Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
1
Brussels, January 24, 2013
FCM Stakeholder result meeting Development of a complete test procedure for Fuel Consumption Meters (FCM)
in LD vehicles, which can be integrated into implementing legislation
January 24th 2013
Brussels
Consortium of:
TNO: Sam van Goethem, Coen Obdeijn,
Robin Vermeulen
LAT: Savas Geivanidis, Zissis Samaras
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
2
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Content
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Aim and approach
2. Studies
a. Stakeholder questionnaire
b. Literature/ human factors
c. Chassis dynamometer tests
3. General conclusions
4. Recommended FCM requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
3
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Introduction: Background
Scope of the overall project
Development of:
Technical and functional requirements of FCM in LD vehicles
A complete physical test procedure (for chassis dynamometer testing)
Expected final result: regulatory technical text which can be annexed to implementing legislation.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
4
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Introduction: Background
Project structure
WP100: Definition of FCM requirements
Task 110: Definition of FCM requirement based on available sources
Task 120: Evaluation of technically feasible accuracies
WP200: FCM Type approval test procedure development
WP300: Validation and finalisation of the FCM test procedure
WP400: Technical annex to the regulation
Scope of WP100 Draft FCM requirements based on
Questionnaire
Literature (technical and human behavioural aspects)
Dynamometer results
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
5
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Introduction: Aim and approach
Definition of FCM requirement based on available sources (Task 110)
Definition of the requirements for FCM in LD vehicles
In collaboration with stakeholders via questionnaire
literature review into the currently available experiences with in-car devices
Starting point: Dutch paper published for FCM draft requirements – but not limited to this paper
FCM requirements should at least cover:
Functional requirements (display, presentation, visualization, etc.)
Technical requirements (reliability, accuracy)
The requirements shall be
practically applicable,
supportive for fuel consumption improvement by the driver,
based on acceptance by drivers,
technically feasible,
verifiable in a physical type approval procedure and,
not decreasing the safety.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
6
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Introduction: Aim and approach
Evaluation of technically feasible accuracies (Task 120)
Evaluation of up to three FCM systems on the chassis dynamometer
Vehicles equipped with different FCM
NEDC, Artemis and steady speed driving cycles
Recording of the FCM real time visual indication
FCM visual indication transcripted to data using imagine processing
Comparison of FCM signal vs. in laboratory fuel consumption measurement
The evaluation is also meant to deliver insights into the verifiability of the FCM requirements during a physical test procedure
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
7
Brussels, January 24, 2013
2. Studies Stakeholder questionnaire
Sam van Goethem, TNO
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Aim and approach
2. Studies
a. Stakeholder questionnaire
b. Literature/ human factors
c. Chassis dynamometer tests
3. General conclusions
4. Recommended FCM requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
8
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Method
Questionnaire was set-up to get a better understanding of FCM aspects from the stakeholder point of view
Current market penetration
FCM in relation to economic driving
FCM specifications
Technical boundaries
Human machine interaction – will be discussed in literature research part
Functionality and working principles of FCM – will be discussed in literature research part
Questionnaire was made available by the Commission for all stakeholders via CIRCABC
From heron a short overview of the answers will be displayed
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
9
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
How many percent of the total vehicle production sold in the EU are supplied with:
FCM as a standard feature?
• For some manufacturers all current produced vehicles are supplied with an FCM. For some manufacturers it is a lesser percentage from 40% to 95%. – ACEA
• Approximately 97% - JAMA
FCM as an option?
• For some manufacturer’s brands, according to the main question, an FCM is not an option. For other manufacturers the FCM is available as an option. - ACEA
• Less than 1%. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
10
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
How does this distribution (percent of total vehicle production sold in the EU with standard FCM or option) look like for the different vehicle segments?
• For some manufacturers the availability of FCM as standard fitment compared to FCM availability as an option is greater for the higher vehicle segments (e.g. 90% - 100% fitment) than for the lower vehicle segments (e.g. 60% - 80% fitment). For some manufacturers, vehicles in mini, SUV or truck segments do not have FCM. - ACEA
• Some models in the Mini, SUV, Truck, and other segments are not equipped. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
11
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
Are there vehicle types/engine types which cannot be supplied with a FCM? If not, why?
Based on FCM that already exist, the general answer is no. But there are questions whether FCM will be acceptable and accurate enough for LPG/CNG vehicles. – ACEA
Based on the FCMs that already exist, technically any vehicle can be supplied with a FCM provided there are no specific or lead-time requirements that need to be met. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
12
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
What is the accuracy of the currently used FCMs for the measuring the instantaneous/average fuel consumption (l/100km, km/l, l/h)?
• It is difficult to quantify FCM real-world accuracy since it depends highly on the operating environment of the specific vehicle and the driver. A comparison of various FCM evaluation methods suggests an accuracy of ± 10% but this does not accounting for dispersions in market fuel density that the customer will additionally observe. - ACEA
• A comparison of fuel consumption test methods suggested a deviation of plus or minus 10%. It is also difficult to quantify real-world accuracy since it is highly dependent on the operating environment of each user. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
13
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
What accuracy of fuel consumption measurements (l/100km, km/l, l/h) do you consider feasible?
• It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and on various factors outside the control of the vehicle or manufacturer. It will be difficult to improve on ±10%. In fact, the need for an even better level of accuracy is irrelevant since the objective of FCM (and other devices like GSI) is to help influence driver behaviour. – ACEA
• We believe the installation of a FCM can contribute to more ecologically friendly driving (Ecodriving), so the purpose of an FCM is get the user to take an interest in and practice Ecodriving. For that purpose, we do not think a high accuracy is very necessary. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
14
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
Is there a difference in calculation for different fuels? (e.g. gasoline, diesel, other)
• No difference. In case of other fuels, no difference. - ACEA
• There is no difference in calculation method. – JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
15
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
How do you test and validate these FCM values?
• It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, e.g:
On the dynamometer over various test cycles.
By on-road driving evaluations.
Comparing measured fuel consumption with FCM output.
- ACEA
• Some companies validate them using vehicles. - JAMA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
16
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire results
Some quotes:
If a regulation is justified it should be compatible with manufacturers current and planned on-board computer/FCM specifications, design, performance and location. If necessary, any legislation should aim to set simply some general boundary conditions. – ACEA
“Research shows that FCM driver feedback does result in savings but
it is unlikely to be at the levels achieved due to driver eco-training
and it is questionable if FCM will enhance savings due to following
the GSI signal.” – ACEA
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
17
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Questionnaire conclusions
Almost all vehicles sold are already equipped with a FCM system, and there are no technical limitations to equip every vehicle, provided there are no specific or lead-time requirements that need to be met.
The current FCM systems are said to be already +- 10% accurate, and is held as a feasible accuracy by the stakeholders
FCM accuracy is evaluated by stakeholders with chassis dynamometer and on-road tests
It is mentioned that FCM feedback does result in fuel consumption savings, and contribute to more ecologically friendly driving
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
18
Brussels, January 24, 2013
2. Studies Literature review, human factors
Coen Obdeijn, TNO
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Aim and approach
2. Studies
a. Stakeholder questionnaire
b. Literature/ human factors
c. Chassis dynamometer tests
3. General conclusions
4. Recommended FCM requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
19
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Method: Literature review, human factors
HMI design
principles ISO standards
FCM requirements
(Kroon, 2012)
Commission
recommendation
(26/V/2008)
Evaluation studies:
fuel economy
interfaces
Questionnaire:
JAMA & ACEA
Draft functional
requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
20
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM requirements: Functional
European statement of Principles on the
design of human-machine interface
(ESoP 2006)
Installation
principles
Information
presentation
principles
Interaction with
displays and
controls principles
System behaviour
principles
Information about
the system
principles
FR01 – FR04 FR05 – FR14 FR15 FR16 FR17
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
21
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Literature, human factors conclusions
Most requirements from [Kroon, 2012] were backed up either from literature, experience, measurements or a combination of the previous
Some requirements from [Kroon, 2012] were adjusted to make them more practical applicable.
Some requirements were added based on the information available from e.g. EU recommendation 26/V/2008 and ISO
Manufacturers already make use of the HMI guidelines for FCM functionality, but are not restricted by it.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
22
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Some examples of Draft FCM functional requirements: Installation FR02
The fuel consumption display
may be part of an larger
display and is positioned at
one of the following locations:
• In the instrument panel of
the vehicle’s dashboard;
• In the central console;
• In the central part of the
dashboard
Installation Principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
• Visual displays should be positioned as close as practicable to the
driver’s normal line of sight.
Reference: ISO 4513 (2003): Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for
establishment of eyellipses for driver’s eye location.
FR13 Internationally agreed standards
relating to symbols should be
used on FCM’s.
Information presentation principles (Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
Internationally and/or nationally agreed standards relating to legibility, audibility,
icons, symbols, words, acronyms and/or abbreviations should be used.
FR15 The driver must be able to
operate the on-board
computer/fuel consumption
meter easily from any regular
driver’s position
Interaction with the FCM
should allow the driver to
have at least one hand at the
steering wheel.
Interaction with display and controls principles (Commission
recommendation (26/V/2008)):
The driver should always be able to keep at least one hand on the steering
wheel while interacting with the system.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
23
Brussels, January 24, 2013
2. Studies Chassis dynamometer measurements
Savas Geivanidis, LAT/AUTh
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Aim and approach
2. Studies
a. Stakeholder questionnaire
b. Literature/ human factors
c. Chassis dynamometer tests
3. General conclusions
4. Recommended FCM requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
24
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Targets of testing
Assess the accuracy of FCM systems of
1 modern gasoline vehicle
1 modern diesel vehicle
1 older vehicle (gasoline)
Assess the ability of a FCM to measure the fuel consumption benefit over different test driving cycles of fuel saving technologies such as:
Engine deactivation system during vehicle stop (Start & Stop system, S&S) (gasoline vehicle)
Gear Shift Indicator (GSI) (diesel vehicle)
Compare different methods of FC measurement
Candidates for a possible type-approval test
Vehicle choice
Random, based on availability
Sample size limited by measurement resources
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
25
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Test cycles
NEDC (type-approval)
NEDC (hot start)
Artemis Urban (highly transient)
Artemis Road (gear shifting at higher rpm)
Steady speed: 50, 80, 100 km/h
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
26
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Measurement of Fuel Consumption
Using laboratory equipment:
CVS bag
(bag sampling and analysis of CO, CO2, HC)
Instantaneous
(integration of the FC calculated from the instantaneous CO, CO2, HC concentrations)
Using vehicle on-board data:
FCM average
(trip average during driving cycle)
FCM instantaneous
(integration of instantaneous on-screen indication)
Analyzer
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point D
Filter
Diaphragm
Dilution
airTo
ventilation
Constant
volume
pumpMixing
point
Exhaust
gas
Sampling line
Bag
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
27
Brussels, January 24, 2013
FC measurement: Instantaneous CO2 vs. Bag 2012
gasoline: -2.0%
2012,
diesel: -1.5%
2002, gasoline:
-1.5%
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡. 𝐶𝑂2
− 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
28
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Test vehicles
Test vehicle
segment Fuel Engine
capacity
[cc]
Model
year Emission
standard Target: Assess
the accuracy of
the FCM of a
Fuel saving
system
evaluated
‘Lower medium’
diesel 1600 2012 Euro 5 modern diesel
vehicle Start & stop
‘Lower medium’
gasoline 1400 2012 Euro 5 modern gasoline
vehicle Gear shift
indicator ‘Lower medium’
gasoline 1800 2002 Euro 3 old vehicle
(gasoline) -
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
29
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 5: FC
Instantaneous FCM deviates more in cycles with long vehicle stops due to FC unit definition (l/100 km) not covering areas of vehicle speed = 0
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
30
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Diesel, Euro 5: FC
FCM measured constantly lower than lab. methods
FCM instantaneous calculation deviation is due to on-screen warning signal covering FC information for certain periods of testing
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
31
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 3: FC
Similar results obtained by all measurement methods
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
32
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 5: FCFCM vs. FCbag
Max deviation of FCM over:
NEDC: better than -3%
Real world cycle: better than -5%
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝐹𝐶𝑀𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
− 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
33
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 5: FCFCM - Fcbag
FCM average absolute deviation: up to -0.5 l/100 km
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
34
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Diesel, Euro 5: FCFCM vs. FCbag
FCM average trip value deviation band: -10% to -18%
FCM instantaneous calculation deviation is due to on-screen warning signal covering FC information for certain periods of testing
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝐹𝐶𝑀𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
− 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
35
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Diesel, Euro 5: FCFCM - FCbag
FCM average absolute deviation: -0.6 to -1.2 l/100 km
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
36
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 3: FCFCM vs. FCbag
FCM deviation band: -4% to -8%
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝐹𝐶𝑀𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
− 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑔∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
37
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 3: FCFCM - FCbag
FCM average absolute deviation: up to -0.8 l/100 km
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
38
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Gasoline, Euro 5: FC benefit due to GSI
FCM calculates higher FC benefit (calculated absolute FC by FCM is lower)
Instantaneous FCM deviates more in cycles with long vehicle stops due to FC unit definition (l/100 km) not covering areas of vehicle speed = 0
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝐺𝑆𝐼 − 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
39
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Diesel, Euro 5: FC benefit due to Start&Stop
Benefit is calculated only at cycles with vehicle stops (as expected)
Artemis road shows FC increase with S&S due to the very short pause duration
FCM overstates in general the FC benefit
Δ =𝐹𝐶𝑆&𝑆 − 𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
𝐹𝐶𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒∙ 100%
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
40
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Findings
FCM vehicle testing – FCM accuracy
The tested FCM system demonstrated that at least the following FC measurement accuracies are possible
Gasoline vehicle: 1% to -5% (-4% to -8% on older vehicle)
Diesel vehicle: -10% to -18% (or better with correction offset)
Instantaneous FCM measurement is lower due to:
FC not defined at vehicle stops (due to being expressed on a per km basis)
Problems during chassis dynamometer testing (warning windows covering FCM indication)
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
41
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Measurement recommendations
FCM vehicle testing
Within the tested FCM systems:
At least one gasoline vehicle was able to comply to a requirement of measurement accuracy of ±5%
This can be also applied to diesel vehicles assuming no difference in FCM systems for gasoline and diesel vehicles
The FCMs of the two vehicles equipped with GSI and S&S systems were able to measure the FC difference and demonstrate the FC benefit from the activation of their fuel saving systems over the different test driving cycles
Issues related to FCM testing can be resolved as follows:
FC should be reported when vehicle is still (vehicle speed = 0 km/h) in per time instead of per distance units, e.g. l/h
A steady state test at multiple speeds >0 km/h can be used instead of a driving cycle
Real time visual FCM signal acquisition at a transient test may be replaced by access to this information in real time via the OBD/CAN bus
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
42
Brussels, January 24, 2013
1. Introduction
a. Background
b. Aim and approach
2. Studies
a. Stakeholder questionnaire
b. Literature/ human factors
c. Chassis dynamometer tests
3. General conclusions
4. Recommended FCM requirements
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
43
Brussels, January 24, 2013
3. General conclusions and recommendations
Current FCM systems are able to provide an accuracy of ±5%.
FCM accuracy in all its forms can be assessed in a chassis dynamometer test procedure.
Manufacturers already make use of the HMI guidelines for FCM functionality, but are not restricted by it.
Based on the questionnaire, literature research and measurements, the following slides of recommended FCM requirements are given.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
44
Brussels, January 24, 2013
4. Recommended Draft FCM requirements
Overview of:
technical requirements (TR)
functional requirements (FR)
Requirements are:
practically applicable,
supportive for fuel consumption improvement by the driver,
based on acceptance by drivers,
technically feasible,
verifiable in a physical type approval procedure and,
not decreasing the safety.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
45
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM technical requirements:
TR01 The fuel consumption data displayed e.g. average, instantaneous, idle, total lifetime, shall not
deviate from the real fuel consumption more than 5 [%] or 0.5 [litre/100km], whichever is less
TR02
The fuel consumption data e.g. average, instantaneous, idle, total lifetime shall be available on
OBD port under al conditions the vehicle is driving and idling.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
46
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Installation FR01 The driver must be able to
read the information displayed
about fuel consumption from
a regular seating position
during all meteorological
conditions.
Installation Principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
• Visual displays should be positioned as close as practicable to the
driver’s normal line of sight.
Reference: ISO 4513 (2003): Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for
establishment of eyellipses for driver’s eye location.
FR02 The fuel consumption display
may be part of an larger
display and is positioned at
one of the following locations:
• In the instrument panel of
the vehicle’s dashboard;
• In the central console;
• In the central part of the
dashboard
Installation Principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
• Visual displays should be positioned as close as practicable to the
driver’s normal line of sight.
Reference: ISO 4513 (2003): Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for
establishment of eyellipses for driver’s eye location.
FR03 The fuel consumption display
is located above knee level of
an average driver’s length.
The average driver’s length
shall be derived from the
regular driver’s size as
actually applied by the car
manufacturer.
Installation Principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
• Visual displays should be positioned as close as practicable to the
driver’s normal line of sight.
Reference: ISO 4513 (2003): Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for
establishment of eyellipses for driver’s eye location.
FR04 The fuel consumption display
should be designed to avoid
glare and reflections.
Installation Principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
• Visual displays should be designed and installed to avoid glare and
reflections
Reference: ISO 15008 (2003): Road vehicles – ergonomic aspects of
transport information and control systems – specification and compliance
procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
47
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Information presentation FR05 The vehicle must be equipped
with an on-board computer
which permanently displays
fuel consumption directly
visible for the driver.
The fuel consumption display
may only be overruled in case
of:
• (road) safety emergencies;
• risk of running out of fuel;
• technical failures related to
EOBD
Information presentation principles (Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
• Visually displayed information presented at any one time by the system
should be designed in such a way that the driver is able to assimilate the
relevant information with a few glances which are brief enough not to
adversely affect driving.
• Information with higher safety relevance should be given higher priority.
Reference:
ISO/TS16951 (2004): Road Vehicles - Ergonomic aspects of transport
information and control systems - Procedure for determining priority of on-board
messages presented to drivers.
FR06 Visible upon request of the
driver the fuel consumptions
display can switch between:
• ‘instantaneous fuel
consumption’ in
litres/100km
• ‘average fuel consumption’
in litres/100km
• ‘fuel consumption over
time’ in litres/hour
• ‘lifetime total fuel
consumption’ in litres
• ‘lifetime average fuel
consumption in litres/100km
Expert opinion:
Personalised information enhances acceptance of in-vehicle systems, therefore
it is preferred if the driver can switch between different fuel consumption
displays. Most of the FCM’s include first two options. The third option is only
relevant in absence of S&S systems, otherwise there is no meaningful
information to display.
Total lifetime and lifetime average can serve for statistical purposes of fuel used
over mileage to get a better understanding of the real life fuel consumption. It
can also create more fuel consumption awareness among customers. This
however needs a certain accuracy, which should be at least the accuracy from
TR01.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
48
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Information presentation
FR07 The on-board computer must
be able to display fuel
consumption in [litre/100km]
and [litre/hour] with a
resolution of 0.1 and for total
lifetime fuel consumption
[litre] with a resolution of 1,
with the same amount of
digits the mileage counter has.
Expert opinion
In case the measurement units of fuel consumption are in a lower resolution
than 0.1, the indication is too rough to be informative and is of less use to be
supportive for fuel consumption improvement by the driver.
FR08 Instantaneous fuel
consumption is presented
immediately after the vehicle
starts moving and stay
displayed unless the driver
selects another fuel
consumption presentation
(e.g. average, trip average,
lifetime total)
The fuel consumption display
which is presented at the start
of the trip is the fuel
consumption last displayed at
the end of the previous trip.
Expert opinion:
• Personalised information enhances the acceptance and usability of in-vehicle
information systems.
• The type of fuel consumption which was displayed at the end of the previous
trip is most likely to increase the acceptance, because this display is most
likely manually set by the driver.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
49
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Information presentation FR09
The instantaneous fuel
consumption figure [l/100km]
and [l/h] presented must vary
as frequently as needed
between 0.1 and 2 sec,
whenever the fuel use varies
during driving.
Trip Average fuel consumption
figure [l/100km] presented
must vary as frequently as
needed between 1 and 120
sec, whenever the average
fuel use changes over time.
Expert opinion:
Real-time feedback has been proven to be very effective to influence behaviour.
The changes in the instantaneous fuel consumption should be fast enough for
drivers to feel that their actions are represented by the data. The changes
should be slow enough for drivers to read and interpret. Relation between
refresh rate and calculation interval complicates matters. Common practice and
rule of thumb in HMI design suggest the stated formulation of FR09.
FR10 Average lifetime fuel
consumption comprises the fuel
used over the distance travelled
over the lifetime of the vehicle.
Trip average fuel consumption
comprises the fuel used over the
trip distance.
Expert opinion:
This function can serve for statistical purposes of fuel used over mileage to get
a better understanding of the real life fuel consumption. It can also create more
fuel consumption awareness among customers. This however needs a certain
accuracy, which should be at least the accuracy from TR01.
FR11 During idling at standstill or
nearly standstill (not exceeding 5
km/h) the fuel consumption
display automatically switches to
l/hour.
Expert opinion:
Displaying the liters/hour while idling can be useful to support fuel efficient
driving (in absence of S&S systems), because it gives drivers insight in the fuel
consumption of idling which eventually could lead to turning of the engine in
case of long idling times.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
50
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Information presentation
FR12
Textual addition of the displayed
unit(litres / 100km, litres / hour
etc.) and time period (average
trip, instantaneous) is required.
Information presentation principles (Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
Visually displayed information presented at any one time by the system should
be designed in such a way that the driver is able to assimilate the relevant
information with a few glances which are brief enough not to adversely affect
driving.
Mantser et al. (2010):
Textual addition improved the comprehension of fuel economy information.
FR13 Internationally agreed standards
relating to symbols should be
used on FCM’s.
Information presentation principles (Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
Internationally and/or nationally agreed standards relating to legibility, audibility,
icons, symbols, words, acronyms and/or abbreviations should be used.
FR14 The visual presentation of
information (font sizes,
luminance contrast and colour
use) should be in line with:
ISO 15008 (2003): Road
vehicles – ergonomic aspects of
transport information and control
systems – specification and
compliance procedures for in-
vehicle visual presentation.
Information presentation principles (Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
Visually displayed information presented at any one time by the system should
be designed in such a way that the driver is able to assimilate the relevant
information with a few glances which are brief enough not to adversely affect
driving.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
51
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Interaction with display and
controls
FR15
The driver must be able to
operate the on-board
computer/fuel consumption
meter easily from any regular
driver’s position
Interaction with the FCM
should allow the driver to
have at least one hand at the
steering wheel.
Interaction with display and controls principles (Commission
recommendation (26/V/2008)):
The driver should always be able to keep at least one hand on the steering
wheel while interacting with the system.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
52
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: System behaviour
FR16 The FCM should give an
indication of malfunctioning,
in case there is any.
System behaviour principles (Commission recommendation (26/V/2008)):
Information should be presented to the driver about current status and any
malfunction within the system that is likely to have an impact on safety.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
53
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements: Information about the system
FR17 The FCM should have
adequate instructions for the
driver covering use.
Information about the system principles(Commission recommendation
(26/V/2008)):
The system should have adequate instructions for the driver covering use and
relevant aspects of installation and maintenance.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
54
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Draft FCM functional requirements
FR18 The fuel consumption display
is depicting fuel consumption
in a numerical form.
The outcomes of this evaluation is that horizontal bars and/or simple
representations (e.g. pictures) were most usable (Manser et al., 2010). Their
participants preferred representative or symbolic forms of fuel economy in
formation, rather than text representation. Text representation can however
improve comprehension, in case it is added to a representative component
feature.
FR19 Lifetime total fuel
consumption and average
lifetime fuel consumption is
available upon request of the
driver and cannot be reset.
This function can serve for statistical purposes of fuel used over mileage to get
a better understanding of the real life fuel consumption. It can also create more
fuel consumption awareness among customers. This however needs a certain
accuracy, which should be at least the accuracy from TR01.
FR20 Lifetime total fuel, and average
lifetime consumption figure is
secured in the same way the
total vehicle mileage is
secured.
This requirement is needed to avoid unwanted manipulation of the total lifetime
fuel consumption, which could be misleading to customers.
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
55
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Thank you for your attention
Sam van Goethem, TNO, [email protected]
Coen Obdeijn, TNO, [email protected]
Robin Vermeulen , TNO, [email protected]
Savas Geivanidis, LAT/AUTh, [email protected]
Consortium of TNO and LAT
FCM
Stakeholder result meeting
56
Brussels, January 24, 2013
Planning
Kick-off meeting 18.10.2012
Sending out questionnaire 22.10.2012
Expected input from questionnaire 23.11.2012
Stakeholder result meeting Tue 24.01.2013
Deadline for submission of reactions Fri 15.02.2013
Draft Final report March 2013