Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action Evaporative Emission Enclosure (SHED) Procedure Analysis of Surveillance ProgramData

by

Thomas Rarick

Jurie 1975

Notice Evap. 75-2

Technical support reports for regulatory action do not necessarily represent the final EPA decision on regulatory issues. They are intended to present a technical analysis of an issue and recommendations resulting from the assumptions and constraints of that analysis. Agency policy constraints or data received subsequent to the date of release of this report may alter the conclusions reached. Readers are cautioned to seek the latest analysis from EPA before using the information contained herein.

Standards Development and Support Branch Emission Control Technology Division Office of Hobile Source Air Pollution Control Office of Air and Waste Management 

## u.s. Environmental ProtectionAgency

Reprinted 7-76This report is a summary of the data analysis performed at EPA for the SHED enclosure testing for evaporative emissions performed during FY 71, 72 and 73 surveillance programs. Included are descriptions of the datahandling and documentation of it's current whereabouts. Also included are the results of various analyses done to evaluate the effects of testing and vehicle parameters on evaporative emission levels. · Table I lists the testing programs in which datawere collected. The raw data were supplied to EPA and subsequently transcribed onto standard data sheets. The data analysis could only be performed for test trains 60, 61, 62, 63, and 65. The analyzer calibration curve data were not supplied or were lost for train 64 and therefore analysis of these data was impossible. However, the preliminary evaporative emis-**ston~** discussion paper 

### (1) does summarize some anaiysis done for the 

### FY 72**D~ye~ data~**  Train No. City of test**in~ Contracto~**  FY No. of tests Model Year : 60 Denver AESi 71 22 '71 61 Los Angeles AESi 71 136 '59-'71 62 Los Angeles AESi 72 20 '72 63 Los Angeles AESi 73 20 '73 64 Denver ATL 72 22 '72 65 Denver**~L** 73 20 '73
Table I. Surveillance Test Programs

After the data were transcribed onto the standard data sheet shown inAppendix A, they were keypunched and entered into a computer file. A computer progam was developed to calculate the Diurnal loss, hot soak loss and grams per vehiclemile based on the calculations shown inAppendix B. The programwas also designed to develop certain other data files from which subsequent data analysis could be performed easily. The formats of these files are shown inAppendix C.

12 

### The final step in the datahandling was auditing the data for various errors. From the auditing process errors were corrected and several invalid tests were discovered and omitted from further analysis. There were various reasons for omitting tests which included erratic readings and tests conducted over a very small range of deflections of the analyzer. Alisting of the deleted tests is given inAppendix D. Appendix Eis a summary of the results for each test conducted including figures showing the frequency distribution of diurnal, hot soak and total HC losses•. General Emission Levels: Standard statistical analyses were performed for the data from each of the five test programs. Means and standard deviations of the diurnal, hot soak and gram permilevalues were calculated for each test program. Composite values for allDenver tests or for all Los Angeles tests were not looked at as it is felt that there are important test program to test program differences. MOat important of the differencesbetween the test programs was the difference in fuel types used. This aspect of the**differ~nt** 

### testing programs willbe discussed later. Table II shows the different statisticalvalues for each of the test**program~.** 

### Figure 1 shows graphically the·diurnal and.hot soakvalues for each test.program and Figure 2 shows the gram per milevalues.

·The general·emission levels·also show to what extent current vehicles would need to improve in**orde~** 

### to meet the 2 gram per test standard. The Denver and Los Angeles FY 71 data included 1970 and 1971 vehicles and the same test fuel was used in both programs. The average emissions for those model year vehicles was 

### 31 grams diurnal loss and 21 grams hot soak loss giying an average total loss of 52 grams. It is evident that, for those model years, the evaporative emissions were much greater than the 2 gram standard. The Denver FY 73 and Los Angeles FY 72 and FY 73 programs tested 1972 and.1973 model year evaporative·emission controlled vehicles. For those three test programs .combined the average diurnal loss was 

### 14.3 grams and the average hot soak loss was 13.8 grams. The total loss per car per _test was 28 grams or 

### 14 times**th~** 

### 2 gram standard for evaporative emissions. The FY 73 programs showe4 the same.or higher emissions than the FY 72 program. It should also be noted from the histrograms in Appendix E.showing.the.total lose.test data, that !!2_

### test conduc.ted. in any programwas less than the 2 gram standard•. The EPA in-house studywill conduct baseline tests on 1975 vehicles and, therefore, these data will .give themost upto-date evaluationof the effectiveness.of evaporative controlledvehicles. However, until these data are available the data from surveillance testing show that on the averagebetter than a 90% reduction in evaporative·emissions would be·required to meet the current 2 gram standard. Shed Enclosure versus C4rtister Tr4p·Testtns The surveillance programS conducted inDenver and Los Angeles for FY 73 did comparative testing to evaluate the shed enclosuremeasurement as compared to the canister trapmethod currentiyused in the certificationprocess. The same vehicleswere tested by eachof·the twa test methods. The·Denver FY 73·program showed an average total hydrocarbonTest Program
Denver 

### FY71 (train 60) LosAngeles FY 

### 71 (train 61) LosAngeles FY 72 (train 62) LosAngeles FY 73 (train 63) Denver FY 73 (train 65) Diurnal loss Hot Soak loss Grams/mile Numberof**~ean**loss Standard Number Mean**Los~** Standard Number MeanLos tests grams Deviation of tests Grams Deviatior of tests GPM

18 42.9

124 24.2

15 12.5
17 15.1

17 15.1 29.5 17 32.5 18.6 13
17.9 131 13.9 9.43 121

8.9 17 10.6 5.63 13
14.6 18 14.1 7.02 15

10.3 20 16.4 9.62 17

Table II: Means and Standard deviations Diurnal, Hot Soak, and gram per mile losses for the in dividual surveillance test programs. 5.32

2.58

2.00
2.41

2.60 Standard Deviation

3.04

1.45

.978
1.20

1.34

### ~ til 1-1 00



# .. ell ell 

# .s u 

# =

ell ell 

### 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

5

6 5



### ;: 4 Q) ;: 3 

### e 

# -**~** 2 1-1 (.!) 1 

### Denver FY 71 

### Figure 1
.· \



### Denver FY 71 

### Figure 2 

### L.A. FY 71 

### 4



### L.A. FY 72

# • EZI

Test Program Diurnal Losses Hot Soak Losses



### L.A. FY 73 ' 

### Denver FY 73 

### Diurnal and Hot Soak losses for each surveillance test program.

Denver FY 73 

### Test Program Gram permile losses**fo~ ~ach**  

### surveillance test program.5
loss of .39 grams for canister tested vehicles as opposed to a 31 gram total.loss measured by the enclosuremethod. This represents a 79 times higher result when the enclosure testingmethod is used. The Los Angeles FY 73 program showed an average total loss of 0.52 grams for vehicles tested using the canister trap method as opposed to a 29.2 grams loss for vehicles tested using the shed enclosure technique. This represents a 56 times higher result when the enclosuremethod is used to test the vehicles. This is very strong evidence that the canister trap method onlymeasures a very small percentage of the total evaporative**e~issions.** Effect of Atmospheric Pressure: The emission levels from testing done in Denver and Los Angeles can be compared to evaluate the effect of different atmospheric pressures. The atmospheric pressure in Los Angeles was generally 5 in. Hg. higher than it was in Denver. One might suspect that emissions in**D~nver** would be higher because the lower atmospheric pressure would allow the fuel to have a lower Initial Boiling Point (IBP). This was the conclusion, drawn from the surveillance programs, r,eported on in thepreliminary discussion paper on evaporative emissions. In that paper emission levels from the Denver FY 72 and Los Angeles FY 72 surveillanceprograms were compared. Itwas found in that analysis that the Denver values were indeed higher and that atmospheric pressure had ari important influence on evaporative emissions. In those test programs thevehicles used were of the same model year and all vehicles were controlled for evaporative emissions with charcoal canisters. For the analysis performed at EPA the data for the Denver FY 72 programwere not usable because the FID calibration curves were not available. Therefore, the most reliable sets of data for comparing the effects of atmospheric pressure were the results from the Denver FY 

### 73 and Los Angeles FY 

### 73 program. These programs also used similar vehicles (1973 Models) and all vehicles were canister controlled. In addition the fuel used in both programs was indolene 30 and the Reid Vapor Pressure {RVP) and IBP were similar for both programs. The diurnal losseswere found to be the same for both Denver and Los Angeles. The hot soak emissions were 16% higher for Denver than.they were for Los Angeles. It was found, however, that due to the large variance of the data a low confidence can be placed in the conclusion that there is a difference inhot soak emission levels. The general magnitude of the difference inhot soak emission levels was the same as that found in the positionpaperwhen Denver FY 72 and Los Angeles FY 72 programs were compared. One could go further and attempt to compare the Denver FY 73 and Los Angeles FY 72 programs. The only intended difference between the two programs was that the Denver program·used all 

### 1973 vehicles and the Los Angeles programused all 1972 vehicles. There may also have been other differences between the two programs such as differences in fuel characteristics. Acomparison between these two programs would show a difference in emission levels for both diurnal and hot soak tests. The conclusion that the difference was due to atmospheric pressure, however, may be incorrect because a similar comparison between the Los Angles FY 72 program and the Los Angeles FY 736 program show the same differences. The differences seenbetween the two Los Angeles programs cannot be attributed to atmospheric pressure. The logical conclusion from these two comparisonswouldbe that a difference existed due to the model year of the vehicles tested and not due to atmospheric pressure. Agreat deal of confidence cannot be placed in this conclusion either, because other differences such as the effects of fuel composition may have been responsible for the observed differences.
In conclusion, the results of this analysis and the analysis done in the preliminary discussion paper show that different conclusions can be drawn depending on which two test programs are compared. It is felt that while a difference in emission levels may indeed exist due to differences in atmospheric pressure, a test programwhich would be designed to specifically test for differences due to atmospheric pressure would need to be conducted in order to quantify the effects of atmospheric pressure and to gain sufficient confidence that a difference does or does not exist. · Controlled Vehicles versus Uncontrolled Vehicles Another important aspect of the surveillance programwas the analysis of the effectiveness of the charcoal canister as an evaporative emission control device. The Los Angeles FY 71 test program**teste~** both canister controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. The other programs tested only canister controlled vehicles and, therefore, the analysis done to evaluate the canister's effectiveness was done on vehicles from the Los Angeles FY 71 program only. Table III shows the diurnal and hot soak emission levels for both controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. The diurnal losses were reduced by 28% and the hot soak emissions were reduced by 28% due to the charcoal canister. Ahigh confidence can be placed in the conclusion that there is indeed an improvement in evaporative emission levels due to the charcoal canister. However, due to high variability in the tests a more precise quantification of the charcoal canister's effect on evaporative emissions would requite more testing.

TP :t" Tvoe 1 Mean HC na<: orAm<:

### ~~e2d~Id n,**~at**Lon LE.ang_e**@~%** confidence

...-1 Ill l=l**~** ::I "N Cl
,.!!.'. Ill 0 t/) .j.J 

## :2 controlled 18.47 2.64 14.84-22.1
uncontrolled 25.73 19.34 21.89'-29.57 controlled 10;6 6.30 8.27-12.93
uncontrolled 14.86 10.04 12.88-16.84

Table III: Mean HC loss for diurnal and hot soak tests for evap. 'controlled and uncontrolled vehicles L.A. FY 71 data

··only.7

I

. Effects of Fue1 and Enclosure Temperature The preliminary discussion papercites references addressing the effects of fuel parameters such as RVP and IBP on emission levels. The testing done during the surveillance program showed certain trends that would be expected due to differences in RVP and IBP. However, due to the many uncontrolled parameters such as vehicle type, fuel tank size, engine size, barometric pressure, and test site, any attempt to quantify the effects of fuel differences would be invalid. In order to quantify any differences,**controlle~** testing would need to be performed. Trends, however, were found and are illustrated graphically in figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the diurnal and hot soak emission levels in Denver and Los Angeles for Indolene 30 and commercial leaded fuels. Figure 4 represents the fuel parameters of RVP and IBP for indolene 30 and commercial leaded fuels used in Denver and Los Angeles. The RVP would be expected to primarily affect diurnal emission levels, whereas the IBP would primarily affect the hot soak emission levels. This analysis was done for evaporative controlled vehicles only, in order to eliminate variance due to that parameter. The diurnal losses for commercial leaded fuel were higher**th~m** diurnal losses for tests using indolene 30 in ,both Denver and Los Angeles. In both cases the RVP of the fuel was much higher for the commercial leaded fuel and one would expect higher evaporative emissions when

# a fuel with a higher RVP is used. The amount of vapors generated during the hot soak test would be expected to be higher when the IBP of the fuel is lower. This is the case for hot soak emissions in Denver but not in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles values for hot soak losses arevery close even though the IBP for the Indolene fuel is higher. This does not adhere to the expected trend, but is probablydue to some vehicle or test parameter other than fuel type.
An analysis was done to try and evaluate effect of the enlosure (SHED) temperature on evaporative emissions. Only hot soak test data were evaluated since higher enclosure·temperatures could be expected due to the transfer of heat from the hot engine. Tests were grouped in 2 degree intervals of maximum shop temperature minus IBP, such that when the maximum shop temperature equalled the IBP the data wereplaced in the zero degree interval. The tests in the different intervals were averaged and the.data were plotted inFigure 5. In addition the average engine size for each interval was calculated and is also plotted in Figure 5. The Figure shows that there is a def.inite increase in emissions as themaximum SHED temperature approaches and surpasses the IBP of the fuel. This could be attributed to the fact that larger engines could producemore emissions and more heat. However, the data of average engine size does not bear this out, as equally large engines are found over the .entire range. The observed trend could also be due to a larger average carburetor bowl

## 60 Cll 

### a t1! 50 1-< co



# .. Cll 40 Cll 0 ...-t u 30 

### ::=**~** Cll 20 X 10

13
12 11 10

9 8 8



# - Indolene 30 fuel 

# fZZLI. commercial leaded fuel

Diurnal Diurnal Loss Denver Loss Los Angeles Hot Soak Hot Soak Loss Loss Denver Los Angeles Figure3Mean HC loss for Indolene or Commercial Leaded Fuels for Denver and Los Angeles. 

# - f?Z3 Indolene 30 fuel connnercial leaded fuel 104 114 0

Denver Los Angeles Denver Los Angeles Figure4Mean RVP and IBP values for Indolene or commercial leaded fuels for Denver and Los Angeles. 809

X

)(

X
)(

)( X
I I )(
)( )( I I I )( I'
I )(**~** I I )( X I I I 

# .. I I 

### oc I I 

## x'

I I I

# "

I IX I k 

# ' ' I I IX**~** N

N ·N

0 N
00 .-l 

# "' .-l**~** .-l

N .-l 0 .-l

00 

## "'**~**

N 

# .**~ ~** **~ ~**  Cl) 

### §**.~** X tU 13 (/J 

# ] s**~** 

### r----- - - - -dill-=-:-dilla.L-

## aaiis-**~ew-** 

# ---,'-

- -------------· 0 H

)(

0 U")**~** )( )(I

)(

0 0**~** (ai::l) 0 U") N 0 0 N U") N 

### ' I I 

# •

I)(

0 N**(sme~~)** az1s**au1~ua a~e~aAv**  sso1**~eos** 40H**a~e~aAV** Figure 5. Average hot soak losses and average engine size (CID) as a function of maximum SHED Temperature

- IBP. N I

### 10

%of tests where shed temperature exceeded Test**Pro~ram** 

### 80°F .90°F IBP Denver



### FY71 86.96 17.39 73.91 L.A.

FY 71 71.85 .74 16,30 L.A.

FY 72 

### 95 5 5 

### L.A.

FY 

### 73 95 0 0 Denver



### FY 73 95 35 15

Table IV %

### of tests for each test

programwhere .the shed temperature exceeded 

### 80°F, 90°F 6r IBP.
volume for those groupings showing higher evaporative losses. However, carburetor bowl volume data werenot available and therefore this hypothesis could not be tested. Lastly, thehigher hot soak emissions exhibited for tests where the enclosure temperature was greater than the IBP of the fuel could be attributed to increased emissions from the fuel tank as the fuel surpasses its IBP. This conclusion, although feasible, cannot be totally supported, but itwould help explain the high hot soak emissions for the Denver 

### FY71 testing. Table IV shows the %of tests for each train.inwhich the enclosure temperature exceeded 

### 80°, 90°F and the IBP. It is evident that the large percent of tests where themaximum SHED temperature exceeded the IBP for theDenver 

### FY71 program could have been the cause of the**h~gh h~t**  

### soakemissions for that test program. \ The maximum enclosure temperature never exceeded the IBP of the fuels used for anydiurnal test during any of the test programs. However, the IBP of the fuel used during the Denver 

### FY71 programwas at orbelow 

### 84°F for 

### 77% of the tests conducted during that program. The prescribed ending fuel tank temperature for the diurnal test is 

### 84°F 

### + 2°F. Therefore, the high diurnal losses exhibited during the Denver 

### FY71 program are probablydue to the low IBP of the/test fuel**used~** 

### In conclusion, the trends·expected due to the fu'el parameters of RVP and IBP do showup for all but Los Angeles hot soakvalues. There are published reports available that experimentally quantify the effects of fuel composition on evaporative emissions whichgivemuchmore reliable results than the surveillance data.11

Since fuel does have a marked effected on both hot soak and diurnal emission results, it is recommended that tight**specificatio~s** on fuel type be used and a maximum shed enclosure temperature be specified. Analysis of Diurnal EmissionTests The parameters felt to have an important effect on diurnal emissions were analysed to determine if they influenced the levels of diurnal emissions and, if possible, to quantify their influence. The parameters that were analyzed were the**len~th** of test, the fuel tank volume, and the RVP**o~** the test**fuel~** The effect the length of the diurnal test has on evaporative emissions was looked at in two ways. First, plots of hydrocarbon concentration divided by the maximum hydrocarbon concentrationversus time divided by total length of the diurnal test weremade. These plots for each test program are shown in figures 6 through 10. These p+ots show the general rate of evolution of hydrocarbons with time and specifically show what is occurring at the end of the diurnal test. It can be**se~n** that the diurnal emissions are continuing to be**evolv~d** at the end of the test at a substantial rate. Ten percent of the totalhydrocarbon loss occurs in the last· 10% or approximately 6 minutes of the test time. The current time tolerance specified for the certificationprocedure and in the SAE procedure is 60**~in**

## ±10 min. Aquestion that needs to be answered, then, is whether or not the 10 min. tolerance on the diurnal test length is too liberal. It should be noted that these figures as**~ell** as figures showing the hot soak emissions as a function of time do not always**~how** the maximum HC levels at the end of the test. One would expect the [HC]/[HC] max value to equal 1.0 at the end of the**tes~.** However, due to**av~raging** tests where.theme.ximum hydrocarbon concentration occurred before the end of the test, some figures do not end at

## a [HC]/(HC] max value of 1.0. Another analysis of the data from the Los Angeles FY 71 was done to look at the emission levels for tests which ended in either 50 55

.60 65 or 70 minutes. For this analysis, only

### test~ where the

### fin~! t;mpe;ature was 84°

## ± .5°Fwere considered. The results of this analysis are shown in figure 11. It can be seen from this figure that the longer the test the higher the emissions and that a 70 minute test might result in 400% higher emissions than a 50 minute test. It canbe seen from the 95% conf.idence limits in the ff&ure that an accur t

. . . . "' a e assessment of the effect of the length of the diurnal test cannot be made. Further testing would be required to make a quantitative evaluation of the proper time tolerances for the diurnal test and this is being planned for current in-house EPA testing. It canbe**concl~ded,** however that time may be an important aspect of the diurnal test and there is

### ~ need to quantify its effect.l!!£1." {HC] max 1.0

.8

.6

.4
.2

0 0 ,

.2 95% confidenc

·.4 .6 .8 Time/Time max 1.0 Figure 6. Denver FY 71 program.**1.0~----------------------~,** 

### , , .8

.6

.4
.2 

### , , 

### ,**~** 

### , , 

### , , 

### , 

## ,



## , ,**~** 

# , , ,



## , , 

## , 

## , ,

0 ·.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Time max Figure

### 8,**-Lo~** Angeies FY 72 program, Figures 6-9:

## l.!!9.1 vs. [HC] max 1.0



### .L!!£l. [HC] max.8

.6

.4

.2

0 0 .2 95% confidence limits

.4 .6 .8 Time/Time max 1.0 Figure 7. Los Angeles FY 71 program.

1.0

# -r--------------..

.l.!!£1.

IHC] max .8

.6
.4



### , , , , 

### , , 

### , , , dence limits

0

### ·+-----~----,-----~----T---~ ·0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 ·-Time/Timemax 

### ..... N

Figure 9. LosAngeles FY. 7 3 program. Time for diurnal tests. Time max[HC] [HC] max

80

en 70

### ~ 

## ,., bO 60



# .. en en 0 50 ..-i C) 

### ::r: ..-i 40 ttt**~** ,... :l 30 ..-1 A**~** 20 Q) X 10 

### 13 1.0

# ;,-----------------JI

.8

.6

.4
.2**~**

95% confidence limit

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Time max Figure10

## .lli£1 vs. Time [HC] max Time max for diurnal tests conducted during the Denver FY 73 surveillance program.



# I I



# . I I 

## I I 95% confidence 

### I limits**·-·--~--·**



# ..---·-·-·/ 

# ,..

# -. ,.. ......... 

# ,... 

# --

......... / / 

### ........
50 55 60 65 70 Test Length (min.) Figure11Mean diurnal HC loss vs. length of test for Denver FY 71 data only. (All tests ended at 84°F

## ± .5°F)

### 14
Asimilar analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different temperature rises on diurnal emissions. Only tests ending in 60 min. were evaluated. The testswere grouped according to whether a 20, 22, 24, 26, or 28 degree temperature risewas conducted. The average values for each interval were then calculated. This analysis did not provide any noticeable trend even though one might suspect that higher emissions would be exhibited forvehicles.subjected to a larger temperature**rise~** 

### One cannot, however, conclude that the temperature rise has no effect because the experiment was not controlled for other parameters.. In 'addition there were no data for temperature rises of 20°F or 28°F· Therefore, the effects of the extreme temperature tolerances could not be evaluated as 20°F and 28°F are the minimum and maximum**temper~ture** 

### rises respectively allowable by the current tolerances. It is planned for the EPA in-house study on evaporative emissions to performcontrolled I 

### experiments in order to evaluate the effect of the temperature tolerances. The effect that the fuel tank volume has on diurnal emissions was also analyzed. Aregression analysis was run to determine if a correlation existed between fuel tank volume and diurnal emissions. The Los Angeles FY 72 and FY 73 and the Denver FY 73 programs exhibited.the best correlation coefficients. However,·.the correlation coefficients were·low and scatter plots of the data for these programs showed a wide scatter of data.· These plots·are shown·in figures 12.:..14. It is recommended that a more controlled experiment be performed to determine if 

### any correlation'truly exists and to quantify its·effect. · An attempt to quantify the effect of RVP.was also performed for the different testprogratTIS·

.Aregression·Of RVP versus diurnal emissions showed very low correlation coefficients. As was stated earlier, there.have**b~en** 

### studies performed that have anlayzed and quantified the effects of RVP on diurnal .emissions. Analysis.of Hot Soak Emission Tests The general hydrocarbon versus time relationships were determined for hot soak emissions as well as analyses done to evaluate·the effects of engine parameters suchas engine size (displacement), number of cylinders and number of barrels. Figures 15.through 19 show the,general emissions versus time relationships for each test program for a one hour hot soak. It

### canbe seen that .the emission level increases rapidly'for the first half of the test andthen begins to level off during.the last half of the test•.T.l.te emissions do, however, continue to increase

..up to the end of the test and**pre~;umably** 

### continue past one hour. The extent·to which the emissions continue to increase should be evaluated to determine if they reach a constant value in a fixed amount of time or if 

### they continue to increase**indefinitely~** 

### · · ' ·

·The engine size (displacement) was analyzed to determine whether the enclosure temperature rise during the hot soaktest'was affected. The analysis done·for the Los Angeles FY 72 program showed some cor-30**~** 

### 25 Ill 

### a I'd


# ... bO 

# - 20



# .. Ill Ill 

# .s M 

### 15 I'd**~** 

## ... =' 'l"i A 

### 10

5



### 10



# - Ill 9.

### ~ 

## ... bO

........ 8



# .. Ill Ill 0 H 7 'Cil**~** 

## ... 6**·~** A 5

0 

## •

X X )( X

)( X X )( )( )C)( )( )(

5 

### 10 15 20 25 Fuel Tank size (gal.) Figure12Diurnal Loss vs. Fuel tankvolume for the Denver FY 73 surveillance program.

)( XX )( X

)(

X

5 

### 10 15 20 25 

### Fuel Tank size (gal.) 

# ' 30

30



### .Figure 13 Diurnal loss vs. Fuel tankvoJ.ume for the L.A. FY 73 surveillance program.

# - 

# !

......



# .. co co 

# .s 30
25

20

15
.10

5 16

)( )( )(

)( )( )(
)( )( )( )( )( Jt i' )( )( X 

# • 10 15 20 25 30 Fuel Tank size (gal.) Figure 14 Diurnal Loss vs. Fuel.tankvolume for the L.A. FY 7Z.·surveillance program. relation. It showed·that a**·3~cr·a:o** engine produced

## ·a.-·2.J**~**1''**grea~~L·** enclosure temperature rise than a 200 CID engine., It was stated earlier that the maximum enclosure temperature has an effect on hot soak emissions when it approaches the IBP of the fuel. This would mean, therefore, that a larger engine might cause themaximum shed temperature to exceed the IBP whereas a smaller engine would not. Again, in order to quantify the effect of engine size, a more controlled experiment would be required. Itwould seem, however, that specifying a maximum enclosure temperature as the SAE procedure does would eliminate any problems that would arise. The SAE procedure specifies a 90°F maximum Shed temperature. The number of cylinders in the engine and the number of barrels in the carburetor were compared with hot soak emission levels to determine if a correlation existed. Table V shows the results of an anlaysis of the number of cylinders for vehicles tested in the Los Angeles FY 71 test program. Only one test·programwas analyzed, to eliminate any variabilitybetween test programs and the Los Angeles FY 71 program was used because of the large sample size.· The vehicles with 8 cylinders emitted 80% more evaporative emissions than did vehicles with 4 cylinders. Ahigh confidencewas found to exist that a difference between the two sets of data actually existed.

### .l!!£1 [HC] max



### l!!£1. [HC) max .8

.6

.4

.2 95% confidence limits**0+-----r---~----~-----r----~**

1.0

.8

•6
.4
.2

0 0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Timemax Figure 15. Denver FY 71 program.

95% confidence limits

.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Time max Figure 17. Los Angeles FY 72 program, 

### .l!!£1. [HC] max



### .llifl [HC] max .8
.6

.4

.2 95% confidence limits**0~--~~--~----.-----~--~** 0

1.0

.8
,6

.4

.2

0 0 .2 .4 .6 Time/Time max .8 1.0 Figure 16. Los Angeles FY· 71 program.

95% confidence limits

.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Time max Figure 18. Los Angeles FY 73 program. Figuresf-5-18. [HC]

. vs. Time for hot soak tests. [HC] max- Time max·

### .8

.6 [HC] [HC] max 

### .4

.2

0 

### 18**r~--** 95% confidence limits

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Time/Timemax Figure19.1!£1 vs. Time [HC] max Time max for hot soak tests conducted during the Denver FY 73

..surveillance program.

### 19

No. of No. of Mean Hot Standard Cylinders t·ests soak loss,ps Deviation 

### 4 15 8.32 6.59 6 18 13.50 6.91 8 97 14.97 9.89 Table V 

### Mean hot soak losses for vehicles with 4, 6 or 8 cylinders. L.A. FY 

### 71 data only.

TableVIshows the results of an analysis performed to test the effect of the number of carburetor barrels. Itwas determined by means of a t-test that there was not a high confidence that any difference in 

### hot soak,emissions existed due to thenumber of barrels. However, it does appear that a trend**m~y** 

### exist such that**hig~er** 

### emissions would result for vehicles with a greater number of barrels.

No. of No. of Mean hot soak Standard Barrels tests Loss (grams) Deviation 1 

### 22 12·.10 7.63 2 

### 69 13•.96 10.92 4 39 14,98 7.43 Table VI Mean hot soak losses for vehicles with 1, 2 or 4 barrels.**L~A.** 

### FY 71 data only. The effect of carburetor bowl volume was not analyzed because bowl volume data were not readily available. It is believed that bowl volume may have an effect on hot soak emissions, but further studies would be required to determine this. In order to gain a more precise evaluation of differenct engine parameters, controlled testing would need to be performed. In the evaluation of the effect the number of cylinders or number of barrels had on hot soak emissions, the fuel tankvolumes, engine size (displacement), evaporative control systems, carburetor bowl size and type of caburetor were not controlled. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute differences in emission levels to one parameter only such as the number of cylinders. It is believed that

### 20

families of vehicles with similar engine, and fuel system characteristics would produce similar emission levels. This cannot be confirmed through analysis of the surveillance data, however. The data for total evaporative losses were also grouped by different manufacturer. This grouping is shown in TableVII•.It should be noted that the controlled and uncontrolledvehicles are different vehicles and that in some cases a very small number of tests were conducted. For these reasons these data should not be considered as indicative of all vehiclesmade by thatmanufacturer. It should also be noted that the vehicles tested were tested in the condition theywere inwhen they came to the test facility, and that theywere in-usevehicles. These do·,.however, show that allmanufacturers will have to achieve a considerable reduction in evaporative losses in order tomeet a 2 gram standard. An attemptwas made to separate groups of vehicles bymanufacturer, engine size, model year, and fuel tankvolume. The groups of vehicles were small innumber and showed a very large variance in emission levels. Nine groups of vehicles were found where the sample**siz~** 

### was greater than 3. These groups are**descr~bed** 

### in Table VIII and the emissions-levels are summarized in Table IX. For diurnal emissions the standard deviations for the different groups ranged from 33% of themean value to 125% of themean. For hot soak emissions the standard deviations for the different groups ranged from 12% of themean to 106% of the mean. These values show that·even groups of similar vehicles show wide variability in evaporative emission·families. The variance exhibited in the groups of similar vehicles can be attributed at least in part.to test variability. Eight of the nine groups came from the Los Angeles FY 71 program. During this programnine replicate tests on the same vehicle were run. From these replicate tests it was found the the difference in diurnal emissions between two tests averaged 23% of their mean value and for hot soak emissions the difference averaged 37.1% of the mean· value. It should also be noted that most of the groups consisted of non-evaporative controlled vehicles. Controlled vehicles may show less test to test variability and this canbe evaluatedwi:.th the replicate testing done during the EPA in-house study. · Conclusion and Recommendations 1) The current evaporative emission levels as measured by the SHED technique are fourteen times higher than the 2 gram standard. A90% imorovement in evaporative emissions would be required**to·~eet t~e**  

### 2·gram standard. 2) The shed enclosure method was found tomeasure between 56· and 79 times higher evaporative emissions than the canister trap technique. It is recommended that·the shed·enclosure testing method be**u~ed** 

### for evaporative emission testing instead of the canister trapmethod.·

### 21.

Control Vehicles !Uncontrolled**Vehicle~** 

### Manufacturer Total loss, Tota.l loss, N 

### grams N 

### grams AMC

.. 

### ·2 28.9 1 37.7 Chrysler 

### 2 52.8 1 35.4 Dodge 

### 3 21.5 4 23.8 Plymouth 

### 2 27.7 2 18.9 All r.hrv,:::l<=>r 7 u?**~** ?6.

.1 

### Ford 

### 10 25.2 10 44.0 Mercury 

### 3 36.5 2 49.3 All Ford Mo. Co. 13 

### 27.8 12 44.9 Buick 

### 3**3~.0** 

### 2 69.7 Cadillac 

### 2 42.0 1 42.1 Chevrolet 

### 9 22.1 9 45.8 Oldsmobile 

### 3 36,9 2 

### 28.1 Pontiac 

### 1 36.8 2 73.0 All GM 

### 18 30.4 16 49.7 Nissan· l 18__g_ Tovo**Ko~vo.** 1**c;~ .·~**  

### Toyota 1 11 n 1 c;c; Q 

### Volkswa2en 

### 2 18.5 1 16 6
Table VII. Average total evaporative hydrocarbon losses for controlled and uncontrolled

. \ 

### vehicles·by manufacturer. ·No. of Group Engine Fuel tank vehicles No•. Manufacturer Model Yrs. size (in3.) size(gal. ) in group before 1 Ford 1965 251-300 15-20 5 before 2 Ford 1965 351-400 15-20 4 1965- 3 Ford 1969 251-300 15-20 5 before 4 Chevrolet 1965 251-300 15-20 6 1965- 5 Chevrolet 1969 251-300 15-20 4 1965- 6 Chevrolet 1969 301-350 15-20 6 1970- 7 Chevrolet 1971 301-350 15-20 4 1970- 8 Chevrolet 1971 301-350 20-25 5 1965- 9· Volkswagen 1969 50-100 10-15 6
TableVIIICharacteristics of groups of similarvehicles.-- Group No. of Diurnal .tests Hot Soak tests Grams/mile No. vehicles ·Mean HC Standard Mean HC Standard Mean GPM Standard Loss,; (grams' Deviation Loss,(grams) Deviation Loss Deviation

1 5 33.9 42.3 13.2 3.16 2.74 1.51


# z 4 23.3

. 10.9 12.8 1.57 2.39 .495

3 5 20.8. 6.8 15.8 2.58 2.73 .456

.. 4 6**21~,7** 16.2 9.40 4.31 1.89 .978

.- 5 4 49.2 40.1 7.85 3.29 2._46 1.25
6 6 29.5 27.7 13.6. 4.72 2.68 1.00
7. 4 24.6 10.2 11.4 3.57 2.25 .763
8 5 57.6 34.6 23.6 12.0 4.83 2.28
9 6 28.9 ;23.2 8.59 9.15 1.98 1.81
Table IX. Evaporative Emission Statistics for groups of similar vehicles.24


### 3) Further testingwould be needed to accurately assess the effects of atmospheric pressure on evaporative emissions. Itwas found that hot soak emissions were higher inDenver than inLos Angeles by approximately 16%, but a high confidence in the conclusion that atmospheric pressure has a significant effect on either diurnal or hot soak losseswas not found to exist. 4) Evaporative controlledvehicles were found to have 28% lower evaporative emissions levels than uncontrolled vehicles for both diurnal and hot soak tests. 5) The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and Initial Boiling Point (IBP) of the test fuel appeared to have significant effects on evaporative losses. Itwas not possible to quantify the effects of RVP and IBP due to the large varity of vehicles used. However, there have been studies done which quantify the effects of RVP and IBP. Tight specifications should be placed on the test fuel used. 6) The maximum shed**temp~rature** 

### had an effect on the hot soak losses and, therefore, it is recommended that a ·maximum shed temperat.ure b.e specified 'for testing." The SAE proced,ure currently specifies a .90°F maximum enclosure temperature. · · 7) 

### The length of the diurnal test appeared to have a significant effect on the diurnal losses, but, due to large test variability and a small number of tests run at.SO or 70 minutes, further testing.needs to be done to accurately quantify its effect. It is recommended that additional testing be done to evaluate the effect of the time tolerance on diurnal emissions. 8) The fuel tank volume was not found to have a quantified effect on diurnal emissions. No conclusions could be drawn from the data.·

· 9) Hydrocarbon levels appeared to increasebeyond the 1 hour hot soak test.' It is recommended that further testing be done to determine to what extent the emission levels continue to increase. 10) Further testing should·be·conducted in order'to quantify the. effects of.engine size (displac:eiilent), the number of cylinders and the ntimber of barrels•on hot soak emiss.ioris. It did·appear, however, that higher·hot soak emission levels existed for vehicles with.more cylinders or more barrels and the enclosure temperature risewas greater for larger engines.

. .

### 25

References 1. 

## c. Don Paulsell, Mobile Source Evaporative Emissions (Draft), June 1974.**EVAI'OIAnVf""EMISSIO~** (SHED).DATA SHEn 

# I =·'v-WCUIIUimcA------y--**~**

# i**v:-.~·~YLO.~IBv't~y~y--IIA"t**

# liI

# r&IQW-y

..**"~ ~** 



# IIDlllllllllllllll.lllllllllllllllllllllllillI

# UII

# ill111111r

# Ill

# IOIIIIITIIIfllol•l
S 16 IS • 20 2S 30 JS .00 U 10 U 60 U 70 J1 10



## - illl!liSI!Mv--....;.----r'$1

# ~~~-=~**-u~** -.

# ~g~e~~:;2-:I~1 

# . JDIJIIIf@lll.l-111

# iIll]IIll

# DJlllliiii.I

# W11Ool2

# 1

» • n .oo u 10 u**~** u n n 10
,...--------- FUllDIST1UATIONTlMPUAIUIIS(Of) 

## I 20,. 

### I· 

## I..,,.

I DIUINAl · 

# 1**~** HOI 10M 

# l

_**r-fiMPUATUil('f)~** LUO**~Ht.----,.** T[MPUAtllll ('f) 1- LUO. -..,_- HC. ---,. 

## Iii ENCl. 

## I IAHII 

## I IAHII (IH.MG.) lNG lltADIHG TANII 

# ·- CAll. (IN.HG.) IHG.

# - ! (IHI.) Ifill.)" ; rENCL (

.. T.) 11111.1 I ll ll 

# .. I ll I ll ll ll ll B AC II 0 II 0 u

.. 0 06
; 000 

## - 07 08



### - 09
' I0

-

### -



## - : 1 1



### - .' I2



### - 

## - - - 1 3



### - -

- 1"



### -**~** I 5



### - 

## -- - 1 6 I 7 1 8 I 9 1-.


## - - I 20 

# I tt >

### Appendix B CalculationsforDiurnal and Hot Soak losses and Grams perVehicleMile used for analysis of SurveillanceData I. Diurnal and Hot Soak loss calculation.

II. 

### YHC = 

### .208xl0-4 

### (12 

### +H/C) (V

- 

### Vvh) (P) 

### [Cf

- Cb] Tf

- Tb where, YHC =hydrocarbon loss (Diurnal or Hot Soak), (grams). H/C =Hydrogen

- Carbon**rati~** (2.33

### used for diurnal loss,

v 2.20

### used for hot soak loss)


## =Shed Volume, (ft3).



### =Vehicle volume (assumed to be 50 ft3) 

### =Atmospheric pressure, (in. 

### Hg). =Finalhydrocarbon concentration, (ppm 

### c). =Background hydrocarbon concentration, (ppm 

### C). =Final Shed enclosure temperature, 

### (?R). =Background Shed**e~closure** 

### temperature,.( 0

### R). Grams per 

### Dncvehicle mile. 

### + 4.7 HSWC 

### GPM =---: 3 :-:: 5---- 

### where, GPM =Grams per vehiclemile. Dttc =Diurnal hydrocarbon loss, (grams). HS. =Hot soak hydrocarbon loss, (grams). we

### A. EVAP-A data file. Columns 

### 2-8 15-19 25-29 37-41 44-47 50-55 62-63 68-69 76-77 84-85 86-95 99-100 105-106 119-120 121-170
172-176 177-181 186-190 199-200 206-:}.10 Zll;_218 

### 219-228 229-235 236-242 

### Appendix C Data File Contents

Content Train and test Number** Rated GVW* (lbs.) Curb Wt.* (lbs.) InertiaWt. (lbs.) Actual Dyno. Horsepower Displacement and Units Engine Type** Number of Cylinders Number of carburetors Number of Barrels Control System types** Evap System** Crankcase type** Fuel type** FuelDistillation temperatures (IBP, 

### 5%, 10%,**15%~** 

### '20%,30%, 40% 50%, 90%, FBP) H/C ratio Reid Vapor Pressure1 

### psi Fuel in tank (gal.)* No. of fuel tanks Fuel tank Size (gal.) Diurnal HC loss, grams Hot Soak loss, grams Total HC loss, grams Grams per vehiclemile


# * data not recorded during surveillance program. 

## ** see codes at end of file descriptions.2



### B. EVAP - Bdata file Colums 

### 2-8 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 31-35 36-42.
43-47 49-53 55-59 61-65· 67-71 73-77 79-83 85-89 91-95 97-101 102-107 108-114 115-121 122-131

132-136 137-141 142,.;146 147-151 152-156 157-161 162-166 167-171 172-176 177-182 184-189 190-196 197-203 207-217· 2i8-227 Contents Train and test No.* Wet bulb temperature, 

### °F Dry bulb temperature, 

### °F Shed Number* 3 Shed Volume, ft Length of Diurnal test, min. Length of Hot Soak Test, min. Diurnal Test Data initial final Enclosure temp., 

### °F peak · initial 

### 1 final Internal tank temp,. 

### °F peak initial final External tank temp., 

### °F peak Barometer reading, in. Hg.**~-­** 

### initial· final HC concentration, ppm C peak Diurnal loss, grams Hot Soak Test Data initial final Enclosure temp., 

### °F peak initial final Internal tank.temp., 

### °F peak initial final External tank,temp., 

### °F ;,i. '.''il',· 

### peak Barometer reading, in. Hg. initial final ·He concentration, ppm C peak hot soal loss, grams grams pervehicle**~le** 

### * see codes at end of data file listings•

. ·'!3



### C. EVAP-C data file. Column Content 2-8 Train and test number* Diurnal test data**~HC** 

### concentration) 11-17 Background 18-24 0min. 25-31 5 

## " 32-38 10 " 39-45 15 11 

### 46-52 20 II 

### 53-59 25 11 

### 60-66 30''11 

### 67-73 35 II 

### 74-80 40 II 

### 81-87 45 " 88-94 50 " 95-101 55 " 102-108 60 " 109-115 65 " 116-122 70 II '! 

### Hot Soak test data**'~HC** 

### concentration1 

### EEm**c~** 

### 124-130 Background 131-137 0 min. 138-144 5 

## " 145-151 10 " 152-158 15 " 159-165 20 " 166-172 25 II 

### 173-179 30 II 

### 180-186 35 II 

### 187-193 40 II 

### 194-200 45 " 201-207 50 II 

### 208-214 55 " 

### 215-221 60 " 222-228 65 II 

### 229-235 70 "

* See codes at the end of data file listings.4



### D. EVAP Datadate file. Data from EVAP data sheetsare stored in a line file in the same positions as it appears on the data sheets showninAppendix A. CodesA. Engine Type 01 !-Block 02 V-Block 03 Rotary 04 Opposed 05 

### Turbine 06 Ex 

### (Steam) 07 Ex 

### (FREON) 08 Diesel 09 Stirling 10 Electric 11 Stratified B. Exhaust SystemTypes(s) 01 Air Injection· 02 EngineMod 03 Fuel Injection 04 Other 05 

### Thermal Reactor 06 

### Catalytic Reactor 07 

### Turbocharger 08 Exhaust Gas Recycle 09 None C. Evap SystemType 01 Crankcase 02 Canister 03 Tank 04

## None D. Crankcase System Type 01 Closed 

### 02 Other E. Fuel Type 01 Indolene 30 02 Commercial leaded F. Shed No. : 40 AESi.Denver 41 AESi L.A. 42 ATL Denver5



### G. 

### TrainNo. 60 AESi Denver FY 71 

### 61 AESi L.A. FY 71 

### 62 AESi L.A. FY 

### 72 63 AESi L.A. FY 73 64 ATL Denver FY 72 65 ATL Denver FY.

### 73Diurnal Tests Train

60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 65 65 65 Test 0094 0105 0110 0141. 0152 0023 0029 0033 0034 0098 0099 RllO 0118 0156 0168 0182 0012 0016 0170 0172 0178 0011 0017 0021 0032 0037 0039 Appendix D Tests omitted from dataAnalysis Hot Soak Tests Train

60 60 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 62• 62 62 63 63 Test 0016 0051 0141 0145 0155 R167 0043 0096 0099 0111 0116 0133 0178 0179 0033 0044**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** AESI Denver FY71 Train 60 DIURNAL TEST ·•· HOT SOAK TEST Test· Test Et:tcls. Initial Final :f HC**Loss~** Test Enci.s. Initial Final HC Loss, Total Grams No. Time**Temp~,** Tank Tank ·Grains Time Temp,, Tank Tank Grams Loss, Per (min.) OF Temp.,°F Temp., op '(m:i.n.) OF Temp,,"F Temp.,°F Grams Mile 0016 60 78.0 

### o.o ' 

### o.o 72.h'i 60 IH.O**~4.5** HJ,H 

### o.o**72.6~ 2.0~**  0051 60 8J.O 61.0 &5.0 60.513 60**8~.0** 'i4.0**~s.o** 

### o.o 60.58 1.73 0061 60 79.0 61.0 84.2 7.99 60 84.0**~1.2** 90.0**15.~2** 23.92 2.37 0076 M 8o.o 

### o.o o.o**2~.61** 60 Hc.O 61:1.0 

### t!S.o 26.32 5!;,93 4,38 0078 60 76.0 60.0 H4.0 · 15.73 60 d6.0 H4,0 H6.0 30.66 46,39 4.57 0086 60 72.0 60.0 85.7 52.19 60**7~.0** d9.0 '10.0**60.8~** 113.01 9.66 H ::s c. 0094 60 74.0 61.0 H4.0 31.61 60 81.0 

### .**H~.o-** 89.0 37.21 68.82 5,90 

# < 0095 60 74.0 59.0 b3.0 18.01 60 132.0 b'+oO 87.0 61.1

### s 79.16 8.73 

### .....**~** c. 

### c:: "d Ill (1) 0105 60 7&.0 60.0 

### as.o 81.62 60 " 8H.O 9!;.0**~3.0** 31.08 112.71 6,51 1-' 

## it 0110 60 79.0 60.0 ti4.0 3.63 55 >31.0 d3.0 82.0 20.74 24.37 2.89**~** 

## t4 (1) (I) r1' t%j 0114 60 75.0 59.0 H5.0 :95.54 60 88.0 &4.0 H6o0 44.55 140.09 

### e.11 t:;j Ill 0132 60 78.0 60.0 84.0 15.98 60 81o0 95.0 93.0 7J.06 89.03 10.27 r1' Ill 0140 60 72.0 60.0 84.0 20.86 60 88.0 87.0 tl3.o 20.02 40.88 3.28 R140 60 72.0 60.0 b4.0 20.t16 60 88.0 87.0 tl3.0 20.02 40.88 3e26 0141 60 76.0 60.0 

### ·'tn.s**118~29** 60 85.0 88.0 1:15.5 16.98 135.27 5.66 0145 60 71.0 60.0 63.0 72.81 60 81.0 10'+,5**~s.s** 

### o.o 72.81 Z.OB 01S2 60 77.0 60.0- 8'+.2 7.17 60 tH

### .o li-1.0 Y4.5 44.79 51.95
.6.22 0155 60 

### a-o.o 59.5 84,5 77.92 60 84.0 

### n.o '>14.5 

### o.o 17.'>'2 2.23 .0163 60 71.0 59.4 84.0 90.22 60 83.0 95.0**o,~s.o** 23.6Q 113.91 5.76 0167 bO 78.0 60.5 &3.8 7.99 60 79.0**t~7.o** 87.0 11.02 19.01 1.71 *Testnotused indata analysis.**MSAPC 'EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Denver FY71 Train 60 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAKTEST Test Test Encls. 'Initial Final -.I HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial Final HC Loss, -Total Grams No. Time Temp., Tarik Tank Grams _Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Loss, Per I(min.) .op Temp.,°F**Temp.~.**°F**(~:~in.)** oF TemD.,"F Temp.,°F Grams Mile Rl&7 60 76.0 59.8 84.3 33.78 60 77.0 88.5 tH.o 

### o.o 33.78 0.97 Tl67 60 79.0 60.0 b4.1 21.99 60**7~.0** 85.0 

### sJ.o 8.51 30.50 1.77 0172 60 72.0 59.8 b4.0**~7.16** 60 

### as.o c7.o tH.o 22.95 &0.11 

### tt.n *Test-notU&ed 1ndataanalysis.Q) tl 16 t::: Q) 1-1 ;j tl 12 tl 0 44 8 0 :>, tl t::: 4 Q) 

## - ;j 0' Q) 1-1 r:z..**~**

Q) tl t::: Q) 16 1-1 1-1 ;j tl tl 12 0 44 0 8 :>, 

## - tl t::: Q) ;j 4 0' Q) 1-1 r:z..**~**

16

12

8

- 4 3
Figure E-la Diurnal

20 40 60 80 100 120 Hydrocarbon loss, grams
Figure E-lb Hot Soak

20 40 60 80 100 120 Hydrocarbon loss, grams
Figure E-lc Total

20 40 60 80 100 120 Hydrocarbon loss, grams Figure E-1 Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total loss data for Denver FY71 program. 3 (I) Q) tl t::: Q) 1-1 2 1-1 ;j tl tl 0 44 0 1 1-1 Q)

### ~**~**

(I) Q) tl 2**~** 1-1 

# 3 tl 1 0 t!-1 0 1-1 Q) 

## i 

## £ MS~C**  EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** , AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST Test Test**Encls~** Initial Final· } HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial Final HC Loss, Total Grams No. Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Loss, Per (min.) OF Temp.,°F Temp., OF (min.) OF. Temp.,"F Temp.,°F Grams Mile 0002 55 69.0 60.0 114.0**3~.9?** 60 131).0**7~.0** 77.0 2o.38 6b.30 4.68 0003 60 70.0 61.5 b4.0**3~.k3** 60 

### 11c.o c17.o**~a.o** 13.01 51.84 2otlb 0016 65 78.0 66.5**~2.5.** S-i.64 00 bO.O 6b.O**o~.o ~.70** **6~.34** 2.87 0017 60 71.0 

### o.o o.o 12.4? bO ii'+.O 

### o.o d6.0 25.13 37.55 3.73 0018 fJO 82.5 

### o.o o.o d.4C, bv d!:l.u d'+.S 84.0 1'+.35 22.60 2.17 0019 5!:) 76.0 60.0 d4.0 34.73 60 75.0**7~.0** 78.0 2.23 36.96 1.29 0020 55 80.0 60.0 64.0 10.12 60 64.0 84.0 l:Sb.O 2J.'i0 34.02 3.so 0021
. 60 7l.tl 60.0 !:14.0 27.9j 50**~1.0** tlb.O**~;~6.0** 19.96 47.89 3.48 0022 bCt 

## I 68.':) 61.0 <>4.0 4U.h6 55 I 7o.C tldoO 

### ss.o**~** 14.24 54.90 3.07 0023 55 69.0 62.0 84.0 28.61 60 75.5 Ho.o 1'1.0 13.1'8 41.79 2.59 .0025 55 70.0 

### o.o o.u 42.32 60 BO.O**~o.o** 

### tl&.o 7.41**4~.73** 2.20 I 0026**5~** 70•. ; I I 14.53 2.75 I 6L0 I**t~**•.D 

### I 2".'.**~9 6~**  ili.O tit..fJ 

### 8c.o 42.51 I I I I I _0027 f.O 68.0 i I 4l.h7 60 HG.O 

### aa.c ob.O 15.v9 56.76 3.22 62.0 I ,:,.:.•.o I 0029 55 70;.0 60.0 84.0 32.85 60 7ts.O 84.0 tiS.O 1!:1.78 48.62 3.06 0030 t-0 66.0 63.0 b4.0 12.1C t>O bo.o 7o.o 

### sz.o 13.31 25.41 2.13 0032 s:, 74.0 65.0 ·84.0 14.49. 55 7o.o 72.0 7'!).0 2.22 16.71 

### o.71 0033 60 68.0 63.0 t-4.0 5.88 60 76.0 dO.o 84.0 4.24 10.12 0.74 0034 55 75.0 70.0**~'+.0** 2'1.75 bO**~~**

### ..o**~7.0** tb.O**14.~2** 44.58 2.84 0036**s~** 74.0 64.0 l:i'+.O 1<..92 60 is1.0 «:6.0 d4.0 14.06 2&.96 2.31 0037 6u 74.0 65.0 B4.0 21.96 60 tH.O tt4.0 tsJ.O 17.41 31:1.37 2.97' il'festnot used 1nclata**anal~ MSAPC** Evapo~ative** Enclosure (SIIED) Test Results** AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST ·• HOT SOAKTEST Test Test Encls. Initial Final f HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial No. Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank

.(min.) op Temp,,°F Temp., OF (min.) op Temp,,"F



### - 0038 60 71.0 61.0 t:l4o0 21.72 60 

### l"lc.o t!JoO 0039 55 73.0 66.0 b4oU**2~.12** 60 1:!2.0 7:..0 0040**~5** 13.0 61.0 84.0 15.75 60 80.0 t14o0 0041 55 70.0 62.0 o4.0 14.11 60 i:ll 00 96.0 0043 5:) 74.0 63.0 H4.U**l7.fl~** 6U 76.0 d4.0 0044 55 69.0 62.0 

# I t:l4.U 15.72 t>O 7'J.O dt.o 0045 6U 72.0 61.0 b4.0 59.54 f,(j 84.() '11.0 0046 55 77.0 61.0 84.0 26.73 60 84.0**~d.O** R0<+6 55**7~.0** 61.5 04.0 i zc,.t-.9 60 i:U.O**~o.o** I 0047 S5 72.

### a 60.5 t'4.{j l'0.2A 60 

### n.o**t~2.o** 0048 55 74.0 61.0 83.0**30.~6** 60 85.0 72.0 004'1 6S**6~.0** 61.5**~4.0** JS.SO 60 80oU OdoO 0050 55 1b.O 61.0 o4.0 12.07 60 82.0 82.0 0051 55 79.0 62.0 1:14.0 10.65 60 79.0 tl6.0 0052 55 77.0 61.0 84.0 24.07 60 76.0 1:12.0 k052 f-':1 70.0 61.0 b4o0 71.62 65 67.0 76.0 0053 55 76.0 61.0 1:14.0 19.01 60 7b.O 77

### .o R053 60 79.0 61.0 b4.0 20.23 60 79

...0 1:)0.0 00':14 70 74.0 61.0 84.0 26.55 60 85.0 1:18.0 

### ooss 5S 76.0 61.0 84.0 25.61 60 82.0 l:l4o0 *Testnot used indataanalysis. Final HC Loss, Total GramsTank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile**~s.o** 24.31**5~.03** 4.06**~4.0** 11.96 37.08 2.32

1:!4.0 16.31 32.06 2.64 86.0 7.12 21.25 1.36 d3.0 70.35 8Ho24 9.96 

### o2.o 16.35 32.07 2.64 8d.O 17.08 76.63 4.00 dS.O 10.01 36.74 2.11 ti-1.0 18.43 45.32 3.24 dl',O 10.'14 30.40 1.94**~2.0** 12.94 43,'JO 2.62 1:10.0 1S.42 so.92 3.08 1:12.5 11.20 23.27 l.fiS 83.0 8.27 18.92 1.42 86.0 14.99 39.06 2.70 bO.O 24.44 96.06 5.33 74.0 4.17 23.18 1.10 80.0 2.66 22.89 0.93 1:18.0 36.58 63.14 5.67 85.0 19.12 44o74 3.30··Test Test Encls. Ro. Time Temp.,. (min.) op 0056 60 73.0 0057 bS 69.0 005& 65 74.0 ROSS 65 68.0 0060 60 70.0 0061 60 69.0 0062 65 69.0 0063**~5** 70.0 OOo4 65 69.0 0065**6~** 70.0 0066 65 71.0 0067 60 69.0 ·-0068 60 69.0
•.0.069 55 73.0

0070 60 69.0

..0071 55 77

### .o

0072 60 68.0 0073 oO 72.0 0075 bO 72.0 0076 60 7s.o **MSAPC EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST

Initial Final _, HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial

Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank Temp.,°F Tem?•, OF ·(min.) OF Temp.,"F

61.5**~4.0** 36.34 60**8~.0** o7.0 61.0 1:14.0**40.~A** 60 69.0 b9o0 61.5 84.0 37.14 60 k4.0 d4o0**61~5** b-+.0 26.43 60 7"1.0 79.0 61.0 b4.0 13.13**5~** 7"1.0 18.0 61.0 84.0 22.95 60 liO.O 1:11.0 60.0**~4.0 1~.0?.**  (,0 79.0 74.5 61.0 t4.5**~7.**t·l 60 N.O 

### I db.O 61.0 Ei4.0 23.7!> 55 

### rt.o d2o0 60.0 b4o0 40.67 60 79.0 tsJ.O 61.0 83.5 19.22 oG db.O bJ.O 61.0 1:14.0 13.32 60**~o.o** d2o0 60.0 b4o0 15.44 60 87.0 tSO?oO 61.0 1:14.0
.22.79 55 li9.0 

### tss.o 60.0**~4.0** 80.?9 55 130.0 1:12.0 61.0 b4.0 1&.65 55 83o0**~6.0** 60.0 84.0 24.04 60 85.0 82.0



### o.o o.o 2ij.14 60 82.0 87.0 61.0 84.0 26.89 5!) 87.0 91.0 62.0 84.0 26.64 55 

### as.o 95.0



### -. *Testnotused iDdata analysis. Final HC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile**~&.o** 22.19 58.53 4.02

&«ii.O 4.97 45.86 1.84 86.0 15.12**5~.26** 3.09 78.0 11.'16 3b.8'i 2.38 lb.O 18.64 31.77 

### z.ae**~o.s** 15.74 31:1.68 2.77 7t>.O 10.24 2th2b 1.&9 8Y.O 13.30 40.91 2.57 81.0 11.15**34.~9** 2.18 t.il.O 23.41 64.08 4.30 d7.o 25.03 44.25 3.91 83.0 10.03 23.35 1.73 

### as.o 26.68 42.13 4.02 Bd.O 19.38 42.17 3.25 tsl.O 11.60 • 91.90 3.85 92.0 1J.Y2 30.57 2.35 84.0 14.15 38.19 z.sc;,**~:~s.o** 13.38 41.51 2.60



### ... 9!).0 19.44 4b.J3 3.38 9'l.O 86.17 112.81 1Z.JJTest Test Encls. No. Time Temp., (min.) .op 0079 bO 70.0 0080 60 71.0 0081 60 73.0 0082 70 73.0 0065 60 71.0 0086 60 69.0 0087 70 70.0 0088**~0** 70.0**00~9** 60 70.0 00'-iO 7U 70.0 0092 60 70.0 0094 ou 74.iJ 0096 70 72.0 0098 65 82.0 0099 60 71.0 0100 oil 

### ao.o R100**~5** 72.0 0101 t>O 73.0 0103**5~** 73.0 0104 60 77

### .o **MSAPC EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST

Initial Final**~** HC Loss, Test Encls, Initial

Tank· Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank Temp.,°F Temp., OF (min.)
. OF Temp.,"F

61.0 t14o0 28.52 M iil.o tl4.0 61.0 84.0**~3.36** 60 

### eso.o 7':1.0 60.0 o4.0 44.f>7 60 79.0 oJ.O 60.0 

# I 1:14,0 47.64 60 i:!l.u l:i9.0 61.0 

### I t14.J 11.':>7 

### so 73.u /4.0 I 60.0 o4.0 17.62 60 76.0 oo.o 60.0 b4.0 fi'S.43 60 73.0 74.0

0.0 

# I o.o 'ji),OP 60 7ij.(J 

### o.o I 

## I I 

### I 61.0 

### ! '-"'".c; I l07.t?S 6'j 

## i 7-..(J 16.0 I i I 61.0 

# I b4,0 10'1.34 60 7'-i.O !:l2.0 60.0 

# I i:i4.0 23.30. 60**R~.o t~~.o**  61.0 i i::\4,0 13.77 60 91.0 ti'1.0 60.0 ts4.0 18.40 60 79.0**t~S.o** 60.0 85,() 1.11 60 78.0 93.0 60.0 tl4.0 0.29 60 7tl.(l 90.0 I 60.0 b4,0 11.12 60 75.0 tll.O 59.0 64.0 10.34 60 7o.o t)l.O 60.0 b4.0 12.92 60 ao•.o t)9.0 61.0 d'+.O 14.15 60 ao.o 6b.O 60.0 84.0 19.?.6 60 ao.o 'll9.0 *Test not used indata analysis. Final HC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile

84.0 20.64 49.16 3.59 l:!t.0**1~.tl6** 611.22 3.65 87.0 27.55 72.21 4.98 

### 9u.o 29.6t> 77.30 5.34 70.0 2.d9 14.46 0.72 82.0 15.45 33.07 2.58 73.0 1J.Q2 99.35 4.31



### o.o 19.20 69.28 4.01 72.0 8.08 115.93 4.17 7ti,O 16.79 126.12 5.38**~6.0** 37.:,7 60.88 

### s.71 d9.0 lo.cl 29.98 2.57 o1.o 

### o.o lts.40 o.sJ 

### do.o 0.74 1.85 0.13 8'+.0 2.29 1!.58 0.32 d2.0 5.05 16.17 1.00 d2.0 7.05 17.39 1.24 87.0 

### u.os 23.97 l.BS 85.0 17.17 31.32 2.71 93.0 8.94 2d.19 1.75Test Test Encls. N.o. Time Temp., (min.) OF 0105 60 77.0 0106**~5** 

### n.o 0_107 65 72.0 0109 so 64.0 0110 

### ss 75.0 RllO 5:> 75.u Cll1 60 79.0 0112 ()0 74.0 0113 

### so 72.0 01 !'·**~'.:}** 7**\.~.**

### c I 0115

## I c;- .':I 75.0 0116 6tl 75.0 1)117 !:iS**~o.o** 0118 50 77.0 0123 bO 79.0 0125**,.,~** R4.0 012b 70 84.0 0128 hO 77.0 0129 bO 79.0 0130 60 75.0 **MSAPC EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61
D**lUR.l~L** TESI:
... HOT SOAK TEST

Initial Final 

### ' HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial

Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank Temp••°F Temp., °F (min.) op Temp.,"F

61.0 t14.0 18.35 h5**1:12~0** 'JJ.O 60.0 b4.0 13.in 60 74.0**~o.o** 60.0.

. 84.0 23.8'5 60 81.0**~o.o** 60.0 84.0 21.69 60 AO.O 82.0 60..0. 84.0 12.06 60 75.0 ts3.0 60.0 

## I**~4.0** 12.06 60 7S.O ts3.0 I 60.0 o4.c l6.(lQ bO ac:,.o 'JO.O 60.0

. I:S4o0 13.92 60 

### ao.o ts9.0 60.0

. 

## I H.:..o lt:l.Ok 60 7b.O 1:!4.0 j i 7&.0 

## I f .51.0

. I tit.J I 1?..j**-~** IJO o5.G 61.0 1:)4,0 12.60 60 1'10.0 tlb.O 60.0 84.0**39.~2** 60 80.0 ts'J.O 60.0 b4.() 1l.f12 bU 82.0 tso.O 61.0 1:!4.0 1.25 60 so•.o**~o.o**

.60.0 04.0 17.OJ 60 75.0 ISCJ.O • 60.0 84.0 13.4fl 60 1:!4.0 96.0 60.0 8&.0 17.6fo 60 78•.0**t~s.o** 61.0 76.0 12.69 60 78.0 '10.0 59.0 8'+.0 1&.55 60 dJ.O so·.o 59.0 84.0 24.42 60 

### a...o d9.0**~est** notused indata ana1rsis. Final HC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss1 Per Temp. 1°F Grams Mile

90.0 8.34 26.69 1.64**.,~.o** 12.36 25.57 2.04 87.0 20.53 44.38 3.44 83.0 3.94 25.63 1.15 83.0 11.23 23.29 1.85 83.0 11.23 23.29 1.HS 90.0 

### o.o lb.09 0.46 86.0 11.55 25.47 1.95 81.0 11.77 27.1:!5**2~04** I l:U,0 7.JS 19.51 1.33 i tlb.O 14.97 27.58 2.37 85.0 

### o.o 39.92 1.14**t~~.o** 22.02 33.04 3.27 

### ss.o 6.21 7.46 0.87 t15.0 8.07 25.09 1.57 'J4.0 8.82 22.30 1.57 d4.0 3.86 21.53 "1.02 t:t6.0 3.85 16.54 0,.88**8~.0** 11.08 27

..63 1.96**~3.0** 16.34 40,.76 2.89Test Test No. Time (min.) 0131 so 0132 60 0133 55 R133 5:, 0134 oo Rl34 

### ss 0135 

### so 0136 55 0138 AS 0139 :;:;; 0140 ss 0142 

### ss 0143**~5** 0144**~-;** 0147 60 014R :.s 0149 50 0150 55 0151**~0** 0152 t-0 **:HSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAKTEST Encls. Initial ·Final f HC Loss;. Test Encls. Initial Temp.,_ Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank

OF Temp. 1°F Temp., op (min.) OF Temp.,"F

so.o 60.0 &4.0**~5.~1** 60 ao.o 91.0 76.0 61.0 bJ.O**2~.51** 60 d4o0**~j4.0** 81.0 60.0 e4.0**~.Rb** 60**8~.0** e1.o 

### &o.o 60.0 e4.u 1.22 60 -,9.0 90.0 76.0 61.0 64.0 11.cs 6U >{0.0 cs6.0 78.0 60.0 b4.0 lv.ff 6U 'lO.O '>10.0 81.0 60.0 t.

...

### o l0.4Q 60 i:U.0 9u.o 72.0 60.0 o4.o 1t...26 60 

### n.o M4.0 

### n.**~**

# I 60.0 b4.(; 

### I 9.bl1**h~)** I 72 00 b4o0 I i 

## I i:\G.0 I 60.0 I ::- ..:+.v I l 1•t.(' t.O l:llJ.il oo.O i I 6d.O 59.0 b4.0 14.49 60 70.0 bU.O 80.0 60.0 84.0 ll.f-.7 60 7o.o dtS.O 69.0 59.0 b4.0 12.39 60 70.0 cs7.0 73.0 59.0 li4o0 21.75 60 84.0 1uc.O 75.0 60.0 H4oU 17.81 60 75.0 d7.0 69.0 60.0 b4o0**1~.31** 60 71.0**ij~.o** 69.0

.61.0 H4o0 3.75 60 76.0 65.0 74.0 59.0 84.0 l6.Al 60 73..0 84.0 bli.O 59.0 b3.0 16.70 60 

### n.o**~9.0** 71.0 61.0 65.0 8.55 6U ·72.0**~o.o** *Testnot used indata analysis. Final HC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile

'11.0 10.61 36.42 2.16 dS.o d.07 33.58 1.tH '10.0 7.50 13.36 1.17 bd.O !:).02 12.24 0.88**tS~.o** 10.1:S<I 22.14**1.7~ ~7.0**  13.33 24.19 2.10 d9.0 17.78 28.26 2.69 d7.0 7.50 21.76 1.41 tl2.0 10.74 20.42 1.72 l:)b.O 16.33 27.75 2.52 79.0 3.42 17.91 0.87

so.o t>.6l- 1&.28 1.22 d7.o 9.98 22.37 1.69**c,~a.o** ·1bo60 3&.35**2.~~** 8ti.Q 10.52 2ti.34 1.92 81.0 do71 26.02 1.72 73.0 3.06 6.82 o.s2 1:!2.0 4oiH 21.68 1.13 90.0 lS.51j 32.28 2.57 81.0 &.39 16.94 1.37**MSAPC EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI•Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST Test Test Encls. Initial Final } HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial No. Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank •(rilin.) .oF**Tem~. °F**  Temp.,. OF**(~:~in.)** OF**Te~.,**"F R152**~5** 74.0 6o.o 

# I lf4.0 8.16 60 74.0 lfJ.O 0154 60 70.0 60.0

# I b4.0**~.34** 60 ti'+.O M:s.o 0156 60 72.0 60.0 84.0 1.34 60 d

...

### o Hb.O ,. 0158 

### so 73.0 59.0

# I ts4.0 26•16 6(1 80.0 o8.0 0159 60 80.0 61.0 !:S4.0 24.25 60 

### so.o t:sb.O 0.161 6!) 74.0 60.0 J 84o0 11.83 60 7b.O YOoO 0163 5!) 75.0 59.0 

# i 84•.0 20.83 60 'i<;;•O l.j4.0 

# . I 0164 55. 7o.v 60.0

. ( 1:1'+.0 18.74 60 87.0**'~1·0** I I 0166 5!) 79.0 60.0 

## I 64.0 10.34 60**71:1~0** 1:16o0 ·0167 50 E4.0 60.0 

# I 64.{} lC·.24 60**~c.o** 1UOoO 

### I I OloH

# I '::>\; 74.0 60.0 

## I r<'+oO 1

..**2~** 60 82.0 ':10.0 0170 S5 74.0 61.0 b4.0**1~.()6** 60**8~.0** ':17.0 0171 60 72.0 60.0 84.0.**15.4~** 60 80.0 l:lb.O 0174 

### so 76.0 60.0

# I 64.0 17.44 60**~}.[)** b6o0 0182 65 75.0 60.0**~4-.0** 2.40 60 ri4.0**~s.o** *Testnot used indata analysis. Final HC Loss, Tank Grams Temp.,°F**~~.o** Y.87

90.0 8.19 117.0 6.52 H6.0 16.93 d7.0 16.06 Y1.0 24.44 '13.0 16.91**~!).O** 16.66 86.0 18.49**'~~.o** ll.l3 '11!.0 2.83 94.0 7.06 87.0 13.29 tiS.o 6.61**~t:s.o** 7;.85 Total Loss, Grams

}!:!.OJ 17.53**7.~6** 43.09 40.31 36.26 37.74 35.40 28.83 29.36

4.12 26.12 28.71 24.05 10.25 Grams Per Mile

1.56 1.37 0.91 3.02 2.85 3.62 2.tH 2.77 2.78 2.02

··-0.42

1.49 2.23 1.39 1.12 .1-' 012

Ql 10**~** Ql 

### t :a :I u u 0 6

## .**~** 0 

# "' 4 u 1:1 Ql :I 2 1:7' Ql


### ... Ill. H

14 12
Ql u 10 s:: Gl



### ... 

### ... :I 8 -u

CJ 0**~** 6

## . 0 

# "' 4 CJ s:: Gl ::s 1:7' 2 Ql 

## . ... !:&. H 

### I

Ql 10 u**~** 

### ... 8


### ... 

## = CJ u 0 6**~** 0 

# "' 4 u s:: Ql 

## = 2 1:7' Gl**~** •H 11

I Figure E-2a Diurnal



# . I I I I I

# ,, I

### I I 

# I f L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Hydrocarbon loss, grams

Figure E-2b Hot Soak

' 

# I I I I I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Hydrocarbon loss, grams

Figure E-2c Total ..

. I 

### I

# I l I I I I 

# III I I 

## I 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Hydrocarbon loss, grams Figure E-2 Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total loss data for L.A. FY71 program. 15

CD 10 Ql u c: Ql 

## t: 

## = u u 

## s 0**~** ·o



## ... Ql i} 

### :i

15

CD Gl u 10**~** 

## ... ... 

## = u u o· 5**~** 0



### ... Gl 

### i 

### :E

CD 10 Gl 

### g Ql



### ... 1-1 ::s u u 5 0**~** 0 1-1 Gl ,1:1 El ::s z**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** AESI Los AngelesFY72 Train 62

, DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAKTEST Test Test Encls. Initial Final _, HC Loss, Test Encls. Initial No. Time Temp., Tank Tank Grams Time Temp., Tank I(min.) OF Temp••°F Temp., OF ·(min.) op .Temp.,"F 0009 bO 78.0 61.0 1:14.0 3.16 60 90.0**~!:1.0** 0012 60 78.0 61.0 H4.0 3.34 60 79.0 90.0 0016 60 8_0.0 59.0 85.0 12.26 60 84.0 95.0 0026 60 81.0 59.0 84.0 21.50 60 d_b.O 

### tH.o 0028 60 80.0 59.0 tl4.0 20.41 60 1:11:1.0**~4.0** 0112 60 74.0 .60.0 1:13.0 16.56 60 86.3 '11.0 CU33 60 77.o 59.0 i.14.0 4.80 60 83.0 99.0 0140 60 73.0 60.0 84.0 14.03 60. d7.o**~9.0** 0143 60 77.0 61.0 &4.0 4.68 .60 84.0 '10.0 0146 60 74.0 61.0 1:14.0 6.83 60 85.0 96.0 01';;3 60 8o.o 60.0 1:14.0 9.56 60 90.•0 80.0 0156 60 77.Q 60.0 84.0

. 11.59 60 88.0 'IC!oO ' : 0158 60 83.0 

### <6o.o

.83.0 4.12 60 89.0 91:1.0 .0163 60 73.-0 60.0 84.0 16.70; 60 88.0**~6.0** 0164 60 75.0 59.0 1:13.0 10.hb 60 77.0**~:~o.o** 0169. 60 8o.o 60.0 b4.1 36.C:,4 M 90.0 103.0 0170· 6ll 73.0 61.0 ts3.0 4o4b bO. 82.0**~7.0** 0172 60

.75.0 61.0 84.0 6.29 60 84

..0**~3.0** '0178 f:lO 78.0 61.0 84.0 4.11 60 90.0 10I.ro0

0179 60 77.0 59.0 83.5 7.02 60 8d.O**~::;,.0** *Test not used iD data analysis. Final HC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile 102.0 6.83 '1.99 1.01



### so.o 5.31 1:1.6';; 

### o.tn**~4.0** 6.97 19.23 1.29 IH.O**14.~2** 3bo42 2.62 'i4.0 19.86 40.26 3.25**~4.1** 7.26 2J.d2 1.45 95.0 

### o.o 4.80 0.14 100o0 15.14 2'iol7 2.43

a8.o 8.32 13.01 1.25 '11.0 7.40 l4o23**1.1~** 94.0 15.45 25.01 2.35 '13.0 16.53 28.11 2.55**'~~.o** 7.48 11.60 1.12**~9.0** 13.14 29.84 2.24 dO.O 2.61
. 13.26 O.b5 103.0 21.54 51:1.09 3.94

93.0 6.70 11.16 1.03 '12.0 ';;.50 11.79 0.•92 102.0 2.77 6.88 0.49

96.0 

### o.o 7.02 0.20Q) 25 tJ 

### s:: Q) 20**~ ~**  ;:I tJ tJ 15 0**~** 0 :;.., 10 tJ 

### s:: Q) 

## s ;:I 0" Q)**~** 

## ""'**~**

25 Q) tJ 

### s:: Q) 20**~ ~**  ;:I tJ tJ 

### lS 0**~** 0 10 :;.., tJ 

### s:: Q) 

## s ;:I 0" Q)**~** 

## ""' N

Q) tJ 

### s:: Q) 20**~ ~**  

# . ;:I tJ tJ 15 0**~** 0 :;.., 10 tJ 

# . s:: Q) ;:I 

## s 0" Q)**~** 

## ""'**~** 13 

### Figure E-3a Diurnal

10 20 30 40 

## so Hydrocarbon loss, grams
Figure E..:..3b Hot Soak

10 20 30 40 

## so Hydrocarbon loss, grams**~igure E~3c**  

### Total '

10 20 30 40 50 

### Hydrocarbon loss, grams Figure E-3 Histograms of Diurnal,Hot Soak, and Total loss data for LA FY72 program ...

1-

1- 4

co 3**~** 

### s:: Q)**~ ~**  2 tJ tJ 0**~** 0 1**~** Q)

4

# 1 z

co Q) 3 

## g Q)**~ ~**  ;:I 2 

## g**~** 0 1**~** Q)

### ~**~**

3 co Q) tJ**~ ~**  2 1-l ;:I tJ tJ 0**~** 1 0**~** Q) ,.c

# ~.. Test Test No. Time 

### I(min.) 0011

. 60 0012 60 0013 bO 0014 60 0016 60 0017 60 0021 60 0023 60 0024 60 0026 60 0028 flO 0031 60 00"32 60 0033 60 0034 60 0036 60 0031 60 0039 60 0043 60 0044 60 **MSAPC EvaporativeEnclosure (SHED) TestResults** AESI Los·Angeles FY73 Train 63

, 1>IURNALTEST HOT SOAKTEST**Encls~** Initial ·Final .i HC Loss,. Test Encls. Initial Temp., Tank Tank Grams. Time Temp., Tank

OF Temp.,°F Temp•• °F (min.) OF Temp.,"P

82.0 60.(): ls3.o 4.86 60 f'i4o0 '16o0 82.0 59.5 &4.0 S.ll 60 89.0 100.0 76.0 60.0 83.0 2'j.14 60 83.0 9o.o 78.5 60.0 84.0 2o.11

. 60 ao.o 100.0 

### ao.o 59.0 !:14.0**'J.~o** 6(1 81.0 100.0 

### ao.o 59.0 b4.0 2.7(, 60 8o.5 87.0 7H.O 60.5 .b3.0 23.94 60 77.0 103.0 78.0 60.0 83.'j 9.134 60 8:So0 '11.0 B4.0 60.0 84!0 65.73 60**~;~.o** 1:16.0 77.5 60.0 84.7 10.70 60 81.0 91.0 84.0 60.0 tl4o0 S.bO 60 t\5.0**~7.0** 79.0 60.0 tiSoO 9.04 60 

### as.o**<~c:;.o** 83.5 60.0 84.0 l:i.73 60 84.5 '1!:1.0 82.0 61.0 b4o0 12.75 60 

### ao.o '14.0
• P: 84.0 60.0 82.0 6.17 60 83.0**~2.0** 78.0 59.0 84.0 12.85 60 83.0 tH.o 78.0 60.0 64.0 21.71 60 8':).0**~ti.O** 82.0 ·60.0 b2.0 10.07 60 HS.? 96.0 81.0 60.0 84.9 10.30 60 84•.0 96'o0 74.0 60.0 84.0 S.f>_7 60 

### ao.o l:lb.O *Testnotused indata analysis. Final BC Loss, Total Grams Tank Grams Loss, Per Temp.,°F Grams Mile

'15oO 12.48 17.34 1.81 100.0 11.77 16.88 1.73

'J1.0 16.92 42.06 2.99 100.0 27.c:;8 54.29 4.47**~s.o** 7.72 17.52 1.32**~;~.o** 12.39**1~.14** 1.74 100.0 10.11 34.05 2.04

98.0 10.29 20.13 1.66 tsc:;.o 16.66 82.39 4.11 92.0 3.26 13.96 0.74 97.5 b.40 14.00 1.29 99.0**26.~7** 3!:i.6l 3.83 97.0 18.93 27.66 2.79 9!:1.0 o.o 12.75 0.36 'JS.o 21.22 27.38 3.03 89.0 19.73 32.58 3.02 'ib.O 15.49 37.l6 2.70 95.0 2.14 12.21 

### o.sa 98.0 12.22 22.52 1.94 1:17.0 

### u.o**~.67** 0.16•.
Gl 25 u 

### m 

### t 20 :I u u 0 15 11-1 0 >- 10 u**~** 

### g. 5 Gl 

## .t: 

# " 10

Gl u 25 s= Gl


## ... ... 20 :I u u 0



### .... 15 0 

### ""' u 10**~** :I 0' Gl 5


### ... c:.. 

# " 10

Gl. 25 

# e t:·. 20 :I u u 0 IW 15 0**~** 10**~** 

### g. 5

. Gl"



## ... c:.. 

## " 10

.
Figure E-4**-1~.** Figure B-4a Diurnal

20 30 40 

## so 60 Hydrocarbon1 loss, grams

Figure E-4b**~t** Soak

' 

# I 

# II 20

.30 40 50 60 HYdrocarbon loss, grams

Figure Ej4c Total
·.



### ..

..



### 20 30 40 50 60 ·Hydrocarbon loss, grams 4
3
2
1

4
3 2
1

3

2

1 II Gl

## ~ 

## ...**~** u u 0 11-1 0



## ... Gl 

# J

II Ill u 

# e

....**~** u u 0**~** 0



### ... Ill 

# l

II Gl 

# I t 

### B u 0 IW 0



## ... Gl 

# J

Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak and Total loss data for L.A. FY7.3 program.**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** ATL Denver FY73 Train 65 DIURNAL TEST .. HOT SOAKTEST Test Test Encls. Initial Final 

## ·' HC Loss. Test Encls. Initial Final HC Loss0 Total Grams No. Time Temp.,. Tank Tank Grams**T~e** Temp., Tank Tank Grams Loss. Per i(min.) .op Temp••°F**Temp.~.**op (min.) OF Temp.,"F Temp.,°F Grams Mile 0011 bO 79.0 60.0 84.0 14.14 60 lit.o**~4.0** 94.0**1~.54** 29.68 2.49 0016 60 84.0 60.0 l:i4.0 

### o. 1

### r 60 tl2.0 101.0 100.0 10.61 11.32 1.45 0017 60 81.5 60.0 b3.0 4.76 60**~7.0** 102.0 99.0 15.23**1~.99** 2.18 0020 60 87.0 60.0 I:S4.0 7.23 60 8.J.O**'l~.o** 95.0 5.31 12.54 0.92 0021 60**7~.0** 59.0 83.0 21.1'0 .60 d4.0 ':14.0 97.0 14.53 3c.l2 2.':J7 0023 E:O 74.0 59.0 b4.0 35.1'2 60 84.0 101.0 1o3.o 20.26**5~.89** 3.74 0026 60 73.0 60.0 b6.0 10.76 60 78.0 t:i6e0**~6.0** 3.70 14.45 o.ao**·~** ,0028 60 78.0 60.0 b4.0 7.64. 60 AQ.O**b~.o** 91.0 12.29 19.93 1.87 .0031 60 77.0 60.0 84.0 6.14
.60 85.0 'i4.0 9b.O 13.36 19.49 1.97 0032 60 85.0 61.0 83.0 12.63**~** 60 89.0 1o1.u 104.5 19.63 32.25 3.oo 0033 60 83.0 60.0 b4.0 9.20 60**~6.0** 97.0**9~.0** 23.56 32.77 3.43 0034 60 82.0 60.0 '84.0 7.05 60 83.0 92.0 93.0 17.35 24.40 2.53

.

### - 0035 60 79.0 6o.o· 85.0 8.75 60 91.5 'H.o 108.0**44.~6** 53.31 6.23



### - 00)6 60 ao.o -59.0 85.0 30.46 00 88.0 101.0 101.0 21.55 52.01 3.76 0037 60 76.0 60.0 b3.0 32.11 60 A9.5**~9.0** 100.5 28.80 60.91 4.78 0038 60 78.0 59.0 b3.0**18~9&** 60 d4.0 10B.O 109.0 25.24 44.20 3.93 0039 60 80.0 61.0 84.0 8.36 60 HQ.O 'ilo.o c.l2.0 5.19 13.55 0.94 0040 60 A3.0. 60.0 l:iS.O 29.8A 60 86.•0 95.0 97.0 13.56 43.44 2.67 0042 60 85.0 60.0 86.0 23.98 60**~2.0** w ••o 97.0 12.95 36.93 2.42 0044 60 a5.o 59.0 o5.0 19.11 60 79.0 d3.0 BO.O 4.89 24.00 1.20 *Test notused indata analysis.(I) tJ**~** Q) 1-1 20 1-1 ;j tJ tJ 

### 15 0 

## .**~** 0 >. 10 tJ**~** Q) ;j 5 0" Q) 1-1 !Z-1**~** 10

Q) tJ**~** 20 Q) 1-1 1-1 ;j C) 15 tJ 0**~** 0 10 >. tJ**~** 5 ;j 0" Q) 1-1 !Z-1**~** 10

Q) tJ**~** Q) 1-1 1-1 20 ;j tJ tJ 0**~** 15 0 >. tJ 10 l=l Q) ;j 0" 5 Q) 1-1. !Z-1**~** 10 Figure E-5 

### 17
Figure E-5a Diurnal

20 30 40 50

Hydrocarbon loss, grams**Fi~re.**E-5b Hot Soak



## ..

20 30 40 50

Hydrocarbon loss, grams

Figure E-Sc Total

20 30 40 50

Hydrocarbon loss, grams Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak, and Total loss data for Denver FY 73 program. 3

2
1

4 3
2 1

3
2
1

### 18


# ... 12 12 Figure E-6a Diurnal (controlled vehicles only) 10 Ql 10 

### g Ql



### ...
... 8 ;I u u 0 6 "-4 0 8 CD Ql cJ 6**~** 

## ... ... ;I u u >. 4 0 cJ 4 c:: Ql "-4 0 ;I go 2 Ql


### ... Ilk H 

# II I I 

# I 

# I I I r 

# I I I 2 

## ... Ql

## ~ z 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 Hydrocarbon loss, grams

12 Figure E..-6b Hot Soak (controlled ' vehicles only) 12
Ql 10 u c:: Ql



### ... 

## ... 8 ;I -U

u 0 "-4 6 0 1-

# lf CD Ql 8 u c:: Ql


## ... ... 6 ;I u u >. 0 u 4 c:: Ql 4 "-4 0 ;I go Ql 2



### ...**~** H 

### I,, 

# ,, I I ... 2 Ql ,.&:; 

# i 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Hydrocarbon loss, grams

Ql u c:: 

### f!·



## ... ;I 8 u u 0 Figure E-6c· Total (controlled vehicles only) Ill Ql u

### ·~ 6 

### ... ;I u "-4 6 0 ·>. 4 u c:: Ql ;I go 2 Ql


### ...**~** H I I 

# II 

# I 

# I I I

# II 

# I f u 0 4 "-4 0



### ... Ql 2 ,.&:;

## ~ 10 20 30 40

. 50 60 70 80 90 Hydrocarbon loss, grams 

### Figure E-6 Histograms of Diurnal, Hot Soak and Total loss data for all test programs (controlled vehicles only).