Running Loss Testing with
Implanted Leaks
Final Report
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Running Loss Testing with
Implanted Leaks
Final Report
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
SGS-ETC, Eastern Research Group, Inc.
EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-017
Work Assignment No. 1-08
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-14-009
March 2014
-------
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Running Loss Testing with
Implanted Leaks
Final Report
EPA contract #: EP-C-12-017
Work Assignment 1-08
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Prepared by:
SGS-ETC
Eastern Research Group
February 18, 2014
-------
ERG Project No.: 0308.01.008.001
Running Loss Testing with Implanted Leaks
Final Report
EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-017
Work Assignment 1-08
Prepared for:
Constance Hart, Work Assignment Manager
Kent Helmer, Alternate Work Assignment Manager, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood Dr.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Prepared by:
Michael Sabisch
Sandeep Kishan
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
3508 Far West Blvd., Suite 210
Austin, TX 78731
Jared Stewart
Gerard Glinsky
SGS Environmental Testing Corporation
2022 Helena Street
Aurora, CO 80011
February 18,2014
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Objectives and Background 1
2.0 Study Equipment and Preparation 1
2.1 Test Vehicles 1
2.2 Laboratory and Test Equipment Overview 2
2.3 Fuel Procurement and Preparation 3
2.4 Vehicle Preparation 3
2.5 Induced Leak Preparation 5
3.0 Test Program 5
3.1 Testing Overview 5
3.2 Data Collection Process 12
3.3 Data Validation and Analysis 14
3.4 Results 15
3.5 Observations and Conclusions 27
4.0 References 29
5.0 Index of Appendices 30
Appendix A Fuel Analysis Results A-l
Appendix B Test-by-Test Results B-l
Appendix C Descriptions of Study Data C-l
Appendix D Issues Encountered and Solutions D-l
Appendix E Induced Leak Configurations E-l
List of Figures
Figure 1. FTP-75 Cycle 8
Figure 2. Hydrocarbon Sampling System 9
Figure 3. Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 10
Figure 4. New York City Cycle 11
Figure 5. Running Loss Tank Temperature Profiles 15
Figure 6. Running Loss Tank Temperature Profiles as a Percent of Temperature Gain 16
Figure 7. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature (No Leak) 16
Figure 8. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature (0.040" Tank Leak) 17
Figure 9. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature (0.040" Canister Leak) 17
Figure 10. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature (0.020" Tank Leak) 18
Figure 11. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature (0.020" Canister Leak) 18
Figure 12. Running Loss Results (10.0 psi RVP Fuel) 20
Figure 13. Running Loss Results (7.7 psi RVP Fuel) 21
Figure 14. Average Emission Rates for Running Loss Testing 21
Figure 15. Hot Soak Results (10.0 psi RVP Fuel) 23
Figure 16. Hot Soak Results (7.7 psi RVP Fuel) 23
Figure 17. Average Emission Rates for Hot Soak Testing 24
Figure 18. Unpressurized Static Test Results 25
Figure 19. Pressurized Static Test Results 26
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Test Vehicle Summary 2
Table 2. Test Vehicle Details 2
Table 3. Running Loss Testing Sequence 13
Table 4. Test Types by Sequence Test Number 13
Table 5. Total Running Loss Emissions (grams) 19
Table 6. Running Loss Emission Rates (grams/hour) 20
Table 7. Hot Soak Results 22
Table 8. Unpressurized Static Test Results 25
Table 9. Pressurized Static Test Results 26
11
-------
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
APTL Ford's Allen Park Test Laboratory
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFV-CVS Critical Flow Venturi—Constant Volume Sampler
CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
CRC Coordinating Research Council
ECU Engine Control Unit
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ERG Eastern Research Group
FID Flame lonization Detector
FTP-72 Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule of the Federal Test Procedure
FTP-75 City driving schedule of the Federal Test Procedure
FTTP Fuel Tank Temperature Profile
HC Hydrocarbon
LA-4 Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
LA-92 LA92 "Unified" Dynamometer Driving Schedule
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MWV MeadWestvaco
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OBDII Second-Generation On-Board Diagnostics
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
PZEV Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicle
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure
SGS-ETC SGS- Environmental Testing Corporation
SHED Sealed Housings for Evaporative Determination
UDDS Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
VECI Vehicle Emissions Control Information
VIN Vehicle Identification Number
WC Water Column
in
-------
Executive Summary
This study, performed by Eastern Research Group (ERG) and subcontractor SGS-
Environmental Testing Corporation (SGS-ETC), under contract to the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), was designed and conducted by EPA to characterize running loss
emission rates on enhanced evaporative emissions control and partial zero-emissions vehicle
(PZEV) technology vehicles. This work builds on prior evaporative emissions test programs
performed to determine the prevalence and emission rates of diurnal and hot soak emissions in
US vehicles1.
Two leak sizes and locations were individually implanted for each vehicle; one in the fuel
tank and one at the vapor canister. Each leak location was evaluated individually with two
precision implanted orifice sizes. A no-leak condition was evaluated as a control. Additionally,
two fuels were used to determine the effect of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) on each leak rate.
Consequently, each vehicle was evaluated individually at five different implanted leak conditions
and two different fuel RVPs.
The required laboratory testing for this program was supervised by subcontractor SGS-
ETC and took place at Ford's Allen Park Test Laboratory (APTL) utilizing Ford technical staff
and analytical assets. All test procedures followed the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)
procedures for the testing of light-duty passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Five vehicles
participated in this study; all were supplied by EPA. All vehicles were modified to
accommodate temperature sensors, fuel pressure measurement ports, fuel drains and fixtures for
implanted leaks. Tests performed on each vehicle in each condition consisted of a combined
procedure including a complete running loss procedure, hot soak, and unpressurized and
pressurized static tests. Pressures, temperatures, and continuous on-board diagnostic (OBDII)
purge data were recorded, when available. A total of 50 combined procedures were performed
in this study.
Results from the study showed the following:
• Fuel RVP was shown to have an effect on running loss emissions from vehicles
with induced leaks (higher RVP producing higher evaporative emission rates).
• Increases in the tank temperature profile were observed to exponentially increase
running loss emissions for vehicles with induced leaks.
• Vehicles without induced leaks demonstrated comparable running loss emissions
for all tank temperature profiles and both fuels, high RVP and low RVP.
IV
-------
Leak size was a factor in the running loss and hot soak evaporative emission rates
on all vehicles. Larger leak sizes were shown to produce higher levels of
evaporative emissions.
In general, leaks induced in the fuel tank vapor space typically produced higher
running loss emissions than leaks of a similar size induced at the evaporative
canister.
Leak size produced a more significant effect than leak location for running loss
and hot soak tests.
The purge valve controls purge behavior, and it also produces changes in fuel
system vapor vacuum. This relationship results in a strong correlation between
commanded evaporative purge and measured fuel vapor vacuum.
For vehicles with induced leaks, continuous hydrocarbon measurements during
the running loss test demonstrated an increase in the emission rates when fuel
system vapor vacuum was reduced to near zero (atmospheric) levels. This
behavior was demonstrated when commanded evaporative purge was reduced,
and also when purge was overwhelmed from vapor generation due to high fuel
temperatures and high RVP fuels.
-------
1.0 Objectives and Background
Recent studies of vehicles with high evaporative emissions in Denver, Colorado
performed as part of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between
the EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) over
three summers (2008-2010) provided information on the prevalence of evaporative emissions
leaks and the emission rates of those leaks in the real world fleet2. These studies focused on hot
soak and diurnal emissions. In addition, the E-771 test program recently performed by the
Coordinating Research Council (CRC), the EPA and the Department of Energy's National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) collected permeation emission rates of aging enhanced
evaporative emission control and PZEV technology vehicles at various temperatures using
different fuels during several evaporative test procedures, including the static permeation test,
diurnal tests and the dynamic permeation test. Evaporative emission rates were also measured
during these tests with 0.020" diameter leaks implanted at different locations on the test vehicles.
A 0.020" leak diameter was selected because this is the smallest size detectable by vehicle
OBDII systems.
This current running loss study builds on these prior evaporative emissions studies by
simulating real-world evaporative emission leak rates during transient operation and static
conditions. Laboratory testing was conducted to gather running loss emissions data as a function
of induced leak size (0.020" and 0.040" diameter), leak location (fuel tank or canister) and fuel
RVP (7 and 10 PSI) on enhanced evaporative emissions control and PZEV vehicles. The tank
and canister locations were selected because these were the same leak locations that had been
found to be most common in the Denver field studies and were also used previously in the E-77
test programs. The hot soak and static tests were conducted to tie the information back to the
previous studies.
2.0 Study Equipment and Preparation
2.1 Test Vehicles
The EPA provided 5 vehicles to be tested in this study. The vehicles were chosen from
available vehicles that had previously been used in prior EPA test programs. The five vehicles
provided for the test program are listed in Table 1, and details regarding the selected vehicles and
test parameters are listed in Table 2.
-------
Table 1. Test Vehicle Summary
Vehicle Make
and Model
Dodge Caravan
Toyota Corolla
Ford Focus PZEV
Honda Accord
Chevrolet
Silverado
Model
Year
2007
2009
2010
2007
2006
Approx.
Odo
117k
121k
29k
124k
112k
Emissions
Standard
Tier 2 /
Bin 5
Tier 2 /
Bin 5
SULEV II
PZEV
Tier 2 /
Bin 5
Tier 2 /
Bin 8
Canister
Cap1 (g)
177
115
110
140
177
Tank
Vol (gal)
20.00
13.25
13.00
17.00
26.00
Canister/Tank
Ratio2
8.85
8.68
8.46
8.24
6.81
1 Canister Cap = canister working capacity, in grams
2 Canister working capacity (g) / Tank volume (gal)
Table 2. Test Vehicle Details
Vehicle
Caravan
Corolla
Focus
Accord
Silverado
"*5 ^
P
s >
2007
2009
2010
2007
2006
.ss
"S Sf
oj '3
££
4750
3250
3000
3500
5500
£>
'0
-1 X
a g.
OS eS
H U
20.00
13.25
13.00
17.00
26.00
<
•o -o
cS OS
0 0
OS -J
15.32
11.93
4.01
9.76
1.44
CQ
•0 -0
S3 oS
0 0
OS -J
0.0948
0.0068
0.5575
0.2918
1.2678
U
•o -o
cS OS
0 0
OS -J
0.02662
0.02276
0.01269
0.01602
0.02258
Engine Family
7CRXT03.8NEO
9TYXV01.8BEA
AFMXV02.0VZX
7HNXV02.4KKC
6GMXT05.3379
Evap Family
7CRXR0177GHA
9TYXR0115P12
AFMXR0110GCX
7HNXR0140BBA
6GMXR0176820
2.2 Laboratory and Test Equipment Overview
All testing was performed at Ford's APTL, which is equipped with two CFR 40 Part
86.1234-96 compliant point-source running loss test cells and two specially-equipped variable
temperature (VT) sealed housings for evaporative determination (SHEDs) that were employed
for hot soak and static pressurization tests. Ford APTL provides emissions certification testing
for new vehicles manufactured to meet US EPA emissions standards.
Ford APTL provided all quality assurance and traceability requirements defined in CFR
Title 40 Part 86, Subpart B and other test procedures performed during this study. The Ford
APTL testing and control software automatically logged all calibrations. An SGS-ETC certified
ISO 9001 lead quality auditor verified Ford's compliance with CFR regulations.
-------
Equipment used in the study consisted of laboratory-grade electronic thermometers with
thermocouples for measuring temperatures, pressure measurement devices and analytical
systems containing sample conditioning, process gas analyzers, and a data acquisition and
control system. The maintenance, calibration and verification of the measurement equipment
used in this study conformed to requirements defined in the work plan and quality assurance
project plan (QAPP) developed for this project.
All measurement devices used in this study met the requirements of 40 CFR 86 and were
calibrated and verified for accuracy, precision and repeatability. Any changes to measurement
equipment were performed in accordance with 40 CFR regulations and the standard operating
procedures followed at Ford's APTL.
2.3 Fuel Procurement and Preparation
Two fuels were specified for use in this study, one with a target RVP of 7 PSI (target
range of 6.5 to 7.5 psi) and one with a target RVP of 10 PSI (target range of 9.5 to 10.5 psi).
SGS-ETC acquired these two seasonal blends with 10% ethanol (E10 fuel) from a local source
for use in this study. EPA testing determined the low RVP fuel had a RVP of 7.67 psi.
Although this was slightly higher than the target range, upon consultation with EPA it was
deemed acceptable. SGS-ETC performed preliminary testing of the high RVP fuel using a
Grabner Minivap VPS, model 210-000-00 RVP tester and determined the RVP of the "high
RVP" fuel was 11.49 psi, significantly higher than the vapor pressure range specified for this
study. To correct for this, the fuel was aged using an in-tank bubbler at the supplier's facility.
SGS monitored the fuel's RVP throughout the aging process until a final RVP of approximately
10.3 psi was achieved (measured using the Grabner RVP tester). At that time, the aging was
halted and the fuel was barreled and shipped to the Ford APTL. Subsequent testing by EPA
determined the high RVP fuel had a RVP of 10.02 psi, well within the target range of the high
RVP fuel. Both fuel blends contained between 9.0 and 11.0% ethanol. Once at APTL, the fuel
was stored in sealed drums in the Ford APTL fuel room, which is climate controlled to minimize
any fuel specification changes during the test program. Complete results of fuel analysis
performed by EPA are provided in Appendix A.
2.4 Vehicle Preparation
The following steps were performed for each test vehicle in preparation for the running
loss test program.
-------
1) Log books were developed for recording and noting vehicle specifications and
process chronology.
2) Test vehicles were checked to verify they were capable of safe operation on a
dynamometer.
3) Test vehicles were examined for signs of potentially extraneous evaporative
emissions, such as indications of collision, recent painting, tampering, new tires,
interior vinyl treatments, and windshield replacement.
4) Vehicle information such as VIN, year, make, model, engine and evaporative
families was documented, and photos were obtained of the vehicle, VIN plate and
the vehicle emissions control information (VECI) label.
5) All OBDII diagnostic trouble codes and readiness monitor status were scanned.
6) Each vehicle's evaporative emissions control system was subjected to a static
pressure test using a leak detection unit supplied by EPA. This instrument was a
Snap-on EELD500 Smart Smoke Evap Elite pressure tester capable of detecting
leaks with as small as a 0.010" diameter orifice.
7) A fuel drain was installed at the lowest point in each vehicle's fuel tank to
facilitate draining fuels.
8) Two type J fuel tank thermocouples were installed in each fuel tank through the
fuel sending unit, one thermocouple was extended into the liquid and one
thermocouple was kept in the vapor space at a 40% fill. The vehicles were altered
by removing material that made the top of the fuel sending unit easily accessible.
9) Tank pressure monitoring and an induced pressurization port were installed in the
fuel sending unit.
10) As described in the following subsection, ports were fitted on the fuel tank, in the
fuel sending unit, and the vapor collection canister inlet to accommodate the
induced leak orifices. Lines were added to allow connection of the leaks, and the
canister vent to the hydrocarbon measurement system.
11) The locations of the modifications to the vehicle's OEM configuration were
photographed.
-------
12) Pressure tests were performed on each vehicles fuel and evaporative emissions
control system using the EPA-provided Snap-On leak detection unit.
13) Fluids and filters were checked and adjusted as necessary. To minimize issues
with crankcase oil impacting emissions, oil was not added unless necessary, since
new oil may impact evaporative testing results.
14) The appropriate vehicle road load coefficients for dynamometer testing were
derived
15) The wiper fluid reservoir and system was drained and flushed to eliminate
potential release of wiper fluid hydrocarbons into the SHED during static tests.
2.5 Induced Leak Preparation
Precision orifices were used for metering induced leaks. For each installation, the
precision orifice was integrated into a "swage-type" compression fitting and was designed to be
easily interchangeable and or blocked (sealed) when required. The vehicles were modified, as
described in the following section, to accept the induced leak orifice fittings. Leak sizes were
verified using the Snap-on EELD500 Smart Smoke Evap Elite pressure tester supplied by EPA
before and after each test sequence.
3.0 Test Program
3.1 Testing Overview
Fuel samples were collected for RVP and ethanol content determinations. RVP samples
were collected using a dip container. Hydrocarbon samples emitted from the vehicle during the
running loss, hot soak SHED or static pressurization test sequence were collected and sampled
per CFR Title 40 Part 86, Subpart B. Midway through the study, the program was expanded to
include continuous measurement of hydrocarbon emissions during the running loss testing. Other
data collected during this study consisted of vehicle and test setup information, weight,
temperature and pressure measurements, and associated date and time for each of the
measurements.
The test sequence was conducted for a no leak setup and for leaks located at the canister
and at the fuel tank for two different leak sizes. The following 17 steps detail the test sequence
performed.
-------
No special procedures were performed to flush the system between switching fuels. The
standard procedure of drain and fill, preparatory cycle, drain and fill, and canister load was
deemed suitable for clearing the system of the previous test fuel.
There were initially plans to measure purge flow using a mass flow meter. However, due
to concerns that this could interfere with proper purge behavior, purge mass flow was not
measured during the study.
Step 1) Vehicle Prep, Modify / Restore & Documentation: SGS ETC prepared the
vehicle for the test process and documented the condition and evaporative emission system
component locations on individual test vehicles, photograph systems, scanned the OBDII system
for diagnostic trouble codes and readiness status, leak checked the system with the Snap-On leak
tester, created log books and established a data repository. The vehicle was prepared to
accommodate induced leaks at the fuel tank and the canister. The vehicle received further
modifications to facilitate canister loading, fuel draining and refueling, and HC emission
sampling from the induced leak and canister vent. At the conclusion of this study, the vehicles
were returned to EPA with modifications remaining in place and the leaks were capped.
Step 2) Road Load Dynamometer Determination: The vehicle load dynamometer
characteristics were determined using the SAE J2264 "Chassis Dynamometer Simulation of
Road Load Using Coastdown Techniques" procedure for each vehicle. This enabled proper
loading of the vehicle on the chassis dynamometer system. Proper loading of the vehicle ensures
that purge strategies, designed by the OEM, are used during vehicle operation on the chassis
dynamometer.
Step 3) Prepare Canister for Test Process: Canister purging and loading was
performed per 40 CFR 86.132-96 "Vehicle Preconditioning". Ford APTL controlled the
humidity to 50 grains per pound of dry air in the canister purging and loading area and recorded
the humidity on a daily basis. The nominal flow rate during canister purge was controlled to 0.8
cubic feet per minute (cfm). At the recommendation of MeadWestvaco (MWV), a leading
supplier of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) activated charcoal product for capture of
hydrocarbons in evaporative emissions canisters, purge was limited to 200 bed volumes, as
opposed to the CFR-specified 300 bed volumes, to avoid disturbing the canister heel. The
canister was loaded with a gas composition of 50% butane and 50% nitrogen to 1.5 times its
working capacity at 15 grams per hour. The stabilization criteria contained in 40 CFR 86.132-96
was not applicable for this testing as these vehicles have an existing history with an unknown
number of canister loads and subsequent purges.
-------
Step 4) Insert Leak: Leaks were inserted after the baseline sequence on each fuel was
completed and test data was reviewed for validity. The leaks were installed into fittings at the
fuel tank and canister. Leaks were relatively easy to change and cap as required for each stage of
the program. Specialty precision orifices were acquired for the study, and leak size was verified
using the Snap-on leak detection device.
Step 5) Snap-On Leak Test 1: A pressure test was performed with the Snap-on leak
detection device provided by EPA. This test was used to determine the baseline leak rate of the
vehicle and estimate the cumulative diameter of all "leaks"; no vehicles exhibited leaks initially.
The device was also used to measure and verify leak rates and diameters for installed leaks
before testing.
Step 6) Drain and Refuel 1: To drain existing fuel and refuel the vehicle, an external
pump was connected to the fuel tank drain quick connect located inside the vehicle, and the
pump was run until vapors were observed in the clear Teflon tube coming from the tank. The
pump system was turned off and adsorbent towels were placed under the quick connect. The
pump system was disconnected at the quick connect and any liquid spills were contained on the
adsorbent towel ensuring that no fuel spilled on the vehicle. The vehicle was then fueled to 40%
of tank capacity with the fuel specified in the sequence and placed into soak.
Step 7) 6 to 24 Hour Soak: The vehicle was then placed in a temperature controlled
room where the temperature was maintained at 74 °F +/- 2 °F for a time exceeding 6 hours but
less than 24 hours.
Step 8) Preconditioning LA-4 cycle: The standard LA-4 drive cycle was used in this
step to prepare the vehicle for subsequent procedures. Note: The LA-4 cycle is also called the
U.S. FTP-72 (Federal Test Procedure) cycle or the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
(UDDS) [CFR 40, 86, App.I]
Step 9) Drain and Refuel 2: This procedure was identical to the "Drain and Refuel 1"
procedure described in Step 6
Step 10) Canister Load with Butane: Within one hour of the fueling event, the
evaporative emissions carbon canister on the vehicle was loaded with butane, at a rate of 40
grams per hour, until a 2 gram breakthrough occurred. This step was done in parallel to Step 11
below.
-------
Step 11) 12 to 36 Hour Soak: The vehicle was placed in a temperature-controlled room
where the temperature was maintained at 74 °F +/- 2 °F for a time exceeding 12 hours but less
than 36 hours.
Step 12) FTP-75 three phase cycle: The vehicle was then operated on the chassis
dynamometer using the FTP-75 cycle, the driving cycle that is part of the certification process
and graphically shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. FTP-75 Cycle
Outturn 1 B.74 &MLOOJ*; -
EPA Federal Test Procedure
11
-------
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
in §86.129-94(d)(7)(v) "Fuel Temperature Profile", the fuel in the test vehicle
would be stabilized to within 3 °F of that temperature for at least one hour before
beginning the running loss test.
Running Loss Test. The running loss test was conducted using the point-source
method described in §86.134-96(g)(2). For the running loss test, the vehicle was
not tested in a SHED. Measurements were taken at point sources: canister vent,
gas cap, and leak source, as shown in Figure 2.
The test vehicle, with the engine off, was moved onto the dynamometer. The
vehicle engine compartment cover and any windows, doors, and luggage
compartments were closed.
Fans were positioned as described in §86.135-90(b) "Dynamometer Procedure"
and §86.107-96(d) "Sampling and Analytical Systems; Evaporative Emissions".
The running loss vapor vent collection system was properly positioned at the fuel
vapor vents and implanted leaks in the vehicle's fuel and evaporative emission
systems. The sampling system configuration is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hydrocarbon Sampling System
Hydrocarbon Collection System
CVS
Modal
Analysis
System
Bag
Collection
System
I Hydrocarbon I
^Analyze^l
Continuous
Analysis
System
I Hydrocarbon I
Analyzer |
Tailpipe Emissions Vented Away
The running loss vapor vent collection system was connected to a CFV-CVS bag
collection system and also to a continuous FID analyzer.
-------
9) The vehicle air conditioning system (if so equipped) was set to the "normal" air
conditioning mode and adjusted to the minimum discharge air temperature and
high fan speed. Vehicles equipped with automatic temperature controlled air
conditioning systems were set to operate in "automatic" temperature and fan
modes with the system set at 72 °F.
10) The temperature of the liquid fuel was monitored and recorded at least every 1
second with the temperature recording system specified in §86.107-96(e). The
vapor temperature was monitored for reference only and was not used as a
process variable for controlling tank temperature.
11) When the ambient temperature was 95±5 °F (35±3 °C) and the fuel tank
temperature was 95±3 °F, the running loss test began.
12) The running loss test was conducted by operating the test vehicle through one
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), a 2-minute idle, two New York
City Cycles, another 2-minute idle, another UDDS, and then a final 2-minute idle
(see §86.115). These are shown graphically in Figures 3 and 4. The transmission
was operated according to the specifications of §86.128 during the driving cycles.
Figure 3. Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
Length 1369 seconds - Distance = 7.45 miles - Average Speed = 19.59 mph
OJ TJ- in 00 O CM Tf
ID O [D O M) ^- M)
— — (N (N Ki Ki
C--J
00 O CM
4- o in
c^i ro m
Test Time, sees
10
-------
Figure 4. New York City Cycle
New York City Cycle Driving Schedule
Length 598 seconds - Distance =1.18 miles - Average Speed = 7.1 mph
30 -•
i25"
,20 -•
n
!s 10 -•
Test Time, sees
13) The ambient temperature was maintained at 95±5 °F (95±2 °F on average) during
the running loss test.
14) Fuel temperatures were controlled according to the specifications of the
temperature profile provided by the vehicle manufacturer.
15) The emissions collected in the sample bags were analyzed within 20 minutes of
their respective sample collection phases, as described in §86.137-94(b)(15)
"Dynamometer test run, gaseous and particulate emissions". The results of the
analysis were used per §86.143 "Calculations: evaporative emissions" to calculate
the mass of hydrocarbons emitted.
Step 14) Hot Soak Test: Following completion of the running loss test, the vehicle was
administered a one-hour hot soak test in a SHED that was maintained and preheated to 95 °F in
accordance with 40 CFR 86.138-96, "Hot soak test".
Step 15) Static Test Sequence: Immediately following the completion of the hot soak,
the permeation and static pressure test sequence began and followed the steps listed below:
1) The SFIED door was opened and the vehicle was removed from the SHED.
2) The fuel temperature was stabilized to 93 °F.
3) The vehicle was returned to the SFIED.
4) The canister vent was plugged to allow pressure to build in the system.
11
-------
5) The fuel tank pressurization system was connected.
6) The SHED door was closed and the temperature was maintained at 95 °F.
7) The enclosure temperature was stabilized to 95 °F; temperature stabilization was
not allowed to exceed 10 minutes.
8) The SHED HC background was measured and the 15-minute permeation test was
initiated. The SHED HC mass was read at the completion of the 15 minutes.
9) The fuel system was pressurized at 1" water column (WC) for 15 minutes for the
tank pressurization leak rate determination. This immediately followed the
permeation test. The final HC mass of the 15 minute permeation test was used as
the initial mass for the pressurization leak rate determination. At the end of the 15
minute pressurization leak rate determination, the final HC mass was recorded.
The 1" WC pressurization and 15 minute duration values were used based on
preliminary testing and in order to avoid overwhelming the SHED analyzer.
Step 16) Snap-On Leak Test: A second leak rate pressure test was performed with the
Snap-on pressure tester. If the measured leak rate had deviated from the initial leak test by +/-
10% then further examination would be necessary and further testing delayed. However, the
leak rate was never found to deviate for tests that didn't have other problems (requiring
retesting).
Step 17) OBDII Scan: The vehicle's OBDII system was scanned to assess vehicle
condition. The test procedure continued, without intervention, as long as codes did not indicate a
malfunction that would damage the vehicle or affect performance of the evaporative emission
system (no such codes were detected).
3.2 Data Collection Process
Findings from the initial inspections of the vehicles and documentation of the
modifications made to the vehicles were made available as soon as possible after a procedure
was completed. This information was collected in electronic format and was usually available
within one day of testing. A testing log for each vehicle was maintained and also provided
electronically in Excel format.
The following file naming convention was utilized throughout the testing program:
12
-------
[Sequence Number]_[Sequence Test]_[Date]_[Vehicle]_[Test Type]_[APTL Test
Number]_[HC/OBD Data Set].[Extension]
The sequence number listed above designates the fuel and leak setup for a particular
sequence of testing. The following table enumerates the sequence numbers and the setup used.
Table 3. Running Loss Testing Sequence
Sequence #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fuel RVP (psi)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
Leak Setup
No Leak
0.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Canister Leak
0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Canister Leak
No Leak
0.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Canister Leak
0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Canister Leak
The date stamp is compressed into a six-digit number, the first two digits represent the
year, the following two digits represent the month, and the last two digits are the day.
Date Stamp:YYMMDD so 130115 becomes 1/15/2013
The following table documents the sequence test number and the abbreviated test type for
each of the individual tests performed in a test sequence.
Table 4. Test Types by Sequence Test Number
Sequence
Test#
1
2
O
4
5
Abbreviated
Test Type
74
75
RL
HS
ST
Associated Test
FTP-72 Preparatory Procedure
FTP-75 Preparatory Procedure
Preheat and stabilization of fuel and running loss test
Hot Soak test
Static test (15 minute permeation test, and 15 minute
pressurization test)
The following data has been collected from APTL and has been made available to EPA
as a separate deliverable to this study:
13
-------
• FTP 72 preparatory procedures report (pdf format)
• FTP 75 preparatory procedures report (pdf format)
• Running loss report (pdf format)
• Running loss data file (comma separated variable data file)
• Running loss continuous hydrocarbon measurement data file (collected during second
half of program, comma separated variable data file)
• OBD2 live datastream datafile (comma separated variable data file available for some
tests)
• Hot soak test data (hot soak results in an Excel spreadsheet)
• Static test data (complete static test results in an Excel spreadsheet)
• Static test data (text file which reports static test results at appropriate sampling intervals)
• Vehicle data (Excel spreadsheet with cumulative test data and results)
Additional information regarding each of these files, including field descriptions and data
analysis steps used to obtain study results, are provided in Appendix C.
3.3 Data Validation and Analysis
A quality check was performed on each test in order to verify the following:
• Proper progression of preparatory activities
• Trace conformance during running loss test
• Fuel temperature during running loss test
• Start of hot soak test within allotted time after completion of running loss test
The following calculation was performed to convert the total running loss mass emissions
to an hourly mass emission rate format suitable for input into EPA's MOVES model.
a \ m(g^) 3600s
m'
•(£) =
hr> 4308 s 1 hr
Additional analysis was performed to determine the mass rate of emissions when
continuous hydrocarbon measurement was included in testing. Issues that were discovered
during the test program or during the data validation and analysis stage were documented and
addressed as described in Appendix D.
14
-------
3.4 Results
Running Loss Results
The final tank temperature of the running loss test was a significant factor in the quantity
of emissions coming from leaky evaporative systems. Increases in tank temperature were
observed to result in elevated emissions for both high and low RVP fuels. The following Figure
5 demonstrates the differences in tank temperature for the 5 vehicles participating in this study.
Each vehicle has a different tank temperature profile. This complicates the process of analyzing
the data for the effects of tank temperature on emissions. The subsequent graph, Figure 6,
normalizes the tank temperature profiles by calculating the percent of temperature gain over the
running loss cycle. While the five vehicles do not perfectly agree, the temperature profiles follow
a similar trend. Figures 7-11 plot the running loss emissions versus the final tank temperature
for each vehicle. These graphs demonstrate that vehicles with induced leaks exhibit an
exponential increase in running loss emissions as final tank temperature increases.
Figure 5. Running Loss Tank Temperature Profiles
125
120
115
S 110
748 1122 1496 1826 2156 2486 2816 3189 3562 3935 4308
105
100
0 374
15
-------
Figure 6. Running Loss Tank Temperature Profiles as a Percent of
Temperature Gain
100% —
90%
ra 80%
2816
3189
3552
3935
4308
0.01
Figure 7. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature
(No Leak)
High RVP Fuel
• Low RVP Fuel
V - 2.020£-OSe° IDM'
0.005 -
00
0.002
0.001
AffORD
U.008K
CARAVAN R2=0.4455
0.007 B
0£»08g
. rocus
U.UU/H
SILVERADO
0.002(1
112
114
y = 6.242E-05e" D
= 0.1055
COROLLA
0 0114 p
116 118 120
Peak Tank Temperature (°F)
122
124
16
-------
Figure 8. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature
(0.040" Tank Leak)
20
10 -
"on
V> 7
Q
'r 1 •
E
LU
|o.5 -
QD
JL
[Z
§0.2
t£
0.02 -
1
20-
10-
3
c 2
0
"wi
IB
1 1 '
£
M
1/1
00
_t
'c
§ 0.2 -
0=
0.05-
0,02-
F
High RVP Fuel "^ ^•-'
• Low RVP Fuel . ro'-us ^
y-1 112E-19e(""TH" 8l054a ^^^"
R2 = 0.7964
^^_.
^ff**' L'UHULIA _
i .fin; g
^-'•r" J-<*""
_^-^ LAIIAVAN J-'-*'
^--'ACCORD, nT7 • ^-
— -^ O.610 g ^2
U.430|> Arrnnn --- ' ^ louis »
L.^jig ^j__^-— y .-. »'•.•- ^ / c
^.^-" R! = 0.5042
-'"'
^ SILVLKADO
0.020 g
12 114 116 118 120 122 124
Peak Tank Temperature (°F)
Figure 9. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature
(0.040" Canister Leak)
High RVP Fuel ,™cuu5 .
COROLLA
Low RVP Fuel tnis-ic
V = 7.730E-33e°-Gmx
R; = 0.8933
*-**
^ rwjis .
~*f__
~%i_
jS
S" --~^~~~
S* CARAVAN ^ ----~~~
_.---'" U.JUttft ^__---'~'"
0.173g /" _,_,--''"' UlhiK, '
--"" ~ — ^~^ TARAV&M
-^ - — ~" LHnn»Hl» TQ-7C n="J'"f»
_.-,-5^TSrmRn n.iQ4g ¥ - =,Z97t 12e
siLVtRASi" UU81S R= = 0,3869
0.084C.,-
..- X ALtOKD
O.Oi2R
112 114 116 118 120 122 124
Peak Tank Temperature (°F)
17
-------
Figure 10. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature
(0.020" Tank Leak)
20 f
*
104 .
5 +
High RVP Fuel
Low RVP Fuel
£ 2 -
o
FOCUS
y = 1.411E-26e°-;;oo7»
R! = 0.9352
tOUOUA
0,5
lotus »
0.2 f
0.1 -
0.05 -
0.02
yLVtKALIO
0.1I7U
01931'
AfTORD f
O.llBjl
COROLLA
U.114R
V = 8,769E-17e"'"i11
R2 = 0.7368
0.01
HZ
114
116 118 120
Peak Tank Temperature (°F)
122
124
20
10
5
Figure 11. Running Loss Results versus Final Tank Temperature
(0.020" Canister Leak)
High RVP Fuel
Low RVP Fuel
05
3
no
p;
'c 0.2 -
0.1
0.05 -
0.01
112
".-tun ^
SI I VFRADO ,
0./U4K
FOCUS
U.SOOg
COBOLLA
S.DJlg
y = S.
= 0.4417
V = 6.764E-04e°-MJ5K
R2= 0,0271
CAWVVAN
n,ns?ig
- COROLLA
Arronn
LAKAVAN
114
116
US
120
124
Peak Tank Temperature (°F)
18
-------
The following tables and figures characterize the total emissions measured through each
vehicle's series of running loss tests, which were composed of three phases; one Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) followed by a 2-minute idle, two New York City
Cycles followed by another 2-minute idle, and finally a final UDDS followed by a 2-minute idle
(see §86. 115). The total running loss emissions (in grams) for each test sequence of each of the
five vehicles are listed in Table 5. These results are then provided as hourly emission rates in
Table 6. The Table 6 hourly emission rates for each vehicle were calculated using the equation
shown in Section 3.3. The "Average" emission rates listed at the bottom of Table 6 were
calculated as the overall average emission rates for all 5 vehicles, i.e.,
/ g x
Aver aqe Emission Rate I — I =
v/ir/
i ^mission Rates
Figures 12 and 13 show total gram emissions for each phase and test sequence, with the
peak temperature of the tank temperature profile listed for each vehicle, and Figure 14 shows the
overall average emission rates for all vehicles combined. Plots of continuous results from
running loss testing are available in Appendix C.
Table 5. Total Running Loss Emissions (grams)
ACCORD
(8)
CARAVAN
(g)
COROLLA
(g)
FOCUS
(g)
SILVERADO
(g)
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
No Leak
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.007
0.002
0.003
0.040"
Tank Leak
0.619
0.431
8.054
0.726
14.250
1.602
7.916
0.329
0.430
0.020
0.040"
Canister Leak
0.081
0.052
0.308
0.104
10.155
0.163
13.458
1.635
0.084
0.179
0.020"
Tank Leak
0.193
0.118
2.389
0.188
4.592
0.124
12.469
0.570
0.127
0.015
0.020"
Canister Leak
0.162
0.035
0.025
0.063
3.941
0.052
12.500
0.352
0.314
0.204
19
-------
Table 6. Running Loss Emission Rates (grams/hour)
ACCORD
(g/hr)
CARAVAN
(g/hr)
COROLLA
(g/hr)
FOCUS
(g/hr)
SILVERADO
(g/hr)
AVERAGE
(g/hr)
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
No Leak
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.003
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.005
0.040"
Tank Leak
0.517
0.360
6.730
0.607
11.908
1.339
6.615
0.275
0.359
0.017
5.226
0.519
0.040"
Canister Leak
0.068
0.043
0.257
0.087
8.486
0.136
11.246
1.366
0.070
0.150
4.026
0.356
0.020"
Tank Leak
0.161
0.099
1.996
0.157
3.837
0.104
10.420
0.476
0.106
0.013
3.304
0.170
0.020"
Canister Leak
0.135
0.029
0.021
0.053
3.293
0.043
10.446
0.294
0.262
0.170
2.832
0.118
Figure 12. Running Loss Results (10.0 psi RVP Fuel)
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
T3ACCORD T3CARAVAN T3COROLLA T3FOCUS T3SILVERADO
(117.0 °F) (119.3 °F) (122.4 °F) (123.8 °F) (114.3 °F)
Running Loss Phase 1
Running Loss Phase 2
Running Loss Phase 3
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3:0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5:0.020" Canister Leak
20
-------
Figure 13. Running Loss Results (7.7 psi RVP Fuel)
10
O
i/i
E
LLJ
U
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
T3ACCORD T3CARAVAN T3COROLLA T3FOCUS T3SILVERADO
(117.0 °F) (119.3 °F) (122.4 °F) (123.8 °F) (114.3 °F)
Running Loss Phase 1
Running Loss Phase 2
I Running Loss Phase 3
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3:0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5: 0.020" Canister Leak
5 -
c
o
'« 3
c
O 2
_Q
i_
(D
U
2
-?-1
Figure 14. Average Emission Rates for Running Loss Testing
High RVP Fuel
5.226
g/hour
4.026
g/hour
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
3.304
g/hour 2.832
g/hour
0.006
g/hour
No Leak 0.040" 0.040" 0.020" 0.020"
Tank Leak Canister Tank Leak Canister
Leak Leak
Low RVP Fuel
0.170
g/hour Ollg
g/hour
0.0
No Leak 0.040" 0.040" 0.020" 0.020"
Tank Leak Canister Tank Leak Canister
Leak Leak
21
-------
Hot Soak Results
The following table and charts characterize the total emissions measured during the hot
soak tests of each vehicle. The charts segregate the emissions for each phase and test sequence,
and provide the peak temperature of the tank temperature profile for each vehicle. The average
hot soak emission rates were calculated as the average for all vehicles.
The overall average emissions for the 0.020" canister leak were greater than the overall
average emissions for the 0.020" tank leak for the hot soak tests. This could suggest that hot soak
emissions are greater for leaks at the canister than for leaks at the tank. However, replicate
testing was not performed during this study, so it is unknown if this effect is statistically
significant.
High RVP emissions are greater than low RVP emissions for the Focus and the Corolla
for the no leak condition. The hotter tank temperature profiles of these vehicles, relative to other
vehicles in the study, coupled with the small canister capacities could have caused the vapor
canister to become saturated, or near saturated at the end of the running loss test. The other
vehicles in the study demonstrated comparable emissions levels for the hot soak test on both
fuels.
During testing, SGS-ETC was very careful in order to observe the 7-minute window to
move the vehicle from the running loss test dynamometer into the SHED for hot soak testing as
per §86.138-96(b)(2)(viii). However, the amount of time spent moving the vehicle may not be
uniform for all tests. This incorporates a variation that is not accounted for in the analysis.
Table 7. Hot Soak Results
ACCORD
(g)
CARAVAN
(g)
COROLLA
(g)
FOCUS
(g)
SILVERADO
(g)
AVERAGE
(g/hr)
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
No Leak
0.059
0.067
0.127
0.093
0.164
0.089
1.154
0.216
0.063
0.061
0.313
0.105
0.040"
Tank Leak
0.303
0.144
7.519
0.955
3.168
0.238
0.589
0.481
0.749
0.841
2.466
0.532
0.040"
Canister Leak
2.036
0.837
0.984
0.103
0.657
0.104
0.952
0.164
1.435
1.165
1.213
0.475
0.020"
Tank Leak
0.233
0.150
1.492
0.093
0.593
0.111
0.945
0.250
0.206
0.225
0.694
0.166
0.020"
Canister Leak
0.410
0.269
1.739
0.101
0.734
0.109
0.558
0.210
0.254
0.364
0.739
0.211
22
-------
1.4
1.2
0.8
I/)
E
LLJ
U
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 15. Hot Soak Results (10.0 psi RVP Fuel)
I Hot Soak
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3: 0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5:0.020" Canister Leak
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
T3ACCORD T3CARAVAN T3COROLLA T3FOCUS T3SILVERADO
(117.0 °F) (119.3 °F) (122.4 °F) (123.8 °F) (114.3 °F)
Figure 16. Hot Soak Results (7.7 psi RVP Fuel)
I Hot Soak
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3:0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5:0.020" Canister Leak
12345
12345
12345
12345
12345
T3ACCORD T3CARAVAN T3COROLLA T3FOCUS T3SILVERADO
(117.0 °F) (119.3 °F) (122.4 °F) (123.8 °F) (114.3 °F)
23
-------
3.0
0.0
Figure 17. Average Emission Rates for Hot Soak Testing
High RVP Fuel
Low RVP Fuel
0.532
g/hour °-475
g/hour
0.211
0.166 g/hour
g/hour
No Leak
0.040"
Tank Leak
0.040"
Canister
Leak
0.020" 0.020"
Tank Leak Canister
Leak
0.020" 0.020"
Tank Leak Canister
Leak
Static Test Results
The following table and charts characterize the total emissions measured during the static
tests on each vehicle. The results are segregated for each phase of the test. The fuel tank was
unpressurized during first 15-minute phase of the test, while the fuel tank was pressurized to 1"
WC over the second 15-minute phase of the test. The results for the five vehicles were used to
calculate an average emissions rate at each leak size and fuel RVP. The charts segregate the
emissions for each phase and test sequence, and provide the peak temperature of the tank
temperature profile for each vehicle.
24
-------
Table 8. Unpressurized Static Test Results
ACCORD
(g)
CARAVAN
(g)
COROLLA
(g)
FOCUS
(g)
SILVERADO
(g)
AVERAGE
(g/hr)
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
No Leak
0.012
0.013
0.104
0.018
0.024
0.017
0.040
0.056
0.010
0.013
0.152
0.093
0.040"
Tank Leak
0.497
0.261
1.265
0.133
1.464
0.770
0.156
0.240
0.371
0.230
3.003
1.307
0.040"
Canister Leak
0.039
0.042
0.031
0.018
0.032
0.561
0.060
0.053
0.010
0.010
0.138
0.548
0.020"
Tank Leak
0.061
0.124
0.037
0.012
1.357
0.642
0.107
0.393
0.015
0.303
1.262
1.179
0.020"
Canister Leak
0.034
0.036
0.012
0.016
0.630
0.059
0.202
0.063
0.008
0.071
0.709
0.197
Figure 18. Unpressurized Static Test Results
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
3 1.2
0.2
0.0
Static Test Phase 1 (High RVP Fuel)
I Static Test Phase 1 (Low RVP Fuel)
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3: 0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5: 0.020" Canister Leak
12345
T3ACCORD
(117.0 °F)
12345
T3CARAVAN
(119.3 °F)
12345
T3COROLLA
(122.4 °F)
12345
T3FOCUS
(123.8 °F)
12345
T3SILVERADO
(114.3 °F)
25
-------
Table 9. Pressurized Static Test Results
ACCORD
(g)
CARAVAN
(g)
COROLLA
(g)
FOCUS
(g)
SILVERADO
(g)
AVERAGE
(g/hr)
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
High RVP
Low RVP
No Leak
0.011
0.009
0.014
0.012
0.036
0.013
0.040
0.043
0.007
0.008
0.086
0.068
0.040"
Tank Leak
7.829
6.172
7.915
5.680
7.460
6.116
9.130
5.849
8.796
4.862
32.904
22.943
0.040"
Canister Leak
6.194
6.370
8.367
5.604
6.157
6.945
8.563
6.895
8.483
6.156
30.211
25.576
0.020"
Tank Leak
2.876
2.522
3.067
2.276
2.795
2.050
2.407
2.574
3.441
2.330
11.668
9.401
0.020"
Canister Leak
2.392
2.125
2.001
1.920
2.526
2.485
2.525
1.773
2.691
2.830
9.708
8.907
Figure 19. Pressurized Static Test Results
14
12 --
10 --
to
c
o
u
Static Test Phase 2 (High RVP Fuel)
I Static Test Phase 2 (Low RVP Fuel)
1: No Leak
2: 0.040" Tank Leak
3: 0.040" Canister Leak
4: 0.020" Tank Leak
5: 0.020" Canister Leak
12345
T3ACCORD
(117.0 °F)
12345
T3CARAVAN
(119.3 °F)
12345
T3COROLLA
(122.4 °F)
12345
T3FOCUS
(123.8 °F)
12345
T3SILVERADO
(114.3 °F)
26
-------
3.5 Observations and Conclusions
Figures 8 through 11 indicate the running loss tank temperature profile has a strong
influence on running loss emission rates in vehicles with induced leaks (vehicles with higher
tank temperatures exhibit higher emission rates). However, Figure 7 suggests the tank
temperature does not have an influence on running loss emissions for vehicles with no
evaporative emissions control system leaks.
Similarly, Tables 5, 6 and? and Figures 12 through 17 indicate fuel RVP has a strong
effect on running loss and hot soak emission rates in vehicles with induced leaks (vehicles with
higher RVP fuels exhibit higher emission rates), but the influence of RVP on vehicles with no
evaporative emissions control system leaks was much less pronounced. These same tables and
figures also demonstrate a correlation between leak size (0.020" vs. 0.040" diameter leaks) for
running loss, hot soak, and pressurized static test evaporative emission rates. In general, the
larger leak sizes resulted in higher evaporative emission rates for each respective location (tank
or canister).
Tables 5 and 6 and Figures 12 through 14 suggest leak location (fuel tank vapor space or
evaporative canister) may have an influence on running loss evaporative emission rates. On
average, induced leaks in the tank vapor space resulted in higher running loss emission rates than
induced leaks in the canister for leaks of the same size. Comparatively, the leak size proved to
be more important than the leak location. The 0.040" leak at the canister resulted in greater
running loss emissions rates on average than did the 0.020" in the tank vapor space leak. In
aggregate, the 0.040" leak in the tank vapor space produced the most running loss emissions.
For hot soak emissions, leak location (tank or canister) did not seem to have a strong
influence on emission rates (as can be seen in Table 7 and Figures 15 through 17). Figures 15
and 16 show a high amount of variation in hot soak emission rates for different tests on the same
vehicle and also among vehicles. The Focus, in particular, demonstrates that the "no leak" setup
produced the most hot soak emissions of any leak setup for high RVP fuel on that vehicle. The
extraordinary amount of variability in these tests may be attributed to real phenomenon which is
occurring during testing, such as canisters reaching saturation. This is likely due to vehicle
configuration (such as tank and canister capacities and purge volume capabilities) but can also be
influenced by experimental parameters such as test and tank temperatures and time between
running loss and hot soak tests. It is possible that variation in these parameters may contribute to
some emission result differences among tests.
27
-------
For the static test emission rates (Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 18 and 19), test variation
seemed to dominate over any discernible leak location (tank or canister) or leak size trends.
Evaporative purge behavior, as controlled by the ECU, greatly impacts emissions rates on
vehicles with induced leaks. This evaporative purge behavior is correlated with the measured
vacuum in the fuel vapor, which occurs when the purge valve is open and the engine introduces
air intake vacuum to the fuel system vapor space. Evaluation of the fuel vapor vacuum and
commanded evaporative purge for the Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla, the only two vehicles in
the study that broadcasted commanded evaporative purge through OBDII, did seem to confirm
this correlation between commanded purge and measured fuel vapor vacuum. However, for both
these vehicles, deviations from the correlation appear at the end of some high RVP fuel tests. It
appears that during these deviations, vapor generation overwhelms the purge capability and
results in decreases in vacuum despite an open purge valve. When the fuel system vapor vacuum
is reduced, either due to a reduction in commanded evaporative purge, or because vapor
generation exceeded the capacity of purge, hydrocarbon emission rates were elevated for
vehicles with induced leaks. The positive vapor pressure, relative to atmospheric pressure,
expelled gaseous hydrocarbons from the evaporative system's induced leaks, bypassing the
vapor canister. In systems with no leaks, the hydrocarbon vapors were being effectively captured
in the canister and few emissions were measured for the running loss portion of the test.
28
-------
4.0 References
1. CRC E-77 reports: Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2008). Vehicle Evaporative Emission
Mechanisms: A Pilot study, CRC Project E-77; Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010),
Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles (CRC E-77-2); Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010),
Evaporative Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E-77-2b);
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010), Study to Determine Evaporative Emission Breakdown,
Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging
Enhanced Evaporative Emissions Certified Vehicles, CRC E-77-2c; DeFries, T., Lindner,
J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. (2011), Investigation of Techniques for High Evaporative
Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station;
DeFries, T., Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., Stanard, A., Kishan, S.(2013) Estimated
Summer Hot-Soak Distributions for Denver's Ken Caryl I/M Station Fleet.
2. DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. (2011), Investigation of Techniques for
High Evaporative Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at
Lipan Street Station; DeFries, T., Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., Stanard, A., Kishan,
S.(2013) Estimated Summer Hot-Soak Distributions for Denver's Ken Caryl I/M Station
Fleet.
29
-------
5.0 Index of Appendices
The following is a list of the appendices to be provided with this report. As noted below,
some appendices will be provided as separate electronic files.
Appendix A - Fuel Analysis Results
Appendix B - Test-by-Test Results
Appendix C - Descriptions of Study Data (the following files will be provided
electronically, by vehicle)
FTP 72 Reports (*_74.pdf)
FTP 75 Report (*.pdf)
Running Loss Report (*.pdf)
Running Loss Data File (*.csv)
Running Loss Continuous Hydrocarbon File (*.csv)
OBD2 Data (*.csv)
Hot Soak Data (*.xls)
Static Test Data (*.xls)
Static Test Data (*.txt)
Vehicle Data (*.xls)
Appendix D - Issues Encountered and Solutions
Appendix E - Induced Leak Configurations
30
-------
Appendix A
Fuel Analysis Results
-------
Al Low RVP Test Results
WAI-OB
FacflUy Name; EPA (NVFEL) f ael% Type. In Howe
Owner EPA {NVFEL) Phone: (734) 214-4340
256S Plymwth Rtf,
Ann AitOr Ml 4BtBS
Inspector Connie Hart Inspection Date M21/201<*
Samples Type: T»si Puel
Inspection information togged MI oy RG on 1/2112014
WAI.M.21H10117LORVO FTMfc 2SWI CommertU:
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report
BetsW
2W86
i n» i
tote
MM
ssa
&n
421
U
S8
BE
4i
«
44
532
Sf
533
SB
56
46
8S
€36
46
8f
SS2
69'
101
HP
1S6
190
Jof
201
SW
203
543
Tssl Melftoa
Wolgrrt fsreew Dcyawiiw by OSSiW
Mne UIDSSSS
ETBE bji DBfili
tlwwt by 09999
TAME by M&sa
Syltur in Ga&olme Pi62S
V»pnrPiwiuiBi))(P6191 iWoafltti)
f>ire»m ejf.jgjGiitsO al 300 DognMs F DW
l*ercen! E^auotatetf al 300 Dej»ees F Das
ArwrviH^s ^i Sasi^it F
fflfiflwin By FW O131S
fipo^FW in G.g$a!!^
glftsnol b> t>5B»
TAME to DSMI9
Vodarfle Pwoenl Operates by DS5SI
MTBE b^ D66S9
»y Q55»
Benten* lh Gssclne by GCrtilSD 05709
Tviwnt V iasoltis 0y M&O D57B9
AwnMha Si? FIA Dt319
IMS62
Dwis^ i§ SO dag P E>tD52
O8B
086
098
eae
10P»oaM
Ens Powi
Twit R»Bowry
LOSS
Maiiiaitfll ey DB§I9
QJtygef, Pif-capi
Parts tar Union
PS I
VWUiriB PsreeM
votoMt PsK»m
Vafcm* Pwrcaiw
reor*
tfalum* PMKOW
10 19 Wsttfi* Pwort
0.00 Ojtyfen P«ic*nl
0 00 Cfctygen Ps«en1
0 DO
541 0
1 §7
AS 1
aa.a
2? 71
8.0
1 tl
i, TO
8.40
S70
35*
0 SO
0 00
1 8?
7,02
2* J
0 75§8S
5S.46
0 7591 5
1D4.t
1JJ2
ZOS 9
Vglwnc Ptnasni
Vblvmt :Psr»W
Volu
¥olu
Valunm Peroenf
Wotoms PBH»H
Oaouea API
gfiTivCia @ 60 «»g F
*D7.J
1 0 rat
97.8 Wl
1 * ml
§ 30 Valwfie Parcel*
USA
Wul_ 51
Cow
VOC C
Winter
TS
TS
IS
TS
TS
N8T
NST
HG
RG
nw
RCG
IW
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
TW
TW
ROS
N'T
NT
NT
flfi
RG
se
RG
RG
RG
IS
1/31(201*
1,795014
NZ7VB114
1OWKI14
1/3WS014
i.'aeaai4
1,'2S.l20t4
A-l
-------
'***"" NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report 239S6 wo»agfi
584 tueprepunel 6j D5SM 0,06 Volume Pereenl TS 1J29/Z014
Si5 l-Bnttnel by § CO Wums Ptnart • TS 1/2*2014
SW n-f%jpano* b^ 06969 9 80 Volumt Ptrarti TS 1/29A)Ot4
S87 *ecBLilanal ty 05599 0.00 Valwne Percani IS 1090014
538 D4PE byO5599 0 00 Volume tarcant 18 M2M014
M9 (SEbutawl By DMSB 0,00 Volume Percent TS
5801 l-Amy( Almhal by O.OD Volume Perewt TS
n-Sutmel bj DSSifl 0,00 Vobnw Pwoant TS
A-2
-------
A2 High RVP Test Results
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report
WA!-0«
Facility Name EPA (NVFEL) Facility Type' In House
Qwnw. EPA (NVFEL) Phorw (734)214-4340
2565 Plymouth Fto
Ann Arbor Ml 4B10S
Inspector Connie Hart Inspection Date : 1/21/2014
Sar**fJtei Type: Test Fuel
Inspacllon intematei logjpd in by RG on 1/2t/20i4.
WAI dfl M13011THWVP FTiG: 23987 CommtMtt*:
USA'
Gsdr
Twt Mwhod
MOB. Weight t»»rcw( Oxjt awtus by DS»§
5§2 MTBE by D559B
S6? PTt>6 Bj
§34 ahum! (jyD559e
Sulhir in Gasoline D26I:
85 Pe«M»t EVMJDratoci at SOQ Degrtsss F D8S
fle Pei*fcnt Efwoialad al 300 Deg««« F D86
4i Ansrnrtira tn Sesffwi MSO DSTSS
4S 'CMenns in »» F1A O1319
6* Bfiwtwe In Qaeolir'a
RKanc* Dy D5699
by D5»9
531
ST
S8I
Si
55
S3 Baniwe in Gasollrta By QCIMBO DS?68
SSO f ota era a ggewii by W50 DS FW
4fi AJOifialiCT byFW, D13T9
69 Soaaflo QfSKily ft SO dtg F O*UB3
681
101
110
fnibnl iofcis Pflinrt.
10Pere«s
ISO BO Percent
200 End Paint
201 felte
202 Toiai Reeowry
H» LM*
MS MMKand by Q5SB
06&
OK
D86
BSE
PB6
DBS
DM
Hawlte Untm
15 89 Wwght P«rc*m
a oo
3.78
56.3 Partit Per Million
•O.M P*I
49.4 VDlwaw P*rcant
;7-79 Valtme Percent
9,5'
1 74
10.07
OflO
10 §7 Volume P9icai*1
8iO Volume PtfneM
0 00 Valunns F'Srcsri
8 42 ValLsnr Pntsem
6t 01
roeB API
S3.0 Degraw F
1J1 S D.egrt«s F
166.3 Dmmf F
Degnsts F
1 1 rut
<37 1 ml
1.3 inL
ft CM Vaiumt Pmrcert
P«JS 1
voc c
Fu»l_ S 1 Analyit
cms-
TS
TS
TS
TS
TS
NST
NST
se
RG
TW
RCC3
TW
TS
TS
TS
TS
T3
TS
TW
RCG
N1
NT
NT
fiG
RS
HG
Bfl
RG
HO
RG
RG
TS
ItfWSOU
1/28«OH
»2WJfl14
1/2WJQW
i>awjoi4
ar-HZOI*
1/77Q014
1/3W2014
i#oraai4
34I2B14
1.I2TS014
1 '3 1,1201 4
i«aow
1/3WW14
1IZWZQM
1i?ft»2Q14
iJTwam
1/ZJM8014
3W20M
i07nn«
112T/2014
1/27/2914
laTsaii
iraoafli4
1/3MM14
Msoaxn*
100WM14
iflnram
1«&2014
1I3WM14
1/3W3014
1)290014
A-3
-------
NVFEL Fuel Analysis Report 23987
SW ttoptopanot by D5589
585 j-Bytanol ty D558B
618 n-Pwpin* b^ DS599
587 see-fiytatwl by DSSSi
6H BPS By
SSi Iseiwlartri % D559B
»1 rtroyt AlcohsM B^
by
0.00 Velurw Ptrcwt
o.OO Volynie PBMMI
0,00 Vbtam® P«rswt
0.00 Volume Peraenf
0.00 Vohjrn« Pwwnl
0,00 Vptame Percent
D.OB Vehime Penmt
0,05 Votam* P*iowt
TS
TS
tS
tS
TS
TS
TS
TS
1/2BS014
i,i2W0»4
13*2014
Wi»QOi«
t/29/2014
A-4
-------
Appendix B
Test-by-Test Results
-------
B.1 Overview of results
The following tables and plots present summary cumulative and continuous data measurements
results from testing performed throughout the study. All fuel vapor pressures are reported with
sign reversal and are in units of pounds per square inch gauge (psig) vacuum, and the
"cumulative pressure accumulation" plots represents "cumulative vacuum" throughout test.
Mean pressure plots represent the average of pressures measured across various test
configurations (no leak, 0.020" and 0.040" at tank and canister) for each type of fuel. Since
continuous HC measurements were added mid-study, continuous HC results are not available for
the high RVP testing performed during the first half of the study.
Explanations for anomalous or erroneous results, including any corrections performed on the
data, are provided in Section 4.4, Data Validation and Analysis.
B-l
-------
B.2 2007 Honda Accord
VIN:
ENGINE FAMILY:
EVAPORATIVE FAMILY:
EMISSIONS STANDARD:
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT:
INERTIA WEIGHT:
TANK CAPACITY:
ROAD LOAD A:
ROAD LOAD B:
ROAD LOAD C:
PEAK FUEL TEMP:
1HGCM56727A241399
7HNXV02.4KKC
7HNXR0140BBA
Tier 2 Bin 5
2.40 Liters
3500 Pounds
17.00 Gallons
9.76
0.2918
0.01602
117.0°F
Sequence:
Fuel:
Leak Location:
Leak Size:
Results in Grams:
Running Loss PI
P2
P3
TOTAL
Hot Soak
Static Test PI
P2
TOTAL
RL + HS + ST
12345 6789 10
High RVP Fuel (10.0 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.009
0.059
0.012
0.011
0.023
0.091
Tank
0.040"
0.057
0.216
0.346
0.619
0.303
0.497
7.829
8.326
9.248
Canister
0.040"
0.023
0.044
0.014
0.081
2.036
0.039
6.194
6.232
8.350
Tank
0.020"
0.112
0.044
0.037
0.193
0.233
0.061
2.876
2.937
3.363
Canister
0.020"
0.027
0.084
0.051
0.162
0.410
0.034
2.392
2.426
2.998
Low RVP Fuel (7.7 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.008
0.067
0.013
0.009
0.022
0.097
Tank
0.040"
0.331
0.068
0.032
0.431
0.144
0.261
6.172
6.433
7.008
Canister
0.040"
0.024
0.017
0.011
0.052
0.837
0.042
6.370
6.412
7.301
Tank
0.020"
0.082
0.009
0.027
0.118
0.150
0.124
2.522
2.646
2.914
Canister
0.020"
0.015
0.012
0.008
0.035
0.269
0.036
2.125
2.162
2.466
B-2
-------
B.2.1 Running Loss Fuel Vapor Pressure Comparisons
Accord HighRVP
JiLCi- Fud Viiiwr FIVMJI.' (NOLEA<)
Cer*ctec fud tfauor Pressure (0.040'' Tank Leak)
U -VAX
Accord Low RVP
B-3
-------
0.25
OJO
0.1S
0,20
Accord Mean Preasure
Mean FVft.wure [High [W|
t imc (seconds)
Accord Mean Pressure Accumulation
_ M
1
E
1.
- ('ur-n-isTivfi f/*ar 'Tfi^jr? (High KVt')
-1:«miAitivn Monn ^ny.su™ (i ow HWP)
- Theoretical Te mperalure
3562 3935
B-4
-------
B.2.2 No Leak
o-
£
Accord Sequence 1: High RVP No Leak
No Leak Running Loss Results
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
HH MH tw) 14'jd in1;!, mil ;iw, ^aid ^IK1) :-iMiV VK; jam
flUU
„
Accord Sequence 6: Low RVP Wo Leak
B-5
-------
0.15
Accord No Leak
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.005
0.004
Phase 2
0.002
0.003
Phase 3
0.002
0.001
Total
0.009
0.008
Accord No Leak
30
Time (Seconds)
B-6
-------
B.2.3 0.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
Q-
E
Accord Sequence 2:Hi?h RVPG.040" Tank Leak
HH MH ir,w id'Hi iHJd vr.ii M«r, ^aid ^isf1) :-iM,v :vsv, jam
A H ilim> rt
Accord Sequence 7: Low RVP D.040"' Tank Leak
1
I
I
S" "•'"
B-7
-------
Accord 0.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.057
0.331
Phase 2
0.216
0.068
Phase 3
0.346
0.032
Total
0.619
0.431
I imo (seconds)
Accord O.Q40" Tank Leak
1S2L 21'jt,
Time {Seconds)
B-8
-------
B.2.4 0.040" Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
Accord Sequence 3: High RVP0.040" Canister Leak
Time \ Seconds)
Accord Sequence S: Low RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
B-9
-------
Accord O.WO" Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.023
0.024
Phase 2
0.044
0.017
Phases
0.014
0.011
Total
0.081
0.052
Accord 0.040" Canister Leak
B-10
-------
B.2.5 0.020" Tank Leak
Q.
E
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
Accord Sequence 4: High RVP 0.020" Tank Leak
HH MH \Yf) Mil, IHJd Jl'.li >iXI, 'JSMi .
-------
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
Accord Q.D20" Tank Leak
Time (Seconds)
B-12
-------
B.2.6 0.020" Canister Leak
Accord Sequence 5 high PVP 0 020"' Canister L
- i f,)f I
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.027
0.015
Phase 2
0.084
0.012
Phase 3
0.051
0.008
Total
0.162
0.035
ID. ^
I .
1- ij
4-iv
•\cco-c Seawence 10: Lo»< WP O.o;o' Canister .e
i-W 1826 21F6
B-13
-------
Accord O.OZO" Canister Leak
- CjMrnetnl Purl VJIINM PtfKHUf (High RVP)
- Corrected Fuel Vapor PrciwfC (Low HVI'J
- r heoretlcal Temperature
Speed
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.027
0.015
Phase 2
0.084
0.012
Phases
0.051
0.008
Total
0.162
0.035
lime (Seconds]
Accord 0.020" Canister LeaK
B-14
-------
B.3 2007 Dodge Caravan
VIN:
ENGINE FAMILY:
EVAPORATIVE FAMILY:
EMISSIONS STANDARD:
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT:
INERTIA WEIGHT:
Tank CAPACITY:
1D4GP24RX7B138127
7CRXT03.8NEO
7CRXR0177GHA
Tier 2 Bin 5
3.80 Liters
4750 Pounds
20.00 Gallons
ROAD LOAD A:
ROAD LOAD B:
ROAD LOAD C:
PEAK FUEL TEMP:
15.32
0.0948
0.02662
119.3 °F
Sequence:
Fuel:
Leak location:
Leak Size:
Purge Flow LA-4 Precon.
Purge Flow LA-92 Precon.
Results in Grams:
Running Loss PI
P2
P3
TOTAL
Hot Soak
Static Test PI
P2
TOTAL
RL + HS + ST
12345 6789 10
High RVP Fuel (10.0 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.127
0.104
0.014
0.117
0.251
Tank
0.040
0.528
0.398
7.128
8.054
7.519
1.265
7.915
9.181
24.754
Canister
0.040
0.063
0.010
0.235
0.308
0.984
0.031
8.367
8.398
9.690
Tank
0.020
0.077
0.018
2.294
2.389
1.492
0.037
3.067
3.103
6.984
Canister
0.020
0.004
0.003
0.018
0.025
1.739
0.012
2.001
2.013
3.777
Low RVP Fuel (7.7 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.008
0.093
0.018
0.012
0.030
0.131
Tank
0.040
0.049
0.010
0.667
0.726
0.955
0.133
5.680
5.812
7.493
Canister
0.040
0.030
0.011
0.063
0.104
0.103
0.018
5.604
5.622
5.829
Tank
0.020
0.042
0.016
0.130
0.188
0.093
0.012
2.276
2.287
2.568
Canister
0.020
0.026
0.005
0.032
0.063
0.101
0.016
1.920
1.937
2.101
B-15
-------
B.3.1 Running Loss Fuel Vapor Pressure Comparisons
Caravan High RVP
±-=-
|jyi ->'citiil c (tMWU1
< IprmlRrfMel Y^fHK ''t^iVlle (UO/lf (>wlkl«i*)
Corrected Cml Vapor -"ttiun (O.CHO1 Canittsr Lsak)
Corseted Fj*t Vapor s-«6Lir^ (0.0201 Canister Leat)
Caravan Low RVP
it onwTort HiH v.ipnrvr«'.urft(N(J H-AKJ
(iwrw.Tfld Hint V.ipnr Frpsr-iirn (diidO* I .wtlr.it)
toirettwl inel VAporI'miiire(txiWO* lanlcl^ak)
CcxreiitKJ Fuel V^ptu Prssi-uiw (0.0^0* C^niitei Leak!
Coficcltd FutH Viiput Prcisurc (0.020' Catii-jlti Leiikl
B-16
-------
0.25
Care'/an Mean Pressure
Mean rVswure I High RVF>y
—Tlwupesiial T^tripti dLum
Spsefl
lime (second!)
Caravan Mean Pressure Accumulation
MBanneaoni (High KYI
Mf-ar. vrffjaae. (I nw KVV
Theoretical Temperature
.S«vrt
B-17
-------
B.3.2 No Leak
Caravan Sequence 1: high RVP No Leak
Ci>freeled Rtl Vupui ric^wic1
M?3surod "ompcrotur?
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.006
0.003
Phase 2
0.001
0.003
Phase 3
0.000
0.002
Total
0.007
0.008
A
A'
A
iA
S£
I :? ,,
II
*t
/•IS ~ 11«J 11'JO !*«> Jlbfc i<8b 2Slb i!8U itbj iLIJb liUS jf-P
Caravan Sequence 6: Low RVP No Leak
B-18
-------
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.006
0.003
Phase 2
0.001
0.003
Phases
0.000
0.002
H
ii * i L W/
Total
0.007
0.008
Caravan No Leak
rn-w.-lfrt ru*3 Vrw »r<™l.rf (1 nw WPJ
ifwwetiial Jemcerature
ll /^l S|WKl
A / F t\ lit t « 1 ,i
743 1122 1196 1325 2156 2136 2S16 3180 35€2 5935
160
Caravan No Leak
fumulativw Prp«wim= Af.ciimiilaHon (High RVP]
nutc ALtuFHul^Uun (Luw ItVPl
lhnorptir.il
Sand
B-19
-------
B.3.3 0.040" Tank Leak
0,25
0.20
n.is
0.10
Caravan Sequence 2; High RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
utneKted Fuel Vauui Pie;.yjie
Measure liTemyyiiPluie
Thfinrfirical Temperature
I IIP! Vaprrt- I pm paratiire
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.528
0.049
Phase 2
0.398
0.010
Phases
7.128
0.667
Total
8.054
0.726
TTnue (Seconds)
Caravan Sequence 7: Law RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
5 r-
« i_
B-20
-------
I
—Grrix.ludRjjlYi.uu ^(.
—UJTeited i u?i Vepcr ^e
Caravan O.D40" Tank Leak
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.528
0.049
Phase 2
0.398
0.010
Phase 3
7.128
0.667
Total
8.054
0.726
1456 132G 2156 2430 281C 3133 5552
f> > ;l alfK
pn
.
Caravan 0.040"Tank Leak
B-21
-------
B.3.4 0.040" Canister
0.20
Vscmidiei i_t?em
Caravan Sequence 3: High RVP 0.040 Canister Leak
LoircUcd Hid YJWJI Hmttnc
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.063
0.030
Phase 2
0.010
0.011
Phases
0.235
0.063
Total
0.308
0.104
turftxlud hjct Vupoi t*t>
- - MeasuredTemperature
-^^^— "Pis LH elkdt TefiipeiaLur*
•• •• ~ Hiot VSpor irjnpor.iliirf
— Succd
Hf. (npm) (Right Axis)
0.1 ri -
Time [Seconds)
Caravan Sequence 8: Low RVP 0,040" Canister Leak
374 748 1496 1826 2156 2466 2816 3189 3562 3935/ 430B
B-22
-------
Caravan 0.040"Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
nnrkc (Seconds}
Caravan 0.040" Canister Leak
B-23
-------
B.3.5 0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.077
0.042
Phase 2
0.018
0.016
Phases
2.294
0.130
Total
2.389
0.188
U.AJ
II A (1 nil
Caravan Sequence 4: High RVP 0.020" Tank Leak
•40
1
0.2S
lirne [seconds.)
Caravan Sequence 9; Low RVP 0,020" Tank Leak
Time (Seconds]
B-24
-------
Lsravan O.lUir lank Leak
Unr«l*JH«:IVflvJ f r^wrte (Uv. W^]
— 1 nf nr
-------
B.3.6 0.020" Canister Leak
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.004
0.026
Phase 2
0.003
0.005
Phases
0.018
0.032
Total
0.025
0.063
Caravan Sequence 5: High RVP 0.020" Can ister Leak
Caravan Sequence 10: Low RVP 0,020" Canister Leak
rime (Seconds)
B-26
-------
Caravan 0.020" Canister Leak
Lmrji14.iJ t-jd Visrj '''(.'jiuu (Lw wr)
ThaOTB-i.-jst TanTnoratura
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.004
0.026
Phase 2
0.003
0.005
Phases
0.018
0.032
Total
0.025
0.063
Caravan 0.020" Canister Leak
B-27
-------
B.4 2009 Toyota Corolla
VIN:
ENGINE FAMILY:
EVAPORATIVE FAMILY:
EMISSIONS STANDARD:
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT:
INERTIA WEIGHT:
Tank CAPACITY:
2T1BU40E89C145385
9TYXV01.8BEA
9TYXR0115P12
Tier 2 Bin 5
1.80 Liters
3250 Pounds
13.25 Gallons
ROAD LOAD A:
ROAD LOAD B:
ROAD LOAD C:
PEAK FUEL TEMP:
11.93
0.0068
0.02276
122.4 °F
Sequence:
10
Fuel:
Leak location:
Leak Size:
Purge Flow LA-4 Precon.
Purge Flow LA-92 Precon.
Results in Grams:
Running Loss PI
P2
P3
TOTAL
Hot Soak
Static Test PI
P2
TOTAL
RL + HS + ST
High RVP Fuel (10.0 RVP)
No
Leak
No
Leak
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.164
0.024
0.036
0.060
0.231
Tank
0.040
0.749
0.951
12.550
14.250
3.168
1.464
7.460
8.924
26.342
Canister
0.040
0.034
0.685
9.436
10.155
0.657
0.032
6.157
6.190
17.002
Tank
0.020
0.166
1.648
2.778
4.592
0.593
1.357
2.795
4.152
9.337
Canister
0.020
0.096
0.348
3.497
3.941
0.734
0.630
2.526
3.157
7.832
Low RVP Fuel (7.7 RVP)
No
Leak
No
Leak
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.089
0.017
0.013
0.029
0.122
Tank
0.040
0.328
0.358
0.916
1.602
0.238
0.770
6.116
6.886
8.726
Canister
0.040
0.058
0.065
0.040
0.163
0.104
0.561
6.945
7.505
7.772
Tank
0.020
0.050
0.019
0.055
0.124
0.111
0.642
2.050
2.692
2.927
Canister
0.020
0.016
0.020
0.016
0.052
0.109
0.059
2.485
2.544
2.705
B-28
-------
B.4.1 Running Loss Fuel Vapor Pressure Comparisons
Corolla High P-rv
-tji-l V^fjDJ lf:i:v
(I.AJ
nmc (Seconds)
B-29
-------
0.7^
n?n
o.n
Corolla Mean Pressure Comparison for High and Low FVP *-j
TheoretlcaJ Te mperatu^e
Speed
1ST.
10)
748 1111 iWC 1320 2i:c IdSO 2310
U.2U •
__
-Ctmulativ* MeonPrejsore (Low 1VP)
- HIFI rcli.il IvrnwnlllMK
1B20 21bS 218t!
Tiine(^t-coml^)
2Blb J1B5)
B-30
-------
B.4.2 No Leak
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.003
0.001
Phase 2
0.002
0.001
Phases
0.003
0.002
Total
0.008
0.004
Corolla Sequence 1: High RVP No Leak
C.mru..td li,d VUiwr 1'lcttH.I::
MeaSllllMl TpmpWHIUIH
0.15
Sprcd
Commandcc evaporative Pi rgc {%) '
120
inn 4V
Corolla Sequence 6: Low RVP No Leak
0.20
•s
0.10
T ne (seconds)
B-31
-------
Tu^l Vftfxtf Pnucuf? 11 igh RVr|
fuel Vaaor Pressure |l_3w RVP|
LtfdX
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.003
0.001
Phase 2
0.002
0.001
Phases
0.003
0.002
Total
0.008
0.004
Corolla NQ Leak
— Cumulotive Fresiure Accurnuiatiort (I tifih RVP)
uir A(tijnmlr
-------
B.4.3 0.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.749
0.328
Phase 2
0.951
0.358
Phases
0.749
0.916
Total
2.449
1.602
Corolla Sequence 2: High RVP 0.040" Tsnk Leak
Cnrrnr-ftl n,H Vajror Pr««i.r?
— - MeasullMJ 1 f>lll!1»li4lum
— Tti'JUicUt j) TcinpcTiHutc
149C 182C 2150 2480 2310
Trie (Seconds)
Corolla Sequence 7: Low RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
B-33
-------
U.Z,
320
-to-icctcd Kiel vapor Pressure itiiKh KVP)
^si Vapor ^rg;
-------
B.4.4 0.040" Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.034
0.058
Phase 2
0.685
0.065
Phase 3
0.034
0.040
Total
0.753
0.163
Corolla Sequence J: High RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
tuffitdcc ] ud V<*p~ji Picture
- Measured 1>TiirK*ir:lur«
T
-------
Corolla 0.040" Canister Leak
-0.20 -
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.034
0.058
Phase 2
0.685
0.065
Phases
0.034
0.040
Total
0.753
0.163
Cor[ruled KJL-! Vapor Prevaire (Hinb RVP)
airmail Fuel Vti.iiiiiuU!Hiii{l
-------
B.4.5 0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.166
0.050
Phase 2
1.648
0.019
Phase 3
2.778
0.055
Total
4.592
0.124
Corolla Seouence 4: High RVP 0.020" Tank Leak
lUIICLlCt! luul ViJJJDI I'llXWUli:
MHaviiTPiJ Tt'nifirH tfl uH1
1 nirTml rnin-r.inrrr
0.25
0.20
0.15
-O.lb
Corolla Sequence 9: Low RVP 0.020" Tank Leak
- corrected r-ucl vapor Pressure
Mefl^ureri Temperature
- Theoretical Temperature
J60
Time (Setondi)
B-37
-------
Cuiolla 0.020" Tank Leak
r H r I v p r h nun
Ojnstlid tad VJuoi Ci^anc |L™ IIWi
SKCCl
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.166
0.050
Phase 2
1.648
0.019
Phase 3
2.778
0.055
Total
4.592
0.124
/18 W» 14'«(-. J«1t
iifflA. rt f.l MK rt
Corollc 0,020"Tank Leak
-cumulative rrrs^urf1 flmjmulamn (Hlfih RVP)
-Cumulative Presiuie AcLurnukJliuri (Low R'/P)
-iheoretcal lerioerature
B-38
-------
B.4.6 0.020" Canister Leak
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.096
0.016
Phase 2
0.348
0.020
Phases
3.497
0.016
Total
3.941
0.052
Corolla Sequence 5: High RVP 0.020" Canister Leak
Cnrrpf-ftt TLC) Vaiw (V*«i.Fft
— "rti'-'iHtlk jl Tciiiptrulurc
0.10
— — hj^lvaccr iciTpcrature
--.,/V U
T ne (Seconds)
Corolla Sequence 10: Low IWP 0.020" Canister Leak
- r:r(«::lwi InH v-ifior IT
- MtaaLt td leinutnaluie
- Tieoretical Temperature
tao
B-39
-------
Cuiulld 0.020' Canister Leah
rirr«T»d Fuel Vtnnr fnmurr (I lieh (1VT1
t-ucl Viltwi HiusaufC (lt>w HVHi
-0.15
Corolla 0.020" Canister Leak
- 120
-Cumulative Pressure Accumulation (High RVP)
-Cumulative -Pressure Accumulation (Low RVP)
— Theurplfcjl Tctri^Hr.iliir*3
Speed
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.096
0.016
Phase 2
0.348
0.020
Phase 3
3.497
0.016
Total
3.941
0.052
2186 2816 3189
393b -1308
B-40
-------
B.5 2010 Ford Focus
VIN:
ENGINE FAMILY:
EVAPORATIVE FAMILY:
EMISSIONS STANDARD:
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT:
INERTIA WEIGHT:
Tank CAPACITY:
1FAHP3FN8AW272304
AFMXV02.0VZX
AFMXR0110GCX
SULEV II PZEV
2.00 Liters
3000 Pounds
13.0 Gallons
ROAD LOAD A:
ROAD LOAD B:
ROAD LOAD C:
PEAK FUEL TEMP:
4.01
0.5575
0.01269
123.8 °F
Sequence:
Fuel:
Leak location:
Leak Size:
Purge Flow LA-4 Precon.
Purge Flow LA-92 Precon.
Results in Grams:
Running Loss PI
P2
P3
TOTAL
Hot Soak
Static Test PI
P2
TOTAL
RL + HS + ST
12345 6789 10
High RVP Fuel (10.0 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.002
0.001
0.005
0.008
1.154
0.040
0.040
0.080
1.242
Tank
0.040
0.317
1.349
6.250
7.916
0.589
0.156
9.130
9.286
17.791
Canister
0.040
0.165
0.822
12.471
13.458
0.952
0.060
8.563
8.624
23.034
Tank
0.020
0.012
0.530
11.927
12.469
0.945
0.107
2.407
2.514
15.928
Canister
0.020
0.213
0.510
11.777
12.500
0.558
0.202
2.525
2.727
15.785
Low RVP Fuel (7.7 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.216
0.056
0.043
0.099
0.322
Tank
0.040
0.132
0.179
0.018
0.329
0.481
0.240
5.849
6.089
6.899
Canister
0.040
0.637
0.517
0.481
1.635
0.164
0.053
6.895
6.948
8.747
Tank
0.020
0.325
0.235
0.010
0.570
0.250
0.393
2.574
2.967
3.787
Canister
0.020
0.121
0.126
0.105
0.352
0.210
0.063
1.773
1.836
2.398
B-41
-------
B.5.1 Running Loss Fuel Vapor Pressure Comparisons
FceusHishRV?
0.20
corrected fuc] vapsr Prrsojrc (so LEAK)
CDncttviJ Fuel VupiM Pri'ivjae (0-O4ST Tu'ifr. UMK)
—^.., Corr^ctec! Fuel VapxPTsss-jrelO^OlCTTaih L&an)
Corrvucd fud Vop^r fr:-a-ju(c- (0.040" Cunblci J.-okJ
Corrected fuel Vapir Pressure (0.020'' Canister _tsk)
Thw (Seconds)
025
Focus Low RVP
B-42
-------
Focus Mean Pressure
i imc (Seconds)
Focus Mean Pressure Accumulation
B-43
-------
B.5.2 No Leak
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.002
0.003
Phase 2
0.001
0.002
Phases
0.005
0.002
Total
0.008
0.007
Focus Sequence 1: High RVP No Leak
Cerrtrtcd =ud Vspor tn'.MK
" " j - ' -
^tooredc* Tairp«rMur«
180
i*-.
140
120
Focus Sequence 6: Lov/ RVP Nc Leak
Time {Sccoids)
B-44
-------
0.25
Focus No Leak
VBpGH'WTOTP iHfch ItVt'J
— I'fmftart t-.iot Vapor Crc>so»o)i iiw KVPf
180.0
isn.n
HI1.II
0.10
Timel&econds)
Focus No Leak
Curnulativw Prpssiim Af.nimulffrirm (H^h RVP)
('untularnm!-n---,--,.-,- Arciimu!nTinn(Inw uw)
liWMi
100
lH?[j /IMi J-1H<
Time (Seconds)
B-45
-------
B.5.3 0.040" Tank Leak
Focus Sequence 2: High RVP O.OWTank Leak
,|
11^ I
Focus Sequence 7: Low RVP O.040" Tank Leak
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP (Repeat)
Low RVP
High RVP
Mid RVP
Phase 1
0.424
0.132
0.317
0.516
Phase 2
0.014
0.179
1.349
0.564
Phase 3
7.578
0.018
6.250
2.509
Total
8.016
0.329
7.916
3.589
lime (Seconds)
B-46
-------
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP (Repeat)
Low RVP
High RVP
Mid RVP
Phase 1
0.424
0.132
0.317
0.516
Phase 2
0.014
0.179
1.349
0.564
Phases
7.578
0.018
6.250
2.509
Total
8.016
0.329
7.916
3.589
Focus Sequence 2: Hi§ti RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
I ime (seconds)
VOID Wrong Fuel - Focus Sequence Repeat Z: High RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
B-47
-------
0.25
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP (Repeat)
Low RVP
High RVP
Mid RVP
Phase 1
0.424
0.132
0.317
0.516
Phase 2
0.014
0.179
1.349
0.564
Phases
7.578
0.018
6.250
2.509
Total
8.016
0.329
7.916
3.589
Focus O.Q4D" Tank Leak
Time (Seconds)
Focus 0.040" Tank Leak
S80.0
i«n.n
140.0
1«>d J'l'tb J*W>
Time {Seconds)
B-48
-------
B.5.4 0.040" Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.165
0.637
Phase 2
0.822
0.517
Phase 3
12.471
0.481
Total
13.458
1.635
Focus Sequence 3: High RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
1 Ml**taA 1 imJ vapor pnKxurf
Man^Terf IwinNKtum
IteCTBIfrjl lpnT|M*ariirci
I
I,
Focus Sequence S: Low RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
B-49
-------
Focus 0.040" Canister Leak
0,20
IIme (Seconds)
Focus 0.040" Canister Leak
- (umulattre |'FR
-------
B.5.5 0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.012
0.325
Phase 2
0.530
0.235
Phase 3
11.927
0.010
Total
12.469
0.570
Focus Sequence 4: High RVP 0. 020" Tank leak
Corrtetsd Fuel Vapor Prei
Wcasursd Temperas re
Thcfricti«J Temperature
S...-J
Hirl Vapor Ir
Focus Sequence 10: Low RVP 0.020" Canister Leak
0.20
B-51
-------
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.012
0.325
Phase 2
0.530
0.235
Phases
11.927
0.010
Total
12.469
0.570
Focus 0.020" Tank Leak
cl Vapor Pra=t^c
-------
B.5.6 0.020" Canister Leak
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.213
0.121
Phase 2
0.510
0.126
Phase 3
11.777
0.105
Total
12.500
0.352
Focus Sequence 5: High RVP 0.020" Canister Leak
Cw r«A«J ru el Voacv P. Bi*jt s
MwswwITemu^ei^i:
Theoretical Tcmpcfatufc
-0.20 —' -i m
Focus Sequence 10: Low RVP 0.020" Canister Leak
180
100
Time (Vronds)
B-53
-------
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.213
0.121
Phase 2
0.510
0.126
Phase 3
11.777
0.105
Total
12.500
0.352
Focus 0.020" Canister Leak
0,20
I Imp (seconds)
Focus 0.020" Canister Leak
180.0
160-0
nn.D
i?o.n
Ac nimulatir. n (High ft VI1}
t umu!.itiv« pmwun* Arnimiil.ition (I ow KW)
Iliuurdiuf Ic
Succd
Time (Seconds)
B-54
-------
B.6 2006 Chevrolet Silverado
VIN:
ENGINE FAMILY:
EVAPORATIVE FAMILY:
EMISSIONS STANDARD:
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT:
INERTIA WEIGHT:
Tank CAPACITY:
1GCEK19B66Z154114
6GMXT05.3379
6GMXRO176820
Tier 2 Bin 8
5.30 Liters
5500 Pounds
26.0 Gallons
ROAD LOAD A:
ROAD LOAD B:
ROAD LOAD C:
PEAK FUEL TEMP:
1.44
1.2678
0.002258
114.3 °F
Sequence:
Fuel:
Leak location:
Leak Size:
Purge Flow LA-4 Precon.
Purge Flow LA-92 Precon.
Results in Grams:
Running Loss PI
P2
P3
TOTAL
Hot Soak
Static Test PI
P2
TOTAL
RL + HS + ST
12345 6789 10
High RVP Fuel (10.0 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.063
0.010
0.007
0.017
0.082
Tank
0.040
0.057
0.012
0.361
0.430
0.749
0.371
8.796
9.168
10.347
Canister
0.040
0.023
0.021
0.040
0.084
1.435
0.010
8.483
8.493
10.012
Tank
0.020
0.042
0.003
0.082
0.127
0.206
0.015
3.441
3.456
3.789
Canister
0.020
0.108
0.097
0.109
0.314
0.254
0.008
2.691
2.699
3.267
Low RVP Fuel (7.7 RVP)
No Leak
No Leak
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.061
0.013
0.008
0.021
0.085
Tank
0.040
0.018
0.000
0.002
0.020
0.841
0.230
4.862
5.092
5.953
Canister
0.040
0.062
0.065
0.052
0.179
1.165
0.010
6.156
6.167
7.511
Tank
0.020
0.012
0.002
0.001
0.015
0.225
0.303
2.330
2.633
2.873
Canister
0.020
0.064
0.078
0.062
0.204
0.364
0.071
2.830
2.901
3.469
B-55
-------
B.6.1 Running Loss Fuel Vapor Pressure Comparisons
Silverado I \xh IWP
— corrected ue
Corrected ruc
vannr Pressure .|M() 11 AKj
Vjuui Pre^uie ;o.040"TjriV _tjk)
vapor Pressure Jo.OJO11 tank .eak)
VHtiEJa fnrisuir {(LO-nrtait-.v.!-! Irak)
Vaoor frcj&ure (Ci.020" Conisxr L?ak)
no (Seconds)
Silverado Low RVP
—Corrected ruc I Vaoor Pressure [NO LEAK)
- Corrected :ue I Vasor Pressure ;0.04C"TaiV _eak)
Corrected ~uelVapor Pressure ;
-------
Silverado Mean Pressure
-Wean Pressure (11 ph WF)
-Mi-nnl'n V.MM jlowKV'l
- Mean Pressure - After Valve Keplaccnwrit [Low HVi1) -
- Moan Pressure Before Vafve FcplaceTicnt (LowRVI*;
Wlean Pressurp Arriimulotion
b
5 18
I
^«
^l_
- Ijiniiibilivp MKOTtt-'iwKire (1 lijgh HVV)
- Cum -ilstfve Me an Pressure (Low RV^>)
- Cum .ifcj live MeiinPrewu:e Allei V;ifve RejjlJLe
LXim jlstrve Mean pressure - before valve Iteplac-ment (LOW MVFJ
- Thcorolical Tompcraturs
Speed
IK/h :'1:-i*> J>1»i
Time (Seconds)
B-57
-------
B.6.2 No Leak
cm
Silverado Sequence 1: High RVP No Leak
Ccfrectwi Mjel va>y leisure
- M€sur«d lemp«-slufe
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.002
0.001
Phase 2
0.000
0.001
Phases
0.000
0.001
Total
0.002
0.003
0.10
Time [Seconds!
Silverado Sequence 6: Low RVP No Leak
B-58
-------
Silverado No Leak
No Leak Running Loss Results
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
374
1826 21S6 2486
lim* (ieconcit)
3189 3562
B-59
-------
No Leak Running loss Results
High RVP
High RVP Wrong Temperature Profile
Phase I
0,002
0.003
Phase 2
0,000
Q.QQ3
Phases
0,000
0,002
Totcll
0,002
0,005
Trie [Seconds]
Silvcradc Sequcnc* 1: VOID WRONG PROFILE ON RL: Hi^h RVP No Leak
B-60
-------
No Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
High RVP Wrong Temperature Profile
Phase 1
0.002
0.003
Phase 2
0.000
0.003
Phases
0.000
0.002
Total
0.002
0.008
Silverado No Leak
Time (Seconds)
Silverado No Leak Effect of Temoerature Profile
-Cumulatvc >es5troAccinriUl
-OunutiKf >«s.M.rHAt:c.iJir nl.ilkHt (Iligli RVP)
-Th^orctica T
B-61
-------
B.6.3 0.040" Tank Leak
Silverado Sequence 2: High RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
Corrected t-ucl vapor ITCMUTC
MtrmmnlT^nifirTHluir
« _ Fi*-tVnpfl»TVmfi(-*viHHT!
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.057
0.018
Phase 2
0.012
0.000
Phases
0.361
0.002
Total
0.430
0.020
0.25
OJO
Time [Seconds |
Silverado Sequence 7: Low RVP 0.040" Tank Leak
Time (SeconcH)
B-62
-------
Silverado 0.040" Tank Leak
020
- Corrected Fuel Vaoor fVwsuro {Hi*h
- corrected mel vapor f'essj-e {LOW t
— Trvscf ctical Tc-jiipcraturc
-Ipeed
0.040" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
0.20
.24
l«™-(Si:n iritis)
FOCJS: Pressure and Hydrocarbon emission Accumulation 0.040" Tank Leak
"(jinn.ttlitfi' I'fcvi irr Ainjruilalicm {I' w IIVI'J
-CumUatire Pressjre Atcunulation (High RVPJ
-Theoretltol Temperature
3935 4303
B-63
-------
B.6.4 0.040" Canister Leak
vscii 1101^1 i_trar\
Silverado Sequence 3: High RVPO.D4O" Canister Leak
fnprti3.-ilFw4V.iix> ntinsuic
Measured IcfnjKrolure
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.023
0.019
Phase 2
0.021
0.011
Phases
0.040
0.006
Total
0.084
0.036
0.10
"M'lEj IHiHi ?ri(j n'-IKEi 781 d
.-JIB1? .-t'jh?
_.
.
nil M!JU
JL
Time [Seconds!
Silverado Sequence 8: Low RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
I:-JPM =. (!
B-64
-------
0.25
-Girw l-d ruplVHPm Pit^m
- On-in MNl f L.H V.-PIK ^,-J.
- T>icorctiaii I empcrature
Silverado 0.040" Canister Leak
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.023
0.019
Phase 2
0.021
0.011
Phases
0.040
0.006
Total
0.084
0.036
Time (Seconds)
i-Jn n.D40" C^ni.iter I
Cuniiiblivi* ^iHS>.uit> AtiruriiLitilKiri {lh(>li UVM)
Cumulative Pressure Aocumulstion (Lov^ R7P)
Ihcorctcsl
Time [Seconds]
B-65
-------
0.25
VOID - SHED testing not completed - Silverado Sequence 8: Low RVP 0,040" Canister Leak
- Corrected Fucf Vapof PreswMC
Speed
- fuel Vapor TemperatuN:
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
Low RVP
Low RVP Purge Valve Failure
Phase 1
0.019
0.038
Phase 2
0.011
0.063
Phases
0.006
0.002
Total
0.036
0.103
Time {Second*!
VOID -Puree Valve Failure-Silverado Sequence 8: Low RVP 0.040" Canister Leak
COfTCCteo FutH Vapor Pressure
150
B-66
-------
0.040" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
Low RVP
Low RVP Purge Valve Failure
Phase 1
0.019
0.038
Phase 2
0.011
0.063
Phase 3
0.006
0.002
Total
0.036
0.103
0,25
Silverado 0.040" Canister Leak Low RVP
0,10
Corrected t uel Vapor Pressure (LOW l(Vf) tMrg* vah^e i atlure
cue! Vapor pressure (tow KVVJ
V»piH Pi«v«HrlIiiwRVPi Afti-t Purgt-VHfwIV
: :.•••', I S
180.0
^^___
11U.O
— lain s= ~
ML i!
Silverado 0.040" Canister Leak Effect of Purge Valve Failure
- Cumulative Pressure Accumulation - Oetore Vatve railure (Low RVP)
- i unniw' (•/[• i:rcvnijr !• Acnirnidrtfinn - V^lvc hniluri- (I itw KVi M
- Cumubtive Pressure Accumulation After Vatve Replacement {low RVP)
- HC Mass - Before valve ^ilure (Low KVf)
- HC Mass - vaive hailurc (Low KVI'J
- HC M.I-A AllPi V,i!w Rppt,»^iiW!il (I i>w RVP)
B-67
-------
B.6.5 0.020" Tank Leak
Silverado Sequence 4: High RVP 0.020" Tank Leak
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.042
0.012
Phase 2
0.003
0.002
Phases
0.082
0.001
Total
0.127
0.015
0.15
lino laid 2i:jij iiso 2sio
/I
-------
Silverado 0.020' Tank Leak
- Theoretical Temoeratwe
0.15
. 24
w
"E
518
-< ij-nulihvH Pffs.mjf v An
— • ~—
mulotio.n (W.T1 RVI>.
miiljliii-i (1 !iw KVk) Uui(,«. v •"«• -•' '•»»
0.020" Tank Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.042
0.012
Phase 2
0.003
0.002
Phases
0.082
0.001
Total
0.127
0.015
- 0
B-69
-------
B.6.6 0.020" Canister Leak
Silverado Sequence 5: High RVP 0.020" Canister Leak
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.108
0.064
Phase 2
0.097
0.078
Phases
0.109
0.062
Total
0.314
0.204
f.«rrf*[ kwl Fufil V.IJWM PiK
- - McHMjmnVyM[H*Hlmr
Ihrnrrtiral irmfxraTiirr
— Speed
• - - Tuel Vapor Temperature
IfC
-------
0.020" Canister Leak Running Loss Results
High RVP
Low RVP
Phase 1
0.108
0.064
Phase 2
0.097
0.078
Phases
0.109
0.062
Total
0.314
0.204
ULtt
0.20
Silverado 0.020" Canister Leak
d Fuel Vapor IVcxairc (Hi«h RVP»
— Corrected t-uel Vapor leisure (Low twl
- Tfworctical Tcmocraturc
-ipeed
0.20
iimc(i>ccondsf
SilvejdJu 0.020" CanibiLtfT I
B-71
-------
Appendix C
Descriptions of Study Data
-------
Each of the tests performed for this study produced data in different formats, the
following section discusses the data acquired in each report. This data will be provided in
folders organized by vehicle.
FTP 72 Report (*_74.pdf)1
Test Start: When the drive cycle began
Test Finish: When the drive cycle ended
Time Elapsed: Duration of the drive cycle in seconds
Distance: Distance driven over the cycle in miles
Driver: The technician responsible for driving the vehicle for the cycle
Road Load Parameters: A, B, and C Road Load Coefficients and Vehicle Inertia
Fuel Parameters: Fuel name, specific gravity, weight fraction of Carbon, Hydrogen and
Oxygen, and net heating value
Environmental Conditions: Barometric pressure in inHg, site temperature in °F, site
humidity in grains/pound dry air
FTP 75 Report (*.pdf)
Test Start: When the drive cycle began
Test Finish: When the drive cycle ended
Time Elapsed: Duration of the drive cycle in seconds
Distance: Distance driven over the cycle in miles
Driver: The technician responsible for driving the vehicle for the cycle
"*_74.pdf' was the naming convention used by APTL for the FTP-72 tests performed for this study.
C-l
-------
Road Load Parameters: A, B, and C Road Load Coefficients and Vehicle Inertia
Fuel Parameters: Fuel name, specific gravity, weight fraction of Carbon, Hydrogen and
Oxygen, and net heating value
Environmental Conditions: Barometric pressure in inHg, site temperature in °F, site
humidity in grains/pound dry air
Running Loss Report (*.pdf)
Test Start: When the drive cycle began
Test Finish: When the drive cycle ended
Time Elapsed: Duration of the drive cycle in seconds
Distance: Distance driven over the cycle in miles
Driver: The technician responsible for driving the vehicle for the cycle
Road Load Parameters: A, B, and C Road Load Coefficients and Vehicle Inertia
Fuel Parameters: Fuel name, specific gravity, weight fraction of Carbon, Hydrogen and
Oxygen, and net heating value
Environmental Conditions: Barometric pressure in inHg, site temperature in °F, site
humidity in grains/pound dry air
Emissions Sampling System: For each phase of the running loss test the hydrocarbon FID
analyzer (calibrated using propane) reports the range, the ambient bag concentration,
the sample bag concentration, the net concentration, the hydrocarbon mass, and the
CVS volume
Running Loss Data File (*.csv)
Data was recorded at 0.1 Hz (once every 10 seconds) during the preheat and the driven
portions of the running loss test.
Time: Seconds from the beginning of recording
C-2
-------
Fuel Temperature: Measured in °F
Fuel Temperature Set Point: From manufacturer fuel tank temperature profile, in °F
Fuel Vapor Temperature: Measured in °F
Fuel Vapor Pressure: Measured in psi, all but the very last tests demonstrate a zero bias
which was corrected out in subsequent analysis (this is discussed further in the Issues
Encountered and Solutions section above)
Discharge Air Temperature: Measured in °F
Discharge Air Temperature Set Point: As controlled by APTL software so that the fuel
temperature measured matches the fuel temperature set point, in °F
Running Loss Continuous Hydrocarbon File (*.csv)
Ford APTL continuously recorded data during the second half of testing for all tests run
with the 7 psi RVP fuel. The data is recorded at 1 Hz during the drive portion of the running loss
test.
Time: Seconds from the beginning of recording
Hydrocarbon Concentration: Measured in ppm (analyzer calibrated using propane)
OBD2 Data (*.csv)
OBDII data was collected using a HEM Data mini logger provided by the EPA during the
three driving portions (the FTP 72, the FTP 75, and the running loss test) of the test sequence.
The OBDII data collection system was problematic and didn't consistently record data for all
tests (as discussed above in the Issues Encountered and Solutions section). Data is stored in a
binary file that is processed using the HEM Data's DawnEdit software. The data available varies
for each vehicle as some vehicles use different communication standards and don't broadcast the
same types of data. The data description in below describes only the data that was used during
analysis. Also, per the discussion above in the Issues Encountered and Solutions section - OBDII
data is not available for all driving tests.
Time: When the drive cycle began
C-3
-------
VIN: The vehicle identification number for the unit under test
Vehicle Speed: The vehicle speed measured in miles per hour
Commanded Evaporative Purge: Measured in percent, this is how much purge was
commanded by the vehicle while the vehicle was in operation
Hot Soak Data (*.xls)
The hot soak data is contained on Sheet 1 in the workbook. Sheet4 contains analyzer zero
span results. The other sheets contained in the workbook are extraneous sheets used by Ford for
performing SHED leak calculations and error estimates. The data presented in Sheetl is broken
into several boxes of data.
Technician: Technician that initiated the test sequence
SHED Number: Identifies which SHED was used for the particular test.
Start Date/Time: The time the test began
End Date/Time: The time the test ended
Initial/Final Barometer: Atmospheric pressure at the beginning and end of the test,
measured in inHg, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Initial/Final Temperature: SHED temperature at beginning and end of the test, measured
in °F, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Initial/Final SHED Volume: SHED volume at the beginning and end of the test,
measured in °F, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Fuel Temperature: The fuel temperature at the beginning and the end of the test,
measured in °F using J-Type thermocouples, located in the Fuel Temperature J Box
(NB the measurements in the Fuel Temperature K Box are not the correct temperature
measurements)
Emissions Sampling System: Reports, in the Hotsoak Emission Results Box, the
concentration and mass of hydrocarbons in the SHED at the beginning of the test, and
C-4
-------
at the end of the test; in the HC Summary Box, the change in the hydrocarbon mass
and concentration from the beginning of the test to the end
Static Test Data (*.xls)
The static test data is contained on Sheetl in the workbook. Sheet4 contains analyzer zero
span results. The other sheets contained in the workbook are extraneous sheets used by Ford for
performing SHED leak calculations and error estimates. The data presented in Sheetl is broken
into several boxes of data.
Technician: Technician that initiated the test sequence
SHED Number: Identifies which SHED was used for the particular test.
Start Date/Time: The time the test began
End Date/Time: The time the test ended
Initial/Final Barometer: Atmospheric pressure at the beginning and end of the test,
measured in inHg, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Initial/Final Temperature: SHED temperature at beginning and end of the test, measured
in °F, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Initial/Final SHED Volume: SHED volume at the beginning and end of the test,
measured in °F, located in the SHED Post Volume Information Box
Fuel Temperature: The fuel temperature at the beginning and the end of the test,
measured in °F using J-Type thermocouples, located in the Fuel Temperature J Box
(NB the measurements in the Fuel Temperature K Box are not the correct temperature
measurements)
Emissions Sampling System: Because of the modal nature of the results of these tests the
data presented in this file doesn't correctly state the desired results, a separate data
file was exported which contains the concentrations and the masses of hydrocarbons
in the SHED at beginning of the test and at the end of each mode
C-5
-------
Static Test Data (*.txt)
The static test data reported in the text file reports analyzer reads at set intervals during
the static test sequence. The readings that should be used when considering these reports occur at
0 minutes, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes into the test. Occasionally, the analyzer reports that an
analyzer read fails and reports a "SampISD Failure". This error doesn't affect the analyzer
reading and precise timing of analyzer readings is very important during this test so it is not
recommended to consider the repeat readings that are performed after the error. The following
different types of data are provided in the text file
Sample Time: The exact timing of the analyzer read
Mass: The mass of the hydrocarbons in the SHED
Concentration: The concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED
Zero/Span: Analyzers zero - span operations results
Vehicle Data (*.xls)
Data was combined into a single Microsoft Excel workbook for each vehicle to allow for
improvements in data processing and analysis. There are several worksheets in each workbook
which are used to present the information described here
Test Record Worksheet
This worksheet provides the time and date each particular test in every sequence started
and ended. Also provided are the APTL test numbers.
Test Sequence and Results Worksheet
This worksheet gives the final mass emissions for each test in a particular sequence. The
running loss is broken down into three phases. Overall emissions for a single sequence are
reported.
FTTP Worksheet
This worksheet contains the tank temperature profile and the trace to be driven during the
running loss test.
C-6
-------
Data Worksheet
This worksheet contains the data recorded at 0.1 Hz (once every 10 seconds) during the
running loss preheat and cycle. The data is time aligned so that 0 seconds occurs when the drive
portion begins for each test. Several graphs are also produced on this worksheet. These graphs
compare fuel vapor vacuum, liquid and vapor fuel temperatures, vehicle speed, commanded
evaporative purge (if available), and continuous hydrocarbon emissions (if available) for each
running loss test. Additional graphs are also developed which compare the vapor vacuum for all
leak configurations on a particular fuel, and also comparing the vapor vacuum for both fuels
given a particular leak configuration.
Average Pressures Worksheet
This spreadsheet calculates the average vapor vacuum for each fuel, and also performs
numeric integration on the measured vapor vacuum. Several graphs are then produced which
demonstrate differences in behavior for the different fuels.
Continuous Hydrocarbon Measurement Worksheet
This spreadsheet contains the continuous hydrocarbon measurements recorded at 1 Hz
(once per second). This data is presented in the graphs produced on the Data worksheet.
OBD Data Worksheet
This spreadsheet contains the OBDII data which is available for certain tests. A moving
average has been applied to the commanded evaporative purge to reduce noise. This data is
recorded a 1 Hz and is presented in the graphs produced on the Data worksheet.
C-7
-------
Appendix D
Issues Encountered and Solutions
-------
This appendix provides a summary of issues that were encountered during this test
program and a description of how each of those issues were addressed.
HEM Data OBD Mini Loggers were provided by EPA in order to collect vehicle OBDII
data during the test program. However, several problems occurred during the study which
prevented the successful collection of OBDII data for some of the tests. The original data
loggers used in the study had a spring load mechanism which accepted a micro SD card to record
data. When the recorder was installed in the vehicle, occasionally the technician would push on
the micro SD card, accidentally ejecting the card and thus preventing data acquisition. An
alternative data logger which used a friction mechanism to retain the micro SD card was
provided by EPA at the midpoint of the study. However, this new data logger had a different pin
arrangement and would only work on the newer vehicles in the study (the Corolla and Focus).
An additional difficulty observed was that only the newer vehicles broadcast the commanded
evaporative purge. Because of these reasons, OBDII purge data is only available for a limited
number of tests. However, fuel system vapor vacuum, which is correlated to fuel system purge,
is available for all tests conducted during the study.
During preliminary testing on the Caravan, it was observed that there would be little or
no emissions during the first phase of the static test if the vehicle was introduced into the SHED
while fuel temperatures were greater than 95 °F. The fuel and vapor were undergoing cooling
during this phase of testing, resulting in a reduction of pressure and causing SHED air to be
drawn into the fuel tank rather than to have hydrocarbons expelled. This behavior was prevented
by adjusting procedures for all test vehicles so that the fuel temperature was cooled to 93 °F after
completing the hot soak and before beginning the static test.
Several issues arose during testing of the Corolla in November and December, 2012.
During a no leak test, the orifice cap split, producing a leak condition. This test was voided and
another test was repeated after the cap was replaced. Then, a canister load line was left plugged
during a subsequent test, causing fuel vapors to off-gas through the fuel tank. This test was
voided and repeated. On the subsequent repeat, the canister was in a saturated state and did not
perform in an expected manner. This test was also voided and repeated. Then, in December
2012, a retainer on a fuel line came loose and fuel was discharged into the interior of the vehicle.
That test was voided, and the vehicle was transported to an SGS facility in Jackson, MI. The
interior was first washed to remove as much of the fuel as possible. Then, over a four-day
D-l
-------
process, the vehicle was heated to 130 °F until a hydrocarbon detector was unable to detect any
residual hydrocarbons being emitted from the material of the vehicle. Afterwards, the vehicle
was returned to Ford APTL and the test was repeated.
The high RVP fuel at the no leak setting caused the Focus to produce canister
breakthrough emissions as purge was not commensurate with vapor generation. The high RVP
fuel (10.0 psi) was greater than specification fuel for standard running loss testing (9.5 psi RVP)
and is thought to have contributed to this unexpected result.
In December 2012, the wrong temperature profile was initially used when performing the
Chevrolet Silverado's no leak test using the high RVP (10.0 psi) fuel. This test was voided and
repeated.
During the first test performed on the Caravan, an SGS onsite technician observed that
the fuel vapor temperature was trending in the wrong direction, a sign that the thermocouple had
been incorrectly connected. The technician initially incorrectly swapped the liquid fuel
temperature thermocouple, resulting in a short spike in temperature exacerbated by Ford APTL
integration algorithms. However, the correct swap was made shortly thereafter. Testing
continued and the results of the test were discussed with the EPA and accepted.
In January 2013, a replicate test of the Focus was performed using the 0.040" leak
installed and the high RVP fuel to verify the continuous hydrocarbon measurement system that
would be used for the second half of testing. Focus replicate testing results measured
approximately half of the hydrocarbons measured during the original test performed in
December 2012. The fuel was tested for RVP and demonstrated an 8.5 psi RVP, significantly
lower than the 10.0 RVP of the fuel used during the initial round of testing. It was discovered
that the incorrect fuel had been used for this replicate test. This test was voided and repeated
using the original 10.0 RVP fuel that was used in the original test. This successful, repeated test
showed good agreement with the original numbers and also good operation of the continuous
measurement system.
In February 2013, there was concern that the Focus was behaving anomalously as the fuel
vapor pressure seemed to change erratically. This behavior was a departure from what was
measured during the original round of testing during which the system would show periodic
vacuum during the first half of the test, and then begin building pressure in the system during the
D-2
-------
second half of the test. This appeared to be proper system behavior in the Focus, resulting from a
purge valve that is open/shut and lacking a linear operation which could provide partially opened
states. This effect became more pronounced during the second half of testing when the fuel with
lower RVP was used. The lower RVP fuel produced lower vapor pressures which more clearly
revealed the opening and closing of the purge valve.
During the second half of the test program (low RVP fuel testing), the Silverado
demonstrated a significant reduction in the amount of suction in the fuel vapor. This culminated
with a purge valve failure during testing on February 14, 2013. Initially, the purge valve
appeared to demonstrate a reduced operational range. Then at the end of the first phase of
testing, the valve failed in a shut state, allowing vapor pressure to build and forcing
hydrocarbons through the induced leak. The valve then moved to a partially opened state towards
the end of the test. At this time, the cause for anomalous hydrocarbon emissions was still under
investigation, and the valve had not yet been diagnosed. Another test was performed using the
failed purge valve. During this test, the valve began in a partially open state and remained there
until about halfway through testing. After this, the valve closed, allowing fuel vapors to be
emitted. The faulty valve was then diagnosed and replaced, and the two test sequences for which
the valve had failed (0.040" canister leak and 0.020" tank leak) were repeated.
In March 2013, near the end of testing, Ford APTL Data Quality personnel determined
that their fuel vapor pressure transducer was connected in reverse, so that a negative pressure
(vacuum relative to atmospheric) resulted in a positive measurement. The vapor pressure
measurement system was also found to have a small zero bias of about 0.2 psi. Ford reconnected
the transducer and recalibrated it eliminating the zero bias. Only one test (Sequence 8 on the
Chevrolet Silverado, 0.040" canister leak with low RVP) was performed after Ford APTL
personnel adjusted the pressure transducer. However, the adjustment did not seem to affect the
peak vacuum measurement. The reported vacuum signal polarity was reversed on this final test
so all data are consistent in Appendix B. All Appendix B vacuum signals have been corrected
for any zero offset bias, and all vacuum signals are reported as positive pressure (reversed
polarity) to facilitate visual comparison with purge rates.
Some anomalies can be seen in the fuel vapor pressure plots for the Honda Accord (high
and low RVP, 0.020" leak at tank, Appendix B.2.5) and the Dodge Caravan (high RVP, 0.040"
D-3
-------
leak at canister, Appendix B.3.4). These pressure peaks appear to be data anomalies resulting
from instantaneous instrument dropout (possibly from a faulty connection) and not valid data.
Continuous hydrocarbon measurements for vehicles with induced leaks demonstrate
sudden increases in the measured concentration of hydrocarbons on some tests. These include
data from the Honda Accord test with low RVP, 0.040" leak at canister (in Appendix B.2.4) and
also for the Dodge Caravan with low RVP, 0.040" leak at tank (in Appendix B.3.3). This
appears to be valid data (not a data anomaly), as the relative vacuum drawn on the evaporative
system drops below zero (therefore building a positive pressure on the system) at these times and
expels hydrocarbons at the end of the test. Intermittent spikes can also be seen in the test data for
the Honda Accord. Several vehicles also exhibited intermittent spikes in hydrocarbon emissions
due to purge behavior. In general, however, the cumulative hydrocarbon plots show that the total
hydrocarbon emissions appear to be more related to an elevation in the continuous emissions
rather than the transient hydrocarbon emission spikes due to purge behavior and the closing of
the purge valve on these tests (i.e., the spikes produce a small overall contribution to the
hydrocarbon emission totals).
D-4
-------
Appendix E
Induced Leak Configurations
-------
This section provides images of the vehicles tested in this program and documents how
the induced leaks were installed on each vehicle. Images demonstrating the configuration of the
respective evaporative emission control systems are also provided.
E.1.1 Honda Accord
Figure E-1. Honda Accord VECI Sticker
INFORMATION
EMISSION
TROLINFORMA
THt FACTOR* INSTALLED LONG-LIFE
COOLAIfl HUST BE REPLACED ACCORDING TC
XA1KTEMIK HINDER SUB CODE 5, OR AT
Ifl TEAK HHICHEVER COKES FIRST.
THEREAFTER EVERT 5 »EARS.
•*« WOI«G OR REPLACING THE COOLANT,
AL*fS IKE fcwh KCOWEIIOED GENUINE
LOK-LIFKNTl-FREEZE/COOLAliT WE 2
nOSCOOLAKTISPRE-MXEDKIIHSK '
OIST1LLEL WT«. IT WES HOT REQOIRE
THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO U.S. EPA TIEi
APPLICABLE TO 2007 MODEL YEAR NEW PASSENGER -
CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO 2007 MODI
LEV n LEV PASSENGER CARS.
CATALYST
TWC. A/F SENSOR, H02S. E6R SF1
K«tS DILUTE THE COOLANT, OR THE LIFE
W THE EK6IW *M BE SERIOUSLY
U-VE LASH IN:0.23±O.OZ
(COLD) EX:0.30±0.02 rmr
NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED
aunt MO WE COOLANT AT THE
•Hi. HOT THE RADIATOR
>f» FURTHW IHFWWTION on THE COOLIW
'HER'SHANUALOR
~< Howia DtAI ER.
HONDA MOTOR CO..LTD.
E-1
-------
Figure E-2. Honda Accord Side of Vehicle
Figure E-3. Honda Accord Side of Vehicle
E-2
-------
Figure E-4. Honda Accord Canister Connections
Figure E-5. Honda Accord Evaporative System Overview
FUEL TANK VAPOR CONTROL
VALVE
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION (EVAP) CANISTER
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION (EVAP)
CANISTER VENT SHUT VALVE
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION (EVAP) BYPASS
SOLENOID VALVE
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION (EVAP) TWO-WAY VALVE
FUEL TANK PRESSURE SENSOR
E-3
-------
Figure E-6. Honda Accord Under Vehicle Details of Evaporative System
Figure E-7. Honda Accord Canister Details
E-4
-------
Figure E-8. Honda Accord Fuel Sending Unit
E-5
-------
Figure E-9. Honda Accord Fuel Sending Unit as Installed
E-6
-------
E.1.2 Dodge Caravan
Figure E-10. Dodge Caravan VECI Sticker
04877598AA& CATALYST
VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION
THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO U.S. EPA TIER 2 BIN 5 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
GASOUNE FUELED 2007 MODEL YEAR NEW LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS AND MEETS U.S.
EPA CLEAN FUEL FLEET VEHICLE REGULATIONS. CERTIFICATION GASOLINE FUEL
PER 86.ll3-94(al.
•BASK IQNmON TIMING AMD IDLE FUEL /AIR MIXTURE HAVE
8BM PRESET AT THE FACTORY, SEE THE SERVICE MANUAL
PROPER PROCEDURES AND OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY OTHER THAN APPROVED SERVICE MANUAL
PROCSRHKS MAY VIOIA1E FEDCRAL AND STATE LAWS-
DaimlerChrysler ALTTHOBIZED MODIFICATIONS
TH£ FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE:
E-7
-------
Figure E-11. Dodge Caravan Side of Vehicle
Figure E-12. Dodge Caravan Side of Vehicle
E-8
-------
Figure E-13. Dodge Caravan Canister Connections
Figure E-14. Dodge Caravan Evaporative System Overview
Fig. 9 ORVR System Schematic
t - FUEL TANK (PLASTIC)
2 - FUEL FILLER TUBE
3 - FUEL CAP (PRESSURE'RELIEF)
FiLL TUBE TO FUEL TANK CONNECTOR (ELASTOMERICl
TANK VENT/ROLLOVER VALVE(S)
VAPOR RECIRCULATION LINE
TANK VAPOR LINE
VAPOR LINE TO CANISTER
CHECK VALVE (NIC)
10 - CONTROL VALVE
11 • NATURAL VACUUM LEAD DETECTION (NVLD)
12 - LIQUID SEPARATOR (IF EQUIPPED*
n - ENG8NE WIRING HARNESS TO NVLD
14 - VAPOR CANISTER
15 - PURGE LINE
IS - PURGE DEVICE
17 - WITHOUT NVLD
18 - BREATHER ELEMENT
19 - FLOW CONTROL ORIFICE
20 - SERVICE PORT
2t - WITH NVLD
E-9
-------
Figure E-15. Dodge Caravan Detail Shows (1) the Canister, and (2) the Vent
Figure E-16. Dodge Caravan Under Vehicle Details of Evaporative System
E-10
-------
Figure E-17. Dodge Caravan Canister Details
T3 CARAVANl
E-ll
-------
Figure E-18. Dodge Caravan Fuel Sending Unit
E-12
-------
Figure E-19. Dodge Caravan Fuel Sending Unit as Installed
E-13
-------
E.1.3 Toyota Corolla
cwmjMRMF
APPLICABLE
nLLVra^r
CATALYST
USA&CANADA
E-14
-------
Figure E-21. Toyota Corolla Side of Vehicle
Figure E-22. Toyota Corolla Side of Vehicle
E-15
-------
Figure E-23. Toyota Corolla Canister Connections
E-16
-------
Figure E-24. Toyota Corolla Evaporative System Overview
FUEL PUMP
CANISTER
Figure E-25. Toyota Corolla Under Vehicle Details of Evaporative System
E-17
-------
Figure E-26. Toyota Corolla Canister Details
E-18
-------
Figure E-27. Toyota Corolla Fuel Sending Unit
E-19
-------
Figure E-28. Toyota Corolla Fuel Sending Unit as Installed
E-20
-------
E.1.4 Ford Focus
Figure E-29. Ford Focus VECI Label
Ford Motor Company
VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION
Conforms to regulations: 2010 MY
U.S. EPA-.T2B3LDV
OBD: CA II Fuel: Gasoline
California: SULEV II PZEV PC, CA HSC 39037.05 Low
Emission Motor Vehicle OBD: CA fl Fuel: Gasoline
TWC/HQ2S/EGR/SFI I No adjustments needed.
2.0L-Group: AFMXV02.0VZX
Evap: AFMXR0110GCX
~7AW7E-9C485-T F Y
E-21
-------
Figure E-30. Ford Focus Side of Vehicle
Figure E-31. Ford Focus Side of Vehicle
E-22
-------
Figure E-32. Ford Focus Canister Connections
Figure E-33. Ford Focus Evaporative System Overview
E-23
-------
Figure E-34. Ford Focus Evaporative System Detail; (Orange) Filler Neck, (Red)
Canister Load, (Green) Canister Purge, (Blue) Canister Vent
Figure E-35. Ford Focus Under Vehicle Details of Evaporative System
E-24
-------
Figure E-36. Ford Focus Fuel Sending Unit
E-25
-------
Figure E-37. Ford Focus Fuel Sending Unit as Installed
E-26
-------
E.1.5 Chevrolet Silverado
Figure E-38. Chevrolet Silverado VECI Label
2006 MODEL YEAR
VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL
INFORMATION
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
CATALYST
NO ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED. SEE SERVICE MANUAL OR
OWNERS MANUAL FOR MORE INFORMATION.
FHIS I/EHICU CONFORMS TO U.S. EPA REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO NEW LIGHT -DUTY
fRUCKS THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND IS CERTIFIED FOR
iflLE IN CALIFORNIA. AND QUALIFIES AS A SULEVt THIS VEHICLE IS CERTIFIED TO THE
:LEAN FUEL FLEET LEV STANDARDS WHEN OPERATED ON GASOLINE AND MEETS ALL THE
tPPUCABLE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR PART 98. OBO II CERTIFIED.
E-27
-------
Figure E-39. Chevrolet Silverado Side of Vehicle
Figure E-40. Chevrolet Silverado Side of Vehicle
E-28
-------
Figure E-41. Chevrolet Silverado Canister Connections (Vent and Leaks)
TANK 'APOF
ii
T3 SILVERADO
— ^
E-29
-------
Figure E-42. Chevrolet Silverado Canister Connections (Load)
REMOVE
HEADeO LOAD LINE ON DASH BOARD
Figure E-43. Chevrolet Silverado Evaporative System Overview
E-30
-------
Figure E-44. Chevrolet Silverado Under Vehicle Details of Evaporative System
T. .,„ ULSJLVERADO
TANK CAPACITY « o GALL0.
Figure E-45. Chevrolet Silverado Canister Details
E-31
-------
Figure E-46. Chevrolet Silverado Fuel Sending Unit
E-32
-------
Figure E-47. Chevrolet Silverado Fuel Sending Unit as Installed
E-33
-------
Figure E-48. Chevrolet Silverado Purge Solenoid (Red)
Figure E-49. Chevrolet Silverado Purge Solenoid Detail
E-34
------- |