EVAP 76-2
Technical Support for Regulatory Action
In-House Test Program
Report No. 6 -
Hot Soak Time Constraints
July 1976
Thomas Rarick
Gary Wilson
Notice
Technical support reports for regulatory action do not neces-
sarily represent the final EPA decision on regulatory issues. They
are intended to present a technical analysis of an issue and recom-
mendations resulting from the assumptions and constraints of that
analysis. Agency policy considerations or data received subsequent
to the date of release of this report may alter the recommendations
reached. Readers are cautioned to seek the latest analysis from EPA
before using the information contained herein.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusion 1
3. Technical Discussion 2
3.1 Program Objective 4
3.2 Program Design 4
3.3 Facilities and Equipment 5
3.3.1 Enclosure 5
3.3.2 Test Vehicles 5
3.3.3 Test Fuel. 5
3.3.4 Other Equipment 7
3.4 Test Procedures 7
4. Test Results 7
4.1 Effect of Idle Time 7
4.2 Effect of Time Delay after Engine Shutdown 8
5. Discussion of Results 8
5.1 Effect of Idle Time 8
5.2 Effect of Time Delay after Engine Shutdown 12
6. References 13
Appendix A
Appendix B
-------
1. Introduction
The object of the in-house evaporative emission enclosure (SHED)
test program is to develop a concise, accurate, and practical evapor-
ative emission test procedure. One of the tasks identified for the
test program was to establish a recommended time from the end of the
dynamometer test cycle to the start of the hot soak evaporative emis-
sion test. This report will discuss the data which were gathered to
fulfill this task. The objective of this report is to use the col-
lected data to establish the effect of the time between the exhaust
emissions and hot soak emissions test phases on the measured evaporative
emission levels during the hot soak and to recommend a time tolerance
based on this information and practical considerations.
2. Summary and Conclusions
The time tolerances of two operations prior to the hot soak evapor-
ative emissions test were evaluated. They were:
a) The time from the end of the exhaust test cycle to engine
shutdown (idle time); and
— b) The time from engine shutdown -to—the-start--of the hot soak -
test. . . _ . -- . _ _ _ ...
The first evaluation involved allowing a vehicle to idle for 2, 4,
6 or 8 minutes, and then measuring carburetor bowl temperatures and hydro-
carbon losses during the one hour hot soak following engine shutdown. The
results of this testing showed that while initial bowl temperatures were
higher for longer idle times, the peak bowl temperatures were the same.
There was no trend of increasing emissions with increasing idle times. It
is recommended that this time be specified at a 4 minute maximum time
tolerance. Experience obtained during the testing program indicates that
this will not be a difficult time tolerance to achieve in production.
The evaluation of the time delay from engine shutdown to the start
of the hot soak test consisted of measured hot soak emissions on 6 test
vehicles. The error resulting from a time delay of one minute was
estimated using hydrocarbon loss data from the first and last minute
of the 60 minute hot soak test. The results indicated that errors as
large as 2% can result from a one minute time delay. Depending on the
relative rates of hydrocarbon evolution at the start and end of the hot
soak test, longer delays may cause even larger errors in the hydrocarbon
measurement. A time tolerance for this operation of less than one
minute is not practical, however. Therefore, it is recommended that a
time tolerance of 1.0 minute be established for the key-off to the start
of the hot soak test operation.
-------
-2-
3. Technical Discussion
The time tolerance between the end of the dynamometer run and the
start of the hot soak test recommended in the SAE J171a(l) test procedure
is 3 min. + 15 seconds. The hot soak test described by the SAE J171a
procedure is assumed to start at engine shutdown. This definition of the
start of the hot soak is difficult to use in practice since:
a) It is undesirable to drive the vehicle into the enclosure;
and
b) After the engine is turned off, some time is required for
the driver to leave the enclosure and for the enclosure
doors to be closed.
Therefore, two time tolerances need to be established:
a) The time from the end of the dynamometer test to key-off;
and
b) The time from key-off to the start of the hot soak test.
A practical sequence of events for these operations would be as
follows:
a) At the end of the dynamometer test, prepare the vehicle to
be moved to the SHED, but don't turn the engine off;
b) Drive the vehicle at minimum throttle to the SHED and
stop a few feet short of the SHED doors;
c) Turn the engine off and push it into the SHED;
d) The start of the hot soak is indicated at the time
the doors of the SHED have been sealed.
This sequence of events prevents excessively high initial hydrocarbon
readings due to exhaust gases entering the SHED, but still allows a quick
and easy way of moving the vehicle off of the dynamometer to the SHED.
A question which should be answered is, what effect does the time
between the end of the exhaust test and engine-shutdown (idle time)
have on subsequent hot soak emission values. If this engine idling time
without the benefit of a cooling fan is extended too long, then higher
vehicle temperatures may result, causing higher emission levels. The
effect of this time will also be evaluated during testing.
-------
-3-
Measured
Hydrocarbon
Loss
(ML)
Actual
Hydrocarbon
Loss
(AL)
Start of
Test
Time, min
60 min.
(End of Test)
Figure 3-1. Typical Hydrocarbon vs. Time
plot for a one hour hot soak.
Another point of concern that also requires evaluation is, what er-
ror is introduced in the calculation of hot soak emission levels due to
the time between engine shutdown and the start of the test. Figure 3-1
shows a typical hydrocarbon versus time plot for a 1 hour hot soak. The
actual 1 hour hot soak losses (AL) can be expressed as the measured hydro-
carbon loss (ML) plus the hydrocarbon loss (A), occurring during the time
delay (Tn), minus the additional hydrocarbon loss (B) measured during a time
equal to the time delay at the end of the test. The percent error
between the actual and the measured hydrocarbon loss can be expressed as
follows:
% ERROR
Actual loss (AL) - Measured loss (ML)
Actual loss (AL)
x 100
% ERROR = (ML + A-B) - ML
(ML 4- A-B)
x 100
% ERROR =
A-B
ML + A-B
100
-------
-4-
Thus, the error associated with a given time delay can be evaluated
if A, B, and ML are known. For testing conducted in the enclosure, only
ML and B can be measured. It is impossible to determine the hydrocarbon
loss prior to vehicle entry into the SHED. If one assumes, however,
that the rate of hydrocarbon loss during the time delay is the same as
the loss rate at the beginning of the test, one can use the data gathered
in the first minute or so of the test to approximate the value of A. This
method of predicting the errors associated with the time delay should give
a reasonably accurate estimate of the error resulting from a short time
delay, and it will be used to evaluate data gathered during hot soak tests
on six vehicles.
3.1 Program Objective
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of the
time between the end of the exhaust test and engine shutdown and between
engine shutdown and the start of the hot soak test, on hot soak emission
levels. By use of this evaluation and consideration of practical limit-
ations, time tolerances for this portion of testing will be recommended.
3.2 Program Design
In order to evaluate the effect of the time between:
a) The end of the exhaust test and engine shutdown (idle time); and
b) Engine shutdown and the start of the hot soak test,
two types of evaluations were made. To evaluate the effect of the idle
time, replicate tests were performed on an F-100 pick-up truck using
idle times of either 2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes duration. The time delay
from engine shutdown to the start of the test was monitored, along with
vehicle temperatures and hydrocarbon concentration in the enclosure,
during a one hour hot soak. The concern over the length of the idle
time is due to the possibility of differences in peak carburetor bowl
temperatures, which could cause differing amounts of fuel to be distilled
from the carburetor bowl. Therefore, of particular interest are the
carburetor bowl temperature data gathered during this testing. Vehicles
were tested using the sequence of events described at the beginning of
this section and, therefore, testing should give insight into the dif-
ficulty of moving the vehicle off the dynamometer to the enclosure in
the alotted time, using that sequence of events.
Data gathered during the tests described above and during tests on
five other vehicles used in other evaporative emission related studies
were used to evaluate the effect of the time delay from engine shutdown
to the start of the hot soak test. This evaluation was based on estimating
errors using the method described earlier. Hydrocarbon emissions were
measured continuously over the one hour period. Losses during the first
minute and last minute of the test were calculated, along with the loss
during the entire one hour test.
-------
-5-
3.3 Facilities and Equipment
3.3.1 Enclosure
The LDV Evaporative Enclosure as shown in Figure 3-2 was used for
all evaporative emission tests. The enclosure is nominally 8 feet high x 10
feet wide x 20 feet long and has a measured volume of 1540 ft . Calcu-
lation of the enclosure volume with a propane injection and recovery
test compared within + 2 percent of the measured volume. Propane retention
tests of 2 and 4 hours were performed periodically and indicated a
leakage rate of less than 0.1 g/hr. The enclosure is approximately 50
ft. from the dynamometer used during testing.
.,J JBG1
•-*-*i r-4
Figure 3-2 LDV Evaporative Enclosure
3.3.2 Test Vehicles
The six 1975 my vehicles used during testing are described in Table
3-1. The criteria for selecting vehicles was that they had accumulated
4000 miles and had been in use for over 90 days.
3.3.3 Test Fuel
Indolene Type HO lead-free test fuel was used.
-------
Make
Model
VIN
Disp/Cyl
Displacement
Transmission
Air Cond.
Ign. Timing
Idle RPH
Tires -•
Carb. Model
Venturis
Fuel Bowl Size
Fuel Tank Vol.
Inertia Wt.
Dyno H.P.
Exhaust Sys.
Evap. Sys.
Chevrolet
Vega
IV77B5U113062
140-14
4-speed
no
10°BTDC
700
A78-13
Holley
2
38.5 cc
16.0 gal
2750
9.9
EGR
Catalytic
Reactor
Canister
Chevrolet
Camaro
IQ87H5N511341
350-V8
Automatic
yes
6°BTDC .
600
FR-7814
Rochester
2
72 cc
21.0 gal
4000
12.0
EGR
Catalytic
Reactor
Canister
Chrysler
Hew Yorker
LS23T5C110951
440-V8
Automatic
yes
8°BTDC
750
JR78-15
Carter
4
160 cc
26.5 gal
. 5000
13.4
EGR
Catalytic
Reactor
(dual)
Canister
i AMC
i
Matador
• A56167P15041
360-V8
Automatic
yes
5°BTDC
1 700
' HR78-14
i
Motorcraft
; 4
I
24.5 gal
4500
, 12.7
EGR-AIR
Catalytic
Reactor
: (dual)
Canister
Volkswagen
Beetle
1352038245
97 - 14
4 - speed
Mo
5° ATDC
875
6.00 - 15L
-
-
-
11.0 gal
2250
8.8
EGR
Fuel injection
Canister
Ford
F-100 Truck
17M-899
302-V8
Automatic
No
12° BTOC
550
G78-15
Autolite
2
110 cc
39.4 gal.
4000
12.0
EGR
Catalytic
Reactor
Air
Canister
Table 3-1 Description of Test Vehicles
-------
-7-
3.3.4 Other Equipment
Hydrocarbon concentration in the enclosure was measured continuous-
ly with a Beckman 400 Flame lonization Detector (FID). Temperature measure-
ments were made with type "J" (iron-constantan) thermocouples and recorded
on an Esterline Angus temperature recorder.
3.4 Test Procedures
Testing for the evaluation of the effect of idle time was
conducted as follows:
(a) Vehicle was driven over a 1972 exhaust emission test cycle;
(b) At the end of the test cycle a timer was started, the
vehicle removed from the dynamometer, and driven to within
10 ft. of the enclosure;
(c) After either 2, 4, 6, or 8 minutes had elapsed from the end
of the exhaust test cycle, the engine was shutdown;
(d) The vehicle was immediately moved into the enclosure and
-the doors were sealed. The time from engine shutdown to
the start of the hot soak test was recorded;
(e) A one hour hot soak test was conducted in the enclosure.
Carburetor bowl temperatures and hydrocarbon concentration
in the enclosure were measured.
Testing for the evaluation of the effect of the time delay between
engine shutdown and the start of the hot soak test was performed as
follows:
(a) Vehicles were driven over a 1975 exhaust emission test
cycle (except the F-100 truck);
(b) At the end of the exhaust test cycle the vehicle was
driven to the enclosure;
(c) The engine was shutdown and the vehicle was immediately
pushed into the enclosure. The doors were sealed which
coincided with the start of the test. Hydrocarbon con-
centration in the enclosure was monitored continuously.
«
4. Test Results
4.1 Effect of Idle Time
Four replicate tests\ at each of the 4 idle times (2, 4, 6, and 8
minutes) were conducted ori\the Ford F-100 truck. Carburetor bowl and
hydrocarbon loss data gathered during the one hour hot soak for these
16 tests are given in Appendix A.
-------
-8-
Figure 4-1 shows the carburetor bowl vs. time plots for each of
the four idle times. The time delay from engine shutdown to the start
of the test was measured and is reflected by the time shown in the
curves. The figure shows that, while the initial temperatures were
higher for the longer idle times, the peak carburetor temperatures were
roughly the same.
Figure 4-2 shows the average one hour hot soak losses for each of
the 4 idle times and the range of data at each of the idle times. No
trend can be firmly established from these data.
4.2 Effect of Time Delay After Engine Shutdown
Either three or four replicate tests were performed for each of the
six test vehicles. Hydrocarbon1 loss data at each ten minute interval
and at the end of the first and fifty-ninth minutes are presented in
Appendix B, for the twenty tests conducted.
Figure 4-3 is a hydrocarbon loss versus time plot for each of
the six vehicles. It illustrates the differences in the loss rate dur-
ing the the one hour, for different vehicles. A general statement
-concerning—the- effect-of time delay cannot be mad e^—For some vehicles, -
the time delay may result in" higher"emissions than the emissions during
the "actual" hour after engine shutdown. For other vehicles the opposite
may be true. Which effect will occur depends on the relative magnitude
of the initial and final hydrocarbon emission rates.
Table 4-1 gives the hydrocarbon loss during the first and last
minutes of the hot soak test and during the entire 60 minute test. This
information is used to approximate the error due to a one minute time
delay, by the method discussed in section three of this report. These
percent errors are also given in Table 4-1. A positive error indicates
that the actual losses were higher than the measured losses, and a
negative error indicates that actual losses were lower than the measured
losses. This table shows that both positive and negative errors occurred
but that negative errors occurred most often.
5. Discussion of Test Results
5.1 Effect of Idle Time
The carburetor bowl temperatures measured for each of the four
idle times showed two things:
a) The longer the idle time the higher the initial temperatures;
and
b) Peak carburetor bowl "temperatures were roughly the same.
Higher initial temperatures should have little effect on the re-
sulting losses. A somewhat higher initial emission rate may'result,
-------
-9-
0)
3
I"
01
H
§
1-1
o
4J
01
1-1
3
U
CJ
1801
170^
160.
150-
140-
I
130.
120-
8 min. Idle
6 min. Idle
4 min. Idle
2 min. Idle
// Idle Peak Temperature. °F
/// Time
- • — 2 min.
— • — 4 min.
8m -in
.ft m-f n
Mean
172.2
170.8
170.7
1 7n 9
Std. De\
0.8
0.8
1.0
n R
10
20 30
Time, min.
40
50
Figure 4-1 Carburetor Bowl Temperature vs,
Time for Different Idle Times.
60
CO
n
oc
(0
o
r-l
C
c
"S
o
o
t-l
3
0
j:
OJ
C
o
10
8 •
6 '
4
2
_
O
J
iv T
"\ O T
i 6
\ 1
\ _ L
\ Range of
-*•-"•• Data
2 min. 4 min. 6 min. , 8 min
Idle Idle Idle Idle
Figure 4-2 Hydrocarbon Loss
Data for Different Idle
Times.
-------
-10-
100
eo
c
T>
CO
(0
O •
hJ J*
fl
C O
o en
C8 O
U 3S
O
VJ U
T3 3
>% O
O
H
0
10
20 30
Time, min.
50
60
Figure 4-3 % Hydrocarbon Loss vs. Time for
6 test vehicles.
-------
-11-
Hydrocarbon Loss, graaa
Teat
Vehicle Ho.
021
Vega 022
023
014
Caoaro 016
017
024
Matador 025
026
094
Beetle 097
101
030
032
New Yorker 034
036
263
264
F-100 265
266
During first
Minute (4)
.0141
.0138
.0139
.0358
.0633
.0410
.0638
.0572
.1427
.0365
.0364
.0362
.0426
.0353
.0481
.0478
.064
.086
.017
.042
During last
Minute (8)
.0139
.0210
.0138
.0566
.0559
.0559
.149
.149
.191
.0283
.0317
.0316
.183
.214
.213
.181
.169
.150
.170
.148
During one
Hour Teat (ML)
1.18
1.07
0.89
Average Error
4.88
5.15
5.28
Average Error
14.1
14.3
17.6
Average Error
2.58
2.46
2.37
Average Error
6.25
7.26
"10.33
9.09
Average Error
6.24
6.52
8.09
7.13
Z Error
0.017
-0.677
0.011
-0.2161
-0.016
0.143
-0.283
-0.0521
-0.608
-0.645
-0.274
-0.509Z
0.317
0.191
0.194
0.234Z
-2.30
-2.52
-1.62
-1.49
-1.98Z
-1.71
-0.99
-1.93
-1.51
Average Error -1.54Z
Table 4-1 Error Analysis of Errors Associated
with Time Delay fter Engine Shut Down
-------
-12-
but during the course of the one hour test the peak temperatures should
be the controlling factor. If this is the case, then the time limita-
tion from the end of the exhaust test cycle should be established such
that adequate time is allowed so that no test result is voided due to
the inability to meet the required time limit. Part of the test design
called for hot soak tests to be conducted with a 2 min. idle time. The
fact that a 2 minute idle time was used during this testing indicates
that it is possible to perform the test in this time frame. Experience
shows that in practice, this is not an easy time limit to live with, .however.
Figure 5-1 is a histogram of idle times for 27 evaporative emission
tests performed in conjunction with several ather test evaluation tasks at
EPA. These data should indicate a more typical testing condition than
the special idle time tests performed for this report. The figure
indicates that only one test surpassed an idle time of four minutes and
that no test had an idle time greater than 5 minutes. It is felt that a
four minute time limitation from the end of the exhaust test cycle is
adequately liberal.
us •
0
c
01
hj 20 '
a
o
O
IW ^
o
S1 10
c
(U
3
°* 5
\J
- 5
• 4
" 3
O
• 1
- 0
1-2 3 4 f
Idle Time, min.
Figure 5-1 Histogram of Idle Time Data
for 27 Hot Soak Tests
-------
-13-
of idle time was 1.17 minutes and the average delay was .73 minutes with
a standard deviation of .16 minutes. Therefore, if these tests are
indicative of production type testing, a time tolerance of 1.0 minutes
would result in 4.5% of the tests being voided due to exceeding this
tolerance. These tests probably required some additional time to start
due to the necessity of connecting thermocouples and monitoring times,
however. In production type testing there will be no other required
operation other than moving the vehicle into the enclosure and sealing
the door(s). It is felt that a time tolerance much less than 1.0 min-
ute would not be practical. Further, it is felt that a tolerance of 1.0
minute is a reasonable tolerance and a longer tolerance would result in
even higher errors than those seen for a one minute time delay.
6. References
1. "Measurement of Fuel Evaporative Emissions from Gasoline Powered
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks using the Enclosure Technique",
SAE Recommended Practice, SAE J171a, SAE Handbook.
-------
CARBURETOR TEMPERATURE! °F, at the Following
IDLE
TEST TIME
NO. (MIS.)
Z59 Z
Z60 Z
Z61 2
Z6? Z
ME AM
STO. OEV.
263 4
Z64 4
Z65 4
Z66 4
MEAN
STD. OEV.
Z67 6
Z6B 6
Z69 6
270 6
MEAN
STD. OEV.
Z71 8
Z73 8
Z74 8
Z75 8
MEAN
STO. OEV.
TIME TO
KEY-OFF
(M1H.)
0.7Q
0.63
U17
0;7o
0.65
0.2
0.63
Oi67
0.63
0.70
0.65
0.6
0.53
0»70
0.58
0.88
OJ67
0.3
0.80
0.56
0.67
0.97
Oi7S
0.2
T= 0
124.8
124.1
125.2
127.5
1Z5.4
1.5
131.7
131.1
131.6
131.4
131.5
0.4
135.9
135.5
134.9
137.1
135.6
0.9
139. Z
137.0
137.1
136.0
137.3
1.3
T= 1
12R.I
128.2
130. Z
130.1
129.1
1.2
134.9
132.5
134.1
133.7
133.8
1.0
139.8
137.2
136.2
138.4
137;9
1.6
140.5
137.5
139.1
137.9
138.7
1.4
T= 2
132.1
143.0
135.0
134.0
136.0
4.8
136.8
136.7
137.3
136.8
137.4
1.0
142.5
140.5
139.6
142.0
141.1
1.3
143.5
140.6
141.5
140. Z
141.4
1.5
Times .During
T= 4 T= 6
140.0
141.1
142.9
142.1
1*1.5
1.3
145.7
143.4
144.8
143.6
144.4
1.1
148.3
146.7
145.9
147.6
147. Z
1.1
149.1
146.0
147.0
146. Z
147.1
1.4
146.9
147.6
148.1
149.0
147.9
0.9
150.6
149.0
149.6
146.9
149.5
O.tt
152.6
151.3
150.3
152.9
151.8
1.2
153.5
150.6
151.4
151.0
151.7
1.3
a One Hour Hot Soak
T= 8 : T=10
151.8
152.9
152.9
153.1
152.7
0.6
154.4
151. Z
153.6
153.2
153.6
0.6
15S.7
154.9
153.8
156.1
155.1
1.0
156.6
154.0
155.0
154.8
155.1
1.2
155.6
156.2
158.0
156.9
156.7
1.0
158.1
156.5
156.9
156.6
i
157.0
: 0.8
' 158.9
157.9
157.0
159.0
158.2
0.9
1
159. Z
156.9
157.6
157.0
157.7
1.1
T=20
166.9
167.6
167.8
166.5
167.7
0.7
168.0
166. Z
166.5
167.1
166.9
0.8
167.0
166.9
166.1
167.8
166.9
-0.7
166.1
166.0
166. Z
166.1
166.6
1.0
TOO
170.9
171.5
172.1
172.8
171.6
0.8
171.1-
170.1
170. S
170.5
170.5
0.4
170.0
170.4
169.1
170.5
170.0
0.7
171.5
169.4
169.1
170.0
170.0
1.1
T=40
171.2
171.9
17?. 6
172.9
172.2
0.8
171.8
169.9
170.8
170.9
170.8
0.8
170. Z
170.8
169.1
170.7
170. Z
0.8
172.0
170.0
169.8
171.0
170.7
1.0
T«50
169. Z
170.3
171.5
171.1
170.5
1.0
170.1
168.0
169. Z
169.6
169. Z
0.9
168.4
169.4
168.0
168.5
168.6
0.6
170.5
168.6
168. Z
169.5
169.2
1.0
T=60
166.3
168.0
168. Z
168.0
167.6
0.9
167. Z
165. 4
166.5
167.0
166.5
0.8
166.0
167.0
165.0
166.1
166.0
o.e
168.0
166.1
166.0
167.1
166.8
1.0
•o
I
H-
X
-------
HYDROCARBON LOSSES, grams, at the Followlag
Times During a One Hour Hot Soak.
TEST IOLE
NO. TIME
259 2
260 2
261 2
262 2
MEAN
STO. OEV.
263 4
264 4
265 4
266 4
MEAN
STO. OEV.
267 6
268 6
269 6
270 6
MEAN
STO. OEV.
271 8
273 8
274 8
275 8
MEAN
STO. OEV.
TIME TO
KEY-OFF
0.70
0.83
1.17
0.70
0.85
0.2
Oi63
' 0.67
0;62
0.70
OJ65
0.0
0.53
0;TO
0.58
Oi88
Ojft7
0.2
O.BO
0.58
0.67
0.97
o;7S
0.2
T= 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OiO
o!o
0.0
o;o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T= 1
o.oia
0.042
0.021
0.022
0.026
0.0
0.064
0.086
0.017
0.042
0.052
0.0
0.041
0.038
0.056
0.062
0.049
0.0
0.058
0.021
0.129
0.038
0.061
0.0
T= 2
0.127
0.086
0.021
0.044
0.069
0.0
0.085
0.150
0.038
0.085
0.089
0.0
0.126
0.101
0.098
0.170
0.124
0.0
0.123
0.063
0.213
0.123
0.131
0.1
T= 4
0.323
0.217
0.063
0.1S3
0.189
0.1
0.151
0.214
0.190
0.237
0.198
0.0
0.212
0.163
0.202
0.235
0.203
0.0
0.185
0.258
0.254
0.186
0.221
0.0 .
T= 6
0.409
0.326
0.173
0.197
0.276
0.1
0.282
0.323
0.276
0.345
0.306
0.0
0.342
0.205
0.287
0.364
0.299
0.1
0.357
6.322
0.407
0.293
0.345
0.0
T= 8
0.582
0.391
0.282
0.306
0.390
0.1
0.392
0.388
0.406
0.410
0.399
0.0
0.449
0.357
0.415
0.429
0.412
0.0
0.614
0.452
0.492
0.360
0.479
0.1
T»10
0.777
0.435
0.303
0.394
0.477
0.2
0.413
0.585
0.449
0.475
0.480
0.1
0.513
0.441
0.499
0.581
0.508
0.1
0.893
0.517
0.622
0.466
0.624
0.2
T=20
1.555
1.697
2.150
1.65?
1.763
0.3
1.783
1.713
1.923
1.612
1.806
0.1
1.713
2.087
2.222
1.875
1.974
0.2
2.330
1.656
1.464
1.374
1.706
0.4
T=30
1.795
2.914
3.896
3.343
2.987
0.9
2.976
2.972
3.698
3.275
3.230
0.3
3.100
4.213
3.935
4.517
3.941
0.6
3.407
3.066
2.434
2.760
2.917
0.4
T=40
2.467
3.871
5.311
4.472
4.030
1.2
3.786
3.690
5.223
4.426
4.332
0.7
4.218
5.793
5.789
6.263
5.516
0.9
4.596
4.055
3.106
3.699
3.865
0.6
T=50
3.052
4.913
6.759
5.584
5.077
1.6
4.845
4.968
6.5IS
5.639
5.497
0.8
5.453
7.231
7.454
7.772
6.977
1.0
5.973
5.204
3.833
4.572
4.695
0.9
T=60
3.619
6.286
8.068
6.900
6.216
1.9
6.242
6.515
6.091
7.132
6.995
0.8
6.831 :
8.856
9.092
9.525
8.576
1.2
7.019
6.619
4.557
,5.611
S.951
1.1
id
n>
3
a
*
n
o
3
rt
|
a
-------
Hydrocarbon Loss, grams, at each of Che Following Times.
Vehicle
Tesc No.
1 Mln.
10 Mln.
20 Min.
30 Min.
40 Min.
SO Min.
59 Min.
60 Min.
021
022
Vega 023
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0141
.0138
.0139
.0139
.0002
.25
.22
.13
.20
.06
.51
.46
.36
.44
.08
.74 ' | .93
.67 ! .83
.53 ! .68
.65 j .81
.11 .13
1.07
.95
.80
.94
.14
1.17
1.05
.88
1.03
.15
1.18
1.07
.89
1.05
.15
014
016
Comaro 017
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0558
.0633
.0410
.0534
.0113
.38
.37
.39
.38
.01
.84
.99
.87
.90
.08
2.03 3.38
2.01
2,H
3.41
3.52
2.05 : 3.44
.05 : .07
4.23
4.46
4.5S
4.41
.16
4.82
5.09
5.22
5.05
0.20
4.88
3.15
5.28
S.10
.20
024
025
Matador 026
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0638
.0572
.1427
.0879
.0476
.67
.57
.83
.69
.13
1.91
1.56
2.54
2.00
.50
1
6.06 ' 9.75
5.07 9.10
6.78 11.40
5.97
.86
10.08
1.19
12.31
12.43
15.11
13.3
1:58
13.99
14.16
17.45
15.20
1.95
14.14
14.31
17.64
15.36
1.97
094
097
B««tlc 101
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0365
.0364
.0362
.0621
.0413
.46
.41
.41
.43
.03
.98
.98
.93
.95
.03
1.53 1.95
1.12
1.43
1.36
.21 ,,
1.91
1.83
1.90
.06
2.26
2.21
2.08
2.18
.09
2.55
2.46
2.34
2.45
.11
2.58
2.49
2.37
2.48
.11
o •«
CO fl>
rt 3
to O.
O
H
(D (X
CO H
rt O
O
< »
fl> 1
ET O-
H- O
O 3
M
0> C-*
CO O
CD
CO
-------
Vehicle
Test No.
Hydrocarbon Loss, grans, at each of the Following Times
1 Hin. 10 Mia. 20 Hln. 30 Min. 40 Min.
JO Hln.
59 Hln.
60 Min.
030
032
034
New
Yorker • 036
Mean
Std. Dev.
.0426
.0353
.0481
.0478
.043
.006
.43
.42
.55
.45
.46
.06
.74
.91
1.09
1.10
.96
.17
1.25
1.33
1.87
2.26
1.68
.48
2.40
2.81
4.54
4.66
3.65
1.23
4.35
5.15
7.53
7.52
6.14
1.64
6.07
7.05
10.12
8.91
8.03
1.82
6.25
7.26
10.33
9.09
8.23
1.83
263
264
265
F-100 266
Mean
Std. Dev.
.064
.086
.017
.042
.052
.030
.41
.58
.45
.48
.48
.07
1.78
1.71
1.92
1.81
1.81
.09
2.98
2.97
3.70
3.28
3.23
.34
3.79
3.89
5.22
4.43
4.33
.66
4.84
4.99
6.52
5.64
5.50
.76
6.07
6.37
7.92
6.98
6.84
.82
6.24
6.52
8.09
7.13
7.00
.76
(f
o
o
o
ft
H-
CD
------- |