EPA-AA-CORR 76-2
Ford-EPA Emission Laboratory
Correlation Study
April 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
' Standards Development and Support Branch
Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
Abstract
A specific emissions correlation program between the EPA Motor
Vehicle Emissions Laboratory and the Ford Motor Company AEO facility has
been completed. This report summarizes emission and cross check results
for this program.
Examination of the Ford mass simulator results, gas cross check
results, and emission and fuel economy comparisons do not indicate a
serious correlation problem exists between laboratories.
-------
Introduction
Analysis of paired 1977 model year durability emission test data
from January through March have produced significant differences between
Ford and EPA results. The problem has been most severe in the measurement
of CO where EPA consistently reported cold start 1977 FTP values 20%
higher than Ford results. Several pairs of test data have produced HC
and CO differences in excess of 50%, although these large percent dif-
ferences are most often observed at or below statutory standards.
Ford and EPA have conducted gas cross checks, mass emission simulator
tests, and a vehicle correlation program. The results of these tests
are part of a larger program to locate and correct or account for the
discrepancies in emission results between manufacturers facilities and
the EPA-MVEL based on paired emission differences.
1. Test Design
Three checks were made between facilities: a gas cross check
analysis, tests with the Ford mass emission simulator, and a vehicle
cross check tising a 1977 Ford durability vehicle.
' Mass Emission Simulator; On March 3, 1976, the Ford emissions
simulator was tested using EPA CVS's 21 and 22 (analytical train #9). A
CO analyzer failure prevented additional tests on CVS's 23 and 24 (analy-
tical train #19).
-------
Gas Cross Check: On March 4, 1976, a gas cross check was made at
EPA to verify analyses of Ford supplied reference gases. The gases were
read on EPA certification analysis systems 9 and 19, with the exception
of the high concentration CO sample which was named on analysis train 9
only.
Vehicle Cross Check; A series of vehicle correlation tests were
arranged using a 1977 Ford durability vehicle. A vehicle with a known
history of emissions repeatability, REPCA III, supplied to EPA by General
Motors, was used as a confirmatory test vehicle.
i
The Ford vehicle cross check consisted of cold start 1977 type
tests, highway fuel economy tests, and hot start 1974 type tests. Each
test day included one cold start test, 2 HFET's, and 2 hot start tests.
This series of tests was completed on two successive days at each facility.
The vehicle was then exchanged between laboratories until each laboratory
had completed 6 cold starts, 12 HFET's, and 12 hot starts. All tests
were scheduled for a single dynamometer with each facility supplying its
test driver. Testing with the Ford durability vehicle began on March 25
and ended on April 14.
/
The GM REPCA III vehicle was tested two times at each facility
usi,ng the same dynamometer and analysis equipment that were used for
testing the Ford vehicle. Emission and torque data from the REPCA III
vehicle were collected and statistically analyzed.
-------
2. Test Vehicles
The Ford vehicle, I.D. No. 7A1-400-5AINP, had completed 50,000
miles durability testing in March. The vehicle was tested three times
at EPA during its mileage accumulation and a summary of the emissions
history of this vehicle is presented below:
Composite Emission Results
'est Site
Ford
EPA
Ford
EPA
Ford
EPA
Ford
•EPA
Mileage
22,866
i
46,052
51,033
Average of
5 tests
HC
0.405
0.408
0.333
0.498
0.518
0.454
0.460
0.377
CO
5.88
7.75
3.64
7.60
6.26
7.98
6.20
.5.57
co2
710
697
695
702
700
722
694
686
NOx
1.72
1.73
1.57
1.65
1.72
1.83
1.66
1.77
F.E.
12.31
12.49
12.64
12.40
12.47
12.06
12.56
12.78
The last set of data summarize the FTP results of this study. The vehicle
is in the 5000 pound inertia class and has a 400 CID engine with automatic
transmission. Emission controls include: engine modifications, an
oxidation catalyst with secondary air injection, exhaust recirculation,
and canister evaporative control.
The vehicle was equipped to measure carburetor inlet temperature,
air cleaner inlet temperature, engine speed, change in engine speed, and
manifold vacuum.
-------
The repeatable emissions vehicle, REPCA III, is a 350 CID, 4500
pound inertia weight vehicle which has been modified to produce stable
hot start emissions at approximately 1974 federal standards. REPCA III
is equipped with torque wheels and a fifth wheel speed pickup. The
digital recording system is designed to measure and display positive and
negative torque and calculate and display positive and negative horsepower.
The Ford-EPA correlation program summed torque and horsepower over the
1372 second LA-4 cycle.
2.1 Preconditioning:
Preconditioning for the first cold start at each test facility
consisted of AMA, LA-4 dynamometer preconditioning, a 12 to 20 hour
soak, and a one hour heat build. Evaporative emissions were not measured
for the emission tests. Emission and fuel economy tests served as
preconditioning for the second cold start test at each facility.
Dynamometer preconditioning consisting of steady state warmup was
necessary to* achieve a stable engine temperature before sampling emissions
from REPCA III.
r
2.2 Facilities;
2.2-1 Equipment: Gas cross checks at EPA were conducted using
analytical trains #9 and 19. Mass simulator tests were made on CVS's 21
and 22 (analytical train #9). Vehicle emission and fuel economy tests
-------
were run using test cells 2, 4, and 5 at Ford, while all tests were run
using cell 5 and analytical train #33 at EPA.
t
2.2-2 Calibration; Dynamometers, CVS's, and analytical systems
were determined to be operating properly when tests were conducted at
Ford and EPA. Equipment checks and calibrations at EPA and Ford are
performed at least as often as specified in the Federal Register.
3. Test Results
3.1 Mass Emissions Simulator Results
Mass emission results were obtained on only two sites due to a CO
chopper motor failure on train #19 and a malfunctioning solenoid valve
on the Ford emissions simulator. Results of the emissions simulator
tests are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
3.2 Gas Cross Check Analyses
Ford reference gases were named within 2.6 percent on analytical
systems 9 and 19. These results are presented in Table 3.
3.3 Exhaust Emission Results
The results of the exhaust emissions and fuel economy test are
presented in Appendix A. HC, CO, C02 results are plotted in Figures 1-
3. All emission and fuel economy results are composite values with
-------
8
units of gm/mile. NOx emissions were not plotted because the composite
results are approximately equal for cold start, fuel economy, and hot
start tests.
Changes in engine speed were measured and examined to determine if
notable differences among test drivers at Ford and EPA could be detected.
No significant variations could be observed.
3.4 REPCA III Results
>
The emission results from REPCA III exhibited much more variability
than the baseline data supplied by GM and the vehicle was not judged
useful for comparisons between laboratories. A baseline of twelve tests
were run at GM to verify its repeatibility before its delivery to EPA.
HC and CO emissions from the second sample bag of the LA-4 cycle have
coefficients of variation of 1.5 and 2.7%, while 30 tests at EPA have
variability of 8.5 and 16.0% for HC and CO respectively. The vehicle is
now at the GM Proving Grounds to correct several mechanical problems and
determine why the repeatability is poor.
Torque and horsepower data from the vehicle are valid and comparisons
of two dynamometers are summarized in Table 4.
4. Analysis of Test Results
HC, CO, and CO- mass values from the Ford emission simulator are
within + 5% of the expected results. NOx values measured by EPA are
-------
slightly higher than expected theoretical limits. The reason for higher
NOx values is not known, but the gas cross check and vehicle cross
checks do not show similar NOx correlation problems.
Six gas cylinders were read on analysis trains //9 and #19: 1 HC,
2 CO, 1 C0«, and 2 NOx. The high concentration CO cylinder was not read
on train 19 because of an instrument failure. All gases were determined
to be within 2.6% of their named concentrations.
Ford and EPA exhaust emission and fuel economy results are compared
by using a statistical "t" test. As shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 for
cold start, fuel economy and hot start emission tests, statistically
significant differences were proven at high confidence levels.
A statistical difference between Ford and EPA HC results exists at
the 90% C.L. for cold start, fuel economy, and hot start tests. The
differences are not believed to be important, however, because the mag-
nitude of the differences are small; 0.08, 0.02, and 0.04 gm/mi for cold
start, fuel "economy, and hot start tests, respectively. Ford measured
higher average HC values for all three types of tests and generally had
higher variability for all emission and fuel economy tests. For
CO, cold start tests showed differences between facilities of over 11%,
with the Ford results higher. No significant CO differences are proven
at the 90% C.L. for fuel economy or hot start tests. Statistical differ-
ences are not proven for NOx results from cold start, fuel economy, or hot
start tests. A statistical difference between Ford and EPA measurements
of C02 (8 gm/mi) is evident from an analysis of cold start tests at the
-------
10
90% C.L. No other differences between measurements of CO,, are observed,
indicating the CO- differences between facilities are not serious. A
difference of 0.2 mi/gal for urban fuel economy is statistically signifi-
cant at the 90% C.L. This reflects the slight measurement differences
in C02.
The effects of ambient conditions have not been accounted for in
the analysis, although differences between facilities are significant.
The notable differences are:
x Ford
x EPA
PB ,
29.35
29.02
TD
82.3
73.0
*H
20.6
41.0
KH
0.841
0.901
Corrections for barometric pressure would be expected to produce a
larger difference between Ford and EPA HC and CO measurements but the
correlation between ambient conditions and HC and CO results is very poor.
The significance of dry bulb temperature differences cannot be assessed
from this program. Slightly lower Ford NOx measurements are probably
related to their low levels of relative amd absolute humidity.
j
An analysis of the torque and horsepower results show statistical
differences between facilities at the 90% C.L. but the importance
r
of these differences can be assessed in terms of the differences between
Ford and EPA values of NOx, C02 and fuel economy. Only slight differences
in cold start measurements of NOx and calculated urban fuel economy were
t
proven. The differences between torque measurements at Ford and EPA are
-------
11
less than previous measurements from the 1975 MVMA-EPA correlation
program. The trends in dynamometer differences for torque and horsepower
are more important than the statistical differences between Ford and
EPA.
Conclusions
1) Based on this program the correlation between Ford and EPA test
sites is acceptable. Emission and fuel economy tests and checks of
dynamometers and analysis equipment do not indicate serious correlation
problems.
2) The effect of ambient test conditions for this particular correlation
vehicle are relatively unknown. Ford ambient test conditions are sig-
nificantly different from average EPA ambient conditions but emissions
measurements and calculated fuel economy results between facilities
correlate well.
3) This program was unable to determine the causes for the poor correlation
between Ford-EPA paired test results, or the reasons why the Ford-EPA
/
correlation has now improved.
r
Recommendations
1) An MVMA-EPA correlation program would have identified correlation
problems among the participating manufacturers much more efficiently. A
-------
12
mutually acceptable correlation program between MVMA and EPA test labora-
tories would have been useful in determining the extent of suspected
emissions correlation problems. Such a program should be conducted in
the future.
2) Humidity control at Ford and EPA should be improved, particularly
at Ford.
-------
Table 1
AEO VEHICLE EXHAUST SIMULATOR RESULTS ON EPA CVS SYSTEM #1
•#1
#2
#3
March 3, 1976 - One Test
Orifice Bank
#1 & #2
#2
#1
Constituent
IIC
CO
2 NOx
HC
CO
2 NOx
HC
CO
o C02
2 NOx
Measured
Gran Value
3.01
827
5.U9
1.81
28.3
832
1.2k
13.7
839 '
2.21
Time Adjusted
Gram Value
2.U6
33-6
677
l.tfS
23.2
681
2.90*
1.01
11.2
686
1.80*
AEO 5$
, Upper Limit
2.63
• 3^-9
726
If . *5k
1 . 5^-
23.6
727
2.80
1.11
. H-5
729
1 1.78
AEO 5$
Lover Limit
2.38*
32.2.
656
U.10
i.ko
21.3
657
2.53
1.00
10. k
659
1. Multiplied by 180 sec../220 sec for 180 sec. test.
2. Corrected NOx values have "been divided by the humidity
, correction factor of 0.88^ to yeild uncorrected results.
of 5$ Limits.
-------
//I
Table 2
AEO VEHICLE EXHAUST SIMULATOR RESULTS ON EPA CVS SYSTEM #2
March 3, 1976 - One Test
Orifice Bank
*'*
#2
#1
Constituent
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
Measured
Gram Valve
3-04
41.0
822
5-59
1.83
29.0
832
3.56
1.27
14.0
. 849
2.27
Time Adjusted1
Gram Value
2.^9
33-5
672
1.50
23. 7*
681
2. 91*'
11.4
695
1.85*
AEO 5$
Upper Limit
2.63
34.9
726
Jt tr^i
1 ^IL
23.6
727
2.80
1.11
11.5
729
1.78
AEO 5$
Lower Limit
2.38
32.2
656
4.10
1.40
21.3
657
2.53
1.00
10.4
659
1.61
1. Multiplied "by^ l8o sec/220 sec for 180 sec. test.
2. Corrected NOx' values have been divided "by the
humidity correction factor of 0.877 to yeild
uncorrected results.
*0ut of 5$ limits.
-------
15
Ford Results
A 3470 CO 675
A 1563 CO 1275
A 10817 HC 50.82
A 14870 C02 1.93
A 5482 NO 44.7
x
A 4969 NO 81.2
J*L
* % Difference =
Table 3
Ford-EPA Gas Cross Check
EPA Results
Train 19
684.0
**
51.30
1.92
44.6
80.7
Ford - EPA
Train 9
692.7
1250.4
50.24
1.90
44.9
83.4
% Difference*
Train 19
-1.3
-0.9
+0.5
+0.2
+0.6
Train 9
-2.5
+2.0
+1.2
+1.6
-0.4
-2.6
EPA
** High CO Range on Train 19 Inoperative
-------
Figure 1
FCCDAVE .c
EPA AVE
HC 0.3
O.I
EPA
jF.z ,F,2
EPA
1/5J
FOfiO EPA
•H
•H
• H.2.
•H -H
•H
•H
C s COLO
H= HOT
F
V/7,?
FOfcO EPA
-------
Figure 2
CO 3
FORD
FPA
•H
•H
'H
-H
•H
• F
• H
•H.2
-H
-H
• H
3/2$- 3/36
FOCO
3/30
EPA
3/3/
EPA
FO/JO
EPA
-------
00
6(50
3.0O
£PA
£DpO
EPA
.
-HU
3/2?
FO^D
Figure 3
' '
3/30
£PA
FO£D
EPA
-------
19
FORD
Table 4
Dynamometer Correlation
Site
n =
EPA
Site
n =
V
*F'
X
t -
4
3_
X
a
CV
5
6
X
a
CV
^
X x 100%
T?
£i
statistic
+Torque
ft-lbf-sec
208,750
1,129
0.5
,„ -KTorque
206,535
1,576 ,
0.8
2,215
1.1
2.14
-Torque
114,837
1,126
1.0
-Torque
110,856
1,113
1.0
3,981
3.6
5.04
Roll Ft.
38,619
117
0.3
Roll Ft.
38,281
111
0.3
338
0.9
4.24
+Horsepower
horsepower-sec
10,203
64
0.6
+Horsepower
9,994
95
1.0
209
2.1
3.38
-Horsepower
3,806
20
0.5
-Horsepower
3,645
25
0.7
161
4.4
9.54
t - values
99% C.L.
3.50
90% C.L.
1.90
ND
D
D
D
ND
D
D
-------
20
Table 5
Cold Start Correlation
Ford
n = 5
X
a
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 5
x t
a
CV
Min.
Max
V*.
-IT i r\na/
X J-UU/o
t = statistic
t - valuer
99% C.L.
3.36
90% C.L. '
1.86
HC
0.460
0.051
11.0
0.419
0.556
0.377
0.015
4.0
0.356
0.390
0.083
+22.0
3.26
ND*
D**
CO
6.201
1.041
16.8
5.23
7.64
5.570
0.497
8.9
4.97
6.15
0.631
+11.3
0.92
ND
_
ND
NO
X
1.664
0.107
6.4
1.54
1.79
1.766
0.090
5.1
1.68
1.86
-0.102
-5.8
-1.63
ND
ND
C0_ FE
694.2 12.56
8.9 0.15
1.3 1.2
685 12.4
706 12.8
686.4 12.78
7.5 0.13
1.1 1.0
678 12.6
694 12.9
7.8 -0.22
+1.1 -1.7
1.88 -1.99
ND ND
*No difference exists
**Difference exists
-------
21
Table 6
Fuel Economy Correlation
FORD
n = 12
X
o
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 12
X
o •
CV
Min.
Max.
HC
0.082
0.006
7.3
0.072
0.093
0.066
0.007
10.3
0.059
0.08
CO
0.298
0.273
91.5
0.077
1.03
0.309
0.26
85.0
0.042
0.76
NO
X
1.610
0.106
6.6
1.46
1.86
1.645
0.162
9.8
1.47
1.86
co2
502.2
17.1
3.4
483
534
512.6
10.1
2.0
502
531
FE
17.67
0.58
3.4
16.6
18.3
17.33
0.36
2.1
16.7
17.9
X., - X., 0.016 -0.011 -0.035 -10.4 0.3
.t £i
—— -xlOO% +24.2 -3.6 -2.1 -2.0 +1.7
t - statistic 6.18 -0.10 -0.63 - 1.68 +1.72
t - values
99% C.L. D ND ND ND ND
90% C.L. D ND ND ND ND
1.72
-------
22
Table 7
Hot Start Correlation
FORD
n = 12
X
a
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 12
X
0
CV
Min.
Max.
XF ~ XE
ir i no"7
t - statistic
t - values
99% C.L.
2.82
r
90% C.L.
1.72
HC
0.215
0.041
19.0
0.159
0.333
0.174
0.023
13.0
0.155
0.243
0.041
+23.6
3.05
D
D
CO
2.656
0.692
26.0
1.70
3.82
2.470
0.421
17.1
1.56
3.08
0.186
+7.5
0.79
ND
ND
NO
X
1.538
0.080
5.2
1.43
1.67
1.583
0.067
4.2
1.49
1.70
-0.045
-2.8
-1.47
ND
ND
co2
654.3
24.3
3.7
583
678
648.8
6.7
1.0
641
659
5.5
+0.8
0.76
ND
ND
-------
APPENDIX A
Composite Emission Results from Correlation Vehicle 7A1-400-5A1NP
Date
Ford
3/25
3/26
EPA
3/29
3/30
Test Type.
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC
CO
co2
7
NOx
F.E.
T./T
d w
PB
*H
NOx K.
5 VOID
0
0
0
0
2 0
0
0
0
0
5 0
0
0
0
0
5 ' 0
0
0
0
0
.089
.084
.204
.204
.464
.085
.082
.213
.224
.376
.072
.074
.172
.176
.390
.064
.066
.18
.18
0.117
0.175
2.54
3.24
5.94
0.512
0.315
2.83
3.82
5.55
0.575
0.533
2.67
2,46
5.21
0.253
0.216
2.35
3.02
534'
532
583
666
706
509
501
664
672
'
694
,531
524
655
649
686
516
509
649
642
1.65
1.72
1.59
1.49
1.54
1.63
1.86
1.64
1.47
1.86
1.86
1.91
1.57
1.60
1.86
1.79
1.80
1.70
1.65
16.6
16.7
15.1
13.2
12.4
17~4
17.7
13.3
13.1
12.6
16.7
16.9
13.4
13.6
12.8
17.2
17.4
13.6
13.7
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/60.0
84.0/62.0
88.0/65.0
86.0/64.0
82.0/64.0
75.0/60.5
72.0/60.0
73.5/60.5
74.0/61.5
74.0/61.2
76.0/63.5
74,5/62.0
73.0/62.0
74.5/63.0
75.5/62.5
29.30
29.30
29.31
29.33
29.31
29.28
29.27
29.23
29.15
29.05
29.06
29.06
29.02
29.01
28.74
28,72
28.73
28.73
28.73
21
21
21
21
29
27
28
29 *
37
43
49
47
49
48
50 '
49
54
53
48
0.833
0.833
0.833
0.833
0.878
0.887
0.917
0.911
0.939
0.921
0.932
0.930
0.947
0.941
0.977
0.957
0.968
0.978
0.960
N5
LO
-------
Page 2 cont. Appendix A
Date
Ford
3/31
4/1
EPA
4/5
4/6
Test Type
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC
2 0.
0.
v o.
0.
0.
2 0.
0.
0.
0.
• 0.
5 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
419
085
093
220
211
449
084
082
333
201
356
07
08
169
237
386
06
06
156
157
CO
5.38
0.378
1.03
1.97
2.49
6.20
0.351
0.354
3.39
1.74
6.15
0.76
0.72
2.89
3.08
5.97
0.15
0.12
2.23
2.22
co2
685
489
483
650
648
697
514
503
666
658
694
522
516
655
653
680
506
505
641
643
NOx
1.60
1.46
1.51
1.43
1.50
1.63
1.50
1.61
1.57
1.44
1.75
1.68
1.67
1.67
1.74
1.68
1.53
1.51
1.53
1.50
F.E.
12.8
18.1
18.3
13.6
13.6
12.5
17.2
17.6
13.2
13.4
12.6
16.9
17.1
13.4
13.4
12.8
17.5
17.6
13.7
13.7
TjT
d' w
80.0/57.0
82.0/57.0
83.0/57.0
84.0/58.0
80.0/57.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
73.5/58.5
72.0/57.5
72.0/57.0
72.5/56.5
72.5/57.0
70.5/58.5
72.0/58.0
74.0/57.5
73.0/56.5
72.5/56.5
PB
29.18
29.17
29.17
29.10
29.31
29.12
29.14
29.15
29.14
29.16
29.02
29.00
29.00
28.96
28.97
28.94
28.94
28.94
28.94
28.93
KH
21
18
16
17
21
19
19
19
19
19
40
40
39
36
38
49
42
35
34
36
NOx 1C
0.834
0.824
0.819
0.827
0.833
0.832
0.832
0.832
0.832
0.832
0.896
0.889
0.882
0.871
0.879
0.916
0.898
0.878
0.869
0.872
NJ
-------
Page 3 cont. Appendix A
Date
Ford
4/7
4/8
4/9
EPA
4/13
4/14
Test Type
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC
4 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
556
076
076
215
185
420
077
072
159
216
CO
7.64
0.086
0.086
3.36
2.16
5.23
0.100
0.077
2.63
1.70
co2
690
491
490
657
678
702
493
487
648
661
•
NOx
1.76
1.58
1.61
1.48
1.58
1.79
1.60
1.59
1.60
1.67
F.E.
12.6
18.1
18.1
13.4
13.0
12.5
18/0
18.2
13.6
13.4
f/T
d w
81/57
81/57
81/57
83/57
83/58
84/57
85/60
85/58
80/56
81/56
PB
29.53
29.54
29.54
29.61
29.62
29.68
29.66
29.64
29.61
29.60
*H
19
19
19
16
18
14
20
15.
18
17
toxK,
0.826
0.826
0.826
0.815
0.829
0.810
0.846
0.818
- 0.818
0.813
5 VOID
0.
0.
0.
0.
5 0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
061
066
163
155
379
059
059
165
169
0.109
0.160
2.56
1.56
4.97
0.068
0.042
2.43
2.17
507
496
659
653
678
508
502
642
641
1.49
1.47
1.54
1.59
1.68
1.56
1.47
1.49
1.54
17.5
17.9
13.4
13.5
12.9
17.5
17.7'
13.7
13.7
73.0/55.5
72.5/55.0
72.5/55.0
72.0/55.0
72.0/56.5
72.0/57.0
73.0/57.0
72.0/56.5
72.0/57.0
29.31
29.31
29.31
29.31
29.18
29.17
29.17
29.17
29.17
31
30
30
32
37
39
36
37
39
0.851
0.847
0.847
0.850
. 0.872
0.880
0.874
0.872
0.880
to
Ul
------- |