EPA-AA-IMS/81-5
Evaluation of Applicability
of the INCOLL Procedure as
an I/M Strategy
November 1980
Bill Smuda
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or posi-
tions. They are intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
which are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is
to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public
of technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision,
position or regulatory action.
Inspection/Maintenance Staff
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-AA-IMS/81-5
Evaluation of Applicability
of the INCOLL Procedure as
an I/M Strategy
November 1980
Bill Smuda
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or posi-
tions. They are intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
which are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is
to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public
of technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision,
position or regulatory action.
Inspection/Maintenance Staff
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents testing results which were gathered to investigate the
suitability of using the INCOLL procedure as an emissions Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) testing procedure compared to existing I/M testing
procedures. The INCOLL procedure utilizes engine and transmission inertial
forces to produce pressures and temperatures in the engine that will generate
significant quantities of exhaust emissions. The existing I/M test
procedures utilize steady state engine operating modes to produce significant
quantities of exhaust emissions. The test sequence consisted of FTP, INCOLL,
LA-4 and I/M cycles. The test sequence was applied to six vehicles in
various states of tune.
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .. 4
2.0 INCOLL DESCRIPTION 5
3.0 TESTING SEQUENCE 6
4.0 TEST VEHICLES AND CONDITIONS 7
5.0 TEST RESULTS 9
6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 9
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
Testing of the INCOLL system was conducted at the EPA Motor Vehicle
Emission Lab (MVEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan during the period beginning on
29 April 1980 and ending on 13 June 1980.
This test program was conducted at the request of Professor Lars Tn.
Collin of Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Professor Collin is the developer of the INCOLL device.
Professor Collin along with two assistants, Ingemar Denbratt and Bo
Andreasson, arrived at MVEL on 8 April 1980 to set-up the INCOLL device
and develop INCOLL control parameters for the available test vehicles.
They returned to Sweden on 18 April 1980. Professor Collin and assistants
returned to MVEL near the end of the test program on 2 June 1980 and were
available for troubleshooting until the end of testing.
-------
2.0 INCOLL DESCRIPTION (from the developer's publications)
The INCOLL system (l, 2)* is based upon the principle that energy can be
stored in the moving parts of an engine during acceleration and removed during
periods of deceleration. This energy exchange provides a means of applying
loads to the engine while the vehicle transmission remains in the neutral
position. Because the parts involved in the inertia loads are quite accurate-
ly manufactured, the resultant loading can be well controlled and should be
quite repeatable even within an engine family. Variations in the inertia
characteristics of different engine families can be accommodated by
reprograming the test cycle by changing settings on the control panel.
The accelerations and decelerations are accomplished through a series of step
changes in the throttle setting of the engine. The throttle settings are
controlled by an actuator operating the accelerator pedal or throttle
linkage. The diagrams and narrative description included in the patent of the
system describe the throttle position as alternating between the idle position
and open positions with variable timing. The results of the variations in
throttle position are further described as producing engine speeds which
increase or decrease linearly with time.
As tested the INCOLL system is composed of three major components. The
relationship of these components to the engine and to each other is
illustrated in Figure 1. The central unit, illustrated in Figure 2, is the
system "brain". The system operator (a person) sets the central unit controls
prior to test initialization. The control unit settings are predetermined by
the INCOLL developers; these settings are related to the inertial characteris-
tics of the vehicle and are the same for all vehicles of that category. The
central unit monitors engine speed and sends a control signal to the servo
amplifier to alter engine speed. This relationship is complex and is a
function of control unit settings. The control unit also has the ability to
abort the test sequence if engine speed exceeds a specified value (a control
unit setting), thus providing overspeed protection. When the control unit
senses an overspeed condition it grounds the electrical connection at the coil
and kills the" engine.
The servo amplifier serves to amplify the control unit signal which will
ultimately control engine speed variation. The servo amplifier also sends a
signal to the control unit indicating accelerator pedal position. This signal
is required to allow the control unit to fix the accelerator in a neutral
position during the idle portions of the INCOLL sequence. Operator
interaction with the servo amplifier is limited to adjusting the pedal adjust
knob after insertion of the servo motor in the vehicle. This adjustment is
necessary to zero pedal deflection caused by servo motor installation.
* Numbers in parenthesis indicate references listed at the end of this report.
-------
The INCOLL system also contains an exhaust sample collection sub-system. No
attempt was made to utilize or evaluate this sub-system at MVEL. Several of
the control unit knobs, displays and push buttons are related to this
sub-system.
Normal sampling of the exhaust gases is accomplished by means of a bundle of
tubes attached to a sleeve that fits over the end of the vehicle tailpipe.
The exhaust gas is split between the tubes, one of which leads to the sample
bag or directly to an exhaust emission analyzer. This is supposed to result
in a constant fraction of the exhaust being collected and analyzed.
During testing at the Motor Vehicle Emission Lab (MVEL) the emissions
generated by the INCOLL procedure were diluted, collected, and processed
through MVEL CVS units. The INCOLL, FTP, and LA-4 emissions were diluted and
analyzed with the same instruments following standard procedures. In order to
generate a large enough dilute sample, the INCOLL device was modified to
automatically repeat the cycle a number of times. Use of the CVS system over
the INCOLL exhaust collection system allowed maximum flexibility to utilize
available test sites.
3.0 TESTING SEQUENCE .
The following test scenerio was used in this program:
a. Federal Test Procedure (FTP) (1979 procedure, non-evaporative).
b. INCOLL procedure
c. 50 mph Cruise test
d. Four-mode idle test
e. Two-mode loaded test
f. Los Angeles-4 cycle (LA-4)
g. INCOLL .Procedure
h. 50 mph Cruise test
i. Four-mode Idle Test
j. Two-mode Loaded Test
Details for each of the Inspection and Maintenance (l/M) cycles are listed
below:
50 Cruise Test - This is a short high speed loaded test. The dynamometer
inertial weight and horsepower setting are the same as those specified for the
FTP.
-------
Four-Speed Idle Test - This short test involves four steady state idle condi-
tions. With the transmission in neutral, emissions are measured and recorded
at basic idle, idle at 2500 rpra and after return to basic idle. The
transmission is then placed in drive (with the brakes applied) for sampling in
the fourth mode.
Two-Mode Loaded Test - This short test consists of two operating conditions.
The vehicle is operated at 30 mph and 9.0 actual horsepower with the inertial
weight set 1750. Immediately following sampling in this mode, the vehicle is
returned to idle mode, the transmission is placed in neutral and the
emissions sampled again.
The exhaust gases generated by the I/M tests are analyzed using a garage type
non-dispersive infra-red (NDIR) HC/CO analyzer.
4.0 TEST VEHICLES AND CONDITIONS.
In order to ascertain the ability of the INCOLL test procedure and the I/M
test procedures to detect high emitting vehicles various malfunctions were.
induced in the test vehicles. A description of the test vehicles and test
configurations follows:
1. 1975 Dodge Dart, 6 cylinder, 225 cubic inches, air pump, (California
version).
a. Stock.
b. 10% misfire induced using a misfire generator.
c. Rich idle.
2. 1977 Chevrolet Chevette, 4 cylinder, 85 cubic inches, manual trans-
mission.
a. Stock.
b. Rich Idle (the LA-4 portion of this test sequence was lost due to
a data handling error during testing).
c. Vacuum leak.
3. 1980 Ford Mustang, 6 cylinder, 200 cubic inches.
a. Stock.
b. 10% misfire induced using a misfire generator.
c. Rich idle (the loaded portion of the first two-mode loaded test
was not accomplished due to an equipment failure).
4. 1979 Chevrolet Nova, 6 cylinder, 250 cubic inches.
a. Stock (only the first half of this sequence was completed).
Note: This vehicle experienced two malfunctions which delayed
testing. Due to time constraints and lack of test site availability,
this vehicle was removed from the test program at this point.
-------
1) The INCOLL test cycle would get stuck in the calibration
portion of the cycle, the engine would run at about 2000 rpm
until the operator aborted the test. When the INCOLL personnel
returned near the end of testing they quickly determined the
problem to be a sticky accelerator pedal linkage (cable in
sheath type). This would prevent the servo motor controller
from zeroing itself. The problem was shown to be .easily
overcome by a simple adjustment of the pedal adjust knob on the
servomotor controller.
2) While MVEL personnel in communication with INCOLL personnel
in Sweden were trying to ascertain the nature of the above
problem a valve lifter collapsed on two occasions during the
time the cycle was stuck. The lifter pumped up on its own after
a few minutes before it could be determined which lifter was
failing. After the second failure a subsequent failure could
not be induced either with INCOLL test or road test. The lifter
failure was judged to be a vehicle problem rather than an INCOLL
problem.
5. 1980 Chevrolet Citation, 4 cylinder, 2.5 liter, closed loop (California
version) .
a. Stock, poisoned catalytic converter.
b. Exhaust oxygen sensor disconnected, poisoned catalytic converter.
Note: The above two sequences were repeated. The INCOLL results
were deleted for the first two test sequences. The INCOLL personnel
determined that they had erred on the control unit settings provided
to MVEL on their first visit. A new set of control unit' settings
were decided on by the INCOLL personnel upon their return to.MVEL and
the above sequences were repeated.
6. 1980 Toyota Celica Supra, 6 cylinder, 156 cubic inches, electronic fuel
injection, closed loop (50 state version).
a. Stock.
b. Closed loop disabled.
5.0 TEST RESULTS
The test results are given in several attachments.
Attachment 1: Descriptions of variables and abbreviations.
Attachment 2: FTP, LA-4 and INCOLL readings. FTP and LA-4 values are in
grams/mile. INCOLL values are dilute concentrations.
Attachment 3: FTP, LA-4 and four-mode idle readings.
-------
Attachment 4: FTP, LA-4, 50 Cruise, and two-mode loaded readings. I/M
test readings are raw concentrations.
Attachment 5: FTP, LA-4 and bag readings. FTP and LA-4 bag readings are
dilute concentrations.
Attachment 6: FTP, LA-4 and INCOLL, all emissions. FTP and LA-4 values
are grams/mile. INCOLL values are dilute concentrations.
6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Importance of correlation
Correlation implies a mutual relationship; two quantities which can be
mathematically related are said to be correlated. Also two methods of ranking
objects are correlated if they put the objects in the same order or class.
For example, if eggs are normally graded by weight, a method of measuring the
length and girth which achieves the same result can be said to be "corre-
lated." The degree of error which can be tolerated before "correlation" is
lost is subjective.
High emitting vehicles detrimentally affect urban air quality. High emitting
vehicles are considered to be those which have emissions significantly above
their certification limits. If these vehicles can be identified and repaired
then the quality of the air improves. Vehicle emission inspections are an
effective tool in combating urban air pollution. In a periodic vehicle.
emission inspection a short, relatively inexpensive test is used to screen out
the highest emitting vehicles that contribute the most to air pollution.
Several jurisdictions have I/M programs operating, and more will take effect
over the next few years. While in many instances failure of an emission
inspection is caused by improper maintenance, some failures can be attributed
to the vehicle manufacturer. As an element of consumer protection, the
Congress provided for an emission control performance warranty, Section 207(b)
of the Clean Air Act. EPA has recently promulgated final regulations
implementing this warranty, including three approved short tests. These
approved short tests are similar to the short tests used in the INCOLL testing
program.(3) The similarity between _the INCOLL I/M short tests and the 207(b)
short tests: exists in the fact that for engineering evaluation purposes .any
207(b) short- test procedure can be assembled -from the elements of the INCOLL
I/M short tests. When Congress passed Section 207(b), it required .that any
short test used for emission control performance warranty purposes be "reason-
ably capable of being correlated" with the certification test, known as the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP). By far the. most difficult aspect of short test
development is the "correlation" requirement. Trying to match the compli-
cated, lengthy FTP with a procedure to be used for "in-use" inspections is
most difficult.
-------
10
EPA has adopted a correlation policy which holds false short test failures,
i.e., error of commission (EC'S) to the same approximate level as if the full
FTP had been used as the short test. An EC occurs if a vehicle which would
pass the FTP is failed by the short test. EPA believes that this approach
satisfies the requirement of "reasonable correlation"; further, EPA emphati-
cally rejects the contention that "perfect correlation" (i.e., prediction of
numerical FTP results) is required. The limitations of FTP to FTP correlation
establish a limit on the correlation that a short test can obtain. The
ability of the short tests already promulgated by EPA to identify high
emitting vehicles satisfies the requirement of "reasonable correlation". The
short test is not equivalent to the FTP and serves an entirely different
function. As adopted in the final warranty rules, it is a diagnostic tool
for accurately predicting some or most of the occurrences of high emissions.
It will not and need not predict with certainty the precise FTP emission
levels. It is in this spirit that the INCOLL procedure and the various I/M
tests were compared. The LA-4 test is included in all comparisons as a bench-
mark test because it is presumed to have a high degree of correlation
ith the full FTP because the LA-4 is itself a portion of the full FTP.
6.2 Alternative Definitions of Correlation
Several different statistical methodologies were applied to the data obtained
in this evaluation in order to describe the quality of the correlations
between the FTP and the other tests.
6.2.1 Linear Regression ...
Linear regression analysis deals with fitting linear models to data and
assessing the predictive power of linear relationships. The strength of the
linear relation between the two variables being correlated can be described by
the standard "Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient", denoted by
"R". "R" may assume only value between 1 and -1. If there is a perfect
linear relationship between the variables, then "R" will assume one of the two
extreme values. If "R" is 0 (or near 0) then there is little or ncr tendency.
for the points on a corresponding scatter plot to cluster about any straight
line. -This does not mean, that -there is no relationship between the two
variables being correlated, but only that this relationship (if any) is not
linear. .
The square of the correlation coefficient, "R^", called "the coefficient of
determination," is interpreted as the proportion of the variance in the values
of the dependent variable which can be attributed to the linear relationship
with the independent variable.(4)
6.2.2 Graphical
Scatter plots with a "line of best fit" representing the linear regression
supplement the information conveyed by a correlation coefficient. A graphical
analysis also provides a subjective "quick look" at the relationship between
two variables. Finally, such a plot may be useful in helping to check on
outliers or whether the assumptions which are needed for various inference
procedures are met.
-------
11
6.2.3 Spearman's RHO
Spearman's coefficient of rank correlation, RHO, is simply the standard
product-moment correlation coefficient between the ranks of the case values of
the two variables. Specifically, in the calculation of RHO, the case values
of each of the two variables are ranked in order of ascending size, separately
for each of the two variables. Ties are handled by assigning the average
rank, then the usual correlation coefficient is computed between the two sets
of ranks. The RHO coefficient has the -property of assuming only values
between 1 and 1. It assumes the value 1 if the two rankings are identical
and the value -1 if the cases had exactly the opposite ordering under the two
rankings. If RHO assumes a value of 0 (or near 0) the variables are indepen-
dent. Independence of the two variables means that knowledge of the rank of
one variable does not help one predict the rank assumed by the other,presented
in Table 1.
6.2.4 Contingency Table Analysis . . .
Another method of illustrating the degree of correlation is a contingency
table analysis. In this analysis results from a particular test are grouped
into four categories:
1. Correctly Pass - Vehicle does not exceed certification standards for
any emission; vehicle does not exceed short test standards for any
emission. '
2. Correctly Fail - Vehicle exceeds certification standards for one or
more emission; vehicle exceeds short test standards for one or more
emission.
3. Error of Commission - Vehicle does not exceed certification standards
for any emission; vehicle exceeds short test standards for one or more
emission.
4. Error of Omission-- Vehicle exceeds certification standards for one "or
more emission; vehicle does not exceed short test standards ,for any
emission.
A short test is considered to correlate with the FTP if it can hold EC'S to an
acceptable level and identify most high emitting vehicles.(3) The percentage
of high emitting xvehicles identified can be controlled by varying the short
test cutpoints within limits imposed by the "minimal EC" requirement.(6) The
short test effectiveness, defined as
S.T.E. = (^correctly failed)
(# correctly failed) + (# errors of omission),
is a measure of the fraction of vehicles failing the FTP identified by the
short test.
-------
12
6.2.5 Percent Excess Emissions Identified
One limitation of contingency table analysis is that it regards gross failures
the same as marginal failures. A measure for describing whether the failures
are severe or not is percent excess emissions identified. The percent excess
emissions identified is a measure of the ability of a particular test to
identify emissions in excess of the certification standards. It is defined as
excess emissions identified by short test failures divided by the excess
emissions identified by the FTP multiplied by 100.
6.3 Correlation Results
For purposes of illustration, the tests will be grouped into three categories:
LA-4 and INCOLL tests, Idle I/M tests, and Loaded I/M tests. The LA-4 test
has been included in all results because it is presumed to have a high degree
of correlation with the full FTP.
6.3.1 Linear Regression Results
The "coefficients of determination" (R) obtained by : applying a linear
regression analysis of the FTP values to the short test values are presented
in Table 1.
6.3.2 Graphical Results
Figures 3 to 22 present the data obtained in this program graphically through
the use of scatter plots with "lines of best fit" drawn into illustrate the
relationship of the data points to the linear model.
6.3.3 Spearman's RHO Results
Spearman's RHO correlation coefficients obtained by a rank order analysis of
the FTP values to .the short test values are presented in Table 2.
6.3.4 Contingency Table Analysis Results
Contingency table analysis requires the use of standards to determine
pass/fail status on each'bf the two tests being compared. For .the FTP tes.t,
the certification standards were used. For the INCOLL, LA-4, and the short
tests, standards were selected as described in the following paragraphs.
In order to apply contingency table analyses two different sets of short test
standards suggested by the INCOLL developer (Prof. Collin) have been used.
Both sets of standards have been developed from a simple linear regression
analysis applied to data obtained in this program. The methods of selecting
INCOLL standards differ in respect to the data utilized.
The standards obtained using method 1 (explained below).are:
1. HC-65 ppm dilute sample
2. CO-500 ppm dilute sampl
3. NOx-25 ppm dilute sampl
uu ppm uiiuLe sample
25 ppm dilute sample
-------
13
These standards represent the dilute sample concentrations corresponding to
the 1977 certification limit determined by the regression line calculated from
the results of the tests applied to the Dart, Chevette, and Mustang.
The standards obtained using method 2 are more complex in that the cutpoints
are determined as a function of the vehicles' actual certification limit. The
standards obtained using method 2 are:
Cert Limit INCOLL Standard
HC: 1.5 68.9
0.9 32.6
0.41 3.2
CO: 15.0 464.0
9.0 252.0
7.0. 181.0
NOx: 2.0 20.9
1.0 6.6
These stanards represent the dilute sample concentrations corresponding to the
particular certification limit determined by the regression line calculated
from the results of all tests.
The LA-4 standards used in the contingency analysis are the same as the
certification standards, listed in Table 4. . . .
The short test standards used in this analysis are:
1) 1.0% CO/200 ppm HC for the Four Mode Idle test.
2) 1.2% CO/220 ppm HC for the Two-Mode Loaded and 50-Cruise tests.
The certification standards for the test vehicles are listed in.Table 4. The
results of the contingency table analysis along with the short test, effective-
ness are presented in Table 3.
The detailed results -of each test presented as "meets standard" (0.) or
"exceeds standard" (l.OOOO) are given in several attachments.
Attachment 7: FTP, LA-4 and INCOLL results
Attachment 8: FTP, LA-4 and Four Mode Idle results
Attachment 9: FTP, LA-4, 50-Cruise, and Two-Mode Loaded results.
These attachments are identical in format to the numerical results to facil-
itate cross reference.
6.3.5 Percent Excess Emissions Identified
The percent excess emissions identified by each short test are tabulated in
Table 5.
-------
14
6.4 Conclusions
Of the short tests considered in this analysis (INCOLL, 4-Mode Idle, 50-Cruise
and Two-Mode Loaded) the INCOLL test tends to correlate best with the FTP.
The INCOLL test also identifies the highest percentage of excess emissions
identified by the FTP. (See Table 5, page 42). The better identification
performance of the INCOLL test is most noticeable on HC; for CO, the short
tests do about as well as the INCOLL test.
During the design of the test program interest was expressed in how well the
INCOLL test performed in identifying high emitting three way catalyst cars.
For this reason two three-way cars, a 1980 California Citation and a 1980
Toyota Celica Supra were included in the test program. Four test sequences
were performed on these two vehicles. The first of the two test sequences
performed on the Toyota resulted in low emissions (well below the certifi-
cation standards). There were no errors of commission by the INCOLL test or
the short tests. The second test sequence performed on the Toyota resulted in
extremely high emissions. The INCOLL test and the short tests all correctly
failed this vehicle configuration. The two test sequences performed on the
Citation resulted in marginal excess emissions. INCOLL identified the excess
emissions once in four attempts. The short tests failed to identify any
excess emissions. Due to this small sample and the limited experience on the
INCOLL personel in optimizing inertial cycles for these vehicles no real
inferences can be drawn concerning these vehicles.
This analysis only considers the effects of a single set of cutpoints in the
contingency table and percent of excess emissions identified. In real world
situations there are a myriad of special considerations to contend with.
Different cutpoints may be selected to combat the unique air quality problems
of a specific area. Areas with marginal air quality problems can achieve
their air quality goals using simple idle tests. Areas with severe air
quality problems may require a more sophisticated approach. An in depth
analysis of the specific problem is required to determine an inspection
methodology which will achieve an acceptable solution.
One shortfall of the INCOLL system as applied to I/M is that the INCOLL system
as tested requires a unique inertial cycle for each engine/transmission
combination. This -approach- is much more complicated than the presently
accepted "one test for all vehicles" approach to I/M. The INCOLL approach
requires that the manufacturers of the INCOLL device develop an inertial cycle
for each engine/transmission combination in use at the time of adoption.
Further the INCOLL approach requires that the inspection station operator
correctly identify each engine/transmission combination tested. The INCOLL
procedure may be more appropriate, at this time, in a situation where a large
quantity of similar vehicles is being tested such as in an assembly line test
or in emission factors testing. A factor which may affect the data obtained
in this test program is test design. Five vehicles were tested with various
induced malfunctions. The induced malfunctions are not necessarily represent-
ative of actual vehicle failures. Further, no attempt was made to account for
any within vehicle correlation.
-------
15
REFERENCES .
1. "INCOLL - A New Technology in Emission Testing", Lars Tn Collin, June
1978, SAE 780618.
2. INCOLL Exhaust Emissions Test Procedure A Review, D. Harold Davis, EPA
Emission Control Teenology Division, October 1977.
3. Motor Vehicles; Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests
and Warranty Regulations; Final Rules, Federal Register, Part IX
Environmental Protection Agency, May 22, 1980.
4. "An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis," T.W. Anderson John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
5. "Theory of Rank Tests", Jaroslav Hajek, Zbynek Sidak, Academic Press.
6. Light Duty Vehicle and Light Duty Truck Emission Performance Warranty;
Short Tests and Standards, EPA Emission Control Technology Division,
December 1979, IMS-009/ST-1.
-------
16
INCOLL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
To Coil
Engine
Accelerator
Pedal
Linkage
\J
__.-)
Central
Unit
VA
Onerator
Servo
Motor
Servo
Amplifier
Figure 1
:-" . .:'J:£&^SS^.^
-£{f . .! fS391<:-lffr>SilSZ-Vfl
c'
-------
17, .:;,:.:...,,
Central unit
KnoTaa " ' ' . '.'..
__ 1. Atmospheric pressure for exhaust volume measuring device
2. Offset, exhaust voluae-measfurina device.
3. Raap speed deceeleratioa ' .
. '
fc.- Ranjp speed acceleratioa
U. Mvrimmn permitted engine speed
13. 3o. of cylinders ...
"A.. lower rpnr-linit of the test -
16. Reference tice torque calibration-
17* Upper rpnr-linit of the test
.*" Push Knobs
9. Start .
1O. Reset
12. Reset of torque calibration . . .'...,
"_ 15« Manual start of torque calibration . .
18.. Start of:testprogram vithout evacuating the sanpled exhaust
Display^
19- .Idle speed frpmj
20. Integrated no. of revolutions
L-J
21. Teat time
22. Exhaust volume
Indicator lights,
5. Reset
6. Start engine
'7. Beat ready
8. Weak engine
1=]
i-J
\t.
Figure 2
. ... ..:.'-.'.Vr4.£;-;>"
..- :-'.'^i-zi&x&s
.- ...,.-.,,- V . .£ r~w?fiXlt&7S
<\$':*?&8$si$m&&
-------
18
Linear Regression
Coefficient of Determination R2
Table 1
Tests
Compared
Sample Size N
HC
CO
NOx
FTP
vs
LA-4
INCOLL 1
INCOLL 2
14
14
13
.98
76
.63
.98
.92
.82
.98
.63
.72
4 Mode Idle 1
Idle 1
2500
Idle 2
Drive
16
16
16
13
.69
.54
.25
,61
.44
.66
.41
.46
4 Mode Idle 2
Idle 1
2500
Idle 2
Drive
50-Cruise 1
50-Cruise 2
15
15
15
12
16
15
41
71
43
32
30
10
.42
.61
.- ,.42
. .47
.52
.55
Two-Mode Loaded 1 .
30-MPH 15
Idle 16
.46
.65
.73
.44
Two-Mode Loaded 2
30-MPH 15
Idle -- 15
.36 .
.46"
.53
.39
Note: Each short test was performed twice during a test sequence. a 1
identifies the short test following the FTP and a 2 identifies the
short test following the LA-4.
-------
19
3.2
in
3C'
p
rr:
cc
1.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
-X-
0.8 1.6 2.4
FTP HC. GRRHS/HILE
X LflU
N=«m RSQ-.98
BO.28 Bl».95
3.2
FTP vs. LA A, HC
Figure 3
-------
20
X LflU
N=»m RSQ-.98
80^-3.02 81 = .914
20 40 60
FTP CO, GRflHS/HILE
80
FTP VS. LA A, CO
Figure 4
-------
21
2.5
2.0
n 1.5
3:
cc
EC
o
x" 1,0
o
0.5
0. 0
0
X
N-1M
RSQ-.98
2 U
FTP NOX. GRRHS/MILE
FTP vs. LA 4, NOx
Figure 5
-------
22
160
Y-VRR=. 3
X INCOLL 1
N~1U RSQ-.76
B0=«-1.91 81=47.24
0.8 1.6 2.U
FTP HC. GRflMS/MILE
0 INCOLL 2
N-13 RSQ-.63
80*9.04 Bl=»34.85
3.2
FTP VS. INCOLL, HC
Figure 6
Legend
X INCOLL 1
0 INCOLL 2
1st INCOLL Test
2nd INCOLL Test
-------
23
2HOO
Y-VRR=« 7
X INCOLL 1
N-1U RSQ-.92
BO^-8.37 81=33.63
Y-VflR= 8
0 INCOLL 2
N^-13 RSQ=>.82
BO-BU.76 Bl=»27.m
20 .40 .60
FTP CO. GRHHS/HILE
FTP vs. INCOLL, CO
Figure 7
-------
24
UJ
T-VflR=r 11
X INCOLL 1
N-IU RSQ.-.63
BO=.K30 81^7.28
Y-VRR=» 12
0 INCOLL 2
N-13 RSQ-.72
80^-5.25 Bl=.13.78
FTP NOX. GRRMS/HILE
FTP VS. INCOLL, NOx
Figure 8
-------
25
1000
Y-VOR=« 2
X TEST 1
N»16 RSO-,69
BO--18B,6B1=*299.70
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSO-.Ut
BO111.581-216,60
0.8 1.6 2.ii
FTP HC.GRflMS/HILE
3.2
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle 1 HC
Figure 9
-------
-'-r- .......... -Ti- -I-- i-T-r i .....
........
- -
'rt!^^
26
0
Y-VfiR= 11
X TEST 1
N=»16
20 -UO BO
FTP CO. GRflHS/HILE
T-VflR=. 15
0 TEST 2
N=-15
BO--.60 Bl=«.12
80
FTP. vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle 1 CO
Figure 10
-------
27
160
3C
o_
o_
. 120
o
X
3C
Q.
CC
O
o
in
cu
LU
UJ
o
o
ac
o L
0.0
0.8 1.6 2.4
FTP HC.GRRMS/HILE
T-VflR=. U
X TEST I
N-16 RSO-.54
BO=»-6.98 81 = 42.1
Y-VRR=* 5
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSO-.71
3.2
FTP vs. A-Mode Idle
Figure 11
-------
28
Y-VflR=« 12
X TEST 1
N-16 RSQ-.66
BO--.39 Bl=«.04
16
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.61
80^-.33 Bla.OU
20 UO 60
FTP CO. GRflHS/HILE
80
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
2500 RPM CO
Figure 12
-------
29
1200
X TEST 1
N-16 RSO-.25
BO=»-75. mBl=>210.
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSO-.U3
B0=»-119.781=209.06
0. 0
0.8 1.6 2.4
FTP HC.GRRHS/MILE
3.2
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle 2 HC
Figure 13
-------
30
0
T-VflR=» 13
X TEST 1
N=-16 RSQ^.Ul
BO--.U3 Bl=».12
20 40 60
FTP CO. GRflHS/HILE
17
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.U2
80=.-.59 Bl»..ll-
80
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle 2 CO
Figure
-------
31.
800
0 L
0.0
Y-VRR=i 8
X TEST 1
N-13 R50-.B1
Y-VRR=« 9
O TEST 2
RSQ=».32
KB 2.4
FTP HC.GRRHS/HILE
3,2
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle Drive HC
Figure 15
-------
X TEST 1
80=.-.59
RSQ-.U6
Bl^.lO
Y-VRR=. 18
0 TEST 2
N-12 RSQ-.47
BO=»-.68 Bl=«. 10
20
FTP .CO.
tlO 60
GRflMS/MILE
80
FTP vs. 4-Mode Idle
Idle Drive CO
Figure 16
-------
800
600
D_
a.
o
400
to
I
200
e
o
o.o
X TEST 1
N-16 RSQ-.3&
BO*-B3.6781=122.52
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSO-.10
B0=»29.20 B1=31.0
0.8 1.6 2.U
FTP HC. GRflHS/HILE
3.2
FTP vs. 50-Cruise, HC
Figure 17
-------
34
Y-VflR* 9
X TEST 1
N»16
B0=»-. 38
RSO-.52
Bl^.OH
12
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.S5
BO--.39 81=>.OU
20 UO 60
FTP CO. GRRMS/MILE
80
FTP vs. 50-Cruise CO
Figure 18
-------
35
320
o.
o.
.240
o
oc
3C
CT 160
O
LU
CE
O
80
o
o
ac
OLcg
X
8
o.o
0.8 1.6 2.U
FTP HC. GRflMS/HILE
X TEST 1
N«1S RSO-.U5
BO--7.76 Bl-54.96
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.36
80=.-!.52 81=42.24
3.2
FTP vs. 2-Mode Loaded
30 ^PH HC
Figure 19
-------
36
10
X TEST 1
N-15 RSQ-.73
BO--.50 Bl=»,05
Y-VflR=. 13
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.53
20 40 60
FTP CO, GRflHS/MILE
80
FTP vs. 2-Mode Loaded
30 NPH CO
Figure 20
-------
0
20 UO 60
FTP CO. GRflMS/HJLE
X TEST 1
N-16 RSQ-.UU
BO»-.49 81=1.13
Y-VflR- 1U
0 TEST a
N-15 RSO-.39
BO=>-.58 Bl=».li
80
FTP vs. 2-Mode Loaded
Idle Co
Figure 22
-------
37
1000
T-VflR- U
X TEST 1
N-16 - R5Q-.65
0 TEST 2
N-15 RSQ-.U5
80^-136.781=225.33
0
0.8 1.6 2.11
FTP HC. GRRHS/MILE
3.2
FTP vs. 2- Mode Loaded
Idle HC
Figure 21
-------
10
8
o
o
llJ
o
UJ
a
S 4
UJ
O
T 2
C\J
oLa-^aa d
0 20
HO 60
FTP CO. GRflMS/HILE
Y-VflR- 11
X TEST 1
N-16 RSQ-.4U
BO--.U9 Bl=.13
1U
0 TEST 2
N~15 RSO-.39
80=-.56 Bl-.ll
80
FTP vs. 2-Mode Loaded
Idle Co
Figure 22
-------
Spearman's RHO
Correlation Coefficients
Table 2
FTP vs Sample Size N HC CO NOx
LA-4 14 .97 .94 .98
INCOLL 1 14 79 .87 .86
INCOLL 2 13 . .68 ' .82 ' .81
4 Mode Idle 1
Idle 1 16 .62 .61
2500 16 .59 .50
Idle 2 16 .57 .61
Drive 13 .63 .50
4 Mode Idle 2
Idle 1 15 .80 .68
2500 15 .77 .64:
Idle 2 15 .83 .68
Drive 12 .89 .53
50-Cruise 1 16 .66 .08
50-Cruise 2 15 .74 -.19
Two-Mode Loaded 1
30-KPH 15 .66 .62
Idle 16 .57 .41
Two-Mode Loaded 2
30-NPH 15 .77 -.20
Idle . 15 .80 .62
-------
46
Contingency Table Analysis
Table 3
FTP vs.
LA4
INCOLL Method 1
INCOLL Method 2
Each Mode
Considered Separately
4-Mode Idle
Idle 1
2500 RPM
Idle 2
Drive
Two-Mode Loaded
30 MPH
Idle
50 Cruise
* S.T.E. = (# Correctly
Sample
Size N
14
27
27
31
31
31
25
30
31
31
Failed)
Correct
Pass (%)
14
15
11
19
19
19
16
30
19
19
Correct
Fail (%)
86
48
74
26
13
26
16
7
26
10
EC
(%)
0
7
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eo
(%)
0
30
4
55
68
55
68
73
55
71
Short Test*
Effectiveness
1.0
.38
.95
.32
.16
.32
.19
.08
.32
.12
-------
Table A
Test Vehicles - Certification Standards g/mile
Certification Standard
Vehicle HC CO NOx
1975 Dodge Dart 0.9 9.0 2.0
1979 Chevy Nova 1.5 15.0 2.0
1977 Chevy Chevette 1.5 15.0 2.0
1980 Ford Mustang 0.41 7.0 2.0
1980 Chevy Citation 0.41 9.0 i.o
1980 Toyota Celica 0.41 7.0 1.0
-------
, 42
Percent Excess Emissions
Identified
Table 5
LA-4
INCOLL Method 1
INCOLL Method 2
4 Mode Idle
Idle 1
2500
Idle 2
Drive
Two-Mode Loaded
30 MPH
Idle
50 Cruise
N
14
27
27
31
31
31
25
Short Test
Failure
Rate
.86
.56
.85
.26
.13
.26
.16
HC
100
82.4
100
56.3
38.0
56.3
49.3
CO
100
90.4
96.9
84.3
50.6
84.3
80.8
NOx*
100
91.1
100
30
31
31
.07
.26
.10
26.
56.
27
44.2
84.3
38.9
* NOx correlations were done only for the LA-4 and INCOLL tests.
-------
Descriptions of Abbreviations and
Units for Data Set Variables
S 5QC H
Test Phase
Pollutant Measured
Short Test - 50 Cruise
S30 L H
L_
SAMI 1
H
-L
L
Test Phase
Pollutant Measured
L = Loaded Mode, I = Idle Mode
Short Test - Two Mode Loaded
Test Phase
Pollutant Measured
1 = Idle, 2 = 2500, 3 = Idle, A = Idle in Drive
Short Test - Four Mode Idle
Test Phase 1 = After FTP
Pollutant measured
2 = After LA-A
H = HC as ppm hexane
C = % CO
FTP LAA
H
Pollutant measured in grams/mile
H = HC C = CO N = NOx
-Test Procedure
2 = C02
H
Pollutant measured as concentrations
H = ppm HC. C ppm CO N = ppm NOx
2 = percent C02
Bag sample or I = IKCOLL Sample
Test Procedure
F = FTP L = LA-A or phase of test if bag sample = I
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
Case
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1A
15
16
Case Description
Vehicle
Dart
Dart
Dart
Chevette
Chevette
Chevette
Mustang
Mustang
Mustang
Nova
Toyota
Toyota
Citation
Citation
Citation
Citation
Configuration
Stock
10% Misfire
Rich Idle
Stock
Rich Idle
Vacuum Leak
Stock
10% Misfire
Rich Idle
Stock
Stock
Closed Loop Disabled
Stock Poisoned
EGO Disabled Poisoned
EGO Disabled Poisoned
Stock Poisoned
ATTACHMENT 1 (continued)
-------
45
0.
CASE*
0.
'CASE«
0.
CASEI
t
t
t -
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
t
4
I
7
7
7
8
B
B
»
9
9
to
10
to
11
It
n
i?
i?
12
13
t3
13
14
H
14
15
1$
15
14
ti
li
17.
riPH
32.
nrc
27.
FIPH -
.70000
8.1100
I.B300
2.2700
7.0100
2..40C5
.93000
IV. 400
1.B500
1.4400
24.300
t.5700
.72000
11.200
1.9700
2.6500
34. ICO
1.7100
.340QO
11.350
.75000
1.2000
I7.]<0
1.0900
2.7000
49.100
..41000
.48000
1.8900
5.1000
.17000
1.7500
.33000
2.7850
47.040
.44000
1.0400
5.7800
.47000
.V4000
11.340
1.7300
.75300
B.2100
1.1703
.74109
4.1100
.53000
51. 21.
IMH Fill
43. 34.
LA4C Fit
55. 24.
LA4K FIN
.17000
' 1.0900
1.8100
I.9BOO
1.5600
2.1700
.41000
9.7500
1.4800
1.0900
18.500 .
1.4200
2.3900
29.800
1.5400
.20000
7.9400
.47000
.77000
12.290
.49000
1.7900 .
42. BOO
.34000
.10000 -1
.23000 '
.17000
2.4810
40.930
.43000
.85000
4.J700
.33000
.51000
5.4500
1.2009
.54900
7.0700
.94000
.47400
4.5700
.43000
72.300
473.00
14.940
92.400
244.00
34.300
89.800
824.00
28.400
42.200
494.00
8.4000
12.100
125". 00
7.1300
140.28
1450.0
4.7400
5.7000
324.00
5.4700
3.9400
3.15.00
8.2900
B7.270
1538.0
2.1104
30.070
140.35
33.680
.470CO
2.9000
5.3800
147.91
2117.0
4.5000
47.970
. 144. Bl
11. KO
54.370
19.943
2.2400
54.
LIH
44.
L1C
58.
LIH
40.200
. 777.00
21.940
73.100
141.00
34.400
74.200
479.00
26.400
28.700
417.00
4.4100
30.900
729". 00 ~
23.430
117.38
1300.0
11.250
9.4900
257.00
5.450(7
9.3500
312.00
7.8800
48.940
1114.0
5.2500
M
< ,
.54000
6.4800
3.3100
130.73
2023. J
1.5700
44.220
159.50
3.2100
52.370
45.170
3.3400
Numerical Results
FTP, LA 4 and INCOLL
ATTACHMENT 2
-------
t>.
«i£l
0.
USE!
C.
CASH
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
I
J
4
4
«
5
S
5
4
4
«
7
7
7
8
e
B
9
9
5
10
10
10
It
II
11
J?
12
12 .
n
13
13
14
14
H
15
n
n
u
u
u
17.
flPH
32.
FIPC
22.
FJf'H
.70000
S.tlOO
1.6300
2.2900
7.0100
2.4000
.93000
17.600
1.8500
1.4400
24.300
1.5700
.72000
tl.200
KV9C9
2.B500
34.100
1.7100
. .34000
11.35?
.76000
1.2300
12.310
1.0900
2.2000
49.100
.41000
.43000
1.6900
5.1000
.1700?
I.75CO
.33000
2.7850
47.040
.44000
1.0400
5.7800
.47000
.54030
11.340
1.2300
.75300
8.2100
1.1*00
.94100
i.1100
.53000
51. 5. 7. 9. 11.
l«4H S4KIIHI S4KI2HI S
-------
0.
CASH
«.
CASEt
0.
CASEI
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
»
4
4
4
7
7
7
8
6
e
»
y
»
10
10
1C
11
ii
tt
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
IS
IS
IS
14
Ii
Ii
17.
FTPH
32'.
F1PC
22.
FTPM
.70000
8.1100
I.E300
2.2900
7.0100
2.4000
.93000
17.400
1.6500
1.4400
24.300
1.SW
.72000
11.200
1.7900
2.B500
34.100
1.7100
.34000
11.350
.76040
1.2000
12.340
1 ,.0900
2.2000
49.100
.4(000
.4EOCO
1.6700
S.IOOi)
.17000
1.7500
.33000
2.7350.
47.040
.44000
1.0400
5.7800
.47000
.74COO
11.350
I.2JOO
.75300
8.2100
1.1500
.96100
4.1100
.13000
51. 3. 13. 15. 3;. 47. 49.
IA4H S50CH1 S30LIII S30IHI S50CH2 SJ?LH? ' S301H2
i3. 4. 14. Ii. 33. 48. 50.
IA4C S50CCI 5301C1 S30ICI S5CCC2 S30LC2 S30IC2
55.
LA4H
.17000
1.0700
1.6100
1.7800
1.5400
2.1700
.41000
7.7500
1.4300
1.0900
IB. 500
1.4200
2.3900
27.800
1.5400
.20000
7.7400
.47000
.77000
12.290
.49000
1.7900
42.800
.34000
.10000 -1
.73000
.17000
2.4810
40.930
.43000
.65000
4.3700
.33000
.51000
5.4500
1.2000
.54700
7.0700
.74000
.47400
4.5900
.43000
.
20.000
.10000 -1
110.00
.ICCOO -1
10.000
.10000 -1
50.000
.10000 -1
50.000
.10000 -1
50.000
.10000 -1
25.000
.10000 -1
20.000
.10000 -1
40.000
.10000 -1
25.000
.10000 -1
0.
.10000 -1
780.00
3.4000
110.00
.40000 -1
37. COO
.50000 -1
20.000
0.
70. COO
.10000 -1
15. COO
.10000 -1
100.00
.10000 -1
10.000
.10000 -1
50.000
.10000 -1
20. COO
.10030 -1
50.000
,10000 -1
20.000
.10000 -1
70.000
.10000 -1
30.000
.10000 -1
0.
.50000 -1
270. C'O
3.8000
110.00
.50000 -1
38.000
.20000 -1
30.0C-0
.low -i
70. CO)
.4CCOO -1
29.003
.ICOOO -1
30.000
.10000 -1
10.000
.10000 -1
320.00
5X009
20.0CO
.10000 -1
750.00
10.000
20.000
.10000 -1
10.000
.10000 -1
1000.0
7.8000
55. COO
.10000 -1
0.
0.
735.00
2.4500
70.000
.50000 -1
8.0000
.20000 -I
5.0300
.10000 -|
35. COO
.2000} -|
25.000
.10000 -1
100.00
.10000 -1
ID. 000
.10000 -1
150.00
.50000
35.000
.10000 -1
50.000
.50000 -1
25.000
..10000 -1
50.000
.10000 -1
20.000
.10000 -1
2.0000
.10000 -1
215.00
3.7000
65.000
.10000
320.00
.25000
5.0000
.10000 -1
5.CCOO
.10000 -1
20.000
.10000 -1
100.00
.10000 -1
20.000
.10000 -1
40.000
.10000 -1
30. COO
.10000 -1
40.000
.10000 -1
15.000 '
.10000 -1
45.000
.10000 -1
30. COO
.10000 -1
b.OOOO .
.50000 -1
235.0?
3.COOO
120.00
.10000
30.000
.10000 -1
5.00SO
0.
40.000
.300^0 -1
15.000
.10000 -1
25.000
. 100CO -I
10.000
.10000 -I
300.00
1.5000
30.000
.50000
650.00
9.4000
10.000
.10000 -1
40.000 .
.100JO -1
800.00
7.6000
2.0009
.10000 -1
140.00
1.7000
40.000
.10000 -t
15.000
.10000 -1
5.0000
0.
10.000
.20000 -1
Numerical Results
FTP, LA A 50-Cruise and
Two-Mode Loaded
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
0.
CASCI
0.
CASED
0.
CflSEI
1
I
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
I
t
t
7
7
7
8
8
e
»'.
9
?
to
10
10
II
It
II
12
12
12
1]
13
13
14
14
14
IS
IS
15
14
14
11
17.
FJPH
32'.
FJPC
22.
FTPH
.70000
8.1100
1.8300
2.2900
7.0100
' 2.4000
.93000
19. iOO
1.8500
1.4(00
24.300
1.5900
.72000
11.200
1.9*00
2.8500
34.100
1.7100 .
.34000
11.350
.76000
1.2000
17.340
1.0900
2.2000
49.100
.41000
.43000
I.BW
5. 1000
.17000
1.7500
.33000
. 2.7850
47.060
.44000
1.040v
5.7800
.49000
.9*000
11.350
1.2300
.75300
8.2100
1.1500
.94100
t. 1100
.53000
IS.
FIX
31.
FIC
73.
FIH
203.01
1320.0
64.100
471.42
935.40
78.940
250.53
1857.0
44.970
237.92
1548.0
47.940
167.74
913.20
54.240
298.55
1737.0
52.540
47.100
859.00
26.910
287.54
1142.0
39.530
169.95
1459.0
22.300
97.540
675.51
72.030.
58.920
269.63
24.900
269.37
2941.3
9.5400
H5.2I
690.96
29.010
IEI.:S
1312.4
34.200
137.49
913,33
32.543
173.74
45:. 91
30.290
19.
F2K
34.
F2C
74.
F2H
6.1700
34.403
23.420
52.VO
43.970
34.520
18.250
447.00
5.3200
44.6*0
511.0)
23.320
9.6700
163.80
74.0:0
138. SO
833.00
23.IOJ
4.4600
136.00
12.550
11.180
102.00
15.320
125.44
1473.0
4.0100
4.7000
.97000
72.790
.40000
8.9400
1.4700
139.55
1677.5
7.6700
43.790
60.470
3.5600
76.630
59.720
20.400'
19.470
22.100
18.350
43.740
90.960
4.2100
20.
F3H
35.
f3C
25.
F3H
31.720
73.800
64.800
146.55
126.44
74.450
42. tOO
242.00
47.870
101.20
785.00
40.370
46.690
378.00
55.550
149.30
8J9.00
35.800
33.300
572.00
11.540
79.470
519.00
15.740
127. £?
1337.0
7.1500
42.100
196.20
45.240
7.5100
16.260
7.7500
IE3.24
2345.4 "
8.0300
42.050
124.99
10.250
57.770
433.9?
73.240
51.730
372.71
22.920
51.450
101. M
7.5500
51. 52.
U4M IIH
43. 44.
IMC LIC
55. 56.
IA4H UN
.17000
1.0700
I.BIOO
1.50 JO
1.5600
2.1700
.41000
9.7500
1.4300
1.0700
18.500
1.4700
2.3900
2?. 800
1.5600
.20030
7.7400
.47000
.77000
12.290
.67000
1.7900
42.600
.34000
.10000 -1
.2COCO
.17000
7.4810
60.830
.43000
.85000
4.370)
.33000
.51000
5.6500
1.2000
.54900
7.0700
.96000
.47400
4.5900
.43000
13.460
75.730
48.740
747.10
43.940
74.300
41.360
19?. 00
64.680
100.60
738.00
41.440
43.330
577.00
46.090
175.80
1041.0
45.590
77.240
528.00
12.580
112.78
807.14
13.570
109.20
1254.0
4.6500
.91000
12.170
4.6900
181.17
7777.0
7.3300
47.770
703.38
10.000
48.570
417.75
77.250
55.S30
444. 2S
14.150
40.390
74V. CO
10.7CJ
53.
1211
45.
12C
57.
1.211
42.300
21.300
53.340
4P.400
30.000
15.770
361.00
13.250
47.240
478.00
23.120
I3.S.20
845.70
20.400
3.
-------
\
c.
CASfl
0.
CS514
0.
C«S(«
0.
C«S[I
f
t
1
1
2
J
1
I
1
3
J
)
4
4
<
4
S
3
5
3
i
1
«
«
7
7
7
7
»
f
10
to
to
10
11
II
II
II
12
12
12
12
13
tl
1)
U
M
l«
II
14
IS
IS
15
11
14
U
H
It
17.
f irn
51.
IMH
21.
fin
St.
LIM
.70300
.17000
27.310
40.200
J.2J3J
1.9300
12.400
7J.100
.1009
.41000
19.190
74.200
1.4(00
1.0700
42.200
28.709
.72000
12.100
30.939
2.5-00
2.3900
140.29
117.19
.14909
.70000
5.7000
».»909
1.2000
.77000
3.HOO
».3bOO
2.2000
1.7935
87.270
3.940
.43309
30.070
.17000
.1COO-J
.12000
.54309
' 2.7S50
2. '810
147.91
130.78
1.0(90
.«5000
.till)
.3ICJO
.7JJ30
.5.9.'i>
44.2:0
.11100
.47110
il.HO
1M/0
3?.
(ire
41.
l«IC
1>.
HC
41.
IIC
1.1109
I.C7CS
473.00
777. CO
7. OK}
1.3*03
7<1.CO
111. 00
I9.4f3
J.75CO
74.00
47». D)
24.100
1S.59J
<94.00
41?. CO
11.200
I7J.O)
729.CO
34.100
29.550
145X0
1300.0
11.355
7.»iOJ
3J4.C5
2S7.CO
17.14?
12.770
3:3.00
312.00
49.100
42.800
IJJ3.0
1114.0
1.EV03
U9.J1
I.75CO
-1 .7200]
2.9C33
8. HOC
J7.0iO
49.C10
2M7.0
2073.2
5.7J90
4.3/00
n.ito
5.1M3
I.II09
7.0/10
I.M.SI
IJ9.S)
t.1109
4.',;;o
i;.«io
41.1:0
?7.
nr*
5i.
IIIH
74.
FIH
33.
DM
I.8J9J
1.8100
!(.'»»
21.940
2.4000
2.1700
31.110
ls.
-------
50
0.
CASE)
0.
CASE!
0.
CASEI
1
1
1
2
2
2
J
J
3
4
4
4
S
5
5
«
6
6
?
7
7
8
8
8
V
»
»
10
1C
10
tl
11
11
12
12
12
11
IJ
U
14
14
M
IS
IS
IS
U
U
14
17.
Fli'H
32.
f trr
22.
MM
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
l.OCOO
1.0)00
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
i.oooo
i.oooo
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0033
I. 0009
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
9.
0.
0.
i.cooo
1.0000
0.
i.cooo
0.
0.
I.OOuO
1.0900
I.OJ6-J
1.0000
0.
i.eo;o
1.0000
0.
0.
51.
IMH-
43..
LAIC
55.
IA4><
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
t.ooco
p.
1.0000
1.0300
0.
0.
1.0009
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
b.
1.0900
i.oooo
0.
I.OOOJ
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
c.
0.
21.
MH
36.
F1C
2«.
Hi)
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1. 0030
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0030
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.0300
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. .
l.C'jOO
1.0000
0.
0.
= 0.
1.0300
9.
0.
" 0.
1.0000
I.COOO
0.
I.COOO
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
54.
LIH
«i.
LIC
19.
LIH
0.
1.01,90
0.
1.0009
0.
1.0000
1.0000
1.0900
1.0099
0. .
0.
. 0.
0.
1.0009
0.
1.0009
i:oo9o
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
KOOOO
0.
9.
0.
0.
"1.0000
"t.ooco
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
Pass/Fail Results
FTP,. LA 4 and INCOLL METHOD 1
ATTACHNENT 7
-------
51
0.
cmi
0.
CASEI
0.
CASEI
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
}
4
4
4
3
3
5
t
i
*
7
7
7
8
e
B
y
V
»
10
10
10
It
It
It
12
12
12
13
11
13
14
14
14
1}
13
IS
It
14
U
17.
F1PH
32.
FIPC
72.
FTPM
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0000
i.oboo
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0300
1 .0.000
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
51.
LMH
63.
LA4C
53.
IA4N
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
t.oooo
«
t.oooo
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
21.
FIH
J4.
FIC
26.
FIN
0.
1.0000
0.-
1.0000
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
t.oooo
0. :
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
34.
L1H
46.
L1C
58.
LIN
1.0000
t.oooo
1.0000
1 .0000
0.
1.0000
t.oooo
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
t.oooo
1.0000
1.0000
0.
t.oooo
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
1.0000
0.
t.oooo
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
Pass/Fail Results
FTP, LA-4, INCOLL Method
-------
52
0.
C«l»
0.
Cfi«.
1
I
t
2
2
2
1
i
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
A
6
A
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
19
10
10
11
II
11
12
12
12
U
13
1}
14
M
14
IS
)}
13
14
14
16
17.
f If-M
j,
f\n
22.
flfit
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0009
1.0009
1.0909
0.
0.
I. 0000 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
t.OOOO .
I.C090
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
1.0009
t.OOOO
0.
1.0403
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
0.
1.0000
1.0009
0.
1.0000
0.
0.
1.0000
i.oo jo
1.0090
1.0000
0.
1.0009
1.0090
0.
0.
51. 5. 7. ?. It. 3J.
L«;H Sl.illri S4.iI?lM b'4nl3HI S4.1MHI S4HIIH2
*3." A. 8. 10. 12.. 49.
IA4C S4rtJICI S4M2C1 S^n.'JCI S4/1I4CI S4MIC2
55.
l"*
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0900
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. . 0.
1.0000 0. 0. 0. . 0. 0.
0.
0. 1.0009 0. I. 0000 1.9000
t.OOOO 1.0000 0. t.OOOO t.OOOO
0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. t.OOOO 1.0000
1.0000 1.0033 1.0900 1.0000 t.OOOO
0.
0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0003 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
o. .
t.OOOO 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0000 0. ' 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0000 t.OOOO ' 0. t.OOOO t.OOOO 1.0000
1.0030 I'. 0000 0. 1.0000 1.0009 1.0000-
0.
0. 0. 0. 9.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 9. ,0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 0. 1.0000 0.
1.0000 1.0000 1.00)0 1.0009 I.COOO 1.0900-
0.
1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0600 0. « * 0- 0.
0. 0. 0. " 0. 0.
1.0000
1.0000 0. 0. 9- " 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0- « * 0.
0.
4t. 41. 43.
SMIIfH? S
-------
53
0.
CASES
0.
C«5£»
0.
CASE*
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
1
7
7
7
8
8
8
?
9
9
10
to
10
II
II
II
i:
IZ
17
IJ
13
13
14
14
14
15
13
1}
14
14
16
17. 51. 3. IJ. 11. J>. 4;.
ffpH U4H S'jOCHI SJOIHI SJOIHI SiOCH? S301H?
37. «J. 4.' 14. 14. 38. 49.
FIPC IA4C S!'OC';i SJOUt 5J01CI SSOCC? SJOIC2
22. 55.
flf» U4H .
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. . 0. 0. 0. P.
o. o. o. o. o. o. e.
KOOOO 1.0000 . . ' '
1.000? 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 1.0000 0. 0.
I.OvCJ 1. 0000 0. 0. 1. 0000 0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 0. 1.0900 0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 0. 1.0000 0. 0.
0. 0.
C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
1.0090 1.0000 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0000 I.OOJO 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 0. 1.0000 0. . 0.
'1. 0000 1.0000 '0. I.O'JOO 0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. «. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
i.oaoo
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. .0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
1.0000 1.0000 1.000* 1.0000 1.0000 0. 1.0000
i.oooo i.oooo i.oooo 1.0009 i.oooo i.oooo i.oooo
0. 0.
1.0000 I.OOOO 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. « » 0. 0.
0. -C.
1.0000 1.0000 0. ' 0. 0. I.OOOO P.
1.0500 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. p.
I. 0000 I.OOOO
1.0-300 I.COOO 0. ». 0.' 0. C.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1.0v»03 0.
I.OCOO I.OOOO 0. ». » 0. C.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0.
«?.
SJOIH?
50.
S30IC2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. 1.0009
1,0000
0.
0,
1.0000
1.0000
0.
0.
0. "
0.
I.OOOO
I.OOOO
0.
0.
0.
I.OOJ-J
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Pass/Fail Results
FTP, LA 4, 50-Cruise and
2-Mode Loaded
ATTACHMENT 9
------- |