Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-2098
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-10-25T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

9/3/15

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Review with Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar,
Eaton and Allison

FROM: James Sanchez

TO:  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

This memo documents communication on September 3rd, 2015 between
representatives of Cummins, Volvo, Navistar, Paccar, Eaton, Allison, and
EPA to discuss heavy-duty test procedures proposed in the Phase 2
greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles
notice of proposed rulemaking.  

Participants: 

Cummins – Jackie Yeager, Manik Narula

Eaton – Erik Dykes

EPA – Houshun Zhang, James Sanchez

Navistar –Cortney Guzlas, Matt Hunkler, Brad Carlson, Laura Richart

PACCAR – Dan Kieffer, Erin Luke

Allison – Mike Howenstein, Jeff Shultz

Volvo – Tony Greszler, Yuesheng He

Discussion and follow-up items (with owner's name in bold): 

Update on Volvo testing – Yuesheng/Tony

Volvo shared in-progress results from engine dyno testing on
GEM-generated cycles – observations:

Did not get expected spread of N/V on 55 mph cycle

Vehicle struggling to hit vehicle speed target on ARB transient cycle

Houshun – could be issue with auto shift in GEM, which will be
re-calibrated once more data available from SwRI and ORNL tests

Saw high cycle work on the config with low axle ratio

Houshun requested comparison of interpolation scheme from Excel file vs.
surface fit from SAE paper – Yuesheng 

Other topics

Question about transfer case efficiency losses in GEM missing from
vehicle sub-categories other than Class 8 tractor

New grade profiles

Some vehicles can’t follow trace – will +/- constraint on vehicle
speed target be retained?  Yes, but could be improved, need some metric
to constrain how driver model is tuned for powertrain test

Test won’t be invalidated for not meeting speed target if at max
effort/full pedal

Some technologies intentionally don’t follow the trace (for example,
predictive technologies) – how to account for in powertrain testing
and in GEM? 

Will powertrain protocol allow grade inputs to ECM or transmission? 
Could consider it

Houshun requested comparison of interpolation scheme vs. surface fit –
Manik