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
-------
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
-------
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-
sions discussion paper (1) does summarize some analysis done for the FY 72
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
iean 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.
u>
-------
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
S
M
O
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.
Tpst Tvt>e
Diurnal
^
n)
o
CO
4-J
s
controlled
uncontrolled
controlled
uncontrolled
Mean HC
InsR, prams
18.47
25.73
10.6
14.86
Standard
Deviation
2.64
19.34
6.30
10.04
Ranee @95%..coixfidence
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.
-------
Effects of Fuel and Enclosure Temperature
The preliminary discussion paper cites references addressing the effects
of fuel parameters such as RVP ami 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 A. Figure 3 shows the diurnal and hot soak emission
levels in Denver and Los Angeles for Indolene 30 and commercial leaded
fuels. Figure A 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 F.igure 5. The Figure shows that there is a
definite increase in emissions as the maximum SHED temperature ap^
preaches 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
-------
HI
n
-------
-------
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 fieure thai- a« -,,,,- +
*.u cc r , j-j-Kure cnac 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 quantifv
its effect.
-------
1.0
.6 .
[HC]
[HC] max
95% confidence
limits
.2 .4 .6 .8
Time/Time max
1.0
1.0
.8 .
.6 .
[HC]
[HC] max
.2 .
95% confi-
dence limits
.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Time/Time max
.0
Figure 6. Denver FY 71 program.
Figure 7. Los Angeles FY 71
program.
1.0
[HC]
[HC] max
.8 .
.6 -
.4 '
.2
95% confidence
limits
1.0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Time/Time max
Figure 8, Los Angeles FY 72 program.
IHC]
IHC] max
.8 -
.6 -
.4 -
.2 -
952 confi-
dence limits
) .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Time/Time max
Figure 9. Los Angeles FY 73 program.
Figures 6-9: [HC]. vs. Time for diurnal tests.
[HC] max Time max
-------
1.0
.8.
[HC]
[HC] max
.4"
95% confi-
dence limits
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Time/Time max
Figure IQ [HC] vs. Time
[HC] max
1.0
Time max for
diurnal tests conducted during
the Denver FY 73 surveillance
program.
80 -
I 70
60
03
to
O
u
PC
to
c
H
o
c
tfl
0)
60
50
40
30 .
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.
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-
-------
-Or
30 .
? 25 -
rt
M
60
v-/
20 .
A
ro
10
3
315
M
3
H
0 10 .
5 -
X
X
X
X
* X
X
x
x x
X X XX
X
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 .
/"N
1 9
2
~ 8
CO
CO
3 7 .
1
a 6
H
5 -
x
XX
X
X
X
X
05 10 15 20 25 3C
Fuel Tank size (gal.)
Figure 13 Diurnal loss vs. Fuel tank volume for the L.A.
FY 73 surveillance program.
-------
16
M
00
30 _
25.
3
a)
£
20-
15.
10
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 3~50~~CID engine produced a 2 . ^
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.
-------
1.0
[HC]
[HC] max
1.0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Time/Time max
Figure 15. Denver FY 71 program.
[HC]
[HC] max
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
.4 .6 .8 1.0
Figure 17. Los Angeles FY 72 program.
[HC]
[HC] max
1.0
.8 -
,6 -
.4
.2 .
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Time/Time max
Figure 18. Los Angeles FY 73 program.
Figures ,15-18. [HC] . vs. Time for hot soak tests.
[HC] max Time max
-------
18
1.0
[HC]
[HC] max
95% confidence
limits
.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 evaluated 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
Pont lac
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,
grams
28.9
52.8
21.5
27.7
32.2
25.2
36.5
27.8
39.0
. 42.0
22.1
36.9
36.8
30.4
53.6
13.0
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
SS 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 (ft.3)
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
Ni
r-o
Table VIII Characteristics of groups of similar vehicles.
-------
Group
No.
1
2
3
\
4
5
6
7
8
9
No. of
vehicles
5
4
5
6
4
6
4
5
6
Diurnal tests
Mean HC
Loss, (grams)
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
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
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.
4) 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 be
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.
-------
Appendix A - Sample Evap Data Sheet
r
^=
4H ONAQ
TVWDV
7~
a
fi
^
°*
$
K03
cxinot
§ T~
l I -
8
M
M
?
i
x . * ,/ [
\l S K
1 5 r v ,
s!4=
= a V
u
Sill
'ON
10
ON
KM
ONi
>E
w X
I s
i
i i
2
75
Af
SO
LOSS. REFUELING
- «MP ^
»O
« 'J
(StC.) 1
TNI W(
)(5_IOM
ONINNR1
_s
-
II
;r-i
T
^ 2
II
r
si
f!£
l'i
ATUR
TANK
ONI.)
M
r
1
-------
Appendix B
Calculations for Diurnal and Hot Soak
losses and Grains 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 - C
T - T
f 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 )
vn
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, (*R).
II. Grams per vehicle mile.
Dhc
GPM = -- -
+4.7 HSWC
35
where, GPM = Grams per vehicle mile.
D^c = Diurnal hydrocarbon loss, (grams).
HS. = Hot soak hydrocarbon loss, (grams).
we
-------
Appendix C
Data File Contents
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
206-710
211-218
219-228
,229-235
236-242
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 Contents
2-8 Train and test No.*
10-14 Wet bulb temperature, °F
15-19 Dry bulb temperature, °F
20-24 Shed Number*
25-30 Shed Volume, ft
31-35 Length of Diurnal test, min.
36-42 Length of Hot Soak Test, min.
Diurnal Test Data
43-47 initial
49-53 final Enclosure temp., °F
55-59 peak
61-65 initial
67-71 final Internal tank temp., °F
73-77 peak
79-83 initial
85-89 final External tank temp., °F
91-95 peak
97-101 Barometer reading, in. Hg.
102-107 initial
108-114 final HC concentration, ppm C
115-121 peak
122-131 Diurnal loss, grams
Hot Soak Test Data
132-136 initial
137-141 final Enclosure temp., °F
142-146 peak
147-151 initial
152-156 final Internal tank temp., °F
157-161 peak
162-166 initial
167-171 final External tank temp., °F
172-176 peak
177-182 Barometer reading, in. Hg.
184-189 initial
190-196 final HC concentration, ppm C
197-203 peak
207-217 hot soal loss, grams
218-227 grams per vehicle mile
see codes at end of data file listings.
-------
C. EVAP-C data file.
Column Content
2-8 Train and test number*
Diurnal test data (HC concentration)
11-17 Background
18-24 0 min.
25-31 5 "
32-38 10 "
39-45 15 "
46-52 20 "
53-59 25 "
60-66 30 "
67-73 35 "
74-80 40 "
81-87 45 "
88-94 50 "
95-101 55 "
102-108 60 "
109-115 65 "
116-122 70 "
Hot Soak test data (HC concentration, ppm C)
124-130 Background
131-137 0 min.
138-144 5 "
145-151 10 "
152-158 15 "
159-165 20 "
166-172 25 "
173-179 30 "
180-186 35 "
187-193 40 "
194-200 45 "
201-207 50 "
208-214 55 "
215-221 60 "
222-228 65 "
229-235 70 "
* See codes at the end of data file listings.
-------
D. EVAP 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 Indolene 30
02 Commercial leaded
F. Shed No.
40 AESi Denver
41 AESi L.A.
42 ATL Denver
-------
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
-------
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
Appendix D
Tests omitted from data Analysis
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) Teat Results**
AESI Denver FY71 Train 60
Tesc
No.
0016
0051
0061
0076
0078
0086
0094
0095
0105
0110
0114
0132
0140
R140
0141
0145
0152
0155
0163
0167
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
Ends.
Temp . ,
°?
78.0
83.0
79.0
80.0
76.0
72.0
74.0
74.0
76.0
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
85.0
84.2
0.0
84.0
85.7
84.0
83.0
85.0
84.0
85.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.5
83.0
; 84.2
84.5
84.0
83.8
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
0.0
85. 0
84.2
0.0
84.0
85.7
84.0
83.0
85.0
84.0
85.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.5
83.0
84.2
. 84.5
84. 0
83.8
HC Loss,
Grama
72.69
60.58
7.99
29.61
15.73
52.19
3U61*
18.01
81.62*
3.63*
95.54
15.98
20.86
20.66
118.29*
72.81
7.17*
77.92
90.22
7.99
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(mln.)
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
81.0
88.0
81.0
83.0
88.0
85.0
81.0
81.0
84.0
83.0
79.0
Initial
Tank
Temp. , °F
94.5
94.0
91.2
88.0
84.0
89.0
89.0
84.0
95.0
83.0
84.0
95.0
87.0
87.0
88.0
104.5
89.0
97.0
95.0
67.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,*F
83.8
95.0
90.0
85.0
86.0
90.0
89.0
87.0
93.0
82.0
86.0"
93.0
83.0
83.0
85.5
95.5
94.5
94.5
95.0
87.0
HC Loss,
Grams
OvO*
0.0*
15.92
26.32
30.66
60.82
37.21
61.15
31.08
20.74
44.55
73.06
20.02
20.02
16.98*
0.0*
>4.79
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
24-1 3 7
140.09
89.03
40.88
40.88
135.27
72.81
51.95
77.92
113.91
19.01
Grams
Per
Mile
2.08*
1.73*
2.37
4.38
4.57
9.66
5.90*
8.73
6.51*
2.89*
8.71
10.27
3.28
3.28
5.66*
2.08*
6.22*
2.23*
5.76
1.71
CL
g
H
tD
05
a
P>
a
ro
B.
w
*Teat 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
(min.)
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . ,
"F
76.0
79.0
72.0
Initial
Tank
Terap.,°F
84.3
84.1
84.0
.Final '
Tank
Temp., *F
84.3
64.1
64.0
HC Loss,
Grams
33.78
21.99
57.16
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Tine
(nin.)
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp.,
°F
77.0
75.0
as.o
Initial
Tank
Temp., If
68.5
85.0
87.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
87.0
83.0
87.0
HC Loss,
Grams
0.0*
8.51
22.95
Total
Loss,
Grams
33.78
30.50
80.11
Grama
Per
Mile
0.97*
1.77
4.71
*Test not used in data analysis.
NJ
-------
0)
a
C
0)
t-i
3
o
o
o
o
C
-------
**MSAl'C Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
AESI L03 Angeles FY71 Train 61
Test
Mo.
0002
0003
0016
0017
0013
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
OOH5
0026
0027
0029
0030
0033
0033
0034
0036
0037
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Time
(min.)
55
60
65
60
60
55
55
60
60
55
55
55
60
55
60
55
60
55
55
60
Encls .
Temp.,
F
69.0
70.0
78.0
71.0
82.5
76.0
BO.O
71.0
' 68.5
69.0
70.0
70.0
63.0
70.0
66.0
74.0
63.0 ;
75.0
74.0.
74.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
84.0
84.0
82.5
0.0
0.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
.0,0
85.6
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
8<*.0
84.0
84.0
Final '
Tank
Tenp., "F
64. 0
84.0
82.5
0.0
0.0
34.0 .
84.0
84.0.
84.0
84.0
0.0
85.0
84.0 ,
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
39.92 .
38.83
59.64
12.42
8.45
34.73
10.12
27.93
40.66
28.61*
42.32
27.99
41.67
32.85*
12.10
14.49
5.88*
29.75*
14.92
21.96
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(min.)
60
. 60
60
60
60,.
60
60
60
55
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp..
«F
80.0
82.0
80.0
84.0
85.0
75.0
84.0
81.0
78.0
75.5
80.0 '
BO.O
80.0
78.0
80.0
76.0
76.0
82.0
81.0
81.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
75.0
87.0
68.0
0.0
84.5
78.0
84.0
' 86.0
86.0
86.0
90.0
82.0
88.0
84.0
76.0
72.0
80.0
87.0
85.0
84.0
Final
Tank
Temp./F
77.0
88.0
bS.O
86.0
84.0
78.0
86.0
86.0
85.0
79.0
86.0
82.0
86.0
BS.O
82.0
75.0
84.0
85.0 ._
84.0
B3.0
HC Loss,
Grams
26.38
13.01
8.70
25.13
14.35
2.23
23.90
19.96
14.24
13.18
.7.41
14.53
15.09
15.78
13.31
2.22
4.24
14.82
14.06
17.41
Total
Loss,
Crams
66.30
51.84
68.34
37.55
22.80
36.96
34.02
47.89
54.90
41.79
49.73
42.51
56.76
48.62
25.41
16.71
10.12
44.58
28.93
39.37
Crams
Per
Mile
4.68 '
2.66
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 analysis.
-------
**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Teat Results**
AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61
Test
No.
0038
0039
0040
0041
0043
0044
0045
0046
R046
0047
0048
0049
0050
0051
0052
H052
0053
R053
0054
OObS
DIURNAL TEST .
Tesc
Time
(nln.)
60
55
55
55
55
55 '
60
55
55
55
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
84.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
Final '
Tank
Teap., *F
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
. 84.0
84.0
64.0
' 84.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0 ..
84.0
84.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
27.72
25.12
15.75
14.13
17. B8
15.72
59.54
26.73
26.89
20.26
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
60
60
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
.78.0
79.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
77.0
85.0
80.0
82.0
79.0
76.0
67.0
76.0
79.0
8S.O
82.0
Initial
Tank
Temp . , °F
aj.o
7i.O
84.0
96.0
84.0
.£2.0
91.0
68,0
90.0
82.0
72.0
68.0
82.0
86.0
82.. 0
76.0
77.0
80.0
88.0
84.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,<>F
oS.O
84.0
84.0
86.0
83.0
82.0
88.0
85.0
89.0
82.0
U2.0
80.0
82. 5
83.0
86.0
80.0
74.0 '
'80.0
88.0
8S.O
HC Loss,
Grans
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
8.27
14.99'
24.44
4,17
2.66 .
36.58
19.12
Total
Loss,
Crams
52.03
37.03
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
22.69
63.14
44.74 .
Crams
Per
Mile
4.C6
2.32
2.64
1.36
9.96*
2.64
4.00
2.11
3.24
1.94 .
2.62
3.08
1.S5
1.42
2.70
5.33
1.10
0.93
5.67
3.30
*Test cot used in data analysis.
-------
**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Teat Results**
AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61
Test
No.
.0056
0057
0058
R058
0060
0061
0063
0063
0064
0065
0066
0067
0068
0069
0070
0071
0072
0073
0075
0076
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Tine
(min.)
60
65
65
65
60
60
65
55
65
65
65
60
60
55
60
55
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp.,
°F
73.0
69.0
74.0
68.0
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
Tom?.,0?
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0 .
84.5
84.0
84.0
83.5
84.0
84.0
84.0-
.84.0
84.0
84.0
0.0
84.0
84.0
Final '
Tank
Ten?., °F
64.0
a4.o
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.5-
84.0
84.0
83.5
84.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
0.0
84.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Crams
36.34
40. R8
37.14
26.93
13.13
22.95
18.02
27.61
23.75
40.67
19.22
13.32
15.44
22.79
80.29
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.,
°F
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
Teir,p.,°F
b7.0
69.0
84.0
79.0
78.0
81.0
74.5
88.0
82.0
83.0
83.0
82.0
82.0
85.0
82.0
36.0
82.0
87.0
91.0
95.0
Final
Tank
Terap./F
88.0
69.0
86.0
78.0
78.0
' bO.5
76.0
8,9.0
81.0
82.0
87.0
83.0
85.0
88.0
83.0
92.0
84.0
bS.O
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
11.60
13.92
14.15
. 13.33
19.44
86.17
Total
Loss,
Grama
56.53
45.86
52.26
38.89
31.77
3b.6S
28.26
40.91
34.69
64.08
44.25
23.35
42.13
42.17
91.90
30.57
33.19
41.51
46.33
112.81
Crams
Per
Mile
4.02
1.84
3.09
2.38
2.88
2.77
T.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
[ DIURNAL TEST
Test
No.
0079
ooeo
0081
0082
0085
0086
00fl7
0088
0089
0090
0092
0094
0096
0098
0099
0100
R100
0101
0103
0104
rest
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
60
60
70
65
60
60
55
60
55
60
Ends.
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
80.0
72 .;0
73.0
73.0
77.0
Initial
Tank
Tenp.,"?
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
0.0
34.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
Final '
'lank
Temp., °F
84.0
84.0
84. 0
84.0 .
84.6
84.0 .
84.0
0.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
.84.0
8S.O
U4.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
UC Loss,
Grams
28.52
53.36
44.67
47.64
11.57
17.62
85.43
50.08
107.85
109.34
23.30
13.77
18.40
1.11*
0.29*
11.12
10.34
12.92
14.15
19.26
HOT SOAK TEST
Test '
Tijne
(min.)
60
60
60
60
r
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Tcrap . ,
"F
61.0
80.0
79.0
81.0
73.0
76.0
73.0
78.0
74.0
79.0
82.0
81.0
79.0
78.0
78.0
75.0
76.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
84.0
79.0
83.0
S9.0
74.0
60.0
74.0
o.'o
76.0
82.0
85.0
89.0
85.0
' 93.0
90.0
81.0
81.0
69.0
66.0
99.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
84.0
ti'd.Q
87.0
90.0
70.0
82.0
73.0
0.0
72.0 .
78.0
86.0
89.0
81.0
U6.0
84.0
82.0
82.0
87.0
85.0
93.0
HC Loss,
Crams
20.64
lb.86
27.55
29.66
2.89
15.45
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
60.68
29.98
IB. 40
1.85
2.58
16.17
17.39
23.97
31.32
28.19
Crass
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
1.65
2.71
1.75
*Taat 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
0111
0112
0113
0114
0115
0116
0117
0118
0123
0125
0126
0128
0129
0130
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Ti=e
(ttin.)
60
55
65
50
55
' 55
60
60
. 50
55
55
60
55
50
60
65
70
60
60
60
Ends.
Teap.,
°F
77.0
71.0
72.0
64.0
75.0
- 75.0
79.0
74.0
72.0
70.0
75.0
75.0
80.0
77.0
79.0
84.0
84.0
77.0
79.0
75.0
Initial
Tank
Tes1.o.,°F
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
86.0
76.0
84.0
84.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
; 84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84,0
84.0
84.0
84.0
&4.0
84.0
86.0
76.0
84.0
84.0
HC Loss,
Crams
1.8.35
13.21
23.85
21.69
12.06*
12.06
16.09
13.92
16.08
12.16
12.60
39.92
11.02
1.25*
17.03
13.48
17.66
12.69
16.55
24.42
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
(nin.)
65
60
60
60
6-°
60
60
60
60
60
' 60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Ends.
Temp.,
°F
82.0
74.0
81.0
80.0
75.0
75.0
86.0
80.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
80.0
82.0
80.0
75.0
84.0
78.0
78.0
83.0
84.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
93.0
80.0
90.0
82.0
83.0
83.0
90.0
fa9".0
84.0
85.0
86.0
. 89.0
86.0
90.0
89.0
96.0
85.0
90.0
86.0
89.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°F
90.0
79.0
87.0
83.0
83.0
83.0
90.0
86.0
81.0
83.0
86.0
85.0
85.0
88.0
85.0
94.0
84.0
86.0 .
88.0
93.0
HC Loss,
Grans
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,
Grans
26.69
25.57
4<*.38
25.63
23.29
23.29
16.09
25.47
27.85
'19.51
27.53
39.92
33.04
7.46
25.09
22.30
21.53
16.54
27.63
40.76
Craas
Per
Mile
1.64
2.04
3.44
1.15
1.65
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
.*Test not used in data analysis.
-------
**>1SA?C Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
AESI Loa Angeles FY71 Train 61
Test .
Ko.
0131
0132
0133
R133
0134
R134
' 0135
01J6
0138
0139
0140
0142
0143
0144
0147
014B
0149
0150
0151
0152
DIURNAL TEST .
Test
Tice
(min.)
50
60
55
55
60
55
50
55
,65
55
55
55
55
55
60
55
50
55
50
60
Ends.
Tenp.,
°F
60.0
76.0
81.0
80.0
76.0
78.0
81.0
72.0
73.0
80.0
68.0
80.0
69.0
73.0
75.0
69.0
69.0
74.0
60.0
71.0
Initial
Tank
TemD.,0F
84.0
83.0
84.0
34.0
84.0
84.0
34.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
85.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., "F
84.0
83.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
,B4iO.
84.0
84.0
1
fa4. 0
84.0
64.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
85.0
HC Loss,
Grans
25.81
25.51
5.36
7.22
11.25
10.86
10.49
14.26
9,68
11.42
14.49
11.67
12.39
2.1.75
17.81
19.31
3.75
16.81
16.70
8.SS
HOT SOAK TEST . '
Test
Tine
(nin.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
' 60
60
60
' 60
60
60
Ends.
Temp.,
"F
80.0
84.0
85.0
79.0
80.0
80.0
. 83.0
72.0
72.0
80.0
70.0
76.0
70.0
84.0
75.0
71.0
76.. 0
73.0
72.0
72.0
Initial
Tank
Temp., I1
91.0
64.0
87.0
90. .0
66.0
90. 0,^
90.0
84.0
84.0
66.0
80.0
88.0
87.0
102.0
87.0
85.0
65.0
64.0
89.0
bO.O
Final
Tank
Tenp.,'?
91.0
65.0
90.0
83.0
85.0
87.0
B9.0
_87.0
82.0
86.0
79.0
86.0 .
87.0
98.0
6d.O
61.0
73.0
82.0
90.0
81.0
HC Loss,
Grams
10.61
8. 07
7.50
5.02
10. B9
13.33
17.78
7.50
10.74
16.33
3.42
6.61
9.98
16.60
10.52
a. 71
' 3.06
4.87
IS. 58
8.39
Total
Loss,
Grans
36.42
33.58
13.36
12.24.
22.14
24.19
28.26
21.76
.20.42
27.75
17.91
18.26
22.37
38.35
28.34
28.02
6.62
21.68
32.28
16.94 .
Cracs
Per
Mile
2.16
1.81
1 . 1.7
0.88
1.78
2.10
2.69
1.41
1.72
2.52 .
0.87
1.22
1.69
2.85
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 Trnin 61
Test
No.
R152
0154
0156
0158
0159
0161
0163
0164
0166
0167
0168
0170
0171
0174
0132
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(nin.)
55
60
60
50
60
65
5S
55
»
55
50
50
55
60
50.
65
Ends.
Tenp.,
F
74.0
70.0
72.0
73.0
80.0
74.0
75.0
78.0
79.0
84.0
74.0
74.0
72.0
76.0
75,0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,8?
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
34.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.. 0
84.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., "F
U4'.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0 .
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
.84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
8.16
9.34
1.34*
26.16
24.25
11.83
20.83
18.74
10.34
18.24
1.28*
19.06
15.48
17.44
2.40*
HOT SOAK TEST
Test '
Time
(min.)
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Encls.
Temp . ,
°F
74.0
84.0
84.0
80.0
80.0
78.0
. 89.0
87.0
78.0
82.0
82.0
82.0
80.0
81.0
84.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
83.0
88.0
86.0
tta.o
88.0
90. Q
*
94.0
91.0
86.0
100.0
90.0
97.0
88.0
86.0
95.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,'F
aa.o
90.0
87.0
86.0
87.0
91.0
93.0
95.0
86.0
98.0
92.0
94.0
87.0
85.0
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
7.85
Total
Loss,
Gratis
18.03
17.53
7.86
43.09
40.31
36.26
37.74
35.40
28.83
'29.36
4.12
26.12
28.77
24.05
10.25
Graca
Per
Mile
1.56
1.37
0.91*
3.02
2.85
3.62
2.87
2.77
2.78
2.02
0.42*
1.49
2.23
'1.39
1.12*
*Teat not used in data analysis.
-------
11
12 .
41
t 8
3
U
o
6 .
o
a
41
3 o
er *
4)
K
1 1
1
1
Figure E-2a Diurnal
Ul, ,
1 1
.15
09
.10 «
g
fc
3
O
U
5 °
o
IJ
41
e
1
10 20 30 40 50
Hydrocarbon loss, grams
60
70
80
14 .
12 -
4)
O T /\
Sin "
(H
3 o -
o o
o
o
iw 6 -
o
o* 4
c
41
3
0- n
4) 2 .
p
K
|
Figure E-2b Hot Soak
II II
15
09
41
O
10 S
M
3
O
U
o
r*
'
.
0)
3
.10 20 30 40 50
Hydrocarbon loss, grams
60
70
80
4j 10
Ml
£ 8
3
0
o
o 6 .
'
o
>< 4 .
o
c
4)
§ 2-
41
IJ
(b
M
Figure E-2c Total
1i
1
1 1 1
1
1. 1
. 1 1.
OJ
in 4>
|
i-i
3
U
U
_ o
U-l
o
^1
41
^3
3
?
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 Results**
AESI Los Angeles FY72 Train 62
Test
No.
0009
0012
0016
0026
0028
0112
0133
0140
0143
0146
Olb3
0156
0158
0163
0164
0169
0170
0172
0178
0179
DIURNAL TEST
Test
Time
(nin.)
60
60
60
60
60
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
60.0
74.0
77.0
73.0
77.0
74.0
80.0
77.0
83.0
73.0
75.0
60.0
73.0
75.0
78.0
77.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,"?
84.0
84.0
85.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
63.0
84.0
83.0
84.1
83.0
84.0
84.0
83.5
Final '
Tank
Temp., °F
84.0
84.0
65.0
84.0
84.0
83,0
64.0
, 84.0
84.0
84.0
64.0
84.0
83.0
64.0
83.0
64.1
83.0
84.0
64.0
83.5
HC Loss,
Grams
3.16
3,34*
12.26*
21.50
20.41
16.56
' 4.80
14.03
4.68
6.63
9.56
11.59
4.12
16.70
10.66
36.54
4.46*
6.29*
4.11*
7.02
HOT SOAK TEST
Test
Time
Cmin.)
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
86.0
88.0
86.3
83.0
87.0
84.0
85.0
90.0
88.0
69.0
88.0
77.0
90.0
82.0
84.0
90.0
88.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,*F
95.0
90.0
95.0
07.0
94.0
91.0
99.0
99.0
90.0
96.0
60.0
92.0
98.0
96.0
80.0
103.0
97.0
93.0
104.0
95.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,»F
102.0
86.0
94.0
87.0
94.0
94.1
95.0
100.0
68.0
97.0
94.0
93.0
99.0
99.0
80.0
103.0
93.0 ,
92.0
102.0
96.0
HC Loss,
Grams
6.83
5.31
6.97
14.92
19.86
7.26
0.0*
15.14
8.32
7.40
15.45
16.53
7.48
13.14
2.61
21.54
6.70
5.50
2.77*
0.0*
Total
Loss,
Grams
9.99
6.65
19.23
36.42
40.26
23.32
4.80
29.17
13.01
: 14.23
25.01
28.11
11.60
29.84
13.26
58.09
11.16
11.79
6.68
7.02
Grams
Per
Mile
1.01
O.U1*
1.29*
2.62
3.25
1.45
0.14*
2.43
1.25
1.19
2.35
2.55
1.12
2.24
0.65
3.94
1.03*
0.92*
0.49*
0.20*
*Test not used in data analysis.
-------
Q)
O
c
Q)
O
O
O
O
c
rg
2
10
20 30 40
Hydrocarbon loss, grams
50
25 -
a)
o
c
£ 20 .
j_i
a
8 15 -
<4-l
° 10
?^
o
c
Q) c
3 5 .
o1
M
)-i
3
2 t)
- z o
4-1
o
.1 M
, 10
0
c
0)
g- 5 -
OJ
M
pt<
Figure E-3c Total
3 co
J cu
o
C
0)
M
2 M
- 3
CJ
a
o
m
1 °
n
0)
fi
£
10
Figure E-3
20 30 40
Hydrocarbon loss, grains
50
Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total
loss data for LA FY72 program
-------
**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
AESI Los Angeles FY73 Train 63
Test
No.
0011
0012
0013
0014
0016
0017
0021
0023
0024
0026
0028
0031
0032
0033
0034
0036
0037
0039
0043
0044
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
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
74.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,°F
83.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
83.5
84.0
84.7
84.0
85.0
84.0
84.0
82.0
84.0
84.0
82.0
84.9
84.0
Final '
Tank
Temp., °P
83.6
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
84.0
, 83.0
83.5
84.0
84.7
84.0
85.0
.84.0
84.0
82.0
84.0
84.0
82.0
84.9
84.0
HC Loss,
Grams
4.86*
5.11
25.14
26.71
9.80
2.76*
23.94*
9.84
65.73
10.70
S.60
9.04
8,73
12.75
6.17
12.85
21.77
10.07
10.30
5.67
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
84.0
89.0
83.0
86.0
81.0
86.5
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.,1*1
96.0
100.0
96.0
100.0
100.0
87.0
103.0
97.0
.U6.0
91.0
97.0
95.0
95.0
94.0
92*0
87.0
98.0
96.0
96.0
88.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,*F
95.0
100.0
97.0
100.0
95.0
89.0
100.0
98.0
85.0
92.0
97.5
99.0
97.0
98.0
95.0
89.0
96.0
95.0
98.0 .
87.0
HC Loss,
Grams
12.48
11.77
16.92
27.58
7.72
12.39
10.11
10.29
16.66
3.26
8.40
26.57
18.93
0.0*
21.22
19.73
15.49
2.14
12.22
0.0*
Total
Loss,
Grans
17.34
16.83
42.06
54.29
17.52
15.14
34.05
20.13
82.39
1*3.96
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.
-------
15
41
U
a
41
M
fc
U
U
o
144
o
X
U
c
-------
**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results**
ATL Denver FY73 Train 65
Test
No.
0011
0016
0017
0020
0021
0023
0026
0028
0031
0032
0033
0034
0035
OOJ6
0037
0038
0039
0040
0042
0044
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
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.,eF
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
86.0
84.0
84.0
82.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
85.0
83.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
85.0
. Final ''
Tank
Temp., "F
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
83.0
b4.0
86.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
84.0
85.0
85.0
63.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
86.0
85.0
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
82.0
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
84.0
80.0
86.0
82.0
79.0
Initial
Tank
Temp.,^
94.0
101.0
102.0
98.0
94.0
101.0
86.0
68.0
94.0
101.0
97.0
92.0
97.0
101.0
99.0
106.0
90.0
95.0
94.0
83.0
Final
Tank
Temp.,°7
94.0
100.0
99.0
95.0
97.0
103.0
86.0
91.0
96.0
104.5
99.0
93.0
108.0
101.0
100.5
109.0
92.0 '
97.0
97.0
80.0
HC Loss,
Grams
IS. 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,
Crams
29.68
11.32
19.99
12.54
36.12
55.89
14.45
19.93
, 19.49
32.25
32 . 7.7
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. A3
2.53
6.23
3.76
4.78*
3.93
0.94*
2.67
2.42
1.20
*Teat not used in data analysis.
-------
17
o
c
.
i
Figure E-5c Total
10
20 30 40
Hydrocarbon loss, grains
50
Figure E-5 Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total
loss data for Denver FY 73 program.
CO
01
o
O
O
O
14-1
o
01
I
-------
18
M
§
o
V
er
41
12
10
8
6
4
2
II
1
Figure E-6a Diurnal (controlled
vehicles only)
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
12
10
8
6
, 4
, 2
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Hydrocarbon loss, grams
00
01
§
o
M
01
80
90
12 -
S 10
a
4)
f*
3 8
3 O «
- o
o
o
*W O -
o
X
g *
2*
1 2
M
Figure E^-6b Hot Soak (controlled
vehicles only)
10
20
30
40
|
50
Hydrocarbon
41
1
3 8
o
o
«w 6
0
a 4
41
3
8" 2 .
£
K
| |
1 1
. 12
. 10
m
4)
0
8 g
V
b
6 3
o
o
A U-l
** 15
(-1
. 2 |
*
60 70 80 90
loss, grams
Figure E-6c Total (controlled
vehicles only)
| |
1
1 1
01
41
O
4)
6 3
O
O
0
, 4 ^
o
4)
2rQ
S
S
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Hydrocarbon loss, grams
80
90
Figure E-6 Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak and Total loss
data for all test programs (controlled vehicles only)
------- |