Evap. 75-2
           Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action
           Evaporative Emission Enclosure (SHED) Procedure
                 Analysis of Surveillance Program Data
                               by
                           Thomas Rarick
                            June 1975
                              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 recommendations
resulting from the assumptions and constraints of that analysis.  Agency
policy constraints or data received subsequent to the date of release
of this report may alter the conclusions reached.  Readers are cautioned
to seek the latest analysis from EPA before using the information con-
tained herein.
             Standards Development and Support Branch
               Emission Control Technology Division
           Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
                Office of Air and Waste Management
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                Reprinted  7-76

-------
     This report is a summary of the data analysis performed at EPA
for the SHED enclosure testing for evaporative emissions performed
during FY 71, 72 and 73 surveillance programs.  Included are descrip-
tions of the data handling and documentation of it's current where-
abouts.  Also included are the results of various analyses done to
evaluate the effects of testing and vehicle parameters on evaporative
emission levels.

     Table I lists the testing programs in which data were collected.
The raw data were supplied to EPA and subsequently transcribed onto
standard data sheets.  The data analysis could only be performed for
test trains 60, 61, 62, 63, and 65.  The analyzer calibration curve
data were not supplied or were lost for train 64 and therefore analysis
of these data was impossible.  However, the preliminary evaporative emis-
s^ons discussion paper (1) does summarize some analysis done for the FY 72
Denver data.
Train No.
60
61
62
63
64
65
City of testing
Denver
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Denver
Denver
Contractor
AESi
AESi
AESi
AESi
ATL
ATL
FY
71
71
72
73
72
73
No. of tests
22
136
20
20
22
20
Model Year
'71
'59-'71
'72
'73
'72
'73
                    Table I.   Surveillance   Test  Programs
     After the data were transcribed onto the standard data sheet  shown
in Appendix A, they were keypunched and entered into a computer file.  A
computer progam was developed to calculate the Diurnal loss, hot soak
loss and grams per vehicle mile based on the calculations  shown in Appendix
B.  The program was also designed to develop certain other data files  from
which subsequent data analysis could be performed  easily.  The formats
of these files are shown in Appendix C.

-------
      The final step in the data handling was auditing the data for
 various errors.   From the auditing process errors were corrected and
 several invalid tests were discovered and omitted from further analysis.
 There were various reasons for omitting tests which included erratic
 readings and tests conducted over a very small range of deflections
 of the analyzer.   A listing of the deleted tests is given in Appendix D.
 Appendix E  is a summary of the results for each test conducted including
 figures showing the frequency distribution of diurnal, hot soak and total
 HC losses..

 General Emission Levels;

      Standard  statistical  analyses  were performed  for  the  data from each
 of the five  test programs.  Means and  standard  deviations  of  the diurnal,
 hot soak and gram  per  mile values were calculated  for  each test program.
 Composite values for all Denver  tests  or  for  all Los Angeles  tests  were
 not looked at  as it is felt  that  there are important test  program to
 test  program differences.  Most  important of  the differences  between the
 test  programs  was  the  difference  in fuel  types  used.   This aspect of the
 different  testing  programs will be  discussed  later.  Table II shows the
 different  statistical  values  for  each  of  the  test  programs.   Figure 1
 shows graphically  the  diurnal and hot  soak values  for  each test.program
 and Figure  2 shows the gram  per mile values.

     The general emission levels also show to what extent  current vehicles
would need to improve  in order to meet the 2 gram per test standard.  The
Denver and Los Angeles FY 71 data included 1970 and 1971 vehicles and
the same test fuel was used in both programs.  The average emissions for
those model year vehicles was 31 grams diurnal loss and 21 grams hot soak
loss giving an average total  loss of 52 grams.  It is evident  that,  for those
model years, the evaporative  emissions were much greater than  the 2  gram
standard.  The Denver  FY 73 and Los Angeles FY 72 and FY 73 programs
tested 1972 and 1973 model year evaporative emission controlled vehicles.
For those three test programs combined the average diurnal loss was  14.3
grams and the average hot soak loss was 13.8 grams.  The total  loss  per car
per test was 28 grams or 14 times the 2 gram standard for  evaporative
emissions.  The FY 73 programs showed the same or higher emissions
than  the FY  72 program.  It should  also be noted from the  histrograms in
Appendix E .showing the total  loss test data, that no test  conducted  in any
program was  less than  the  2 gram standard.  The EPA in-house  study will conduct
baseline tests on  1975 vehicles and, therefore, these data will give the most up-
to-date  evaluation of  the  effectiveness of  evaporative  controlled vehicles.
However, until these data  are available the data from  surveillance  testing
 show   that on  the  average  better than  a 90% reduction  in evaporative emissions
would be required  to meet  the current  2 gram  standard.

 Shed  Enclosure versus  Canister Trap Testing

      The surveillance  programs conducted  in Denver and  Los Angeles  for FY
 73 did comparative testing to evaluate the  shed enclosure  measurement
 as compared  to the canister  trap method currently used  in  the certifi-
 cation process.  The same  vehicles  were tested  by  each of  the two test
methods.   The  Denver FY 73 program  showed an  average total hydrocarbon

-------
Test
Program

Denver
FY 71
(train 60)
Los Angeles
FY 71
(train 61)
Los Angeles
FY 72
(train 62)
Los Angeles
FY 73
(train 63)
Denver
FY 73
(train 65)
Diurnal loss
Number of
tests


18

124

15

17


17
tfean loss
grams


42.9

24.2

12.5

15.1


15.1
Standard
Deviation


29.5

17.9

8.9

14.6


10.3
Hot Soak loss
Number
of tests


17

131

17

18


20
Mean Loss
Grams .


32.5

13.9

10.6

14.1


16.4
Standard
Deviatioi


18.6

9.43

5.63

7.02


9.62
Grams /mile
Number
of tests


13

121

13

15


17
Mean Loss
GPM


5.32

2.58

2.00

2.41


2.60
Standard
Deviation


3.04

1.45

.978

1.20


1.34
Table II:  Means and Standard deviations
           Diurnal, Hot Soak, and gram
           per mile losses for the in
           dividual surveillance test
           programs.

-------
                                         Diurnal Losses

                                         Hot Soak Losses
          Denver    L.A.     L.A.      L.A.      Denver
          FY 71     FY 71    FY 72     FY 73     FY 73
                         Test Program
        Figure 1  Diurnal and Hot Soak losses for each
             •     surveillance test program.
CO
CO
o
I
    6  .
4

3

2
          Denver    L.A.      L.A.     L.A,     Denver
          FY 71     FY 71     FY 72    FY 73    FY 73
                         Test Program       ;
        Figure 2  Gram per mile losses for each surveillance
                  test program.

-------
loss of .39 grams for canister tested vehicles as opposed to a 31 gram
total loss measured by the enclosure method.  This represents a 79 times
higher result when the enclosure testing method is used.  The Los Angeles
FY 73 program showed an average total loss of 0.52 grams for vehicles
tested using the canister trap method as opposed to a 29.2 grams loss
for vehicles tested using the shed enclosure technique.  This represents
a 56 times higher result when the enclosure method is used to test the
vehicles.   This is very strong evidence that the canister trap method
only measures a very small percentage of the total evaporative emissions.

Effect of Atmospheric Pressure;

     The emission levels from testing done in Denver and Los Angeles can
be compared to evaluate the effect of different atmospheric pressures.
The atmospheric pressure in Los Angeles was generally 5 in. Hg. higher
than it was in Denver.  One might suspect that emissions in Denver
would be higher because the lower atmospheric pressure would allow
the fuel to have a lower Initial Boiling Point (IBP).  This was the conclusion,
drawn from the surveillance programs, reported on in the preliminary dis-
cussion  paper on evaporative emissions.  In that paper emission levels
from the Denver FY 72 and Los Angeles FY 72 surveillance programs were
compared.   It was found in that analysis that the Denver values were
indeed higher and that atmospheric pressure had an important influence
on evaporative emissions.  In those test programs the vehicles used
were of the same model year and all vehicles were controlled for
evaporative emissions with charcoal canisters.

     For the analysis performed at EPA the data for the Denver FY 72
program were not usable because the FID calibration curves were not
available.  Therefore, the most reliable sets of data for comparing
the effects of atmospheric pressure were the results from the Denver
FY 73 and Los Angeles FY 73 program.  These programs also used similar
vehicles (1973 Models) and all vehicles were canister controlled.  In
addition the fuel used in both programs was indolene 30 and the Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) and IBP were similar for both programs.

     The diurnal losses were found to be the same for both Denver
and Los Angeles.   The hot soak emissions were 16% higher for Denver
than they were for Los Angeles.  It was found, however, that due to
the large variance of the data a low confidence can be placed in the
conclusion that there is a difference in hot soak emission levels.
The general magnitude of the difference in hot soak emission levels
was the same as that found in the position paper when Denver FY 72
and Los Angeles FY 72 programs were compared.

     One could go further and attempt to compare the Denver FY 73 and
Los Angeles FY 72 programs.  The only intended difference between the
two programs was that the Denver program used all 1973 vehicles and the
Los Angeles program used all 1972 vehicles.  There may also have been other
differences between the two programs such as differences in fuel characteristics.
A comparison between these two programs would show a difference in emission
levels for both diurnal and hot soak tests.  The conclusion that the difference
was due to atmospheric pressure, however, may be incorrect because a similar
comparison between the Los Angles FY 72 program and the Los Angeles FY 73

-------
program show the same differences.  The differences seen between the two
Los Angeles programs cannot be attributed to atmospheric pressure.  The
logical conclusion from these two comparisons would be that a difference
existed due to the model year of the vehicles tested and not due to atmospheric
pressure.  A great deal of confidence cannot be placed in this conclusion
either, because other differences such as the effects of fuel composition
may have been responsible for the observed differences.


      In conclusion, the results of this analysis and the analysis done
 in the preliminary discussion paper show that different conclusions can
 be drawn depending on which two test programs are compared.  It is felt
 that while a difference in emission levels may indeed exist due to
 differences in atmospheric pressure, a test program which would be
 designed to specifically test for differences due to atmospheric
 pressure would need to be conducted in order to quantify the effects
 of atmospheric pressure and to gain sufficient confidence that a
 difference does or does not exist.

 Controlled Vehicles versus Uncontrolled Vehicles

      Another important aspect of the surveillance program was the analysis
 of the effectiveness of the charcoal canister as an evaporative emission
 control device.  The Los Angeles FY 71 test program tested both canister
 controlled and uncontrolled vehicles.   The other programs tested only
 canister  controlled vehicles and,  therefore,  the analysis done to evaluate
 the canister's effectiveness was done  on vehicles from the Los Angeles FY
 71 program only.   Table III shows the  diurnal and hot soak emission levels
 for both  controlled and uncontrolled vehicles.   The diurnal losses were
 reduced by 28% and the hot soak emissions were reduced by 28% due to
 the charcoal canister.   A high confidence can be placed in the con-
 clusion that there is  indeed an improvement in evaporative emission
 levels  due to  the  charcoal canister.   However,  due to high variability
 in the  tests a more precise quantification of the charcoal canister's
 effect  on evaporative  emissions would  require more testing.
Tpsf Tvne
Diurnal
A!
8
W3
4J
s
controlled
uncontrolled
controlled
uncontrolled
Mean HC
1 nfifi. ai-ams
18.47
25.73
10.6
14.86
Standard
Dp.vi^tion
2.64
19.34
6.30
10.04
Ranee @95%._confidence
14.84-22.1
21.89^29.57
8.27-12.93
12.88-16.84
       Table III:  Mean HC loss for diurnal and hot soak tests for evap.
                  controlled and uncontrolled vehicles L.A. FY 71 data
           -     ' •  only.            ' i '"'•'•     ' '      '•'   '   .

-------
 Effects of Fuel> and Enclosure Temperature

      The preliminary discussion paper cites  references addressing the effects
 of fuel parameters such as RVP and IBP on emission levels.   The testing
 done during the surveillance program showed  certain trends  that would
 be expected due to differences in RVP and IBP.   However,  due to the many
 uncontrolled parameters such as vehicle type,  fuel tank size, engine size,
 barometric pressure, and test site, any attempt to quantify the effects
 of fuel differences would be invalid.  In order to quantify any differences,
 controlled testing would need to be performed.
     Trends, however, were found and are illustrated graphically  in
figures 3 and 4.  Figure 3 shows the diurnal and hot soak emission
levels in Denver and Los Angeles for Indolene 30 and commercial leaded
fuels.  Figure 4 represents the fuel parameters of RVP and IBP for
indolene 30 and commercial leaded fuels used in Denver and Los Angeles.
The RVP would be expected to primarily affect diurnal emission levels,
whereas the IBP would primarily affect the hot soak emission levels.
This analysis was done for evaporative controlled vehicles only,  in
order to eliminate variance due to that parameter.

     The diurnal losses for commercial leaded fuel were higher than
diurnal losses for  tests using indolene 30 in (both Denver and Los Angeles.
In both cases the RVP of the fuel was much higher for the commercial
leaded fuel and one would expect higher evaporative emissions when a
fuel with a higher  RVP is used.  The amount of vapors generated during
the hot soak test would be expected to be higher when the IBP of  the  fuel
is lower.  This is  the case for hot soak emissions in Denver but  not  in
Los Angeles.  The Los Angeles values for hot soak losses are very close
even though the IBP for the Indolene fuel is higher.  This does not
adhere to the expected trend, but is probably due to some vehicle
or test parameter other than fuel type.


     An analysis was done to try and evaluate effect of the enlosure
(SHED) temperature  on evaporative emissions.  Only hot soak test  data
were evaluated since higher enclosure temperatures could be expected
due to the transfer of heat from the hot engine.  Tests were grouped
in 2 degree intervals of maximum shop temperature  minus IBP, such
that when the maximum shop temperature equalled the IBP the data
were placed in the zero degree interval.  The tests in the different
intervals were averaged and the data were plotted in Figure 5.  In
addition the average engine size for each interval was calculated
and is also plotted in Figure 5.  The Figure shows that there is  a
definite increase in emissions as the maximum SHED temperature ap-
proaches and surpasses the IBP of the fuel.  This could be attributed
to the fact that larger engines could produce more emissions and  more
heat.  However, the data of average engine size does not bear this
out, as equally large engines are found over the entire range.  The
observed trend could also be due to a larger average carburetor bowl

-------
CO
CO
0)
o
p.
0)
(A
cd
CD
s
                                 Indolene 30 fuel

                                 commercial leaded fuel
    13
            Diurnal  Diurnal
            Loss     Loss
            Denver   Los
                     Angeles
Hot Soak Hot Soak
Loss     Loss
Denver   Los Angeles
        Figure 3 Mean HC loss for Indolene or Commercial
                Leaded Fuels for Denver and Los Angeles.
                    104
                                   Indolene 30
                                   fuel
                                   commercial
                                   leaded fuel
                         s
                         00
                         a
                                                     80
              RVP      RVP    :   IBP
             Denver  Los Angeles Denver
          IB.P
          Los Angeles
        Figure 4 Mean RVP and IBP values for Indolene
                or commercial leaded fuels for Denver
                and Los Angeles.

-------
            "d9I~=~ "duiax'oaHs"
                                                         X
                                                        k
                                                                         CN
                                                                         CN
                                                                         CM
                                                                         O
                                                                         CM
                                                                         oo
                                                                  Pn
                                                                  o
                                                                             n
                                                                             w
                                                                             B


                                                                             'x
                                                                             (0
                                                                             3
                                                                             SS
                                                           • - •  o
                                                                         t
                                                                         VO
    O
    m
    en
o
o
o
U~|
CM
o
O
CM
m
cxi
o
CM
           (CIID)

   3ZJS 3UT8U3 33BJ3AV
                           SSO1
Figure  5.   Average hot  soak losses and  average engine  size

            (CID) as a function of maximum SHED Temperature - IBP.

-------
                                    10

Test
Program
Denver
FY 71
L.A.
FY 71
L.A.
FY 72
L.A.
FY 73
Denver
FY 73
% of tests where shed
temperature exceeded
80°F
86.96
71.85
95
95
95
90°F
17.39
.74
5
0
35
IBP
73.91
16,30
5
0
15
                  Table IV % of tests for each test
                   program where the shed temperature
                   exceeded 80°F, 90°F or IBP.
volume for those groupings showing higher evaporative losses.   However,
carburetor bowl volume data were not available and therefore this hypo-
thesis could not be tested.  Lastly, the higher hot soak emissions
exhibited for tests where the enclosure temperature was greater than
the IBP of the fuel could be attributed to increased emissions from the
fuel tank as the fuel surpasses its IBP.  This conclusion, although
feasible, cannot be totally supported, but it would help explain the
high hot soak emissions for the Denver FY71 testing.  Table IV shows the
% of tests for each train in which the enclosure temperature exceeded
80°, 90°F and the IBP.  It is evident that the large percent of tests
where the maximum SHED temperature exceeded the IBP for the Denver FY71
program could have been the cause of the high hot soak emissions for
that test program.

     The maximum enclosure temperature never exceeded the IBP of the
fuels used for any diurnal test during any of the test programs.  However,
the IBP of the fuel used during the Denver FY71 program was at or below
84°F for 77% of the tests conducted during that program.  The prescribed
ending fuel tank temperature for the diurnal test is 84°F + 2°F.  There-
fore, the high diurnal losses exhibited during the Denver FY71 program
are probably due to the low IBP of the test fuel used.

     In conclusion, the trends expected due to the fuel parameters of
RVP and IBP do show up for all but Los Angeles hot soak values.  There
are published reports available that experimentally quantify the effects
of fuel composition on evaporative emissions which give much more reliable
results than the surveillance data.

-------
                                  11
     Since fuel does have a marked effected on both hot soak and diurnal
emission results, it is recommended that tight specifications on fuel
type be used and a maximum shed enclosure temperature be specified.

Analysis of Diurnal Emission Tests

     The parameters felt to have an important effect on diurnal emissions
were analysed to determine if they influenced the levels of diurnal emis-
sions and, if possible, to quantify their influence.  The parameters that
were analyzed were the length of test, the fuel tank volume, and the RyP
of the test fuel,                                 "

     The effect the length of the diurnal test has on evaporative emis-
sions was looked at in two ways.  First, plots of hydrocarbon concentra-
tion divided by the maximum hydrocarbon concentration versus time divided
by total length of the diurnal test were made.  These plots for each test
program are shown in figures 6 through 10.  These plots show the general
rate of evolution of hydrocarbons with time and specifically show what
is occurring at the end of the diurnal test.  It can be seen that the
diurnal emissions are continuing to be evolved at the end of the test at
a substantial rate.  Ten percent of the total hydrocarbon loss occurs in
the last 10% or approximately 6 minutes of the test time.  The current
time tolerance specified for the certification procedure and in the SAE
procedure is 60 rain + 10 min. A question that needs to be answered,
then, is whether or not the 10 min. tolerance on the diurnal test
length is too liberal.

     It should be noted that these figures as well  as figures showing the
hot soak emissions as a function of time do not always show  the maximum
HC levels at the end of the test.  One would expect the  [HC]/[HC] max
value to equal 1.0 at the end of the  test.  However, due to  averaging
tests where the maximum hydrocarbon concentration occurred before  the
end of the test, some figures do not  end at a [HC]/[HC] max value of 1.0.

     Another analysis of the data from the Los Angeles FY 71 was done to
look at the emission levels for tests which ended in either 50, 55, 60,
65 or 70 minutes.  For this analysis, only tests where the final tempera-
ture was 84° + .5°F were considered.  The results of this analysis are
shown in figure 11.  It can be seen from this figure that the longer
the test the higher the emissions and that a 70 minute test might result
in 400% higher emissions than a 50 minute test.  It can be seen from
the 95% confidence limits in the figure that an accurate assessment of
the effect of the length of the diurnal test cannot be made.  Further
testing would be required to make a quantitative evaluation of the proper
time tolerances for the diurnal test and this is being planned for cur-
rent in-house EPA testing.  It can be concluded, however, that time may
be an important aspect of the diurnal test and there is a need to quantify
its effect.

-------
         1.0
          .6  j
                                95Z confidence
                                limits
                   .2    .4     .6     .8     1.0
                        Time/Time max
                                                                               1.0
                                                                                .8 .
           .6  .
                                                                          [HC]
                                                                          [EC]  max
                                                                                .4 .
                                                                                .2 .
                                  95Z confi-
                                  dence limits
                    .2     .4     .6      .8     1.0
                         Time/Time max
               Figure 6.   Denver FY  71 program.
               Figure 7.   Los Angeles FY 71
                            program.
                                                                                                                           to
me]
[HC] max
                Figure 8,  Los Angeles FY 72  program.
IHC]
IHC] max
                                                                                                         95% confi-
                                                                                                         dence limits
                                                                                    0
                     .2     .4     .6
                         Time/Time max     ___
                Figure 9.   Los  Angeles FY  73 program.
                                    Figures 6-9:  [EC].    •  vs. Time     for  diurnal  tests.
                                                  [HC] max     Time max

-------
[HC]
[HC]  max
           1.0
            .8.
            ,6-
            .4-
                               13
                                        95% confi-
                                        dence limits
                      .2
                                            .8
                                           1.0
             .4      .6
            Time/Time max
FigureIQ [HC]     vs. Time
         [HC] max     Time max for
       diurnal tests conducted during
       the Denver FY 73 surveillance
       program.
    80  -
 §  70  -
 2
 00  60
 CO
 CO
 o
 i-H
 O
 PC
   50


   40
CO
g
.3  30
I 2°
   10  .
            95%  confidence
            limits
                50
                                                      70
                   55       60        65
                    Test Length  (min.)
Figure 11 Mean diurnal HC loss vs. length of test for
         Denver FY 71 data only.  (All tests ended at
         84°F + .5°F)

-------
                                   14


     A similar analysis was performed  to evaluate the effect of different
 temperature  rises on diurnal emissions.  Only tests ending in 60 min.
 were evaluated.  The tests were  grouped according to whether a 20, 22,
 24, 26, or 28 degree temperature rise  was conducted.  The average values
 for each  interval were then calculated.  This analysis did not provide
 any noticeable trend even though one might  suspect that higher emissions
 would  be  exhibited  for vehicles, subjected to a larger temperature rise%
 One cannot,  however, conclude  that the temperature rise has no effect
 because the  experiment was not controlled for other parameters.  In
'addition  there were no data for  temperature rises of 20°F or 28°F.
 Therefore, the effects of the  extreme  temperature tolerances could
 not be evaluated as 20°F and 28°F are  the minimum and maximum temperature
 rises  respectively  allowable by  the current tolerances.  It is planned
 for the EPA  in-house study on  evaporative emissions to perform controlled
 experiments  in order to evaluate the effect of  the temperature tolerances.

     The  effect that the fuel  tank volume has on diurnal emissions was
 also analyzed.  A regression analysis  was run to determine if a correlation
 existed between fuel tank volume and diurnal emissions.  The Los Angeles
 FY 72  and FY 73 and the Denver FY 73 programs exhibited the best correlation
 coefficients.  However, the correlation coefficients were low and scatter
 plots  of  the data for these programs showed a wide scatter of data.  These
 plots  are shown in  figures 12-14.  It  is recommended that a more controlled
 experiment be performed to determine if any correlation truly exists
 and to quantify its effect.                     ,
     An attempt to  quantify the  effect of RVP was also performed for
 the different test  programs.   A  regression  of RVP versus diurnal emis-
 sions  showed very low correlation coefficients.  As was stated earlier,
 there  have been studies performed that have anlayzed and quantified
 the effects  of RVP  on diurnal  emissions.

 Analysis  of Hot Soak Emission  Tests

     The  general hydrocarbon versus time relationships were determined
 for hot soak emissions as well as analyses  done to evaluate the effects
 of engine parameters such as engine size (displacement), number of cylinders
 and number of barrels.  Figures  15 through  19 show the,general emissions
 versus time relationships for  each test program for a one hour hot soak.
 It can be seen that the emission level increases rapidly for the first
 half of the test and then begins to level off during the last half of
 the test.  The emissions do, however,  continue  to increase,up to the end
 of the test and presumably continue past one hour.  The extent to which
 the emissions continue to increase should be evaluated to determine
 if they reach a constant value in a fixed amount of time or if they
 continue  to increase indefinitely.
          '                •  .       .      •                 j,
     The  engine size (displacement) was analyzed to determine whether
 the enclosure temperature rise during  the hot soak test was affected.
 The analysis done for the Los  Angeles  FY 72 program showed some cor-

-------
30 .
? 25 -
cfl
60
~ 20 .
0)
(0
3 15 -
•H
0 10

5 .

xx

x
X
X X
X
X
x x
x x xx
X
X
1 1 1 1 II
5 10 15 20 25 30
                           Fuel Tank size (gal.)
           Figure 12 Diurnal Loss vs. Fuel tank volume for the
                    Denver FY 73 surveillance program.
    10 _
 co
 CO
     8
 3   7
 •d
.1   6
     5 -
                            XX

                            X
         0
10
15
20
25
30
                           Fuel Tank size (gal.)
        Figure 13 Diurnal loss vs.  Fuel tank volume for the L.A.
                  FY 73 surveillance program.

-------
                                  16
     m
     n
30.


25.



20-



15.


10
  i


 5.
                                          x
                                          X
                      10
                     15
20
25
30
                              Fuel  Tank size (gal.)
              Figure 14 Diurnal  Loss  vs.  Fuel tank volume
                        for  the  L.A.  FY 72 surveillance program.

relation.  It showed that a 350 CID engine produced a"2.3"*' greater
enclosure temperature rise than a 200 CID engine.,  It was stated earlier
that the maximum enclosure temperature has an effect on hot soak emis-
sions when it approaches the IBP of the fuel.  This would mean, there-
fore, that a larger engine might cause the maximum shed temperature to
exceed the IBP whereas a smaller engine would not.  Again, in order to
quantify the effect of engine size, a more controlled experiment would
be required.  It would seem,  however,  that specifying a maximum enclosure
temperature as the SAE procedure does would eliminate any problems that
would arise.  The SAE procedure specifies a 90°F maximum Shed temperature.

     The number of cylinders in the engine and the number of barrels
in the carburetor were compared with hot soak emission levels to determine
if a correlation existed.   Table V  shows the results of an anlaysis
of the number of cylinders for vehicles tested in the Los Angeles FY
71 test program. Only one test program was analyzed, to eliminate any
variability between test programs and the Los Angeles FY 71 program
was used because of the large sample size.  The vehicles with 8 cylinders
emitted 80% more evaporative emissions than did vehicles with 4 cylinders.
A high confidence was found to exist that a difference between the two
sets of data actually existed.

-------
 [HC]
 [HC] max
                 0    .2     .4     .6     .8    1.0
                          Time/Time max
                   Figure 15. Denver FY  71 program.
  [HC]
  [HC] max
                                                                               1.0.
                                                                                .8-
                                                                                .4-
                                                                                .2-
95% confidence
limits
                 0     .2    .4    .6     .8   1.0
                           Time/Time max
                   Figure  16.  Los Angeles FY 71  program.
[HC]
[HC] max
            1.0
             .8
             .6  -
             .4  -
             .2
                                  95% confidence
                                  limits
                                                                              1.0
                0     .2     .4    .6    .8   1.0
                           Time/Time max

                 Figure 17. Los  Angeles  FY 72 program.
IHCJL
[HC] max
                                                                               .8  -
             .6 -
             .4 -
                                                                               .2  .
95% confidence
limits
                        .2  •   .4     .6     .8    1.0
                           Time/ Time max
                   Figure 18. Los Angeles  FY 73  program.
                                    Figures p.5-18.  [HC]    .  vs. Time      for hot  soak tests.
                                                     [HC] max      Time max  '

-------
                              18
[HC]
[HC]  max
             1.0
              .8 -
              .6
              .2
95% confidence
limits
                                               .8
               1.0
)      .2     .4      .6
           Time/Time max
 Figure 19 [HC]      vs.  Time
          [HC]  max     Time max for
        hot soak  tests  conducted during
        the Denver FY 73.surveillance
        program.

-------
                                 19
No. of
Cylinders
4
6
8
No. of
tests
15
18
97
Mean Hot
soak loss, ferns]
8.32
13.50
14.97
Standard
Deviation
6.59
6.91
9.89
      Table V  :   Mean hot soak losses for vehicles with
                  4, 6 or 8 cylinders.  L.A.  FY 71 data only.
     Table VI shows the results of an analysis performed to test the
effect of the number of carburetor barrels.  It was determined by means
of a t-test that there was not a high confidence that any difference
in hot soak( emissions existed due to the number of barrels.  However,
it does appear that a trend may exist such that higher emissions would
result for vehicles with a greater number of barrels.
No. of
Barrels
1
2
4
No. of
tests
22
69
39
Mean hot soak
Loss (grams)
12.10
13 ,96
14,98
Standard
Deviation
7.63
10.92
7.43
             Table VI  :  Mean hot soak losses for vehicles with
                         1, 2 or 4 barrels.  L.A. FY 71 data only.
     The effect of carburetor bowl volume was not analyzed because
bowl volume data were not readily available.  It is believed that bowl
volume may have an effect on hot soak emissions, but further studies
would be required to determine this.  In order to gain a more precise
evaluation of differenct engine parameters, controlled testing would
need to be performed.  In the evaluation of the effect the number of
cylinders or number of barrels had on hot soak emissions, the fuel
tank volumes, engine size (displacement), evaporative control systems,
carburetor bowl size and type of caburetor were not controlled.  There-
fore, it is difficult to attribute differences in emission levels to one
parameter only such as the number of cylinders.  It is believed that

-------
                                 20
families of vehicles with similar engine, and fuel system characteristics
would produce similar emission levels.  This cannot be confirmed through
analysis of the surveillance data, however.

     The data for total evaporative losses were also grouped by dif-
ferent manufacturer.  This grouping is shown in Table VII.   It should
be noted that the controlled and uncontrolled vehicles are  different
vehicles and that in some cases a very small number of tests were
conducted.   For these reasons these data should not be considered
as indicative of all vehicles made by that manufacturer.   It should
also be noted that the vehicles tested were tested in the condition
they were in when they came to the test facility, and that  they were
in-use vehicles.  These do,-however, show that all manufacturers will
have to achieve a considerable reduction in evaporative losses in order
to meet a 2 gram standard.

     An attempt was made to separate groups of vehicles by manufacturer,
engine size, model year, and fuel tank volume.  The groups of vehicles
were small in number and showed a very large variance in emission levels.
Nine groups of vehicles were found where the sample size was greater than 3.
These groups are described in Table VIII and the emissions levels are
summarized in Table  IX.  For diurnal emissions the standard deviations
for the different groups ranged from 33% of the mean value to 125% of
the mean.  For hot soak emissions the standard deviations for the dif-
ferent groups ranged from 12% of the mean to 106% of the mean.  These
values show that even groups of similar vehicles show wide variability
in evaporative emission families. The variance exhibited in the
groups of similar vehicles can be attributed at least in part to test
variability.  Eight of the nine groups came from the Los Angeles FY 71
program.  During this program nine replicate tests on the same vehicle
were run.  From these replicate tests it was found the the difference
in diurnal emissions between two tests averaged 23% of their mean value
and for hot soak emissions the difference averaged 37.1% of the mean
value.  It should also be noted that most of the groups consisted of
non-evaporative controlled vehicles.  Controlled vehicles may show less
test to test variability and this can be evaluated1 with the replicate
testing done during the EPA in-house study.

Conclusion and Recommendations

     1)  The current evaporative emission levels as measured by the SHED
technique are fourteen times higher than the 2 gram standard.  A 90% improve-
ment in evaporative emissions would be required to meet the 2 gram standard.

     2)  The shed enclosure method was found to measure between 56 and 79
times higher evaporative emissions than the canister trap technique.  It
is recommended that the shed enclosure testing method be used for evapora-
tive emission testing instead of the canister trap method.

-------
                   21
Manufacturer
AMC
Chrysler
Dodge
Plymouth
All Chrysler
Ford
Mercury
All Ford Mo. Co.
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Oldsmobile
Pontiac
All GM
Nissan
Tovo Kogvo .
Toyota
Volkswagen
Control Vehicles
N
2
2
3
2
7
10
3
13
3
2
9
3
1
18

1
1
2
Total loss,
grains
28.9
52.8
21.5
27.7
•J2.2
25.2
36.5
27.8
39,0
. 42.0
22.1
36,9
36.8
30.4

53.6
n.n
18.5
Uncontrolled Vehicle
N
1
1
4
2
7
10
2
12
2
1
9
2
2
16
1

1
1
Total loss,
grams
37.7
35.4
23.8
18.9
94 .1
44.0
49.3
44.9
69.7
42.1
45.8
28.1
73.0
49.7
18.9

5S.Q
16.6
Table VII.  Average total evaporative hydrocarbon
            losses for controlled and uncontrolled
            vehicles by manufacturer.

-------
Group
No. .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Manufacturer
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Chevrolet
Volkswagen
Model Yrs.
before
1965
before
1965
1965-
1969
before
1965
1965-
1969
1965-
1969
1970-
1971
1970-
1971
1965-
1969
Engine
size (in3.)
251-300
351-400
251-300
251-300
251-300
301-350
301-350
301-350
50-100
Fuel tank
size (gal. )
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
15-20
20-25
10-15
No. of
vehicles
in group
5
4
5
6
4
6
4
5
6
                                                                                        K>
                                                                                        CO
Table VIII Characteristics of groups of similar vehicles.

-------
Group
No.
1
2
3
A
4
5
6
7
8
9
No. of
vehicles
5
4
5
6
4
6
4
5
6
Diurnal -tests .
Mean HC
Loss,: (grains)
33.9
23.3
20.8
21*7
49.2
29.5
24.6
57.6
28.9
Standard
Deviation
42.3
10.9
6.8
16.2
40.1
27.7
10.2
34 . 6
1 23.2
Hot Soak tests
Mean HC
Loss, (grams)
13.2
12.8
15.8
9.40
7.85
13.6
11.4
23.6
8.59
Standard
Deviation
3.16
1.57
2.58
4.31
3.29
4.72
3.57
12.0
9.15
Grams/mile
Mean GPM
Loss
2.74
2.39
2.73
1.89
2. .46
2.68
2.25
4.83
1.98
Standard
Deviation
1.51
.495
.456
.978
1.25
1.00
.763
2.28
1.81
                                                                                                    to
                                                                                                    u>
Table IX.  Evaporative Emission Statistics for groups  of  similar vehicles.

-------
                                   24
     3)  Further testing would be needed to accurately assess the effects
of atmospheric pressure on evaporative emissions.  It was found that hot
soak emissions were higher in Denver than in Los Angeles by approximately
16%, but a high confidence in the conclusion that atmospheric pressure has
a significant effect on either diurnal or hot soak losses was not found
to exist.

     A)  Evaporative controlled vehicles were found to have 28% lower
evaporative emissions levels than uncontrolled vehicles for both diurnal
and hot soak tests.

     5)  The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and Initial Boiling Point (IBP)
of the test fuel appeared to have significant effects on evaporative losses.
It was not possible to quantify the effects of RVP and IBP due to the
large varity of vehicles used.  However, there have been studies done
which quantify the effects of RVP and IBP.  Tight specifications should
be placed on the test fuel used.

     6)  The maximum shed temperature had an effect on the hot soak losses
and, therefore, it is recommended that a maximum shed temperature b.e
specified for testing.  The SAE procedure currently specifies a 90°F
maximum enclosure temperature.

     7)  The length of the diurnal test appeared to have a significant
effect on the diurnal losses, but, due to large test variability and a
small number of tests run at. 50 or 70 minutes, further testing needs
to be done to accurately quantify its effect.  It is recommended that
additional testing be done to evaluate the effect of the time tolerance
on diurnal emissions.

     8)  The fuel tank volume was not found to have a quantified effect
on diurnal emissions.  No conclusions could be drawn from the data.

     9)  Hydrocarbon levels appeared to increase beyond the 1 hour hot
soak test.  It is recommended that further testing be done to determine
to what extent the emission levels continue to increase.

     10) Further testing should be conducted in order to quantify the
effects of engine size (displacement), the number of cylinders and the
number of barrels on hot soak emissions.  It did appear, however, that
higher hot soak emission levels existed for vehicles with more cylinders
or more barrels and the enclosure temperature rise was greater for larger
engines.                                            ;

-------
                                  25
References

1.  C. Don Paulsell, Mobile Source Evaporative Emissions (Draft),
    June 1974.

-------
                              EVAPORATtVrEMISSION (SHED)'DATA SHEET
                         MOMI
                            "NjKT.T
                                    tNGM MMIV La •
                                                                    • fKMiro* -u ./- °*ra
                   20     K
                                  H    40    «S     SO
                                                            60    *1
                     l—\*"%?-*\ |H||
                        l ICQ  I Ms
     ITIMnTTTIinTIMMM
                 < i i 3 i y- rua TAW -y aaoMtta -^v- "M -\J
                 e M 8 \\KO. I tM I      T ("'i 1

                 IHIHllllllllUlllliQoh:
                                                            to    «
         ^

   S |/"tvf-N
   r< Y   1  •'
sax  I tax I nr.
      TTTI inn mini
rHliMlMirilHIMIMillMMMMrmil
         10    . II
                              ^- HCICNO.

                              met
— MOf AM MJKTION. UHN1NC tOU. I9UCUNG 1OIS
 MC ilAII -^- HC FINA1 -dr> ItMT <^^ lAIOi
 ,    I  ,    I  O) T (•<• XG-I
 | gAOHC I «MGJ UAOMC |    |

    ililjiilud]
                                                            M    t>     70     TS
                    TSAMPti -vj
                    IIME ^j
                    I«C|  I
                uouatoi coMMixn-
                           Mill 11II
                                                       SS    60    *5     70

                                                        IA«»AtO«Y C
 IIMJIillTIMIilMMI!lM-MMi°I^M-M
a
                                        05
If
I X
0 O














X
o




-





-
,.. ni
INCL






-












-






































APilATUU (
TANK
(INf.)























-








|

1
\
,.(

j
. |
_J
J
j


|






„







•») 	 sj
IANX
(WM





.



























\


_J
• |

J
J

(

J















1
/- ftAIO. "V
ON. HG » A
















-













• \

\




1

1
• 1
1

\







1












-


-




INC







-




















HC v
UADMO













-













-






























1
B














A














c














K














O














K














O














U














N














0










































































h=-































|
\

|
|
|
,



|


1
i















— TEUTUA
IAHK
<•".»


































1
\

|
|


|


1















IUB(f) —
IAMX
«IXI.»




























































	 s
CAM.







"
























|
















-










/— IAIO -~J
(M.HG.I






























j
|
|
|
|


1






I



1




f



^

















•NO






























MC —>
UAOMC












































(







































































































































































06
07
08
09
1 0
1 1
\ 3
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
                                                                                         I
                                                                                          H-
                                                                                          (D
                                                                                         I

                                                                                         s
                                                                                         (D

-------
                            Appendix B


               Calculations for Diurnal and Hot Soak

                 losses and Grams per Vehicle Mile

              used for analysis of Surveillance Data


I.  Diurnal and Hot Soak loss calculation.


     YRC = .208xlO"4 (12 + H/C) (V - Vvh) (P) [Cf -
                                               T  — T
                                               Lf   *b


     where, Y   = hydrocarbon loss (Diurnal or Hot Soak),  (grams).


          H/C  = Hydrogen - Carbon ratio (2. 33 used for diurnal loss,


                 2.20 used for hot soak loss)


          V    = Shed Volume, (ft3).

                                                    3
          V ,   = Vehicle volume (assumed to be 50 ft )
           vh         .                 :    •

          P    = Atmospheric pressure, (in. Hg) .


          Cf   = Final hydrocarbon concentration, (ppm C).


          C.    = Background hydrocarbon concentration, (ppm C) .


          Tf   = Final Shed enclosure temperature, (?R).


          T,    = Background Shed enclosure temperature, (8R).

                                                       |
II.  Grams per vehicle mile.

            Dhc + 4.7 HSWC
     GPM -- _ -




     where, GPM = Grams per vehicle mile.


          D^c = Diurnal hydrocarbon loss, (grams).


          HS.  = Hot soak hydrocarbon loss, (grams).
            we

-------
A.  EVAP-A data file.

Columns
  2-8
 15-19
 25-29
 37-41
 44-47
 50-55
 62-63
 68-69
 76-77
 84-85
 86-95
 99-100
105-106
119-120
121-170
172-176
177-181
186-190
199-200
206-210
Zll-218
219-228
229-235
236-242
       Appendix C

  Data File Contents



Content
Train and test Number**
Rated GVW* (Ibs.)
Curb Wt.* (Ibs.)
Inertia Wt. (Ibs.)
Actual Dyno. Horsepower
Displacement and Units
Engine Type**
Number of Cylinders
Number of carburetors
Number of Barrels
Control System types**
Evap System**
Crankcase type**
Fuel type**
Fuel Distillation temperatures
(IBP, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%,30%, 40%
50%, 90%, FBP)
H/C ratio
Reid Vapor Pressure, psi
Fuel in tank (gal.)*
No. of fuel tanks
Fuel tank Size (gal.)
Diurnal HC loss, grams
Hot Soak loss, grams
Total HC loss, grams
Grams per vehicle mile
*   data not recorded during surveillance program.
**  see codes at end of file descriptions.

-------
B.  EVAP - B data file
Colums
  2-8
 10-14
 15-19
 20-24
 25-30
 31-35
 36-42
 43-47
 49-53
 55-59
 61-65
 67-71
 73-77
 79-83
 85-89
 91-95
 97-101
102-107
108-114
115-121
122-131
132-136
137-141
142-146
147-151
152-156
157-161
162-166
167-171
172-176
177-182
184-189
190-196
197-203
207-217
218-227
Contents
Train and test No.*
Wet bulb temperature, °F
Dry bulb temperature, °F
Shed Number*   -
Shed Volume, ft
Length of Diurnal test, min.
Length of Hot Soak Test, min.

  Diurnal Test Data
initial
final   Enclosure temp., °F
peak                           ,
initial                        '
final   Internal tank temp,, °F
peak
initial
final   External tank temp., °F
peak
Barometer reading, in. Hg. *
initial
final   HC concentration, ppm C
peak
Diurnal loss, grams

Hot Soak Test Data

initial
final   Enclosure temp., °F
peak
initial
f inal   In t ernal t ank t emp., °F
peak
initial
final   External tank temp., °F
peak
Barometer reading, in. Hg.
initial
final   HC concentration, ppm C
peak
hot soal loss, grams
grams per vehicle mile
   see codes at end of data file listings.

-------
C.  EVAP-C data file.




Column                Content
2-8

11-17
18-24
25-31
32-38
39-45
46-52
53-59
60-66
67-73
74-80
81-87
88-94
95-101
102-108
109-115
116-122

124-130
131-137
138-144
145-151
152-158
159-165
166-172
173-179
180-186
187-193
194-200
201-207
208-214
215-221
222-228
229-235
Train and test number*
Diurnal test data (HC concentration)
Background
0 min.
5 "
10 "
15 "
20 "
25 "
30""
35 "
40 "
45 "
50 "
55 "
60 "
65 "
70 "
Hot Soak test data (HC concentration, ppm C)
Background
0 min.
5 "
10 "
15 "
20 "
25 »
30 "
35 "
40 "
45 "
50 "
55 "
60 "
65 "
70 "
   See codes at the end of data file listings.

-------
D.  EVAF Data date file.

     Data from EVAP data sheets are stored in a line file in the same
positions as it appears on the data sheets shown in Appendix A.
Codes
     A.  Engine Type
         01 I-Block
         02 V-Block
         03 Rotary
         04 Opposed
         05 Turbine
         06 Ex (Steam)
         07 Ex (FREON)
         08 Diesel
         09 Stirling
         10 Electric
         11 Stratified

     B.  Exhaust System Types(s)
         01 Air Injection
         02 Engine Mod
         03 Fuel Injection
         04 Other
         05 Thermal Reactor
         06 Catalytic Reactor
         07 Turbocharger
         08 Exhaust Gas Recycle
         09 None

     C.  Evap System Type
         01 Crankcase
         02 Canister
         03 Tank
         04 None

     D.  Crankcase System Type
         01 Closed
         02 Other

     E.  Fuel Type
         01 Indolehe 30
         02 Commercial leaded

     F.  Shed No. ;
         40 AESi Denver
         41 AESi L.A.
         42 ATL Denver

-------
G.  Train No.
    60 AESi Denver FY 71
    61 AESi L.A.   FY 71
    62 AESi L.A.   FY 72
    63 AESi L.A.   FY 73
    64 ATL  Denver FY 72
    65 ATL  Denver FY 73

-------
                            Appendix D




                 Tests omitted from data Analysis
Diurnal Tests
Train
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
63
63
63
65
65
65
Test
0094
0105
0110
0141
0152
0023
0029
0033
0034
0098
0099
R110
0118
0156
0168
0182
0012
0016
0170
0172
0178
0011
0017
0021
0032
0037
0039
                                                          Hot Soak Tests
Train
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
63
63
Test
0016
0051
0141
0145
0155
R167
0043
0096
0099
0111
0116
0133
0178
0179
0033
0044

-------
                                **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure  (SHED) Test Results**
                                          AESI Denver      FY71 Train 60

test
Mo.
0016
0051
0061
0076
0078
0086
0094
0095
0105
0110
0114
0133 .
0140
R140
0141
0145
01S2
0155
0163
0167
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp . ,
°F
78.0
83.0
79.0
80.0
76.0
72.0
74.0
74.0
78.0
79.0
75.0
78.0
72.0
72.0
76.0
71.0
77.0
80.0
71.0
78.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
0.0
61.0
61.0
0.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
59.0
60.0 .
60.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.5
59.4
60.5
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
0.0
85.0
84.2
0.0
84.0
85.7
84.0
83.0
85 . 0
B4.0
85.0
84.0
&4.0
84.0
83.5
63.0
84.2
84.5
84.0
83.8
HC Loss,
Grams
72. h9
60.58
7.99
29.61
15.73
52.19
31.61
18.01
81.62
3.63
: 95.54
15.98
20.86
20. B6
118.29
72.81
7.17
77.92
90.22
7.99
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60 »
55
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . ,
«F
81.0
88.0
84.0
82.0
86.0
79.0
81.0
82.0
88.0
•n.o
88.0
81.0
88.0
88.0
85.0
81.0
81.0
84.0
83.0
79.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
94.5
V4.0
91.2
88.0
84.0
89.0
89.0
84.0
95.0
83.0
64.0
95.0
87.0
67.0
88.0
10<*.5
tt-y.O
97.0
95.0
87.0
Final
Tank
Tempi,°F
83.8
95.0
90.0
85.0
86.0
90.0
89.0
87.0
9J.O
82.0
86.0
93.0
83.0
83.0
85.5
95.5
94.5
94.5
V5.0
87.0
HC Loss,
Grams
0.0
0.0
15.92
26.32
30.66
60.82
37.21
61.15
31.08
20.74
44.55
7J.06
20.02
20.02
16.98
0.0
44.79
0.0
23.69
11.02

Total
Loss,
Grams
72.69
60.58
23.92
55.93
46.39
113.01
68.82
79.16
112.71
24.37
140.09
89.03
40.88
40.88
135.27
72.81
51.95
77.92
113.91
19.01
Grains
Per
Mile
2.08
1.73
2.37
4.38
4.57
9.66
5.90
8.73
6.51
2.89
6.71
10.27
3.28
3.28
5.66
2.08
6.22
2.23
5.76
1.71
                                                                                                                                        <

                                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                                        M
                                                                                                                                        H
                                                                                                                                        CD
                                                                                                                                        rt
                                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                                                        ID
"0
a
w
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
                                **MSAPC  Evaporative Enclosure  (SHED) Test Results**
                                            AESI Denver      FY71 Train 60

Test
No.
R167
T167
0172
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(rain.)
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp.,
•°F
76.0
79.0
72.0
Initial
Tank
Terap.,°F
59.8
60.0
59.8
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
64.3
t>4.1
S4.0
HC Loss,
Grams
33.78
21.99
57.16
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(din.)
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
77.0
75.0
85.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
88.5
85.0
67.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,0F
87.0
83. 0
87.0
HC Loss,
Grams
0.0
8.51
22.95

Total
Loss,
Grams
33. 7B
30.50
60.11
Grams
Per
Mile
0.97
1.77
4.71
*Test not used in data analysis.
                                                                                                                                             to

-------
0)
o
c
0)
n

o
o
o

14-1
o
a
a
a;

cr
ai
16  .
12  .
                                          Figure E-la Diurnal
                  20
                        40       60        80        100
                            Hydrocarbon  loss,  grams
120
              ca
              
-------
                                **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED)  Test Results**
                                           AKSI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61

Test
No.
0002
0003
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0025
0026
.0027
0029
0030
0032
0033
0034
0036
0037
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Time
(mln.)
55
60
65
60
60
55
55
60
60
55
55
Sb
60
55
M)
55
60
55
5t>
60
Ends.
Temp.,
«F
69.0
70.0
78.0
71.0
82.5
76.0
80.0
71.0
63. b
69.0
70.0
70.0.
6S.O
70.0
6o.O
74.0
68.0
75.0
74.0
74.0
Initial
Tank
Terap.,°F
60.0
61.5
66.5
0.0
0.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
62.0
0.0
63.. 0
62.0
60.0
63.0
65.0
63.0
70.0
64.0
65.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., *F
84.0
64.0
82.5
0.0
0.0
84.0
64.0
84.0
b<*.0
64.0
0.0 .
fcb..O
3A..O
84.0
64.0
84.0
64.0
8<».0
I5<*.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
3<*.Si?
3*.h3
5-J.64
12.4?
a. AS
34.73
10.12
27.9-3
Hij.ho.
23.61
42.32
2. '.99
41. h7
32.85
12.10
14.49
5.88
2V. 75
1«..92
21.96
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60 '
60
60
60
60
SO
55
60
60
. 60
60
60
60
55
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F •
40.0
62.0
80.0
rtH.O
rtb.U
75.0
84.0
41.0
7ii.C
75.5
&U.O
(J :> . 0
«0.0
7o.O
80.0
7b.O
76.0
82^0
61.0
81.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,^F
75.0
87.0
68.0
0.0
d<».5
78.0
84.0
Ub.O
O8.0
Ub.O
vo.o
': o2.0
6S.C
64.0
7&.0
72.0
60.0
87.0
eb.O
64.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
77.0
86.0
08.0
66.0
84.0
78.0
86.0
46.0
85.0
7V. 0
86.0
8^.0
d&.O
65.0
62.0
7b.O
84.0
65.0
64.0
bJ.O
HC Loss,
Grains
26.38
13.01
8.70
25.13
1<*.35
2.23
23. VO
19.96
14.24
13.18
7.41
14.53
15.09
15.78
13.31
2.22
4.24
14.82
1^.06
17.41

Total
Loss,
Grams
66.30
51.84
66.34
37.55
22.60
36.96
34.02
47.89
54.90
41.79
4«».73
42.51
56.76
48.62
25.41
16.71
10.12
44.58
28.98
39.37
Grams
Per
Mile
4.68
2.8b
2.87
3.73
2.17
1.29
3.50
3.48
3.07
2.59
2.20
2.75
3.22
3.06
2.13
0.71
0.74
2.84
2.31
2.97
*Test not used la data

-------
                                **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SUED) Test Results**
                                             AESI Los Angeles FY71  Train 61

Test
No.
0038
0039
0040
0041
0043
0044
0045
0046
KQt6
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
K052
0053
R053
0054
OOSS
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Time
(min. )
60
55
55
55
55
55
60
55
55
Sb
55
65
55
55
55
65
55
60
70
55
Ends.
Temp* »
°F
71.0
73.0
73.0
70.0
74.0
69.0
72.0
77.0
75.0
72.0
74.0
68.0
76.0
79.0
77.0
70.0
76.0
79.0
74.0
76.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
61.0
66.0
61.0
. 62.0
63.0
62.0
61.0
61.0
61.5
60.5
61.0
61.5
61.0
62.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
Final •'
Tank
Temp., °F
8<».0
8<*.0
84.0
64.0
H4.U
84.0
84.0
tit.Q
0*. 0
f 4..0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
27.72
25.12
15.75
14.13
17.K8
15.72
59.54
26.73
26. h9
20.2ft
30.96
35.50
12.07
10.65
24.07
71.62
19.01
20.23
26.55
25.61
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
6U
t>0
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
65
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
82.0
82.0
80.0
81.0
76.0
79.0
8<». 0
84.0
H3.0
77.0
85.0
80. 0
82.0
79.0
76.0
67.0
76.0
79,0
85.0
82.0
Initial
Tank
Temp., IF
oj.O
7s. 0
84.0
96.0
rf4.0
82.0
vl.O
b8.0
90.0
82.0 .
72.0
6B.O
82.0
86.0
82.0
76.0
77.0
»0. 0
88.0
«4.0
Final
Tank
TemP.,0F
85.0
84.0
84.0
86.0
83.0
d2.0
88.0
85.0
89.0
82.0
82.0
80.0
82.5
83.0
86.0
80.0
74.0
80.0
88.0
85.0
HC Loss,
Grams
24.31
11.96
16.31
7.12
70.35
16.35
17.08
10.01
18.43
10.14
12.94
15.42
11.20
B.27
14.99
24.44
4.17
2.66
36.58
19.12

Total
Loss,
Grams
52.03
37.08
32.06
21.25
88.24
32.07
76.63
36.74
45.32
30.40
43.90
50.92
23.27
18.92
39.06
96.06
23.18
22.89
63.14
44.74
Grams
Per
Mile
4.06
2.32
2.64
1.36
9.96
2.64
4.00
2.11
3.24
1.94
2.62
3.08
1.85
1.42
2.70
5.33
1.10
0.93
5.67
3.30
*Test not used In data analysis.

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure  (SHED) Test Results**
                                             AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61

Test
No.
0056
0057
0058
R058
0060
0061
0062
0063
0064
0065
0066
0067
0068
0069
0070
0071
0072
0073
0075
0076
DIURNAL TEST
Test .
Time
(min.)
60
65
65
65
60
60
65
55
65
65
65
60
60
55
60
55
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
8F
73.0
69.0
74.0
6B.O
70.0
69.0
69.0
70.0
69.0
70.0
71.0
69.0
69.0
73.0
69.0
77.0
68.0
72.0
72.0
75.0
Initial
Tank
61.5
61.0
61.5
61; 5
61.0
61.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
0.0
61.0
62.0
Final •'.
Tank
Temp., °F
64.0
64.0
84.0
b4.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
C4.5
B4.0
84.0
83.5
64.0
64.0
64.0
B4.0
64.0
84.0
0.0
84.0
84.0
EC Loss,
Grams
36.34
40. H»
37.14
26.93
13.13
22.95
18.02
ZT. tl
23.75
40.67
19. ?2
13.32
15.44
22.79
80. ?9
16.65
24.04
28.14
26.89
26.64
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
55
60
60
60
.55
60
60
60
60
55
55
55
60
60
55
55
Encls.
Temp.,
CF
85.0
69.0
84.0
79.0
79.0
80.0
79.0
79.0
77.0
79.0
86.0
80.0
87.0
89.0
80.0
83.0
85.0
82.0
87.0
85.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
*7.0
69.0
84.0
79.0
78.0
81.0
74.5
68.0
d2.0
63.0
83.0
82.0
B2.0
85.0
82.0
'«6.0
82.0
87.0
91.0
95.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,"?
88.0
69.0
86.0
78.0
76.0
80.5
76.0
89.0
ai. o
82.0
87.0
83.0
85.0
88.0
83.0
92.0
84.0
U5.0
95.0
99.0
HC Loss,
Grams
22.19
4.97
15.12
11.96
18.64
15.74
10.24
13.30
11.15
23.41
25.03
10.03
26.68
19.38
1 1 .60
. 13.92
14.15
13.38
19.44
86.17

Total
Loss,
Grams
56.53
45.86
52.26
36.89
31.77
36.68
26.26
40.91
34.89
64.08
44.25
23.35
42.13
42.17
• 91.90
30.57
36.19
41.51
40.33
112.81
Grams
Per
Mile
4.02
1.84
3.09
2.38
2.88
2.77
1.69
2.57
2.18
4.30
3.91
1.73
4.02
3.25
3.85
2.35
2.59
2.60
3.38
12.33
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure  (SHED) Test Results**
                                             AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61

Test
No.
0079
0080
0081
0083
0085
0086
0087
0088
00*9
0090
00.92
0094
0096
0098
0099
0100
R100
0101
0103
0104
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(min. )
60
60
60
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
65
60
60
55
60
55
60
Encls .
Temp . ,
•°F
70.0
71.0
73.0
73.0
71 .0
69.0
70.0
70.0
70. 0
70.0
70.0
74.0
72.0
82.0
71.0
30.0
72.0
73.0
73.0
77.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
61. 0
61.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
0.0
61.0
61.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
. Final '
' Tank
Temp., °F
B4.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
«4 . 0
64.0
£4.0
0.0
H--.0
84. 0
84.0.
84.0
84.0
85 . 0
B4.0
84.0
64.0
84.0
8<*.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
28.52
53.36
44.67
47.64
11.57
17.62
85.43
bO.C»
i07.r?.
109.34
23.30
13.77
18.40
1.11
0.29
11.12
10.34
12.92
14.15
19. ?6
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
50
60
60
60
6;j
60
60
60
60
60
.60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . ,
. °F
81.0
80.0
79.0
81.0
73.0
76.0
73.0
78.0
7t.O
7^.0
82. 0
31.0
79. 0
78.0
7B.O
75.0
76.0
80 ..0
80.0
80.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
84.0
79.0
83.0
69.0
74.0
ao.o
74.0
0.0
/6.0
82.0
Bb.O
bS.O
B5.G
93.0
90.0
81.0
bl.O
e9.0
86.0
99.0
Final
Tank
Temp . , °F
84.0
82.0
87.0
90.0
70.0
82.0
73.0
0.0
72.0
78.0
86. 0
CJ9.0
ttl.O
86.0
at. o
82.0
82.0
87.0
85.0
93.0
HC Loss,
Grams
20.64
15.86
27.55
29.66
2.89
15. 4b
13.92
19.20
8.08
16.79
37.57
16.21
0.0
0.74
2.29
5.05
7.05
11.05
17.17
8.94

Total
Loss,
Grams
49.16
69.22
72.21
77.30
14.46
33.07
99.35
69.28
115.93
126.12
60.88
29.98
18.40
1.85
2.58
16.17
17.39
23.97
31.32
28.19
Grams
Per
Mile
3.59
3.65
4.98
5.34
0.72
2.58
4.31
4.01
4.17
5.38
5.71
2.57
0.53
0.13
0.32
1.00
1.24
1.85
2.71
1.75
*Test not used In data analysis.

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure  (SHED) Test Results**
                                            AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61

Test
No.
0105
0106
0107
0109
0110
R110
cm
0112
0113
'•01 !-'*
0115
0116
0117
0118
0123
0125
0126
0128
0129
0130
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Time
(min.)
60
55
65
SO
55
55
60
60
SO
5 5
55
6i)
55
50
60
h5
70
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
eF
77.0
71.0
72.0
64.0
75.0
75. 0
79.0
74.0
72.0
70.0
75.0
75.0
ao.o
77.0
79.0
84.0
, 84.0
77.0
79.0
75.0
Initial
Tank
Tem?.,.°F
61*0
60.0
60.Q
6Q.O
6Q.a
6Q.Q
60.0
60.0
60. Q
£1.0
Sl.O
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
%
60.0
60.0
61.0
59.0
59.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
«4.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
S4.0
84.0
84*0
84.0
c'». 0
04.0
84.0
64.0
84.0
o<*.0
84.0
86.0
76.0
84.0
84.0
UC Loss,
Grama
18.35
13.21
23.85
21.69
12.06
12.06
16. 0«
13.92
16.0r>
I?.. Id
12.60
39. V?
11.02
1.25
17.03
13.4ft
17.66
12.69
16.55
24.42
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
9.0
84.0
d5. C
Bb.O
B9.0
B6.0
90.0
89.0
96.0
05.0
90.0
Bb'.O
89.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
90.0
79.0
87.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
90.0
86.0
81.0
8J.O
8b.O
85.0
8i>.0
88.0
85.0
94.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
93.0
HC Loss,
Grams
8.34
12.36
20.53
3.94
11.23
11.23
0.0
11.55
11.77
7.35
14.97
0.0
22.02
6.21
8.07
8.82
3.86
3.85
11.08
16.34

Total
Loss,
Grams
26.69
25.57
44.38
25.63
23.29
23.29
16.09
25.47
27.85
19.51
27.58
39.92
33.04
7.46
25.09
22.30
21.53
16.54
27.63
40.76
Grams
Per
Mile
1.64
2.04
3.44
1.15
1.85
1.85
0.46
1.95
2.04
1.33
2.37
1.14
3.27
0.87
1.57
1.57
' 1.02
0.88
1.96
2.89
                                                                                                                                              00
*Test not used In data analysis.

-------
                                **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
                                             AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61

Test
No.
0131
0132
0133
R133
0134
R134
0135
0136
0136
0139
0140
0142
0143
0144
0147
0148
0149
0150
0151
0152
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Time
(min.)
. 50
60
55
55
60
55
50
55
65
bD
55
55
55
55
60
55
50
55
^0
to
Ends.
Temp . ,
«F
80.0
76.0
81.0
80.0
76.0
78.0
81.6
72.0
73.0
ac.o
6ti.O
80.0
69.0
73.0
75.0
69.0
69.0
74.0
68.0
71.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
59.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
59.0
59.0
61.0
Final •'
Tank
Temp. , °F
84.0
83.0
84.0
84. 0
84.0
84.0
84.0
H4.0
8t . i;
:.-•'» . 0
04.0
84.0
b4.0
84.0
04.0
84.0
W4.0
84.0
83.0
85.0
HC Loss,
Grams
25.81
25.51
5.86
7.22
11.25
lO.Ffv
10,49
14.26
9 . 68
il.42
14.49
11. *7
12.39
?1.75
17.81
lv.31
3.75
16.81
16.70
8.55
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(mln.)
60
60
60
60
6U
6U
6.0
60
h'J
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . ,
°F
80.0
84.0
85.0
79.0
XO.O
80.0
rl3.0
72.0
f2,o
MO. 0
70.0
7b.a
70.0
84.0
75.0
71.0
76.0
71.0
72.0
72.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
91.0
04.0
87.0
90.0
bb.O
90.0
9u.O
84.0
b4.0
ob.O
00.0
8B.O
07.0
1U2.0
87.0
85.0
65.0
84.0
tt9.0
00.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
91 .0
85.0
90.0
88.0
B5.0
b7.0
a9.o
«7.0
82.0
yo. 0
79.0
8b.O
d7.0
98.0
88.0
81.0
73.0
82.0
90.0
81.0
HC Loss,
Grams
10.61
8.07
7.50
5.02
10.89
13.33
17.78
7.50
10.74
16.33
3.42
6.61
9.98
16.60
10.52
8.71
3.06
4.87
15.58
8.39

Total
Loss,
Grams
36.42
33.58
13.36
12.24
22.14
24.19
28.26
21.76
20.42
27.75
17.91
18.28
22.37
38.35
1 28.34
28.02
6.82
21.68
32.28
16.94
Grams
Per
Mile
2.16
1.81
1.17
0.88
1.78
2.10
2.69
1.41
1.72
2.52
0.87
1.22
1.69
2.B5
1.92
1.72
0.52
1.13
2,57
1.37
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
                                        AESI'Los Angeles FY71 Train  61

Test
No.
R152
0154
0156
0158
0159
0161
Olb3
0164
0166
0167
0168
0170
0171
0 174
0182
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
55
60
60
50
60
65
55
55 .
55
50
bO
55
60
50
65
Ends.
Temp.,
°F
74.0
70.0
72.0
73.0
80.0
74.0
75.0
7i3. 0
79.0
84.0
74.0
74.0
72.0
76.0
75.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
60.0
60.0
60.0
59. Q
61.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
84.0
b4.0
84.0
B4.0
84.0
84.0
84. ,0
84. 0
64.0
?4.(J
f4.0
84.0
84.0
h4.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
8.16
9.34
1.34
26.16
24.25
11.83
20.83
16.74
1 0 . 34
16.24
i.£c
14.06
15.48
17.44
2.40
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(nin.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
. 60
60
60
Ends.
Temp . ,
°F
74.0
84.0
dH.O
80.0
80.0
76.0
49;0
87.0
78.0
*2.0
82. C
82.0
80.0
81. 0
84.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,tF
83.0
88.0
86.0
d8.0
86.0
90.0
94.0
VI. 0
B6.0
luo.o
vo.o
SI7.0
88.0
66.0
95.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,eF
82.0
90.0
67.0
B6.0
87.0
91.0
V3.0
95.0
86.0
va.o
92.0
94.0
87.0
65.0
98.0
HC Loss,
Grams
9.87
8.19
6.52
16.93
16.06
24.44
16.91
16.66
18.49
11.13
2.83
7.06
13.29
6.61
7i85

Total
Loss,
Grams
18.03
17.53
7.86
43.09
40.31
36.26
37.74
35.40
28.83
29.36
4.12
26.12
26.77
24.05
10.25
Grams
Per
Mile
1.56
1.37
0.91
3.02
2.85
3.62
2. B7
2.77
2.78'
2.02
.-0.42
1.49
2.23
1.39
1.12
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
                                 11
12.
8 io.
H
C 8
JJ •
O
U
0 6.
>M
O

o 4 -
a
3 7
er *
41
£














1 1
















































































































|















Figure E-2a Diurnal













|


*
.
Mill 1 I I
,15

CO
.10 S
a
4)
g
O
O
5 °

o
4)
£L
e
    10      20       30       40      50
                     Hydrocarbon loss, grams
                                           60
70
80
l*
12-
4)
S 10-
4)
M
U
3 o -
- o °
O
O

•
o
o* 4
e
4)
3
S" 2 .
£
x


















J_


































Figure

























































1








































































.10 20 30








































































40
Hydrocarbon loss
»
41 10
O
g
W
fc 8 ,
o
o
0 6 .
H-l
O
>. 4 .
u
c
41
§• 2
4)

M



























50





































-
E-2b Hot


















60
Soak







































15

co
4)
io S
M

3
O
(J
O
o

«^
4)
^
,|

70 80
, grams






Figure E-2c Total













1






























































































































































































(









































1 1 1













|













1 1 1
CO
.10 «
£
JJ
3
o
o
- O
5
o

^J
41
H
3
Z
10       20      30       40      50       60
                    Hydrocarbon loss, grams
                                                       70
        80
Figure E-2   Histograms of  Diurnal, Hot  Soak,  and Total loss data
             for L.A. FY71  program.

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Resulta**
                                            AESI Los Angeles Til2 Train 62

. Test
No.
0009
0013
0016
0026
0028
0112
0133
0140
0143
0146
0153
0156
0158
0163
0164
0169.
0170
0172
, 0178
0179
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(min. )
60
60
60
60
6U
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
' 60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
78.0
78.0
80.0
81.0
80.0
74.0
77.0
73.0
77.0
74.0
80.0
77.0
83.0
73.0
75.0
80.0
73.0
75.0
78.0
77.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
61.0
61.0
59.0
59.0
59.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
460.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
59.0
Final •'
Tank
Temp., "F
84.0
84.0
65.0
84.0
tt4.0
83.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
64.0
B4.0
84 . 0
83.0
64.0
83.0
64.1
83.0
84.0
84. 0
83.5
HC Loss,
Grams
3,16
3.34
12.26
21.50
20.41
16.56
4.80
14.03
4.68
6.83
9.56
11.59
4.12
. 16.70
1 0 .66
36. 54
<».46
6.29
4.11
7.02
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60.
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
90.0
79.0
84.0
db.O
88.0
86.3
83.0
87.0
84.0
85. 0
90.0
88.0
89.0
88.0
77.0
90.0
82.0
84..0
90.0
88.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,
-------
                          13
25 .
QJ
O
a
2 20 .
^
^
0
0 -jc
o -«--> •

M-l
O
* 10 •
o
1 5 •
0)
£










































































































Figure E-3a Diurnal
































. 4


01
. 3 o
G

-------
                                 **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
                                             AES1 Los Angeles FY73 Train 63

Test
Ho.
0011
0012
0013
0014
0016
0017
0021
0023
0024
0026
0028
0031
0032
0033
0034
0036
0037
0039
0043
0044
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Tine
(mln.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp.,
CF
82.0
82.0
76.0
78.5
80.0
80.0
78.0
78.0
84.0
77.5
84.0
79.0
83.5
82.0
84.0
78.0
78.0
82.0
81.0
74.1)
Initial
Tank
Temp.,eF
60. a
59.5
60.0
60.0
59.0
59.0
60.5
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
83.0
84. 0
63.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
b3.0
83.5
84.0
84.7
04.0
65.0
84.0
84.0
62.0
84.0
84.0
82.0
84.9
64.0
HC Loss,
Grams .
4.86
5.11
25.14
26.71
9.80
2.76
23.94
9.84
65.73
10.70
5.60
9.04
8.73
12.75
6.17
12.85
21.77
10.07
10.30
5.67
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Tine
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp. ,
op
84.0
89.0
83.0
8t>.U
81.0
8t>.5
77.0
83.0
85.0
81.0
85.0
85.0
84.5
86.0
83.0
83.0
85.0
85.5
84.0
80.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,^
96.0
100.0
96.0
100.0
100.0
87.0
103.0
97.0
86.0
91.0
97.0
95.0
9S.O
94.0
92.0
87.0
98.0
96.0
96'. 0
86.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,eF
95.0
100.0
97.0
100.0
95.0
89.0
100.0
98.0
65.0
92.0
97.5
99.0
97.0
96.0
95.0
89.0
96.0
95.0
98.0
87.0
EC Loss,
Grams
12.48
11.77
16.92
27.58
7.72
12.39
10.11
10.29
16.66
3.26
6.40
26.57
18.93
0.0
21.22
19.73
15.49
2.14
12.22
0.0

Total
Loss,
Grams
17.34
16.83
42.06
54.29
17.52
15.14
34.05
20.13
82.39
13.96
14.00
35.61
27.66
12.75
27.38
32.58
37.26
12.21
22.52
5.67
Grams
Per
Mile
1.81
1.73
2.99
4.47
1.32
1.74
2.04
1.66
4.11
0.74
1.29
3.83
2.79
0.36
3.03
3.02
2.70
0.58
1.94
0.16*
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
g    25

i    2°
o
°    15
fr    10
S1
£
M
                                             Figure E-4a Diurnal
                10        20      30      40        50       60
                               Hydrocarbon loss, grams
                10       20        30      40       50       60
                                Hydrocarbon loss,  grams
                10 .20        30        40      50       60
                                •Hydrocarbon loss, grams
2  g
0)
o 25 .
0)

y 20 .
u
0
o
"g 15 '
^
O in
S
.3
o-
S 5 •
































-


































1

























Figure E-4b Hot Soak










*





A O
** V

5
}4
3 g
u
o
2 o

-------
                                **MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
                                       ATL  Denver      FY73 Train  65

Test
No.
0011
0016
0017
0020
0021
0033
0026
,0028
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
0036
0037
0038
0039
0040
0042
0044
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(mln.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . , .
.°F
79.0
84.0
81.5
87.0
79.0
74.0
73.0
78.0
77.0
85.0
83.0
82.0
79.0
. 80.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
83.0
85.0
85.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
60.0
59.0
61.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
. Final 7
Tank
Temp.,.°F
84.0
84.0
63.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
b6.0
64.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
85.0
83.0
b3.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
U5.0
HC Loss.
Grams
14.14
0.71
4.76
7.23
21.60
35.62
10.76
7.64
6.14
12.63*
9.20
7.05
8.75
30.46
32.11
18.96
8.36
29.88
23.98
19.11
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
42.0
82.0
87.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
78.0
80.0
85.0
89.0
86.0
83.0
91.5
88.0
89.5
64.0
80.0
86.. 0
32.0
79.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,1?
94.0
101.0
102.0
9ii.O
94.0
101.0
86. 0
b8.0
94.0
101.U
97.0
92.0
97.0
101.0
99.0
108.0
90.0
95.0
9A.O
83.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
94.0
100.0
99.0
95.0
97.0
103.0
86.0
91.0
9b.O
104.5
99.0
93.0
108.0
101.0
100. S
109.0
92.0
97.0
97.0
80.0
HC Loss,
Grams
15.54
10.61
15.23
5.31
14.53
20.26
3.70
12.29
13.36
19.63
23.56
17.35
44.56
21.55
28.80
25.24
5.19
13.56
12.95
4.89

Total
Loss,
Grams
29.68
11.32
19.99
12.54
36.12
55.89
14.45
19.93
19.49
32.25
32.77
24.40
53.31
52.01
60.91
44.20
13.55
43.44
36.93
24.00
Grams
Per
Mile
2.49
1.45
2.18
0.92
2.57
3.74
0.80
1.87
1.97
3.00
3.43
2. S3
6.23
3.76
4.78
3.93
0.94
2.67
2.42
1.20
*Test not used in data analysis.

-------
                           17
u;
O
g
h 20 •
3
O
o1 15 .
14-1
o
& 10 -
o
c
o- 5 •
CD
Fn
>n.O *







































Figure E-5a Diurnal
















       10
20        30       40
 Hydrocarbon loss, grains
50
                                                                co
                                                                0)
                                                                u

                                                                g
                                                                V)
                                                                n

                                                                u
                                                                u
                                                                o
                                                                M
                                                                (U
                                                                .0
CJ
g 20 .
£
§ 15 -
o
4-)
° 10 -
0
C
S 5 -
(U
















































'



Figure E-5b Hot Soak

^












       10
20        30       40
 Hydrocarbon loss, grams
50
                                                                CO
                                                                 .




















































Figure E-5c Total


















       10
20       30         40         50
 Hydrocarbon loss,  grams
Figure E-5  Histograms  of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total
            loss data for Denver FY 73 program.
                                                                CO
                                                                (U
                                                                u

                                                                g
                                                                v<
                                                                M

                                                                O
                                                                U
                                                                O

                                                                U-l
                                                                O

                                                                1-1
                                                                0)

-------
                                               18
M
O
o
o
0)
tr
01
12

10

 8

 6


 4

 2































































1
Figure E-6a Diurnal (controlled
vehicles only)




1 III 1




1 1 1
12
10
8 tn
'• 1
a
o
o
4 °
o
1
10    20     30     40     50     60     70
                   Hydrocarbon loss, grams
                                                           80
                                                             90
12
o 10
g
h
$ 8 .
-o
0
o
. .
O u
c •
01
9
°* 0
« 2 .
f








||



































































































| |












Figure E-6c Total (controlled
vehicles only)










1



i
i


1 1
01
i
>j
6 9
o
o
o
4 «w
o
01
2 |


              10     20     30    40     50     60      70
                                Hydrocarbon loss, grains
                                                       80
                                                    90
             Figure E-6   Histograms  of Diurnal,  Hot Soak and  Total loss
                          data for all  test programs (controlled vehicles only).

-------