1 / 11

Comparison Study of RLD Methods: ISO/TC22/SC5/WG10 Study Presentation (2000)

Detailed comparison study carried out in 2000 for ISO/TC22/SC5/WG10 on RLD methods and calculations. Presenting data extraction for GTR-compliant tests. Evaluation of different testing methods including wind tunnel, Ch. Dynamometer, and road tests. Analysis on repeatability, vehicle performance, and deviations. Conclusions on method equivalency for vehicle testing.

leavittj
Download Presentation

Comparison Study of RLD Methods: ISO/TC22/SC5/WG10 Study Presentation (2000)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-166 RLD Methods Comparison Study carried out in 2000 for the ISO/TC22/SC5/WG10 UTAC/ICE_Lab C. Vallaude, Brussels, 14-15/11/12

  2. Study Presentation (1/2) • Study: done in 2000 for the ISO group => Was presented to the group in June 2001 • Objective : compare different RLD methods and calculations • Objective today: extract the data corresponding to tests complying with the GTR methods

  3. Study Presentation (2/2) • Test Vehicles => Obj : cover the extreme situations • 1 Small M1 • 1 N1 • Tests methods • Wind tunnel + Ch. Dynamometer => Alternative Method • Road => ISO10521 (samemethod as annex 4, §4.3.1.4 of draft GTR)

  4. Test Vehicles

  5. Test methods (1/2) • Alternative method (Tunnel +Ch/Dy) • Scxmeasured in 2 wind tunnels • Frictions measured on 2 chassisdynamometers • Measurements of rollingresistanceloads made up to 120 km/h • Warm up of axles : 30min at 120km/h for rear, 20min at 120km/h for front

  6. Test methods (2/2) • Road method • 1 road • Almostzeroslope • Length: ~2 km => thus 2-part CD (120-80km/h & 80-20km/h) • Generally warm, quitesunny conditions ( ~20 °C) • Low speed windsfrom 0 to 3 m/s

  7. Wind Tunnel Results

  8. Repeatability (1/2) • Road testing • Maximum difference from 1% to 4.4% between two tests

  9. Repeatability (2/) • WT + ChDy testing • Maximum difference from 2% to 4% (including 2 wind tunnels and 2 ChDy)

  10. WT + Ch/Dy & Road LW (1/2) • Road data are averaged over 4 tests for both vehicles • Opposite trends with the 2 vehicles

  11. Conclusion • Max difference for road testing around 4% at low wind • Max difference for WT + ChDy around 4% • deviations for both methods • Comparison WT+ChDy & Road • For V1 -2.4% to -4.7% • For V2 +2.1% to +2.9% • depends on vehicle • Conclusion in 2001, equivalency of both methods

More Related