Patent Abstract:
A system and method for detecting running loss emissions is provided. A remote sensing device is used to detect vehicular exhaust emissions. The detected emissions are analyzed to determine a characteristic profile. The characteristic profile is processed to determine whether the profile is suspect or invalid. Invalid and suspect profiles are further analyzed to determine if running losses (e.g., leaky gas cap vapors, blow by emissions, etc.) are present. Profiles labeled as containing running losses may be further processed to generate statistical information, deliver notification to vehicle owners, or other actions.

Full Description:
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/353,595, filed Jul. 15, 1999, now abandoned which claims priority to Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/092,962 filed Jul. 15, 1998. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     This invention relates to a vehicular running loss detecting system and method to determine emissions (e.g., hydrocarbon emissions) from a vehicle, in addition to emissions from the exhaust system of the vehicle. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Environmental pollution is a serious problem that is especially acute in urban areas. Motor vehicles, such as automobiles, are a considerable contributor to this pollution dilemma, especially those not equipped with anti-pollution devices, or with breaches in their structural integrity. Centralized systems to detect vehicle emissions are known, but require vehicles to be taken to the centralized test facilities. Systems for remotely sensing vehicle emissions (e.g., roadside) also are generally known. These remote systems, however, typically detect emissions emanating from the exhaust system of a moving vehicle (e.g., an automobile). However, other types of emissions known as running losses also exist. Running losses are defined by the EPA, and include hydrocarbon emissions from sources such as evaporation from a gas cap, blow-by emissions (e.g., residual plume from other vehicles or losses from an engine compartment or fuel lines that are swept under the car and emerge at the rear of the vehicle) and other running losses. In some cases, one or more running loss plumes mix with an exhaust plume. In some cases, they may cause a system to invalidate the test for that vehicle. Other drawbacks also exist. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     An object of this invention is to overcome theses and other drawbacks in known systems and methods. 
     Another object of the invention is to provide a system and method for detecting running losses from vehicles. 
     Another object of the invention is to remotely detect running losses from vehicles. 
     Another object of the invention is to identify a plume that comprises emissions from two or more sources. 
     These and other objects of the invention are accomplished by various embodiments of the invention. One embodiment of the present invention provides a vehicular running loss detecting system and method that reliably identifies the existence of running loss. Running loss refers to emissions originating from sources such as evaporative loss (e.g., from a gas cap) and directly from the vehicle&#39;s engine (ie., from the pistons), often referred to as, “blow-by”. According to one aspect of the invention, this is accomplished by storing emission data from a control vehicle having known running loss. Preferably, at least HC and CO 2  emission patterns are collected from the control vehicle with known running losses and stored. In this way, a plurality of characteristic or “signature” emission patterns may be obtained for various types of running losses. These signature emission patterns may then be stored in a database. Emissions from vehicles may be detected and compared to one or more predetermined criteria indicative of the presence of a running loss. Such predetermined criteria may be obtained from the signature emission patterns in the database. One or more characteristics of these signature emission patterns can be employed to identify potential running losses from a vehicle. 
     According to one embodiment, the emissions detection may be performed by a remote sensing device, such as RSD-1000, RSD-2000, or RSD-3000 manufactured by Environmental Systems Products, Inc., Tucson, Ariz., wherein the process control software is modified to perform the novel functions set forth herein and wherein a database of stored emissions patterns is provided. 
     These and other features of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, taken together with the accompanying drawings. 
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a remote emissions sensing system with the capability of detecting one or more running losses, according to one embodiment of the invention. 
     FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating the operation of the running loss detection system of FIG. 1 according to one embodiment of the invention. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
     According to one embodiment of the present invention, a remote emissions sensing system with running loss detection comprises a source/detector module for detecting the composition and concentration of emissions originating from a vehicle&#39;s exhaust system and from one or more running loss sources. For example, the remote emissions sensor preferably detects vehicle emissions, such as those from an exhaust plume to determine the concentration of constituents such as HC, CO, CO 2 , NO x , and other constituents of interest. According to one embodiment of the invention, certain plume criteria are evaluated to determine the existence or potential existence of two or more sources of the emissions. Thus, the system possesses the ability to differentiate between emissions solely from an exhaust plume and emissions which also include components originating from a source other than the vehicle&#39;s tailpipe exhaust (e.g., running loss). If the system determines that at least a second source of emissions exists or may exist, the processor may compare one or more characteristics of the detected emission pattern with one or more characteristic of stored signature emission patterns to identify a potential running loss as a source of emissions. 
     As shown in FIG. 1, a remote emissions detection system may compose a system such as the RSD-1000, RSD-2000 or RSD-3000 or one such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,210,702, which is incorporated herein by reference. For example, the system may comprise a source  101  of electromagnetic radiation, for producing an optical beam  101 A, including one or more predetermined wavelengths, such as an infrared and/or ultraviolet beam, and a beam reflector  102  for reflecting a beam  101 B to a detector unit  103 . A vehicle identification device  104  (such as an imaging device, an automated license plate reader or other identification device) and a processor  105  are also provided. As a vehicle  107  approaches or passes the system, vehicle identification device  104  identifies the vehicle, then captures and interprets the vehicle&#39;s license plate number. Capture devices and automatic license plate readers are known to those in the art. The processor  105 , in part, performs an analysis of the plume to analyze the exhaust emissions in a known manner. Preferably, the processor  105 , according to one aspect of the present invention, includes a running loss module  105 A and a plume criteria module  105 B. 
     In operation, the source beam  101 A passes through the plume  108  of vehicle  107 , to beam reflector  102  and reflected beam  101 B is received by detector  103 . Changes in attenuation of the source beam represent absorption of the source beam by vehicle emissions, and possibly from running losses. According to one embodiment, multiple samples are taken over a predetermined period. The detector may include a reference detector and detectors for one or more of hydrocarbons (HC), CO, CO 2  and NO x , where x is an interger. These samples may be analyzed by processor  105  to determine the HC, CO, NO x , and CO 2  absorption levels of these samples. These absorption levels may then be translated into concentration levels for each sample, according to known techniques. 
     According to one embodiment of the present invention, after a predetermined number of emissions measurements (e.g., 50) are taken over a predetermined period (e.g., 0.5 seconds) (ie., 50 measurements with 10 millisecond intervals), a plume validation process may be performed on those measurements by plume criteria module  105 B of processor  105 . The plume validation process may include one or more steps or combinations thereof, selected from those identified below and/or other steps. 
     For example, plume validation may include determining whether there is an absorption of light on the reference channel. If so, the deflection caused by absorption is then subtracted from all of the measurements. If the reference channel deflection exceeds a predetermined amount, all of the impacted measurements may be discarded, or adjusted by the amount of deflection. A pre-vehicle and post-vehicle beam block measurement on the reference channel may be taken to determine a baseline voltage for all of the measurements. That baseline voltage may then be subtracted from the measurements on one, some or all of the other channels as well. To validly determine the concentration(s) of various emission elements, a minimum amount of CO 2  may be required, since each (or some) values are determined by use of a ratio to the CO 2  concentration in a known manner. Measurements from a time interval for which the CO 2  concentration not at least about 0.1% absolute, for example, may be discarded. After these adjustments are made to the measurements, a best fit (or other) curve plotting algorithm may be applied to plot these measurements on a graph with the X coordinate being the CO 2  measurement and the Y coordinate being the measurement for another emission of interest, such as CO, HC or NO x , for example. 
     Another step in the plume validation may include performing a statistical analysis to determine statistical outliners. According to one embodiment, if an individual measurement for the emission being plotted (on the Y-axis) is more than a predetermined amount or percentage away from the best fit line (or other curve), that measurement may be discarded. For example, if the Y-axis value of a measured data point is more than 10% above (or below) a best fit line, that measurement may be discarded. Additionally or alternatively, a measurement may be discarded if it is greater than a predetermined maximum value. For example, the maximum value may be established as the lesser of 10% or the ratio of the maximum digitizer noise to the largest measurement in the group, or some other value. 
     To sufficiently establish a slope (target emission/CO 2 ) from a plume, it is generally desirable to have a predetermined number of measurements over a predetermined interval of time. Overall plume strength can be determined by observing the amount of CO 2  in an exhaust plume. This measure of strength is possible because CO 2  is the most plentiful of all exhaust gases. If a plume deteriorates in less than a desired amount of time, for example, that plume may be invalid. To make this determination, the total number of measurements may be divided into two or more duty cycles of half (or some other fraction) of the predetermined interval (e.g., for a half second interval two duty cycles of one quarter second each). The CO 2  measurements in the second duty cycle may then be monitored to determine whether there are a sufficient number of measurements above a predetermined level in that cycle for a sufficient plume. 
     Another plume validation criteria may be determining if there is too much noise. Noise may be determined by analyzing the number of measurements that are a predetermined amount away from the best fit line (standard error). A significant amount of variation from the best fit line is a sign that the plume is too noisy and should be noted as such. 
     If the measurements pass these criteria, the individual readings are considered to determine whether the readings are consistent with expectations. If the readings exceed reasonable levels, the measurements may be invalidated. For example, if the measurements exceed 21% for CO, 16% for CO 2 , 20,000 PPM for HC, 7,000 PPM for NO x , or 21% for both CO and CO 2 , the plume may be invalidated, or at a minimum, be noted as suspect. The same is true if a plume analysis yields negative values, or if a plume yields an inordinately low CO 2 , concentration (e.g., 6.0%). 
     According to one aspect of the invention, rather than simply invalidating or marking such a plume as suspect, a further step may be performed. That step involves determining if at least a second source of the emission may be present. The existence of a second source (if not identified as such) may cause an existing system to invalidate or flag as suspect a particular plume. According to this aspect of the present invention, the existence of a second source of emission (e.g., from running losses) may be determined. 
     According to one embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the processor may perform one or more functions to identify the existence of a second source of emission (e.g., from running loss). 
     According to one embodiment, emission pattern signatures may be obtained and stored (step  201 ) in database  106  associated with processor  105 . This may be done by having a control vehicle release known quantities of emissions representing one or more standard types of running losses (e.g., from a canister attached to a predetermined location of a control vehicle). For example, a test vehicle may be equipped with an HC releasing apparatus, such as a cylinder, at locations commonly known or likely to emit running loss. The rates of gaseous emission and other criteria may also be varied for each location in the vehicle where the HC releasing apparatus is installed. As the control vehicle passes through the running loss detection system, the emission patterns may be stored in database  106  as emission pattern signatures (step  201 ). The emission patterns which are analyzed for running loss emissions generally comprise certain concentration levels of HC (and CO 2 ), since running losses are typically comprised of these components. Such signature emissions patterns may define emissions patterns for a vehicle with a running loss from a particular location in the vehicle emitting at a specific release rate. Other criteria such as vehicle speeds, wind directions, etc. may be accounted for as well. 
     When a vehicle  107  with unknown emissions goes through the remote emissions detection system, its emissions are detected (step  202 ). At some convenient time, the vehicle may be identified (step  203 ). The processor  105  analyzes the emissions detected (step  204 ). This may include determining the concentrations of one or more of HC, CO, NO x , and CO 2  (or other constituents) by analysis of the detected emissions patterns (step  204 ). If, based on predetermined plume criteria (module  105 B), the processor determines that the test data is invalid or suspect (step  205 ), the test data is not simply discarded, nor is the test simply invalidated or tagged as suspect, as may be done in prior systems. Rather, if the pattern is determined at step  205  to be suspect or invalid, the processor  105  determines if there is potentially at least a second source of emissions, in addition to the tailpipe exhaust plume. For example, the processor may invoke running loss module ( 105 A) to determine if a detected emissions pattern or portion thereof correlates with a stored running loss (step  206 ). If yes, the vehicle is flagged as having potential running loss (step  207 ) and control passes to step  209 . If no (at step  206 ), the data may be flagged as invalid (step  208 ) and control passes to step  209 . If the pattern is not determined to be invalid or suspect at step  205 , control passes to step  209 . At step  209 , emissions analysis is performed (e.g., standard exhaust emission analysis). At step  210 , the processor stores a record of the emission analysis, flag (if any) and vehicle identification information. Preferably, if a second source of emissions is suspected to exist, the detected (and CO 2 ) levels for the vehicle are analyzed and compared to one or more characteristics of the signature emission patterns stored in the computer&#39;s database. For running losses, if the HC/CO 2  levels match or correlate to a certain degree with the emission pattern signatures in the database, running loss is considered likely to exist Some embodiments of the system may compensate for running loss, under appropriate circumstances, by adjusting the emission analysis to remove the portion of the signal which is due to running loss. While not shown in FIG. 2, further analysis may be performed to identify the type, source, composition and/or concentration of running loss. Other tests may be performed in that case. In addition, the system may compile data regarding those vehicles flagged as having running losses. For example, statistics pertaining to the make, model, year, and other characteristics of vehicles exhibiting running loss emissions may be compiled. Other types of data may also be compiled. 
     In some embodiments of the invention the measurements not effected by the presence of running losses may be retained, or processed in other ways. For example, running losses which may contain primarily HC emissions, may not affect tailpipe emission measurements of CO or No x . Therefore, the CO or NO x , measurements may be subject to further processing and analysis. 
     In some embodiments of the invention the identification of a vehicle having running losses may be used to enforce various emission standards. For example, a vehicle having “acceptable” tailpipe emissions may, in fact, be contributing unacceptable levels of pollution through running losses. The present system identifies vehicles with running losses, and may be used by appropriate authorities to require repairs, inspection, or other corrective procedures. 
     Other embodiments and uses of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. The specification and examples should be considered exemplary only. The scope of the invention is only limited by the claims appended hereto.

Technology Classification (CPC): 6