纽约州立大学石溪分校SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The u of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular u, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the ur.”
SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revid, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyright © 2003 SAE International
All rights rerved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwi, without the prior written permission of SAE.
TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER:Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: custsvc@sae
1.Scope—This SAE Recommended Practice covers design and evaluation of the entire gasoline filler pipe
asmbly ud on cars and light trucks with respect to compliance with CARB (California Air Resources Board) LEV II (meeting or exceeding EPA Tier 2 and EU Stage-5 evaporative emissions requirements). It is limited to an asmbly which is joined to the fuel tank using either a ho, Quick Connect Coupling, or a grommet type aling device.
The Design Practice covers the filler cap, filler pipe, filler pipe asmbly to tank ho, and filler pipe asmbly to tank grommet or spud. It includes recommendations for design of components and asmblies intended to perform successfully in evaporative emission SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination) tests, bad on best practices known at the time of relea.
2.References
2.1Applicable Publications—The following publications form a part of this specification to the extent specified
herein. Unless otherwi indicated, the latest version of SAE publications shall apply.
2.1.1SAE R EFERE NCES—Available from SAE, 400 Commonweatlh Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
SAE J30—Fuel and Oil Hos—(Table 7 Dimensions and Tolerances for SAE 30R6, 7, and 8)
SAE J1231—Formed Tube Ends for Ho Connections and Ho Fittings
SAE J1508—Ho Clamp Specifications
SAE J1697—Recommended Practices for Design and Evaluation of Pasnger and Light Truck Coolant Ho Clamped Joints
SAE J1645—Fuel System—Electrostatic Charge
2014海淀二模
SAE J1737—Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon Loss from Fuel Tubes, Hos, Fittings, and Fuel Line Asmblies by Recirculation
fieldofviewSAE J2027—Standard for Protective Covers for Gasoline Fuel Line Tubing
SAE J2236—Standard Method for Determining Continuous Upper Temperature Resistance of Elastomers SAE J2044—Quick Connector Specification for Liquid Fuel and Vapor/Emissions Systems
SAE J2260—Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers
SAE Technical Paper Series 2001-01-0730 Estimating Real Time Diurnal (RTD) Permeation from Constant Temperature Measurements
2.1.2UL P UBLICATION—Available from Underwriters Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-
2096.
UL 746A—Polymeric Materials—Short Term Property Evaluations
apparent
snowboard2.1.3C ALIFORNIA P UBLICATIO NS—Available from California Air Resources Board, 1001 “l” Street, P.O. Box 2815,
Sacramento, CA 95812, helpline@v.
California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subquent Model Pasnger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Trucks (6-1-99 proposal)
California Evaporative Emissions Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subquent Model Motor Vehicles (6-1-99 Proposal)
2.1.4F EDERAL P UBLICATIO NS—Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9320.
suggest是什么意思Federal Register Vol 58/ No 55 page 16045 § 86.146-96 (Fuel Dispensing Spitback Procedure)--` ` , ` ` , , ` , , ` ` ` , ` ` ` ` ` , , , ` , ` , ` ` ` -` -` , , ` , , ` , ` , , ` ---
3.Abstract—Design of clamped ho and elastomeric grommet aled filler pipe joints is not an exact science;
therefore, preci formulas and methods cannot accurately predict performance. However, theoretical and philosophical constructs bad on empirical data and industry experience can be ud to develop standard practices for evaluating automotive filler neck joining techniques compatible with LEV II evaporative emission demands.
Beyond the basic functionality of easily allowing the customer to transfer fuel from fuel dispensing nozzles to the fuel tank of the vehicle, four major design considerations of the filler neck asmbly are:
a.Fuel System Integrity/Crashworthiness
b.Evaporative emission performance for 15 years / 241 350 km (150 000 miles)
c.Prevent or minimize the buildup of electrostatic charges
d.Ea of asmbly, with force levels within accepted ergonomic limits.
techAlthough this document primarily address compliance with evaporative emission regulations, the propod ranking of the considerations is in the order listed previously.
Fuel System Integrity/Crashworthiness is the most important concern and is so stated in the environmental regulations governing evaporative emissions.
Evaporative emission performance is the main topic for this document. Becau the CARB LEV-II regulations for pasnger cars have the strictest target (for high volume markets), we will focus on that specific subject here. To satisfy that CARB regulation the filler pipe asmbly must not add more than its allotted portion of the total hydrocarbon evaporative emission limit when expod to the prescribed hot soak, diurnal, running loss and ORVR (On Board Refueling Vapor Recovery) SHED tests.
As with crashworthiness, electrostatic discharge dissipation should not be under-rated bad on its ranking. It was given this ranking bad on the intent of this emission control oriented design guideline.
Ea of Asmbly, is an important design consideration due to increasing emphasis being given to ergonomics. If the other requirements have been met there will be some minimum asmbly force value that can be achieved.
--``,``,,`,,```,`````,,,`,`,```-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4.Sealability of the Filler Cap—The filler cap not only provides a al to the filler neck, but also acts as an air
induction device to allow outside air to enter the fuel system in the event that the fuel system pressure is below specification. The cap often also has the ability to act as a pressure relief in the event of an over pressurization of the system.
In order to ensure that LEV II evaporative emissions demands are met, attention must be paid to the three als located in the cap, as well as the surface finish of the aling area of the filler neck. Figure 1 shows the three als and their corresponding aling surfaces. The als and their aling surfaces must be smooth and free of defects just as the filler pipe ho aling surfaces must. Care must be taken that filler pipes fabricated from welded tubing do not allow weld am defects in the Cap-to-pipe aling area.
Emission prove-out testing of the fuel filler cap through tho areas shown in Figure 1 is accomplished in three stages. First the cap is tested to the defined customer specification with air to verify valve functionality.
Second the cap is Helium leak tested using an appropriate hard vacuum or accumulation test metho
d to verify al integrity. Finally the cap/neck asmbly is Micro SHED tested.
The test tup includes a fuel rervoir with drain/fill port capability of venting fuel vapor outside of Micro SHED during testing, and a reprentative or actual production fill pipe. The components of the system must be constructed with the fuel filler cap being at the highest point on the fuel rervoir in the Micro SHED.
The recommended test fuels for preconditioning and testing are CARB Certified Fuel or CE10 (ASTM Fuel C with 10% Ethanol) and the preconditioning is done at a constant temperature of 40 °C in a vapor environment for 21 days or until stabilization occurs. It is recommended to u a one hour constant temperature Micro SHED test at various time intervals to prove stabilization has been achieved. Once stabilization has been proven, evaporative emissions are measured during a CARB 24-hour diurnal Micro SHED test and data taken for report out.
FIGURE 1—FUEL FILLER CAP
米其妙妙屋5.Construction of the Filler Pipe—The inner-diameter of the fuel fill pipe must be designed in such a way as to
provide a liquid al at 4 to 10 gallon per minute rate during the vehicle fueling process, while optimizing vapor management. The liquid al prevents fuel vapors from escaping the fill neck asmbly and being discharged to the atmosphere during refueling. Vapor entrainment during fueling must also be a consideration. Ingestion of excessive amounts of atmospheric air can reduce the effectiveness of the ORVR system.
The filler pipe may be made of metallic or polymeric material. It may be a one-piece tube or an asmbly as shown in Figure 2. Permeation (e Section 8) through the tube wall would not be an emission concern when a metallic filler pipe is employed, but must be considered when using a polymeric design. Leakage is a concern at each joint of the asmbly (e Figure 2) as well as at the filler pipe to ho and ho to tank spud joints. Refueling emissions standards did not change for LEV II, and have been successfully met with various “liquid al” and “mechanical al” designs. This technology is well established, and thus will not be included as part of this document.
Evaporative emissions from a capped fuel filler pipe can come from leaks between different components, and permeation through the materials ud. There are a number of construction options for fuel fillers, but to achieve the best evaporative emission performance, it is preferable to minimize the number of leak paths and u the lowest permeation materials that still support the other functional requirements.
The following ctions provide evaporative emissions considerations for various fuel filler pipe construction options that may be specified for u on LEV II applications. Asmbly FMEAs (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) and design validation plans should address the points. Helium leak detection (using pressures reprentative of what the component es in-u) is a convenient method of quickly identifying any leak paths.Mini- or Micro-SHED testing is the most effective way to measure the effect of both permeation and leak paths,but accurate data requires proper conditioning with fuel, which can take hundreds of hours for low permeation materials. For materials with known permeation rates at in-u conditions, an approximation of the component’s performance can be calculated using the expod surface area and the length of the permeation path.
--``,``,,`,,```,`````,,,`,`,```-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 2—FILLER NECK
pronunciation是什么意思
5.1Metal fuel fillers (coated steel, stainless steel or aluminum) are typically zero-permeation, but may exhibit leakhave的过去式是什么
paths from rough surface finish (i.e., weld am, tooling marks, coating flaws), corrosion or poor joints.
Forming the full length of the main tube from a single metal tube is preferred. Coatings at the cap aling surface must be robust against the chipping or scratching by pump nozzles during refueling that may create leak and corrosion concerns.
5.2Plastic fuel fillers (Multilayer blow-molded, or extruded/injection molded combinations) have some
measurable permeation rate, so minimizing the fuel-expod area is strongly recommended. Although corrosion is typically not an issue, they carry over the requirements for smooth surface finish at aling areas, and leak-free joints.
NOTE—Plea e caution concerning aling surface smoothness in Figures 1 and 2.
