Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

From lab-to-road & vice-versa: Using a simulation-based approach for

predicting real-world CO2 emissions*
Stefanos Tsiakmakis a, b, Georgios Fontaras a, *, Jan Dornoff c, Victor Valverde a,
Dimitrios Komnos a, Biagio Ciuffo a, Peter Mock c, Zissis Samaras b
a
Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 21027, Ispra, Italy
b
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mechanical Engineering Department, The Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece
c
International Council on Clean Transportation Europe, 10178, Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: CO2 emissions of light-duty vehicles are certified over standardised, laboratory-based conditions and
Received 6 September 2018 reported to the consumers. Such tests reflect specific operating conditions that differ from what an in-
Received in revised form dividual driver experiences. Vehicle simulation can bridge the gap and help provide customised, vehicle
25 November 2018
and trip-specific values. This study investigates the potential of using a simulation-based approach for
Accepted 11 December 2018
Available online 19 December 2018
calculating CO2 emissions over real-world operation, when limited information and test-data are
available. The methodology introduced in the European vehicle certification regulation since 2017 is used
as a basis. Seven vehicles were tested over multiple on-road trips and in some cases on a chassis dyno.
Keywords:
CO2 emissions
First, the analysis focused on the accuracy of the simulations when only limited information for the
Fuel consumption vehicle and its components are used. Subsequently, the model was calibrated on test data. The first case
Real-world operation presented an error between 1.0% and 4.4% depending on the test, while the standard deviation was 10.0%.
WLTP When using WLTP for calibration, the average error dropped to
2.9% to
0.2%, and the standard de-
Vehicle simulation viation decreased to 2.0%. When calibrating over on-road tests, the average error was 0.7% for the on-
road tests and 4.5% for the WLTP.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction of vehicles and mandatory emission targets for light-duty vehicles

Reducing CO2 emissions and energy consumption from the road
transport sector is of high importance to the European member
states for fulfilling their commitments to reduce their greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and living up to the targets of the Paris
Agreement on climate change mitigation. In Europe, transport ac-
counts for roughly one-fifth of the total GHG emissions, the ma-
jority of which originates from road transport; transport is the only
primary sector in the European Union (EU) where greenhouse gas
emissions are still rising [1]. Given this issue, the EU adopted pol-
icies and other initiatives aiming to limit CO2 emissions from
transport. In particular for road transport those include emissions
monitoring, promoting technologies that reduce the CO2 emission
* [7], are currently (2018) in EU co-decision procedure.
The views expressed in the paper are purely those of the authors and may not
be considered under any circumstance as an official position of the European
Commission.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: georgios.fontaras@ec.europa.eu (G. Fontaras).
(LDV). In 2017 a new type approval test procedure was adopted [2]
introducing the Worldwide harmonised Light vehicles Test Pro-
cedure (WLTP) [3] which was also a profound change in how CO2
emissions of LDV are tested, certified and reported in the EU. The
current CO2 emissions regulation for LDV is based on the New
European Drive Cycle (NEDC) test procedure. The regulation fore-
sees a simulation-based method to determine the NEDC CO2
emissions that correlate to the measured WLTP CO2 values [4] in
order to avoid double testing in both WLTP and NEDC during the
transition period between 2017 and 2021. For this correlation
procedure, the Joint Research Center of the European Commission
(JRC) developed the ‘CO2 Model for PAssenger and commercial
vehicles Simulation’ tool (CO2MPAS). Ambitious WLTP based CO2
targets for the years 2025, and 2030 [5,6], as well as the intro-
duction of onboard fuel consumption monitoring systems (OBFCM)
Several studies point out the difference between officially
declared CO2 values of LDVs and those experienced by consumers
during real driving. This fleet-average gap is reported to be

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.063
0360-5442/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1154 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

Nomenclature OBD Onboard Diagnostics

OBFCM Onboard Fuel Consumption Monitoring Systems
a Acceleration P Power
AWD All-wheel Drive PEMS Portable Emission Measurement Systems
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure PyCSIS Passenger Car fleet emissions Simulator
CO2MPAS CO2 Model for PAssenger and commercial vehicles RWDC Real-World Data Calibration
Simulation S/S Start-Stop System
Cm Engine Mean Piston Speed SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
EPA Environmental Protection Agency SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
EU European Union t Time
FMEP Fuel Mean Effective Pressure T Temperature
g Acceleration of Gravity USA United States of America
GDC Generic Data Calibration v Velocity
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions VELA Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
GPS Global Positioning System WLTP Worldwide Harmonised Light-duty Vehicles Test
ICE Internal Combustion Engine Procedure
JRC Joint Research Center 2WD/4WD 2/4 Wheels Drive
k Exponential Parameter a, b, c, a2 Willans Lines Model Thermodynamic Efficiency
LDC Lab Data Calibration Parameters
LDV Light-Duty Vehicles l, l2 Willans Lines Model Engine Losses Parameters
m Vehicle Mass F0, F1, F2 Road Load Coefficients
NASA National Aeronautics & Space Administration h Efficiency
NED National Elevation Dataset 4 Road Gradient
NEDC New European Driving Cycle

increasing over time [9] and has reached approximately 40% in
2016 [10,11]. The same problem is reported in China with a gap
value of 30% being calculated in 2017 [12]. Due to an effective
correction procedure the gap reported for the USA was less than
20% in 2012 [13] and possibly much smaller today. A series of fac-
tors responsible for this gap [8,14] have been identified. The factors
include the deficiencies of the NEDC test procedure to represent
realistic on-road driving conditions, the inherent variability of the
real-world operating conditions, the effect of the driving style, the
unrealistic cycle composition of urban, rural and motorway driving
compared to real life, the use of a vehicle's inertia class and not its
actual mass, the exclusion of all additional equipment in the
determination of mass, and the exploitation of test margins by the
manufacturers. The CO2 emissions were always determined for the
lightest vehicle (excl. any optional equipment) and, also, the vehicle
was tested for an inertia class, not its actual mass. The situation is
expected to improve with the introduction of WLTP [15e17] but not
completely be alleviated as no laboratory test can capture all factors
and the inherent variability of fuel consumption in real-world
operation. Some first studies estimate a gap of 15e20% between
real-world and WLTP CO2 emissions [6,18], but it is still too early for
deriving solid conclusions as the WLTP is still in its introduction
phase.
To achieve higher CO2 emissions reductions in real-world
operation and pave the way for new innovative technologies that
will improve the sustainability of the road transport sector, it is on
the one hand essential to communicate to the consumers realistic
CO2 emissions values [22], and on the other hand to develop the
necessary instruments to increase the effectiveness of policy and
monitoring tools [23]. In the US the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), introduced a weighing procedure based on the re-
sults of five tests cycles, that are employed for deriving the fuel
economy value that is communicated to the consumers (window-
sticker gas mileage) [19]. Remaining gaps between laboratory
measurements and real-world emissions (e.g. due to road condi-
tions) are addressed by applying a mathematical adjustment factor
[20]; still the information communicated with each individual
vehicle includes the disclaimer that “Actual results will vary for
many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and
maintain your vehicle” [21]. In Europe, some first initiatives for
consumer information have been presented by vehicle manufac-
turers and other companies or non-governmental organisations
who are providing estimates on the fuel consumption when the
vehicles are used under realistic operating conditions [24e26].
However, the information provided is still very fragmented and
partly contradictory due to the different methods used to deter-
mine these emissions. The values measured in various standardised
or non-standardised test protocols (partly remaining the property
of their developers) cannot be linked directly to the official type
approval values or other standard tests foreseen by the EU regu-
lation. Furthermore, the impact of exogenous factors - environ-
mental conditions, traffic, usage-specific characteristics - on the
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is not taken entirely into ac-
count. These factors can vary stochastically and are thus difficult to
reproduce under laboratory conditions. Most of these approaches
are based on statistical corrections. Ntziachristos et al. [27] pro-
posed a simple regression model with three parameters: type
approval fuel consumption, reference mass, and engine capacity,
which were found to account for more than 85% of the variance in
real-world fuel consumption. As the model uses publicly available
vehicle data, it can be used to estimate real-world fuel consumption
and CO2 emission values for large data sets and fleet analysis. Lig-
terink et al. [28] proposed four regression models, using a combi-
nation of type-approval fuel consumption values, vehicle mass,
frontal area, engine power, maximum vehicle speed, and vehicle
build year. When externally validated these models achieved co-
efficients of determination which ranged from 0.42 to 0.56. Duarte
et al. [29] used a regression model based on vehicle specific power
to predict fuel consumption. The model achieved coefficients of
determination higher than 0.9 and was used to estimate the on-
road fuel consumption of best-selling vehicles in Portugal. Greene
et al. [30] applied a simple regression model to US on-road fuel
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165
economy data and found that 56e68% of the variance in on-road
fuel economy figures could be explained by test-cycle fuel con-
sumption values alone. The previous models provide some robust
approaches for estimating on-road fuel consumption, but they also
have a series of limitations. Even though they offer good accuracy
when averaging over a large number of vehicles their uncertainty
increases for individual vehicles. In addition, they require pre-
existing calibration datasets which may vary from year to year.
Finally, they have limited capacity to capture additional factors such
as the exact vehicle characteristics, driver behaviour or extreme
operating conditions.
In the present study, an alternative approach to simulate
vehicle-specific real-world vehicle CO2 emissions is investigated.
The simulation model accepts both detailed vehicle characteristics
and operating conditions into account. The simulation tool used for
this study is PyCSIS, which is presented in detail in Ref. [31]. PyCSIS
employs the simulation methodology introduced in the CO2MPAS
tool [4,32] and can use as input vehicle specific parameters and,
when available, data from chassis-dyno WLTP tests or real-world
measurements. In the latter case, the model can calibrate inter-
nally generic component operation and efficiency functions and
sub-models to reflect the performance of the specific vehicle better.
The suitability and accuracy of PyCSIS for simulating fleet-average
CO2 emissions have been thoroughly tested and validated [31].
The present work presents the first attempt to use laboratory data
to calibrate the tool and use it for the estimation of real-world
emissions, and/or vice versa, use real-world data to calibrate the
tool and use it for the estimation of laboratory CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, as of today, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no
other work demonstrates the increased accuracy which could be
achieved in the estimation of vehicle specific CO2 emissions by
using only publicly available vehicle data and tests only at the
vehicle level.
The paper is structured as follows. The methodology section
presents the simulation methodology and the different types of
tests performed on real vehicles. Data from tests conducted on
seven vehicles are divided into three groups and are used to
quantify the accuracy and uncertainty of reproducing the CO2
emissions on the road and in the laboratory when using different
input data and model calibration combinations. Initially, generic
vehicle inputs are employed to calculate emissions over real-world
trips. Subsequently, measurement data is used to calibrate vehicle
specific sub-models and parameters. The calibrated vehicle models
are used to simulate the CO2 emissions for different real-world and
chassis dyno speed profiles. The paper concludes with a discussion
on the possible applications of the proposed methodology and on
specific extensions of the tool to better reflect the effect of external
factors on real-world driving CO2 emissions.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental tests and vehicle data
For the needs of this study, seven passenger cars were tested
over various (real-world and chassis dyno) conditions (vehicle in-
formation presented in Table 1). Real-world tests were performed
on public roads using Portable Emissions Measurement System
(PEMS) and onboard data loggers while chassis dyno tests were
performed in the Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (VELA) of the Joint
Research Center (JRC), in Ispra, Italy. Table 2 summarises some
essential information regarding the real-world routes: number of
repetitions, average velocity, and distance driven. The cars and
respective measurement data are divided into three groups
depending on the test locations and the type of data measured in
each case (Table 3).
1155
a. Group A: The first group of cars consists of three Diesel Euro 6
vehicles which were tested on the road in several repetitions
over four different routes in Germany, using PEMS (vehicles 1e3,
routes 1e4);
b. Group B: The second group consists of two Gasoline and one
Diesel Euro 6 vehicles which were tested both in the lab (WLTP)
and over two real-world routes in Italy, using PEMS (vehicle
4e6, routes 5e6);
c. Group C: The third group consists of one Diesel Euro 6 vehicle
which was tested both in the lab, over the WLTP, and over one
real-world route in Italy, using PEMS and onboard data logger
(vehicle 7, route 7), and over four routes in Italy and Germany,
using only the onboard data logger (vehicle 7, routes 8e11).
More detailed information regarding the measurement
campaign of the first group of vehicles (1e3) can be found in
Ref. [22], while the measurements performed with the rest, both
on-road and in the laboratory, are summarized in Ref. [33].
2.2. Simulation tool
The tool used to perform the simulations in this study is PyCSIS
[31]. The suitability and accuracy of the tool for simulating fleet-
average CO2 emissions have been tested thoroughly and vali-
dated, as discussed in Ref. [31]. PyCSIS uses the same underlying
simulation methodology as the CO2MPAS [32], which has been
extensively validated using data of vehicles representing the
complete EU fleet. Similarly to CO2MPAS, PyCSIS consists of three
main modules.
The Inputs Module combines the various inputs together,
namely: (a.) the user-defined inputs, i.e. the vehicle specifications
(Table 4) and the mission profile to be simulated (velocity profile),
(b.) the default inputs, i.e. default parameters of the tool which are
not necessarily demanded from the user, and (c.) the test data
which are used to calibrate the calculated inputs.
The Energy Demand Module calculates the energy demand from
the engine to follow a predefined velocity profile using longitudinal
vehicle dynamics. The equation of the instantaneous drivetrain
energy balance is:

 .
Pdtr ¼ F0 *cosðfÞ þ F1 *v þ F2 *v2 þ m*a þ m*g*sin f *v h
dtr
(1)
where the numerator represents the power at the wheels required
to move the vehicle along the defined velocity profile, and the
denominator represents the efficiency of the complete drivetrain,
i.e. from the wheels to the clutch. The variables m, g, and 4 are the
vehicle mass, the acceleration of gravity and the road gradient,
respectively. The drivetrain efficiency, hdtr, is considered as a
function of torque, engine rotational speed and constant empirical
factors, which are derived from detailed generic gearbox models.
The factors F0, F1, F2, represent the road load coefficients of the
vehicle and are calculated by PyCSIS for the respective test pro-
cedures, i.e. NEDC, WLTP, from publicly available information.
The Fuel Consumption Module calculates the instantaneous
engine speed, power, coolant temperature and fuel consumption,
starting from the engine speed and power demand from the
drivetrain to follow the vehicle speed profile. The engine power is
defined as the sum of the drivetrain power demand, as calculated in
the Energy Demand Module, the power demand from the vehicle
electrical system, e.g. the alternator power demand, and the power
demand of auxiliary systems connected to the engine, e.g. pumps.
Some state-of-the-art energy-saving technologies, such as start-
stop and advanced alternator control for partial brake energy
1156 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

Table 1
Vehicles specifications used in the sample.

Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicle 3 Vehicle 4 Vehicle 5 Vehicle 6 Vehicle 7

Body Type 4-door Sedan 5-door Station Wagon 5-door Station Wagon 5-door 5-door SUV 5-door 5-door Hatchback
Hatchback Hatchback
Fuel Type Diesel DI Diesel DI Diesel DI Gasoline Diesel DI Gasoline Diesel DI
No of Cylinders 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
Type of Aspiration Turbocharged Turbocharged Two-Stage Turbocharged Turbocharged Naturally Turbocharged
Turbocharged Aspirated
Capacity 1968 cc 1995 cc 2191 cc 999 cc 1956 1242 cc 1968 cc
Power 103 kW @ 4200 120 kW @ 4000 RPM 110 kW @ 4500 RPM 70 kW @ 103 kW @ 3750 RPM 51 kW @ 110 kW @ 3500 RPM
RPM 5000e5500 5500 RPM
RPM
Max Torque 320 Nm @ 1750 380 Nm @ 1750e2750 380 Nm @ 2000 RPM 160 Nm @ 350 Nm @ 1750 102 Nm @ 340 Nm @ 1750e3000 RPM
e2500 RPM RPM 1500e3500 RPM 3000 RPM
RPM
Gearbox Type Dual Clutch Torque converter Manual Transmission Manual Torque Converter Manual Dual Clutch Automated
Automated automatic Transmission Transmission Automatic Transmission Transmission
Transmission Transmission
No of Gears 6 8 6 5 9 5 6
Driven Axles Front Rear Front Front AWD Front Front
Emission Particulate Filter NOx Storage Catalyst & Low compression ratio & 3-way NOx Storage 3-way NOx Storage Catalyst &
Reduction & SCR & High- Particulate Filter & Particulate Filter & High- Catalyst Catalyst & Catalyst Particulate Filter & Low-
Systems Pressure EGR High-Pressure EGR Pressure EGR Particulate Filter & and High-Pressure EGR
Dual EGR
Mass in Running 1599 kg 1575 kg 1578 kg 1210 kg 1645 kg 1015 kg 1413 kg
Ordera
Maximum Mass 2110 kg 2050 kg 2090 kg 1680 kg 2100 kg 1420 kg 1880 kg
PEMS Test Load 152 kg 146 kg 150 kg 140 kg 110 kg 140 kg 107 kg
Wheels 205/50 R17 205/60 R16 225/55 R17 215/40 R17 225/45 R18 175/65 R14 225/40 R18
Type Approval CO2 131 g/km 112 g/km 116 g/km 98 g/km 144 g/km 119 g/km 117 g/km
(NEDC)
Max Velocity 212 km/h 222 km/h 210 km/h 186 km/h 190 km/h 164 km/h 216 km/h
Initial Mileage 75,806 km 68,753 km 82,760 km 2539 km 10,457 km 2336 km 25,602 km
Production Year 2013 2013 2012 2016 2016 2016 2015
a
Empty weight of the vehicle with manufacturer defined standard equipment, including 75 kg for driver and luggage.

recuperation, are incorporated by a general operating strategy. The or calculated based on empirical functions and sub-modules
fuel consumption is calculated by an extended Willan's Model implemented in PyCSIS. A comprehensive list of all PyCSIS model
[34,35] as follows: parameters is provided in the Appendix.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi




2 
k


a þ b*CmðtÞ þ c*CmðtÞ2 þ a þ b*CmðtÞ þ c*CmðtÞ2
4*a2* TðtÞ=Ttrg * l þ l2*CmðtÞ2
BMEPðtÞ
FMEPðtÞ ¼ (2)
2*a2

PyCSIS was initially developed for the simulation of chassis dyno

where FMEP is the fuel mean effective pressure, a value represen-
tative for the fuel consumption normalised by the engine capacity,
BMEP stands for the engine brake mean effective pressure; Cm
stands for the mean piston speed, T it the engine coolant temper-
ature and Ttrg is the target operating temperature of the engine. The
empiric parameters a, b, c, a2 define the thermodynamic efficiency
of the engine, while the parameters l and l2 correspond to the
engine losses due to friction, and pumping. Generic values of these
parameters have been calculated for specific engine categories and
are used as input to the respective model. Temperature is taken into
account by a simplified thermal model based on the equilibrium
between the heat produced in the combustion process and the
most appropriate heat sinks in the engine.
Fig. 1 presents the outline of PyCSIS, while Table 4 lists the main
inputs required from the user. Other parameters can be either
derived from time series measurement data (similarly to CO2MPAS)
tests. The following adaptations were made to facilitate the simu-
lation of real-world vehicle operation. In all calibrations and sub-
sequent simulations, the effect of the PEMS equipment on vehicle
test mass and aerodynamic resistance was accounted for by
increasing the vehicle mass and adjusting the road load co-
efficients. To account for parameters such as the use of air condi-
tioning, open/closed windows, headlights, assistive steering an
additional average auxiliary load of 0.3 kW was added to the engine
power demand. Furthermore, the effect of the rotating masses
(wheels, driveshaft, gearboxes and engine) on the inertia force is
estimated as 6% of the vehicle mass.
2.3. Model calibration
Three approaches to calibrating the PyCSIS-based model have
been investigated. Different sets of inputs are considered here as a
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165 1157

Table 2
Routes and trips specifications.

Route Min-Max Avg. Trip Avg. Trip Avg. Coolant Avg. Dynamicity Ambient Min/Max/Avg
Distance Altitude [m] Duration [min] Velocity [km/h] Temperature at Start [oC] V*A [m2/s3] Temperature [oC]
[km]

Route 1 - urban, DE 20.2 220e474 54.1 22.3 83.6 0.65 19/43/28

Route 2 - rural, DE 52.5 243e522 70.2 44.6 75.7 1.39 18/40/26
Route 3 - urban, DE 11.0 512e538 33.6 19.6 71.1 1.09 22/36/28
Route 4 - rural & 91.6 597e950 81.8 67.2 85.5 1.97 18/42/24
motorway, DE
Route 5 - urban, rural & 94.4 202e413 110.4 54.4 21 2.33 10/21/30
motorway, IT
Route 6 - urban, rural & 79.2 201e298 95.6 49.7 21 2.14 11/30/24
motorway, IT
Route 7 - urban, rural & 94.1 191e412 103.5 54.6 53.0 2.53 18/21/19
motorway, IT
Route 8 - rural, highway, 384.4 218-1659 332.0 69.5 90.0 2.69 13/22/18
urban, IT & CH
Route 9 - rural, highway, 141.7 38e150 107.5 79.1 84.0 2.66 16/19/17
urban, DE
Route 10 - urban & 41.9 36e74 46.3 54.3 12.0 3.22 9/11/10
highway, DE
Route 11 - urban & 47.9 38e74 41.5 69.3 68.3 3.36 11/12/11
highway, DE

Table 3
Outline of the three different test groups.

Data Group Vehicles Routes Tests

A 1 to 3 1 to 4 On-road (PEMS)
B 4 to 6 5 to 6 On-road (PEMS) and chassis dyno (WLTP)
C 7 7 to 11 On-road (PEMS, route 7), on-board fuel consumption, (routes 8 to 11), and chassis dyno (WLTP)

Table 4
User-defined inputs of the Vehicle Simulation Tool (Vehicle Specifications).

Name Unit Values/Comments

Aspiration Method e Turbocharged or Natural Aspiration/Turbocharged concerns all turbocharger configurations

Dynamic Rolling Radius Mm The dynamic rolling radius of the wheel
Engine Capacity cm3 Engine capacity
Final Drive Ratio e Final drive ratio
Fuel Type e Fuel can be gasoline, diesel, etc.
Gearbox Ratios e Dictionary with the gearbox ratios
Gearbox Type e Manual or automatic
Mass in Running Order Kg As defined in Regulation No. 1230/2012 [36]
Rated Power kW Rated power of the ICE
Rated Speed min
1 The speed at which rated power occurs of the ICE
Peak Torque Nm Peak torque of the ICE
Reference Mass Kg Vehicle test mass
Start-Stop Technology e Presence of an S/S system
Stroke Mm Cylinder stroke
Unladen Mass Kg Vehicle curb mass
Velocity Profile km/h, s, - Velocity, time, gear
Powered Axles e 2WD or 4WD

different way of calibrating the simulation tool:
 Generic Data Calibration (GDC): The GDC approach was applied
to the first and the second group of vehicles and measurements.
For each one of the vehicles, PyCSIS was set-up based on the
vehicle specific parameters listed in Table 1, completed by
generic or calculated parameters where the vehicle specific ones
were not available (e.g. gearbox ratios, road loads). Those
generic parameters were extracted from the vehicle database
described in Ref. [34] or estimated as described in the same
document;
 Lab Data Calibration (LDC): This approach was applied to the
second and third group of cars, for which laboratory WLTP
measurements were available. As in the GDC approach, the
model for each vehicle was pre-calibrated based on its technical
parameters listed in Table 1. Whereas in GDC approach generic
and calculated values were used to estimate unavailable or
empirical calibration parameters, in the LDC approach, the
measurement data collected during the vehicle testing was used
to calibrate the pre-calibrated submodels. During the calibration
process the Willans coefficients, the drivetrain losses as well as
the thermal system and electric system parameters were
1158 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

RWDC usually covers a broader region of the vehicle's operation

range as compared to the LDC.

2.4. Simulations

Fig. 1. Outline of PyCSIS and its sub-models. The various sub-models are grouped into
the Energy Demand Module and the Fuel Consumption Module. The various inputs e
user-defined inputs, i.e. vehicle specifications & mission profile, default inputs, and
calibrated inputs e are separately grouped under the Inputs Module.
The models were calibrated using specific test data and were
subsequently used to simulate the remaining tests in each data
group. For defining a test to be simulated, the velocity profile as
recorded in the GPS was directly used, while the altitude profiles
were derived for each trip from the GPS position data and the
digital elevation model database of gpsvisualizer.com [37]. The
latter is based on the NASA's SRTM3 and the US Geological Survey's
NED elevation datasets. The altitude profiles are used to estimate
the road grade/slope and to calculate the instantaneous air density;
both directly affecting the power demand.
When the road load factors of the simulation tests were
different from the calibration test (as in the case of the LDC
approach for example), the rolling and aerodynamic resistances
were directly calculated by the tool, considering the additional
mass of the PEMS and its effect on the aerodynamic resistance
(similar to the calibration methodology). Only for the simulation of
the WLTP test (RWDC approach), where all test-specific boundary
conditions and provisions were set, the official road loads of the
vehicle were used.
The simulated total CO2 emission of each trip was compared to
the target value, i.e. the value measured by the PEMS. For a more
detailed analysis, the accumulated simulated CO2 emissions over
time and other instantaneous signals were also compared to the
respective signals based on the PEMS measurement, for selected
trips. Results are presented in detail in the following section.

adjusted in such a way that the simulated accumulated

CO2 emissions over the four phases of the WLTP are in best
possible agreement with the measured values used for the
calibration;
 Real-World Data Calibration (RWDC): In the third approach, the
model was calibrated based on both the characteristics of the
vehicles and time-series test results measured on the road,
using PEMS and onboard data loggers. As in the LDC approach,
the data were used to calibrate the vehicle specific component
efficiency parameters and sub-models. This approach is
applied only to the third group of cars and test results. This is
the only sample containing data from PEMS and onboard data
loggers, providing the maximum number of inputs for the
calibration of the model, i.e. engine speed, and coolant tem-
perature. It is noted that some data required for the model
calibration, namely the road loads and the alternator and
battery currents, were not measured during the on-road tests.
To estimate the electric load, the LDC model of this vehicle was
used to simulate and produce the missing data. PyCSIS calcu-
lated the road loads.

For validation, the calibrated models were then used to simulate

the CO2 emissions measured over different tests performed with
the respective vehicle.
The application of the three approaches is presented in Fig. 2.
Moving from the GDC to the LDC, and then finally to the RWDC, Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the calibration & simulation methodology. Moving
represents a gradual increase of the detail and resolution of the from the first calibration approach, Step 1/the GDC, to the second, Step 2/the LDC, and
then the third, Step 3/the RWDC, represents a gradual increase of the model's inputs
model's inputs. Hence, higher accuracy is expected in the results
resolution and thus should be accompanied by a higher accuracy in the end-results.
because for the GDC no time-series data are available, and the Note: OBD tests represent the tests with the onboard data loggers.
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165
Fig. 3. Distribution of the generic data calibration approach error for the first group of
cars. The simulation error follows a normal distribution with a mean value of
0.5%
and a standard deviation of 11.1%, which is within the expected limits, considering the
overall uncertainty of the approach.
3. Results & discussion
3.1. Generic data calibration approach
3.1.1. Aggregated results
For the GDC approach, no real validation was possible. Hence the
results presented below are reflecting the predictive quality of the
model. The error distribution of the simulations performed using
the GDC approach, for the first group of cars, is presented in Fig. 3.
This approach is the closest to what has been used so far in similar
exercises, i.e. regression models used for the estimation of the real-
world CO2 emissions of a vehicles fleet. In this case, the error over a
trip is defined as the percentile difference of the CO2 emissions
predicted by PyCSIS compared to what has been experimentally
measured. Hence, Fig. 3 presents the distribution of the tool's bias.1
The distribution is centred around
0.5% which indicates a very
low tool bias when considering all vehicles and all trips (Table 5)
and the respective mean absolute error is 9.2%. The standard de-
viation of the bias and the absolute error are 11.1% and 6.3%
respectively. This level of model uncertainty was expected as (a.)
the number of input parameters was minimal, and (b.) even for a
chassis-dyno test, where all boundary conditions are fully defined,
the acceptable value for the CO2 measurement uncertainty is 2e4%
(depending on the cycle and conditions).
Fig. 4 presents the mean error and the mean of the absolute
value of the error, along with their standard deviations for each
vehicle and route. The models were not adapted to the trip char-
acteristics such as the driver, driving style, use of auxiliaries. It
should be noted that this alone could affect the simulated CO2
emissions in the order of ±20%, as demonstrated in Ref. [8].
Fig. 4 shows that although the average bias and uncertainty of all
vehicle models is low, in individual cases, they can significantly
vary. The simulation results of vehicle 1 show the lowest mean
absolute error and standard deviation for all trips. In this case, the
bias remains within a low range (
1.6 to
6.8%) for all tests as does
the standard deviation. The model underestimates the measured
CO2 emissions on average by 5.6% on this vehicle. This is not the
case for vehicles 2 and 3. For these two vehicles, although the
average bias remains very low (2%), there are individual trips where
the model underestimates or overestimates CO2 emissions. The
simulation results of vehicle 2 have the highest deviation between
simulated and measured CO2 emissions, ranging from
13% to 17%.
1
Bias is defined as the ratio of simulated cumulative CO2 over measured cu-
mulative CO2, minus one.
1159
As a result, the standard deviation is also higher with approxi-
mately 14%. The mean absolute error between the simulated and
the measured CO2 is 12.5%, with a standard deviation of 6.6%. It is
noted that this vehicle is the only vehicle with an automatic
transmission. The power demand of the transmission and the los-
ses in the torque converter e mainly during urban driving e can
vary substantially and are not reflected in the generic vehicle model
calibration. For vehicle 3 the error ranges from
10 to 10% while the
standard deviation is in the order of 9%.
The low overall error demonstrates the positive effect of aver-
aging results over a large number of vehicles and trips (similar to
currently used regression models), while the high standard devia-
tion suggests a strong dependency of the simulation accuracy on
the vehicle and route combination. The comparison of the simu-
lation errors by routes reveals that route 1 is the best reproduced by
all vehicle models, resulting in an average absolute error of 8%, with
a standard deviation of 5.2%, whereas route 2 shows the highest
simulation error, with an average absolute error of 10.4% and a
standard deviation of 8.3%. Variations in the usage of auxiliaries and
different environmental conditions can lead to considerably
different CO2 emissions for the same vehicle speed profile, mainly
over city driving where the driving power demand is relatively low.
Under such conditions the effect of auxiliaries (e.g. air-
conditioning, headlights, seat heating, defrost) and the high fric-
tion losses during engine cold-start represent a significant share of
the total power demand. Measurement data required to take these
effects into account or to perform a more in-depth analysis of the
simulation error causes were not available. Thus, no conclusions on
the simulation accuracy, at route-level, can be drawn at this point.
Nevertheless, considering the uncertainties introduced in the GDC
approach, the results fall within the expected range.
3.1.2. Performance over individual trips
In order to provide more insight into the model's operation, the
simulation results of one vehicle on one trip are discussed (trip 11
with vehicle 1 on route 2). Similar results were obtained for trips
with vehicles 2 and 3. In Fig. 5 the target, i.e. PEMS measured sig-
nals, and the simulated signals for CO2 emissions, engine speed and
engine coolant temperature are compared.
The overall good correlation between the simulation and mea-
surement time series results of all signals is an indicator for the
accurate operation of the various sub-models of the simulation tool.
For this particular trip, the simulation error of the total CO2 emis-
sions is
2.3%. It is noted, that for this vehicle and trip, no particular
bias seems to be introduced by using the generic input parameters.
3.2. Lab data calibration approach
3.2.1. Aggregated results
Vehicles of both the second and third groups were used in order
to study the LDC approach. The vehicle models were calibrated
using their WLTP measurement data (see methodology) and then
used to predict the real-world trips performed with each vehicle.
For the second group of vehicles, real-world tests were performed
using PEMS only, i.e. no onboard data logger records are available.
For the vehicle in group 3, only onboard data logger results are used
in this section, as no PEMS was used for the majority of tests.
Fig. 6 summarises the results of the LDC approach for the three
vehicles and six tests of the second group. As it can be seen, there is
a good correlation between the simulated and measured CO2
emissions. The cumulative error seems to decrease during each trip
and stabilises at low values. Vehicle 4 achieves the lowest error
(among the three vehicles of the second group) for both tests,
namely
1.04% for route 5 and -0.19% for route 6. This is the
smallest vehicle, in terms of engine capacity, of the whole fleet. The
1160 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

Table 5
Generic data calibration approach simulation results for the first group of cars - Statistics.

Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Vehicle 3 All vehicles

Mean Error/Std Mean Abs Error/Std Mean Error/Std Mean Abs Error/Std Mean Error/Std Mean Abs Error/Std Mean Error/Std Mean Abs Error/Std

Route 1
6.8%/7.1% 8.6%/4.6% 1.9%/11.1% 9.0%/6.2% 5.2%/6.1% 6.4%/4.7% ¡0.1%/9.6% 8.0%/5.2%

Route 2
4.2%/2.3% 4.2%/2.3% 17.7%/5.2% 17.7%/5.2% 6.7%/10.0% 7.7%/8.9% 7.7%/11.0% 10.4%/8.3%
Route 3
6.2%/7.4% 7.5%/5.8%
13.0%/5.8% 13.0%/5.8%
9.1%/8.1% 9.5%/7.5% ¡9.4%/7.4% 10.0%/6.5%
Route 4
1.6%/3.3% 2.7%/2.1% 16.6%/5.5% 16.6%/5.5% 10.7%/2.4% 10.7%/2.4% 8.5%/8.7% 10.0%/6.8%
All routes ¡5.6%/6.5% 7.0%/4.9% 2.0%/14.1% 12.5%/6.6% 2.1%/9.9% 8.1%/6.0% ¡0.5%/11.1% 9.2%/6.3%

Fig. 4. Cumulative CO2 emission simulation errors of the generic data calibrated
models for the three vehicles of the first group of cars, over the four routes. As ex-
pected the simulation accuracy is more influenced by the vehicle than by the route.

Fig. 6. Measured vs simulated CO2 emissions & cumulative error of the lab data
calibration approach for the three vehicles and six tests of the second group. The time
series data show a good correlation, and the overall average error is
0.15%, with a
standard deviation of 1.89%.

inaccuracies of the simulation method itself.

Fig. 5. Measured (Target) versus simulated signals based on the generic data calibra-
tion approach for vehicle 1 on route 2 (trip 11). The time series data show a good
correlation and the overall error on the cumulative CO2 emissions is
2.3%.
second smallest car is vehicle 6, which similarly has a very low error
of 1.33% and 1.43% on routes 5 and 6, respectively. Both are gasoline
vehicles operating close to lambda ¼ 1, and therefore CO2 emissions
can be calculated from the intake air flow signal more accurately. As
a result, the uncertainty of the reference CO2 measurements is
expected to be lower. On the other side, vehicle 5 achieves the
worst results among the vehicles of the second group,
namely
3.46% for route 5 and 1.02% for route 6. This is the vehicle
with the highest engine capacity in the group, and it is the only
automatic, all-wheel drive (AWD), and diesel fueled, in this
particular group. Hence, part of the error could be attributed to the
underlying CO2 measurement uncertainty, in addition to the
Fig. 7 presents the results of the simulation for the four tests
performed with vehicle 7 (group 3), equipped only with an onboard
data logger. On average, the model overestimates the CO2 emissions
by 2.87%, equivalent to an average error of 6.1 g CO2/km, while the
minimum and maximum errors are
4.20% on route 10 and þ 7.09%
on route 9, respectively.
The model captures well the overall trend, but the analysis also
reveals two issues: (a.) Route 8 contains substantial mountainous
driving covering an altitude range from approx. 200 m to more than
1600 m. This has a distinct effect on the measured CO2 emissions.
However, this effect is not reflected in the simulated CO2 emissions
curve, resulting in a deviation between the simulation and the
target CO2 lines between sec 5000 and approx. sec 7500. The
limited amount of data does not allow an in-depth investigation,
and hence no final root cause for this issue can be determined. Most
likely two effects are causing this deviation. The applied smoothing
of the slope signal can result in an underestimation of the power
required to compensate for the change in potential energy. On the
other hand, the engine efficiency is likely to change due to the low
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165
Fig. 7. Cumulative read-world CO2 emissions simulation results with the lab data
calibration approach applied to simulate the tests performed with the onboard data
loggers on vehicle 7. Overall average is þ2.9%, with a spread from
4.20% (route 10)
to þ7.09% (route 9).
ambient air pressure encountered at high altitude. The latter is also
supported by the observation made between sec 14,500 to sec
15,000, where the increase in CO2 emissions due to another sig-
nificant change in altitude at a lower absolute level is predicted by
the model with an excellent correlation to the measurement. (b.) In
route 9 and route 11, where the highest simulation errors are
observed, certain sections of the trips (from sec 2000 till sec 3000
and from sec 700 till sec 1000 over the two routes, respectively)
show a significant deviation between the simulation and the target,
whereas for the other parts of the trips, measurement and simu-
lation are in very good agreement. More information and test data
would be required to understand the root cause of this error.
3.2.2. Effect of calibration method
Fig. 8 presents the cumulative error of the CO2 emissions pre-
diction, for the second group of vehicles, using both the GDC and
the LDC approach. The overall average error and standard deviation
of the GDC approach is 4.4% and 9.8% respectively. The error drops
to
0.2% with a standard deviation of 1.9% when applying the LDC
approach, i.e. the WLTP test results are used for the calibration of
the simulation model.
Vehicle 4, which exhibited the best results under the LDC
approach, achieved the highest improvement; the average error
over the two tests decreased by over 100%, going from þ12.0%
to
0.6%. For vehicles 5 and 6 the improvement was similar; the
average error decreases from
8.1% to
1.2% and from 9.3% to 1.4%
Fig. 8. Effect of the calibration method on the simulation model prediction quality: the
average simulation error drops from 4.4% to
0.2%, while the standard deviation re-
duces from 9.8% to 1.9%.
1161
respectively. The improvement achieved on each one of the two
tests was relatively the same while the differences between the
prediction accuracies of the two tests for each individual vehicle
were kept unchanged, i.e. route 5 was better reproduced by the
tool, as compared to route 6, both before and after the calibration.
3.2.3. Detailed analysis of real-world simulation results
In Fig. 9, the measured and simulated signals of vehicle 7 (third
group) on route 7 are compared. For this trip both PEMS and on-
board logger data are available and therefore a more detailed
analysis can be performed. The simulated CO2 emissions are in
good agreement with the measurement, with an error of
1.9% in
the cumulative CO2 emissions which is equivalent to
2.6 g/km.
While the road load factors used in the WLTP dyno-test, used for
the calibration of the model, are known, the road load factors of the
vehicle during the real-world trips are unknown and thus calcu-
lated by the tool, something that can introduce an error which
should be taken into account in the evaluation of the results.
Furthermore, the target CO2 value in this case is not measured but
calculated based on lambda and air-flow-meter. This alone can
result in an error when the WLTP measurement is used for the
calibration, as over WLTP CO2 is directly measure. Another potential
cause for simulation errors is the slightly smaller engine operating
range coverage of the WLTP test compared to the real-world test, as
depicted in Fig. 10. This fact leads to extrapolations in the areas that
are not or insufficiently covered which reduces the predictive
quality of the model.
3.3. Real-world data calibration approach
3.3.1. Real-world results
In this approach test results of vehicle 7 (third group) were used
to calibrate the model. As described in section 2.3, the test per-
formed over route 7, i.e. the PEMS test, was used for the calibration,
and both tests performed over routes 8e11 e with onboard data
loggers e and in the lab were used as the simulation tests. Two
things should be noted: (a.) the PEMS test used for the calibration in
this approach was a hot-start test (starting at 70  C), and thus, to
calibrate the temperature model the cold-start section of the
measured WLTP test was used as an alternative; (b.) since the
alternator and battery currents were not measured during the on-
road tests, the LDC model of the same vehicle was used to simulate
Fig. 9. Real-world simulation results of the lab data calibration approach for vehicle 7
on route 7. Simulated results follow the measured signals closely, resulting in an
overall error on the cumulative CO2 emissions of
2.6 g/km, equivalent to
1.9%.
1162 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165
Fig. 10. Engine Speed vs Engine Load for the PEMS and the WLTP tests. The PEMS test
covers a more extensive area of the engine operation range than the WLTP.
and reproduce the missing data.
Fig. 11 presents a comparison of the measurement data against
the simulation results, generated with the RDWC approach for the
four tests over routes 8e11 of vehicle seven. The simulation error for
routes 9e11 is lower compared to the error of LDC simulations,
whereas it is higher for route 8. The average error is þ0.66% ranging
from
2.6% for route 8 to þ5.4% for route 11. As for the LDC, the
simulation of route eight does not reflect the effect of high altitude
on the CO2 emissions. The simulated CO2 emissions over routes 10
and 11 exceed the measured values over the initial phase of the tests.
This deviation could be attributed to the insufficient calibration of
the temperature model, which in turn leads to an overestimated
cold-start effect on fuel consumption. This behaviour is observed
only for the two cold start-tests (tests on route 10 and 11), whereas
the hot-start tests (on route 8 and 9) do not show the same behav-
iour. Overall, the RWDC approach demonstrates a slightly better
predictive power as compared to the LDC approach, as it can be seen
from the average error and the respective ranges. Namely the RWDC
approach achieves an average error of þ0.66%, ranging from
2.6%
to þ5.4, while for the LDC approach the respective values are an
average error of þ2.9% and a spread from
4.2% to þ7.1%.
3.3.2. WLTP prediction results
Subsequently, the same model was used to simulate a WLTP
cycle. Compared to the measured CO2 emissions the overall error
Fig. 11. Real-world simulation results with the real-world data calibration approach.
The average error of all trips is þ0.66%, ranging from
2.57% (route 8) to þ5.39% (route
11).
Fig. 12. WLTP simulation result with the real-world data calibration approach for
vehicle 7. The overall error on the cumulative CO2 emissions is þ6.0 g/km, equivalent
to þ4.5%.
is þ4.5% which is equivalent to 6.0 g CO2/km (Fig. 12). Simulated
and target signals of engine speed and CO2 emissions are in good
agreement, while the coolant temperature signals substantially
differ. As explained above, using the cold-start section of the
measured WLTP test for the calibration of the temperature model
leads to less accurate simulation of the temperature model and
results in a prolonged, simulated cold start duration. The latter can
partly explain why the model overestimates the CO2 emissions.
Another uncertainty originates from the calculated road load fac-
tors in the calibration. Given the overall limited amount of data,
extracting some quantifiable general conclusions for this approach
with only one vehicle would be difficult. The primary conclusion
drawn is that despite this shortcoming and the non-ideal data used
for the model calibration, the results are promising and the
approach could be further developed. Additional test data over both
WLTP dyno-tests and complete real-world tests would be required
for a more thorough assessment of the method.
4. Conclusions future outlook
4.1. Conclusions
The study aimed to investigate the potential of using a
simulation-based methodology for predicting vehicle CO2 emis-
sions for real-world and laboratory drive cycles. The simulation
models were calibrated with input data sets of different quality and
resolution. The tool used in the study, PyCSIS, offers the required
versatility. Effectively three different approaches were investigated.
For the first approach, only publicly available vehicle data is used
for the model calibration. The resulting average simulation error
ranges from 1% to 4.5%, with a standard deviation of approx. 10%.
For the second and third approach, the simulation models were
calibrated using measurement data from WLTP and on-road tests,
respectively. Using measurement data for the model calibration
significantly improves the simulation accuracy by more than 85%
compared to the generic data calibration approach. For the lab data
calibration approach, i.e. the second approach, the average error is
reduced to a range from 0% to less than 3.0%, and the standard
deviation drops to 2.0%. For the real-world data calibration
approach, the average error is 0.7% for the simulation of on-road
driving and 4.5% for the WLTP. Considering the limited level of
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165 1163

detail of the data used for the model calibration, the achieved ac-
curacy and overall performance of the proposed methodology is
promising. The results show that the investigated calibration ap-
proaches, with certain improvements, are suitable for simulating
real-world CO2 emissions.
The present work also revealed that not all parameters that have
an influence on the CO2 emissions during real-world driving could
be fully captured. In order to further improve the methodology's
predictive capabilities, more comprehensive measurement data
would be needed for the model calibration, mainly covering the
usage of auxiliaries and the varying environmental conditions. Also,
the calibration model needs to be extended by appropriate func-
tions that can reproduce these dependencies as demonstrated also
by [38].
It is expected that the introduction of onboard fuel consumption
monitoring systems in European light-duty vehicles will help
further improve the simulation method described in this paper and
could increase its application potential. The measurement of fuel
consumption under actual operating conditions will become more
straightforward and approachable to the average non-expert driver,
and the improvements in the quality and accuracy of the measured
signal are also likely to improve the results of the method.
4.2. Outlook and potential applications
The developed methodology could become the basis for a series
of applications.
On a driver and consumer level, the first possibility is the
development of customizable tools that could calculate vehicle and
user-specific CO2 emissions, for specifically defined use cases.
Those could be based on either publicly available vehicle infor-
mation or simple, low-cost test data, e.g. collected by the driver
with a basic OBD data logger, or on a combination of the two.
Building on the same concept another potential use-case could be
the application of the methodology to analyze the real-life fuel
consumption and driving performance of a specific driver over
specific driving conditions. This information could, in turn, be used
to provide feedback regarding the environmental and economic
effects of driving style and habits, the use of auxiliary equipment, or
benchmark different vehicle configurations and models to identify
the most efficient one for the specific use case.
Seen from a regulator's perspective, the data collected during
on-road driving can be used to calibrate the respective vehicle
model, as demonstrated in this paper. The later could then be used
to simulate the vehicle type approval CO2 emissions; in this use
case, significant divergences between the simulated CO2 value and
the official one could trigger further investigation.
Finally, seen from a more scientific perspective, data collected
from a specific number of on-road driving and laboratory tests can
be used to calibrate specific vehicle models, which could then be
used to produce realistic data, representative of extended, or less
ordinary, operating and environmental conditions. Those could be
used as input to existing CO2 emission inventories and projection
tools or for updating and extending existing emission factors
without the need for costly additional testing. Building on the same
concept, the methodology presented could be used to normalise
CO2 measurements of different vehicles over different conditions in
order to be used as a reference for extending consumer information
material, similar to the window-sticker applied in the USA or for
providing qualified estimates of the CO2 emissions gap.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of all the VELA
staff who contributed to the test measurements. Authors would like
to thank Dr. Jelica Pavlovic for her valuable feedback and support
regarding the WLTP certification procedure, and Dr. Vincenzo
Arcidiacono and Mr Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos for their help
on the CO2MPAS model and the data structuring. In addition, the
authors would like to thank Mr Cosmin Codrea for providing
constructive feedback during the writing of the paper. Part of the
work presented in this paper has been performed within the
framework of Dr. Tsiakmakis' doctoral research that was funded by
the European Commission.
Appendix

Table 6
Default Inputs of the Vehicle Simulation Tool.

Name Unit Values/Comments

Air Density kg/m3 1.2 kg/m3

Angle Slope radians 0 radians
Auxiliaries Mechanical Power Loss kW 0 kW
Auxiliaries Mechanical Torque Loss Nm 0 Nm
Battery's Balance State of Charge % 80%
Battery's Balance Window State of Charge % 1%
Break Energy Recuperation System e Present
Battery's Initial State of Charge % 80%/99% when running NEDC
Coolant Constant e 0.4
Coolant Flow e 0.008
Delta Speed Cold RPM 50 RPM
Eco Mode for ATs e True

Engine Thermostat Temperature C 85  C
Equivalent Gearbox Heat Capacity kg*J/K Based on Gearbox Type
Fuel Carbon Content gCO2/gFuel Based on Fuel
Fuel Heating Value kJ/kg Based on Fuel
Full Load Curve e Based on Engine Type, Nominal Power, Idle and Nominal Speed
-
Gearbox Efficiency Parameters Based on Gearbox Type
Heat to Engine Ratio e 0.35
-
Inertial Factor 0.03/0.015 when running NEDC
Motoring Curve e Based on Engine Type, Nominal Power, Idle and Nominal Speed

Starting Temperature C 23  C/25  C when running NEDC

Temperature Increase when Engine is Off C 0 C
1164 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165

Table 7
Calculated / Derived Inputs of the Vehicle Simulation Tool.

Name Unit Values/Comments

Alternator Efficiency e Average of Measured Cars Database

Alternator Nominal Power kW Average of Measured Cars Database
Alternator Nominal Voltage V Average of Measured Cars Database
Alternator Charging Current A Function of Alternator Specifications
Automatic Gearbox Models e Function of Measured Cars Database Average & the Speed Velocity Ratios of the Car
Battery Capacity Ah Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Electric Loads kW Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Engine Parameters e Function of Max Power, Capacity, and Engine Type
Idle Engine Speed RPM Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Idle Fuel Consumption gr/sec Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Max Battery Charging Current A Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Max Engine's Speed RPM Linear Function of Engine's Nominal Speed

Max Engine's Temperature C Equals to Thermostat Temperature þ10  C
Road Loads e Function of Mass and Vehicle Related Specs
Speed Velocity Ratios e Function of Final Drive Ratio, Gearbox Ratios, and Dynamic Rolling Radius of the Wheel
Starting Current Demand A Linear Function of Engine's Capacity
Start Stop Activation Time sec Linear Function of Engine's Capacity

Temperature Threshold C Equals to Thermostat Temperature e 5  C

References 0361198118756894. 036119811875689.

[15] Dimaratos A, Tsokolis D, Fontaras G, Tsiakmakis S, Ciuffo B, Samaras Z.
Comparative evaluation of the effect of various technologies on light-duty
[1] EC DG Clima. Road transport: Reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles | Climate
vehicle CO2 emissions over NEDC and WLTP. Transp Res Procedia 2016;14:
Action n.d. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles_en (accessed
3169e78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.257.
November 28, 2016).
[16] Tsokolis D, Tsiakmakis S, Dimaratos A, Fontaras G, Pistikopoulos P, Ciuffo B,
[2] European Commission. Regulation (EC) 2017/1151 of 1 June 2017 supple-
et al. Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of passenger cars over the new
menting Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Worldwide harmonized test protocol. Appl Energy 2016;179:1152e65.
Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.091.
light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to
[17] Demuynck J, Bosteels D, De Paepe M, Favre C, May J, Verhelst S. Recom-
vehicle repair and maintenance information, amending Directive 2007/46/EC
mendations for the new WLTP cycle based on an analysis of vehicle emission
of the European Parliament and of the Council. In: Commission regulation (EC)
measurements on NEDC and CADC. Energy Pol 2012;49:234e42. https://
No 692/2008 and commission regulation (EU) No 1230/2012 and repealing
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.081.
commission regulation (EC) No 692/2008; 2017.
[18] Tsiakmakis S, Fontaras G, Anagnostopoulos K, Ciuffo B, Marotta A.
[3] UNECE. Global technical regulation No. 15. In: Worldwide harmonized light
A simulation based approach for quantifying CO2 emissions of light duty
vehicles test procedure. Geneva: UNECE; 2015.
vehicle fleets. A case study on WLTP introduction. Transp Res Procedia
[4] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1153 of 2 June 2017 setting
2017;25:3902e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.308.
out a methodology for determining the correlation parameters necessary for
[19] US EPA O. Basic information on fuel economy labeling. US EPA; 2016. https://
reflecting the change in the regulatory test procedure and amending Regu-
www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/basic-information-fuel-economy-labeling.
lation (EU) No 1014/2010 [n.d].
[Accessed 26 August 2018].
[5] European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament
[20] European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Innovation. Closing
and of the council setting emission performance standards for new passenger
the gap between light-duty vehicle real-world CO2 emissions and laboratory
cars and for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union's integrated
testing. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2016.
approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles and amending
[21] Fuel Economy and Environment Label n.d. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. 2017.
Find.do?action¼bt1 (accessed August 26, 2018).
[6] Vehicle's On-Board Fuel Consumption Measurement device n.d. https://ec.
[22] Triantafyllopoulos G, Kontses A, Tsokolis D, Ntziachristos L, Samaras Z. Po-
europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-6091004_cs
tential of energy efficiency technologies in reducing vehicle consumption
(accessed August 26, 2018).
under type approval and real world conditions. Energy 2017;140:365e73.
[7] Fontaras G, Zacharof N-G, Ciuffo B. Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.023.
passenger cars in Europe e laboratory versus real-world emissions. Prog
[23] Zhang S, Wu Y, Un P, Fu L, Hao J. Modeling real-world fuel consumption and
Energy Combust Sci 2017;60:97e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/
carbon dioxide emissions with high resolution for light-duty passenger ve-
j.pecs.2016.12.004.
hicles in a traffic populated city. Energy 2016;113:461e71. https://doi.org/
[8] Pavlovic J, Ciuffo B, Fontaras G, Valverde V, Marotta A. How much difference in
10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.067.
type-approval CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe can be expected
[24] Schmidt S. EcoTest testing and assessment protocol. 2015.
from changing to the new test procedure (NEDC vs. WLTP)? Transport Res Part
[25] PEMS-Messungen an drei Euro 6-Diesel-Pkw auf Streckenführungen in
Policy Pract 2018;111:136e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.002.
Stuttgart und München sowie auf Außerortsstrecken. 2015.
[9] Tietge U, Diaz S, Mock P, German J, Bandivadekar A, Ligterink N. White Paper -
[26] UTAC CERAM. Dossier de presse : Re
sultats des contro^ les des e

missions de
from Laboratory to Road: a 2016 update of official and “real-world” fuel
polluants atmosphe
riques et de CO2 mene
s sur les 52 premiers ve
hicules.
consumption and CO2 values for passenger cars in Europe. 2016.
2016.
[10] Tietge U, Mock P, Franco V, Zacharof N. From laboratory to road: modeling the
[27] Ntziachristos L, Mellios G, Tsokolis D, Keller M, Hausberger S, Ligterink NE,
divergence between official and real-world fuel consumption and CO2
et al. In-use vs. type-approval fuel consumption of current passenger cars in
emission values in the German passenger car market for the years
Europe. Energy Pol 2014;67:403e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/
2001e2014. Energy Pol 2017;103:212e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.12.013.
j.enpol.2017.01.021.
[28] Ligterink NE, Smokers RTM, Spreen JS, Mock P, Tietge U. Supporting analysis
[11] Zhang S, Wu Y, Liu H, Huang R, Un P, Zhou Y, et al. Real-world fuel con-
on real-world light-duty vehicle CO2-emissions. 2016.
sumption and CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions by driving conditions for light-
[29] Duarte GO, Gonçalves GA, Baptista PC, Farias TL. Establishing bonds between
duty passenger vehicles in China. Energy 2014;69:247e57. https://doi.org/
vehicle certification data and real-world vehicle fuel consumption e a Vehicle
10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.103.
Specific Power approach. Energy Convers Manag 2015;92:251e65. https://
[12] Greene DL, Khattak AJ, Liu J, Wang X, Hopson JL, Goeltz R. What is the evi-
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.042.
dence concerning the gap between on-road and Environmental Protection
[30] Greene DL, Khattak A, Liu J, Hopson JL, Wang X, Goeltz R. How do motorists'
Agency fuel economy ratings? Transport Pol 2017;53:146e60. https://doi.org/
own fuel economy estimates. Compare with official government ratings? A
10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.10.002.
statistical analysis. 2015.
[13] Ligterink NE, Smokers RT, Spreen J, Mock P, Tietge U, Sponsor DG. Supporting
[31] Tsiakmakis S, Fontaras G, Ciuffo B, Samaras Z. A simulation-based method-
analysis on real-world light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions. TNO; 2016.
ology for quantifying European passenger car fleet CO2 emissions. Appl En-
[14] Pavlovic J, Anagnostopoulos K, Clairotte M, Arcidiacono V, Fontaras G, Rujas IP,
ergy 2017;199:447e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.045.
et al. Dealing with the gap between type-approval and in-use light duty ve-
[32] Fontaras G, Valverde V, Arcidiacono V, Tsiakmakis S, Anagnostopoulos K,
hicles fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions: present situation and future
Komnos D, et al. The development and validation of a vehicle simulator for the
perspective. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/
introduction of Worldwide Harmonized test protocol in the European light
 S. Tsiakmakis et al. / Energy 169 (2019) 1153e1165
duty vehicle CO2 certification process. Appl Energy 2018;226:784e96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.009.
[33] Clairotte M, Valverde V, Bonnel P, Giechaskiel B, Carriero M, Otura M, et al.
Joint Research Centre 2017 light-duty vehicles emissions testing. 2018. Ispra.
[34] Application of Willans Line Method for Internal Combustion Engines Scal-
ability towards the Design and Optimization of Eco-Innovation Solutions n.d.
http://papers.sae.org/2015-24-2397/(accessed November 28, 2016).
[35] Introduction to modeling and control of internal combustion | lino guzzella |
Springer. [n.d].
[36] European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1230/2012 implementing Regu-
lation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with
1165
regard to type approval requirements for masses and dimensions of motor
vehicles and their trailers and amending Directive 2007/46/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council. 2012 [n.d].
[37] GPS Visualizer: Assign elevation data to coordinates n.d. http://www.
gpsvisualizer.com/elevation (accessed May 20, 2018).
[38] Review of in use factors affecting the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of
passenger cars - EU Science Hub - European Commission. EU Sci Hub; 2016.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/review-use-factors-affecting-fuel-consumption-and-co2-emissions-
passenger-cars. [Accessed 28 November 2016].