufacturer.

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

CO2 emissions: the European Commission position

u = M = mass in kg
uo = Mo = 1372 kg
a = 0.0457

23

24

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

Conversion of CO2 targets into efficiency targets

New CO2 emission targets set by EC (130 g/km for 2015, 95 g/km for 2020) are quite demanding,
especially for the long term target.
The amount of CO2 emitted depends from the amount of fule burned, and from carbon balance equation:
mCO2 [ g / km] =

f [kg / dm3]

V [l / 100km]
0.0315
corresponding to 5,5 l/100km fuel consumption for petrol cars and to 4,9 l/100km for diesel cars (for 130
g/km) and to 4 and 3,6 l/100km respectively for 95 g/km.
For an average European passenger car (compact size, about 1300 kg mass) the total energy requested
over the type approval driving cycle (NEDC) is about 0.4 MJ/km, that means that the following average
efficiencies values will be required (assuming a pure powertrain approach, that is, without considering
possible benefits coming from reduction in rolling resistance due to green tyres, aerodynamics
improvements, vehicle body lightening, etc.).
Average engine efficiency levels over NEDC

FC [l/100km]

Spark ignition
5.3

5.6

4.9

5.1

4.5

Diesel
4.1

3.6

2
0

30%
Average efficiency

l/100 km

33% 32%

35%
24% 23%

25%
20%

20% 19%

gasoline
diesel

15%
10%
5%

140

130

120
CO2 g/km

95

0%
CO2 = 160 g/km
current
2006 average

CO2 = 130 g/km

2015
2012 target

CO2 = 95 g/km
2020 target

25

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

However, over most of the NEDC the ICE is operated at low load, and thus
with poor efficiency figures, that make the 95 g/km CO2 target, at least
for gasoline engines, far beyond current system capabilities.
95 CO2 g/km
target

Gasoline

95 CO2 g/km
target

Diesel

Propulsori Termici (a.y. 2016 2017)

- Politecnico di Torino - prof. Federico Millo

CO2 legislation targets: impact of different actions

NEDC

33%

35%

32%

aero
rolling
inertia

10% reduction in:

Aero
Req.
For the average European passenger car
(1280 kg mass, croll 0.012, Cx*A = 0,7 m2)
Energy requested for NEDC is about 40 MJ/100km
(or about 110 Wh/km)

Rolling
Req.
Mass
Req.

3.3% red. En.

3.2% red. En.
6.7% red. En.

[1] Guzzella L.: Control of IC Engine Systems, 8th International Conference on Engines for Automobile, SAE ICE 2007

26