Technical Support Report for Regulatory Action 

Evaporative Emission Enclosure (SHED) Procedure 

Analysis of Surveillance Program Data 

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 Protection Agency 

Reprinted 7-76 
This report is a summary of the data analysis performed at EPA 

for the SHED enclosure testing for evaporative emissions performed 

during FY 71, 72 and 73 surveillance programs. Included are descriptions of the data handling 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 data were collected. 

The raw data were supplied to EPA and subsequently transcribed onto 

standard data sheets. The data analysis could only be performed for 

test trains 60, 61, 62, 63, and 65. The analyzer calibration curve 

data were not supplied or were lost for train 64 and therefore analysis 

of these data was impossible. However, the preliminary evaporative emis- 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 

in Appendix A, they were keypunched and entered into a computer file. A 

computer progam was developed to calculate the Diurnal loss, hot soak 

loss and grams per vehicle mile based on the calculations shown in Appendix 

B. The program was also designed to develop certain other data files from 

which subsequent data analysis could be performed easily. The formats 

of these files are shown in Appendix C. 

1 
2 

The final step in the data handling was auditing the data for 

various errors. From the auditing process errors were corrected and 

several invalid tests were discovered and omitted from further analysis. 

There were various reasons for omitting tests which included erratic 

readings and tests conducted over a very small range of deflections 

of the analyzer. A listing of the deleted tests is given in Appendix D. 

Appendix E is a summary of the results for each test conducted including 

figures showing the frequency distribution of diurnal, hot soak and total 

HC losses •. 

General Emission Levels: 

Standard statistical analyses were performed for the data from each 

of the five test programs. Means and standard deviations of the diurnal, 

hot soak and gram per mile values were calculated for each test program. 

Composite values for all Denver tests or for all Los Angeles tests were 

not looked at as it is felt that there are important test program to 

test program differences. MOat important of the differences between the 

test programs was the difference in fuel types used. This aspect of the differ~nt testing programs will be discussed later. Table II shows the 

different statistical values for each of the test program~. Figure 1 

shows graphically the· diurnal and.hot soak values for each test.program 

and Figure 2 shows the gram per mile values. 

· The general· emission levels· also show to what extent current vehicles 

would need to improve in 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 

program was less than the 2 gram standard •. The EPA in-house study will conduct 

baseline tests on 1975 vehicles and, therefore, these data will .give the most upto-date evaluation of the effectiveness. of evaporative controlled vehicles. 

However, until these data are available the data from surveillance testing 

show that on the average better than a 90% reduction in evaporative· emissions 

would be·required to meet the current 2 gram standard. 

Shed Enclosure versus C4rtister Tr4p·Testtns 

The surveillance programS conducted in Denver and Los Angeles for FY 

73 did comparative testing to evaluate the shed enclosure measurement 

as compared to the canister trap method currentiy used in the certification process. The same vehicles were tested by each of·the twa test 

methods. The·Denver FY 73·program showed an average total hydrocarbon 
Test 

Program 

Denver 

FY71 

(train 60) 

Los Angeles 

FY 71 

(train 61) 

Los Angeles 

FY 72 

(train 62) 

Los Angeles 

FY 73 

(train 63) 

Denver 

FY 73 

(train 65) 

Diurnal loss Hot Soak loss Grams/mile 

Number of ~ean loss Standard Number Mean Los~ Standard Number Mean Los 

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 per mile 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 enclosure method. This represents a 79 times 

higher result when the enclosure testing method is used. The Los Angeles 

FY 73 program showed an average total loss of 0.52 grams for vehicles 

tested using the canister trap method as opposed to a 29.2 grams loss 

for vehicles tested using the shed enclosure technique. This represents 

a 56 times higher result when the enclosure method is used to test the 

vehicles. This is very strong evidence that the canister trap method 

only measures a very small percentage of the total evaporative 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 the preliminary discussion paper on evaporative emissions. In that paper emission levels 

from the Denver FY 72 and Los Angeles FY 72 surveillance programs were 

compared. It was found in that analysis that the Denver values were 

indeed higher and that atmospheric pressure had ari important influence 

on evaporative emissions. In those test programs the vehicles used 

were of the same model year and all vehicles were controlled for 

evaporative emissions with charcoal canisters. 

For the analysis performed at EPA the data for the Denver FY 72 

program were not usable because the FID calibration curves were not 

available. Therefore, the most reliable sets of data for comparing 

the effects of atmospheric pressure were the results from the Denver 

FY 73 and Los Angeles FY 73 program. These programs also used similar 

vehicles (1973 Models) and all vehicles were canister controlled. In 

addition the fuel used in both programs was indolene 30 and the Reid 

Vapor Pressure {RVP) and IBP were similar for both programs. 

The diurnal losses were found to be the same for both Denver 

and Los Angeles. The hot soak emissions were 16% higher for Denver 

than.they were for Los Angeles. It was found, however, that due to 

the large variance of the data a low confidence can be placed in the 

conclusion that there is a difference in hot soak emission levels. 

The general magnitude of the difference in hot soak emission levels 

was the same as that found in the position paper when Denver FY 72 

and Los Angeles FY 72 programs were compared. 

One could go further and attempt to compare the Denver FY 73 and 

Los Angeles FY 72 programs. The only intended difference between the 

two programs was that the Denver program·used all 1973 vehicles and the 

Los Angeles program used all 1972 vehicles. There may also have been other 

differences between the two programs such as differences in fuel characteristics. 

A comparison between these two programs would show a difference in emission 

levels for both diurnal and hot soak tests. The conclusion that the difference 

was due to atmospheric pressure, however, may be incorrect because a similar 

comparison between the Los Angles FY 72 program and the Los Angeles FY 73 
6 

program show the same differences. The differences seen between the two 

Los Angeles programs cannot be attributed to atmospheric pressure. The 

logical conclusion from these two comparisonswould be that a difference 

existed due to the model year of the vehicles tested and not due to atmospheric 

pressure. A great deal of confidence cannot be placed in this conclusion 

either, because other differences such as the effects of fuel composition 

may have been responsible for the observed differences. 

In conclusion, the results of this analysis and the analysis done 

in the preliminary discussion paper show that different conclusions can 

be drawn depending on which two test programs are compared. It is felt 

that while a difference in emission levels may indeed exist due to 

differences in atmospheric pressure, a test program which would be 

designed to specifically test for differences due to atmospheric 

pressure would need to be conducted in order to quantify the effects 

of atmospheric pressure and to gain sufficient confidence that a 

difference does or does not exist. · 

Controlled Vehicles versus Uncontrolled Vehicles 

Another important aspect of the surveillance program was the analysis 

of the effectiveness of the charcoal canister as an evaporative emission 

control device. The Los Angeles FY 71 test program 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. A high 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<: n, ~~e2d~Id ~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 paper cites references addressing the effects 

of fuel parameters such as RVP and IBP on emission levels. The testing 

done during the surveillance program showed certain trends that would 

be expected due to differences in RVP and IBP. However, due to the many 

uncontrolled parameters such as vehicle type, fuel tank size, engine size, 

barometric pressure, and test site, any attempt to quantify the effects 

of fuel differences would be invalid. In order to quantify any differences, 

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 are very close 

even though the IBP for the Indolene fuel is higher. This does not 

adhere to the expected trend, but is probably due to some vehicle 

or test parameter other than fuel type. 

An analysis was done to try and evaluate effect of the enlosure 

(SHED) temperature on evaporative emissions. Only hot soak test data 

were evaluated since higher enclosure· temperatures could be expected 

due to the transfer of heat from the hot engine. Tests were grouped 

in 2 degree intervals of maximum shop temperature minus IBP, such 

that when the maximum shop temperature equalled the IBP the data 

wereplaced in the zero degree interval. The tests in the different 

intervals were averaged and the.data were plotted in Figure 5. In 

addition the average engine size for each interval was calculated 

and is also plotted in Figure 5. The Figure shows that there is a 

def.inite increase in emissions as the maximum SHED temperature approaches and surpasses the IBP of the fuel. This could be attributed 

to the fact that larger engines could produce more emissions and more 

heat. However, the data of average engine size does not bear this 

out, as equally large engines are found over the .entire range. The 

observed trend could also be due to a larger average carburetor bowl 
60 

Cll 

a 

t1! 

1-< 50 

co 

.. 

Cll 

Cll 40 

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 

Figure 3 Mean HC loss for Indolene or Commercial 

Leaded Fuels for Denver and Los Angeles. 

-

f?Z3 

Indolene 30 

fuel 

connnerc ial 

leaded fuel 104 114 

0 

Denver Los Angeles Denver Los Angeles 

Figure 4 Mean RVP and IBP values for Indolene 

or commercial leaded fuels for Denver 

and Los Angeles. 

80 
9 

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 

I 

X 

~ 

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 

program where .the shed temperature 

exceeded 80°F, 90°F 6r IBP. 

volume for those groupings showing higher evaporative losses. However, 

carburetor bowl volume data were not available and therefore this hypothesis could not be tested. Lastly, the higher hot soak emissions 

exhibited for tests where the enclosure temperature was greater than 

the IBP of the fuel could be attributed to increased emissions from the 

fuel tank as the fuel surpasses its IBP. This conclusion, although 

feasible, cannot be totally supported, but it would help explain the 

high hot soak emissions for the Denver FY71 testing. Table IV shows the 

%of tests for each train.in which the enclosure temperature exceeded 

80°, 90°F and the IBP. It is evident that the large percent of tests 

where the maximum SHED temperature exceeded the IBP for the Denver FY71 

program could have been the cause of the h~gh h~t soak emissions for 

that test program. \ 

The maximum enclosure temperature never exceeded the IBP of the 

fuels used for any diurnal test during any of the test programs. However, 

the IBP of the fuel used during the Denver FY71 program was at or below 

84°F for 77% of the tests conducted during that program. The prescribed 

ending fuel tank temperature for the diurnal test is 84°F + 2°F. Therefore, the high diurnal losses exhibited during the Denver FY71 program 

are probably due to the low IBP of the /test fuel used~ 

In conclusion, the trends· expected due to the fu'el parameters of 

RVP and IBP do show up for all but Los Angeles hot soak values. There 

are published reports available that experimentally quantify the effects 

of fuel composition on evaporative emissions which give much more reliable 

results than the surveillance data. 
11 

Since fuel does have a marked effected on both hot soak and diurnal 

emission results, it is recommended that tight specificatio~s on fuel 

type be used and a maximum shed enclosure temperature be specified. 

Analysis of Diurnal Emission Tests 

The parameters felt to have an important effect on diurnal emissions 

were analysed to determine if they influenced the levels of diurnal 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 concentration versus time divided 

by total length of the diurnal test were made. These plots for each test 

program are shown in figures 6 through 10. These 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 total hydrocarbon loss occurs in 

the last· 10% or approximately 6 minutes of the test time. The current 

time tolerance specified for the certification procedure and in the SAE 

procedure is 60 ~in ± 10 min. A question that needs to be answered, 

then, is whether or not the 10 min. tolerance on the diurnal test 

length is too liberal. 

It should be noted that these figures as ~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. the me.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°F were considered. The results of this analysis are 

shown in figure 11. It can be seen from this figure that the longer 

the test the higher the emissions and that a 70 minute test might result 

in 400% higher emissions than a 50 minute test. It can be seen from 

the 95% 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 can be 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/Time max 

..... 

N 

Figure 9. Los Angeles FY . 7 3 program. 

Time for diurnal tests. 

Time max 
[HC] 

[HC] max 

80 

en 70 ,., 

~ 

bO 60 .. 

en 

en 

0 

..-i 50 

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 

Figure 10 .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.) 

Figure 11 Mean diurnal HC loss vs. length of test for 

Denver FY 71 data only. (All tests ended at 

84°F ± .5°F) 
14 

A similar analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different 

temperature rises on diurnal emissions. Only tests ending in 60 min. 

were evaluated. The tests were grouped according to whether a 20, 22, 

24, 26, or 28 degree temperature rise was conducted. The average values 

for each interval were then calculated. This analysis did not provide 

any noticeable trend even though one might suspect that higher emissions 

would be exhibited 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 perform controlled 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. A regression analysis was run to determine if a correlation 

existed between fuel tank volume and diurnal emissions. The Los Angeles 

FY 72 and FY 73 and the Denver FY 73 programs exhibited. the best correlation 

coefficients. However,·. the correlation coefficients were ·low and scatter 

plots of the data for these programs showed a wide scatter of data.· These 

plots·are shown·in figures 12.:..14. It is recommended that a more controlled 

experiment be performed to determine if any correlation' truly exists 

and to quantify its· effect. · 

An attempt to quantify the effect of RVP.was also performed for 

the different test progratTIS· . A regression ·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 can be seen that .the emission level increases rapidly' for the first 

half of the test and then begins to level off during .the last half of 

the test •. 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 soak test' 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.) 

Figure 12 Diurnal Loss vs. Fuel tank volume 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 tank voJ.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.tank volume 

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 the maximum shed temperature to 

exceed the IBP whereas a smaller engine would not. Again, in order to 

quantify the effect of engine size, a more controlled experiment would 

be required. It would seem, however, that specifying a maximum enclosure 

temperature as the SAE procedure does would eliminate any problems that 

would arise. The SAE procedure specifies a 90°F maximum Shed temperature. 

The number of cylinders in the engine and the number of barrels 

in the carburetor were compared with hot soak emission levels to determine 

if a correlation existed. Table V shows the results of an anlaysis 

of the number of cylinders for vehicles tested in the Los Angeles FY 

71 test program. Only one test ·program was analyzed, to eliminate any 

variability between test programs and the Los Angeles FY 71 program 

was used because of the large sample size.· The vehicles with 8 cylinders 

emitted 80% more evaporative emissions than did vehicles with 4 cylinders. 

A high confidence was found to exist that a difference between the two 

sets of data actually existed. 
.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/Time max 

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. 

Figures f-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/Time max 

Figure 19.1!£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. 

Table VI shows the results of an analysis performed to test the 

effect of the number of carburetor barrels. It was determined by means 

of a t-test that there was not a high confidence that any difference 

in hot soak,emissions existed due to the number of barrels. However, 

it does appear that a trend 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 

tank volumes, 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 Table VII •. It should 

be noted that the controlled and uncontrolled vehicles are different 

vehicles and that in some cases a very small number of tests were 

conducted. For these reasons these data should not be considered 

as indicative of all vehicles made by that manufacturer. It should 

also be noted that the vehicles tested were tested in the condition 

they were in when they came to the test facility, and that they were 

in-use vehicles. These do·,. however, show that all manufacturers will 

have to achieve a considerable reduction in evaporative losses in order 

to meet a 2 gram standard. 

An attempt was made to separate groups of vehicles by manufacturer, 

engine size, model year, and fuel tank volume. The groups of vehicles 

were small in number and showed a very large variance in emission levels. 

Nine groups of vehicles were found where the sample 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 the mean value to 125% of 

the mean. For hot soak emissions the standard deviations for the different groups ranged from 12% of the mean to 106% of the mean. These 

values show that· even groups of similar vehicles show wide variability 

in evaporative emission· families. The variance exhibited in the 

groups of similar vehicles can be attributed at least in part .to test 

variability. Eight of the nine groups came from the Los Angeles FY 71 

program. During this program nine replicate tests on the same vehicle 

were run. From these replicate tests it was found the the difference 

in diurnal emissions between two tests averaged 23% of their mean value 

and for hot soak emissions the difference averaged 37.1% of the mean· 

value. It should also be noted that most of the groups consisted of 

non-evaporative controlled vehicles. Controlled vehicles may show less 

test to test variability and this can be evaluated wi:.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. A 90% imorovement in evaporative emissions would be required to·~eet t~e 2· gram standard. 

2) The shed enclosure method was found to measure between 56· and 79 

times higher evaporative emissions than the canister trap technique. It 

is recommended that· the shed·enclosure testing method be u~ed for evaporative emission testing instead of the canister trap method.· 
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 

Table VIII Characteristics of groups of similar vehicles. 
--

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 testing would be needed to accurately assess the effects 

of atmospheric pressure on evaporative emissions. It was found that hot 

soak emissions were higher in Denver than in Los Angeles by approximately 

16%, but a high confidence in the conclusion that atmospheric pressure has 

a significant effect on either diurnal or hot soak losses was not found 

to exist. 

4) Evaporative controlled vehicles were found to have 28% lower 

evaporative emissions levels than uncontrolled vehicles for both diurnal 

and hot soak tests. 

5) The Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and Initial Boiling Point (IBP) 

of the test fuel appeared to have significant effects on evaporative losses. 

It was not possible to quantify the effects of RVP and IBP due to the 

large varity of vehicles used. However, there have been studies done 

which quantify the effects of RVP and IBP. Tight specifications should 

be placed on the test fuel used. 

6) The maximum shed 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 increase beyond the 1 hour hot 

soak test.' It is recommended that further testing be done to determine 

to what extent the emission levels continue to increase. 

10) Further testing should·be·conducted in order'to quantify the. 

effects of.engine size (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 rise was 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 li I r&IQW-y .. "~ ~ 

II D lllllllllllllll.lllllllllllllllllllllllill I U II ill 111111 r Ill I OIIIIITII If llol•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 . J DIJIII f@lll.l-111 i Ill] I Ill DJ lllliiii.I W 11 Ool21 » • n .oo u 10 u ~ u n n 10 

,...--------- FUll DIST1UATION TlMPUAIUIIS(Of) 

I 20,. I· I ..,,. 

I DIUINAl · 1 ~ HOI 10M l _ r-fiMPUATUil('f)~ LUO ~Ht.----,. T[MPUAtllll ('f) 1- LUO. -. .,_- HC. ---,. I i i 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 A C II 0 II 0 u .. 0 06 ; 

000 - 07 

08 

- 09 

' I 0 - - - : 1 1 

- .' 

I 2 - - - - 1 3 - - - 1 " - ~ 

I 5 - -- - 1 6 

I 7 

1 8 

I 9 1-. - - I 20 

I 

tt 

> 
Appendix B 

Calculations for Diurnal and Hot Soak 

losses and Grams per Vehicle Mile 

used for analysis of Surveillance Data 

I. Diurnal and Hot Soak loss calculation. 

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 ft 3) 

=Atmospheric pressure, (in. Hg). 

=Final hydrocarbon concentration, (ppm c). 

=Background hydrocarbon concentration, (ppm C). 

=Final Shed enclosure temperature, (?R). 

=Background Shed e~closure temperature, .( 0R). 

Grams per 

Dnc 

vehicle mile. 

+ 4. 7 HSWC 

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

where, GPM = Grams per vehicle mile. 

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.) 

Inertia Wt. (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** 

Fuel Distillation temperatures 

(IBP, 5%, 10%, 15%~ '20%,30%, 40% 

50%, 90%, FBP) 

H/C ratio 

Reid Vapor Pressure 1 psi 

Fuel in tank (gal.)* 

No. of fuel tanks 

Fuel tank Size (gal.) 

Diurnal HC loss, grams 

Hot Soak loss, grams 

Total HC loss, grams 

Grams per vehicle mile 

* data not recorded during surveillance program. 

** see codes at end of file descriptions. 
2 

B. EVAP - B data file 

Colums 

2-8 

10-14 

15-19 

20-24 

25-30 

31-35 

36-42. 

43-47 

49-53 

55-59 

61-65· 

67-71 

73-77 

79-83 

85-89 

91-95 

97-101 

102-107 

108-114 

115-121 

122-131 

132-136 

137-141 

142,.;146 

147-151 

152-156 

157-161 

162-166 

167-171 

172-176 

177-182 

184-189 

190-196 

197-203 

207-217· 

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 per vehicle ~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 0 min. 

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 concentration 1 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 Data date file. 

Data from EVAP data sheets are stored in a line file in the same 

positions as it appears on the data sheets shown in Appendix A. 

Codes 

A. Engine Type 

01 !-Block 

02 V-Block 

03 Rotary 

04 Opposed 

05 Turbine 

06 Ex (Steam) 

07 Ex (FREON) 

08 Diesel 

09 Stirling 

10 Electric 

11 Stratified 

B. Exhaust System Types(s) 

01 Air Injection· 

02 Engine Mod 

03 Fuel Injection 

04 Other 

05 Thermal Reactor 

06 Catalytic Reactor 

07 Turbocharger 

08 Exhaust Gas Recycle 

09 None 

C. Evap System Type 

01 Crankcase 

02 Canister 

03 Tank 

04 None 

D. Crankcase System Type 

01 Closed 

02 Other 

E. Fuel Type 

01 Indolene 30 

02 Commercial leaded 

F. Shed No. : 

40 AESi.Denver 

41 AESi L.A. 

42 ATL Denver 
5 

G. Train No. 

60 AESi Denver FY 71 

61 AESi L.A. FY 71 

62 AESi L.A. FY 72 

63 AESi L.A. FY 73 

64 ATL Denver FY 72 

65 ATL Denver FY. 73 
Diurnal Tests 

Train 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

62 

62 

62 

62 

62 

63 

63 

63 

65 

65 

65 

Test 

0094 

0105 

0110 

0141. 

0152 

0023 

0029 

0033 

0034 

0098 

0099 

RllO 

0118 

0156 

0168 

0182 

0012 

0016 

0170 

0172 

0178 

0011 

0017 

0021 

0032 

0037 

0039 

Appendix D 

Tests omitted from data Analysis 

Hot Soak Tests 

Train 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

61 

61 

61 

61 

61 

62• 

62 

62 

63 

63 

Test 

0016 

0051 

0141 

0145 

0155 

R167 

0043 

0096 

0099 

0111 

0116 

0133 

0178 

0179 

0033 

0044 
**MSAPC Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) 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 ~ 

(1) t4 (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 8 7.0 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 

*Test not used in data analysis. 
**MSAPC 'Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

AESI Denver FY71 Train 60 

DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST 

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-not U&ed 1n data analysis. 
Q) 

tl 

t::: 16 

Q) 

1-1 

;j 

tl 12 tl 

0 

44 

0 8 

:>, 

tl 

t::: 

Q) 4 

;j - 0' 

Q) 

1-1 

r:z.. 

~ 

Q) 

tl 

t::: 

Q) 

1-1 16 

1-1 

;j 

tl 

tl 

0 12 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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** , 

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 6L 0 I t~ •. D I I 2".'. ~9 6~ ili.O tit.. fJ 8c.o 42.51 I 

I I I 

_0027 f.O 68.0 i I 62.0 4l.h7 60 HG.O aa.c ob.O 15.v9 56.76 3.22 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'fest not used 1n clata anal~ 
**MSAPC Evapo~ative Enclosure (SIIED) Test Results** 

AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 

DIURNAL TEST ·• HOT SOAK TEST 

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 0 0 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 

*Test not used in data analysis. 

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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

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 

-. 

*Test not used iD data 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.JJ 
Test 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 

0 0 '-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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

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 in data 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 1.75 
Test 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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

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 f I . 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 not used in data ana1rsis. 

Final HC Loss, Total Grams 

Tank Grams Loss 1 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 2.89 
Test 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) Test Results** 

AESI Los Angeles FY71 Train 61 

DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST 

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 0 0 b4o0 

I i 

i:\G. 0 I 60.0 I 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 

*Test not used in data 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 

d 7. 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 do 71 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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

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 . ( 

I 1:1'+.0 18.74 60 87.0 '~1·0 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.{} l C·. 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 

*Test not used in data 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-' 

0 
12 

Ql 10 ~ Ql 

t :a 

:I 

u 

u 

0 6 . ~ 

0 

"' u 4 

1:1 

Ql 

:I 2 1:7' 

Ql 

... 

Ill. 

H 

14 

12 

Ql 

u 

s:: 10 Gl 

... 

... 

:I -u 8 CJ 

0 

~ 6 . 0 

"' CJ 4 

s:: 

Gl 

::s 

1:7' 

Ql 2 . ... 

!:&. 

H I 

Ql 10 u 

~ ... 

... 8 

CJ = 

u 

0 6 ~ 

0 

"' 4 u 

s:: 

Ql 

= 1:7' 2 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 I II 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 Angeles FY72 Train 62 , DIURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST 

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 0.20 
Q) 

25 

tJ 

s:: 

Q) 

~ 20 ~ 

;:I 

tJ 

tJ 15 0 

~ 

0 

:;.., 10 

tJ 

s:: 

Q) 

;:I s 

0" 

Q) 

~ 

~ ""' 

25 

Q) 

tJ 

s:: 

Q) 20 ~ 

~ 

;:I 

tJ 

tJ 

0 lS 

~ 

0 10 

:;.., 

tJ 

s:: 

Q) 

;:I s 

0" 

Q) 

~ 

""' N 

Q) 

tJ 

s:: 

Q) 

~ 20 ~ . ;:I 

tJ 

tJ 

0 15 ~ 

0 

:;.., 10 

tJ . s:: 

Q) 

;:I 

0" s 

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 Evaporative Enclosure (SHED) Test Results** 

AESI Los·Angeles FY73 Train 63 

, 1>IURNAL TEST HOT SOAK TEST 

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 

*Test not used in data 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 

u >- 10 

~ 

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. . Gl" 5 ... 

c:.. 

" 

10 . 

Figure E-4 

-1~. 

Figure B-4a Diurnal 

20 30 40 so 60 

Hydrocarbon 1 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 SOAK TEST 

Test Test Encls. Initial Final ·' HC Loss. Test Encls. Initial Final HC Loss 0 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 not used in data analysis. 
(I) 

tJ 

~ 

Q) 

1-1 

1-1 20 

;j 

tJ 

tJ 

0 15 . ~ 

0 

>. 10 tJ 

~ 

Q) 

;j 

0" 5 

Q) 

1-1 

!Z-1 

~ 

10 

Q) 

tJ 

~ 

Q) 20 

1-1 

1-1 

;j 

C) 

tJ 15 

0 

~ 

0 10 >. 

tJ 

~ ;j 5 

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" 

Q) 5 

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 

g 10 

Ql 

... 

... 

;I 8 u 

u 

0 

6 "-4 

0 

8 CD 

Ql 

cJ 

6 ~ ... 

... 

;I 

u 

u 

>. 4 0 

cJ 4 c:: 

Ql 

"-4 

0 

;I 

go 

Ql 2 ... 

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 

u 10 

c:: 

Ql 

... 

... 

;I 8 -U 

u 

0 

"-4 6 0 

1-

lf CD 

Ql 

8 u 

c:: 

Ql 

... 

... 6 ;I 

u 

u >. 0 

u 

c:: 4 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 

·>. 

u 4 c:: 

Ql 

;I 

go 

Ql 2 ... 

~ 

H 

I 

I 

II I I I I I I 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).