/198o CRC FUEL RATING PROGRAM: ROAD OCTANE
CRC Report No. 520/198o CRC FUEL RATING PROGRAM:ROAD OCTANE PERFORMANCEIN 1980 MODEL CARSJuly 1981C-3.%COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL INC.219 PERIMETER CENTER PARKWAY, ATLANTA, PJoROIPU0482
DISCLAIMER NOTICETHIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITYPRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHEDTO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANTNUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOTREPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCILINCORPORATED219 PERIMETER CENTER PARKWAYATLANTA. GEORGIA 30346(404) 396-34001980 CRC FUEL RATING PROGRAM:ROAD OCTANE PERFORMANCEIN1980 MODEL CARS(CRC Project No. CM-124-80)AIIN FORMULATING AND APPROVING REPORTS, THEAPPROPRIATE COMMITTEE OF THE COORDINATINGRESEARCH COUNCIL, INC. HAS NOT INVESTIGATEDOR CONSIDERED PATENTS WHICH MAY APPLY TOTHE SUBJECT MATTER.PROSPECTIVE USERS OF THEREPORT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THEM-SELVES AGAINST LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OFPATENTS.Prepared by the1980 Analysis Panelof theCRC-Road Test GroupJuly 1981Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel, Lubricant, and Equipment Research Committeeof theCoordinating Research Council, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTSTEXII.PageINTRODUCTION.II.1SUMMARY . I2DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM .III.A.B.C.D.TestTestRoadDataFuels.Cars.Rating Technique.Analysis .IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .A. Test Results .233344Full-Throttle Data Analysis . 4 1B.C. Pa1 t-Throttle Data Analysis . 9D. Comparison of Results with Previous Programs . 11V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS . 13TABLESTable I -Comparison of Actual and Target Fuel Properties . 17Table I! - Averages and Correlation Matrix of Fuel Variables. 18Table III - Additional Fuel Properties . 19Table IV - Test Cars. 20Table V - Average Full- and Part-Throttle Road OctaneNumbers. 21Tal ITabeV -Regression Equations. 2Table VII - Linearized RON, MON, (RON) 2 Equation .4D710,,cooo40
IIPageFIGURESFigure I-Prediction of 37-Car Average Full-ThrottleRoad ON by RON, MON Equation . 25Figure 2 - Prediction of 37-Car Average Full-ThrottleRoad ON by RON, MON, (RON)2 Equation . 26Figure 3 - Prediction of 37-Car Average Full-ThrottleRoad ON by RON, MON, (RON)2, Heavy AromaticsEquation .Figure 4 - Prediction of 37 Individual Full-Throttle Road ONRatings by Single Regression Equation . 28Figure 5 - Prediction of 12-Car Average Part-Throttle Road ONby RON, MON Equation . 29Figure 6 - Prediction of 12-Car Average Part-Throttle Road ONby RON, MON, Heavy Aromatics Equation .30APPENDICESAppendix ALaboratories and Membership ofParticipatingAnalysis Panel . A-1Appendix B1980 Fuel Rating Program: Road OctanePerformance in 1980 Model Cars . B-lAppendix C-Car-Laboratory Testing Array . C-lAppendix D - Modified Uniontown Technique (CRC DesignationF-28-70) . D-1Appendix E -Average Road Octane Ratings - ModifiedUniontown Technique . E-lAppendix F - Multiple Regression Equations . F-lAppendix G.Appendix Hj-Analysis of Variance Results . G-lDetailed Test Results. H-1-ii-
FI.Road octane rating programs have been conducted periodically since 1963 bythe Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Light-Duty Vehicle Road Test Groupto investigate relationships between gasoline variables and road octanenumbers. Leaded gasolines were tested during the 1963 - 1969 period; unleaded gasolines were tested in the 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1978 programs.This is the eleventh program in the series and includes gasoline blendscontainino ethanol (gasohol) in addition to normal gasoline variables.JLIIFINTRODUCTIONSFull-Throttle Modified Uniontown Road Octane Numbers (Road ON) were obtainedby twelve participating laboratcries in thirty-seven cars that representtwenty-four different 1980 makes and models, one 1979 model, and one 1981model.Part-throttle Road ON ratings were obtained by four participatinglaboratories in twelve cars representing nine different 1980 makes andmodels.a--thuII.SUMMARYThe data were analyzed using multiple linear regression and analysis of variance techniques. Analyses were made on all-car average data, as well as datafrom individual cars and from several subgroups, On an all-car basis, fullthrottle Road ON's weefo-und to-be well predicted by the following equationcontaining only Research octane number (RON) and Motor octane number (MON):Road ON 26.275 0.286 (RON) 0.450 (MON)The equation fit was imRroved considerably (lower standard deviation), however,by first adding a (RON)? term, then adding a term for heavy aromatics content:Road ON -163.216 4.294(RON) - O.021(RON) 2 0.432(MON) - 0.012 (Heavy Aromatics)This equation indicates that the effect of RON on Road ON decreases with increasing RON level, and that heavy aromatics have an adverse effect on Road ON which isindependent of its direct effects on RON and MON.-:-The all-car data did not show a significant ethanol-content effect, but eight of'the thirty-seven cars did show significant effects. ,Analysis of variance showed that fuels had the largest effect on full-throttleRoad ON. Cars had smaller, but highly significant, effects. The effects of fue.son Road ON varied among the cars. -1-
-2-The part-throttle ratings were also well predicted with an equation containing only RON and MON:Road ON 32.008 0.091 (RON) 0.553 (MON)Equation fit was improved by adding a heavy aromatics term, but ethanol didnot have a significant effect on the average part-throttle Road ON:Road ON 31.823 O.089(RON) O.559(MON) - 0.009 (Heavy Aromatics)Only one car showed a significant effect of ethanol at part-throttle.hnoe that carm had a larapr effect than fuels on therArialysis ofpart-throttle ratings. The reverse was true for the full-throttle ratings.Th' -ffects of fuels did not vary among the cars, as they did with the fullthrottle ratings.-4III.DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMAppendix A lists the participating laboratories in the 1980 program and themembership of the Analysis Panel. The program is presented in Appendix B.Fuel properties, test car descriptions, the road rating procedure, and abrief outline of data analyses employed are summarized in the following paragraphs.A. Test FuelsMputerThe twenty unleaded test fuels used in the program were designed to esticontent (C9 and heavier, bymate the effects of ROU, MON. heavy aromaticsRuadON performance. A comvolume), and ethanol content (by volume) onoptimization program was used to design the fuel set. The optimization provided for the evaluation of (RON) and (MON)2 effects, in addition to linear effects for the four variables. There were three levelsof RON, five levels of MON, and two levels each of heavy aromatics andethanol. (R M)/2 ranged from 86.4 to 93.4 ON, and sensitivity rangedfrom 5.6 to 12.8 ON.Laboratory inspection data for the twenty fuels submitted by the participants were screened for outliers. All outliers were rejected, andthe remaining values were averaged. Targeted and actual values forthe four variables are compared in Table I. Many of the RON andMON values were more than one octane number off target, and some ofthe heavy aromatics and ethanol values were not within limits. The testfuel set was still found, however, to be capable of very good evaluationof the effects of the four parameters. This is indicated by the low.As
-3-correlations among the four design parameters, as shown in Table II. TheRON/MON correlation is not as low as the others, but it is approximatelythe same as in the 1978 program (0.784 versus 0.779), and it is difficultto design a set of fuels with a RON'/ON correlation much less than 0.8.Low correlation values are necessary for accurate determination of theeffects of the four parameters.IVolatility and total aromatics data are shown for the test fuels in TableIII. Only six fuels met the RVP requirement of 8-10 lbs. The otherfuels had RVP's below 8 lb. All fuels met the distillation and totalaromatics specifications. The test fuel specifications are shown inAppendix B.B. Test CarsThirty-seven cars representing twenty-four different 1980 models, one 1979model, and one 1981 model were used in the program. Only two cars, T 218Mand PL 217M, were equipped with manual gear-shift transmission, and theremaining cars had automatic transmissions. The test car models and theirengine characteristics are shown in Table IV. The car-laboratory testingarray for both full- and part-throttle Road ON is shown in Appendix C.The odometer readings range, from 7,115 to 42,134; and the mean was 15,741miles. The odometer reading is shown in Appendix H for each test car,along with other test details.C.Road Rating TechniqueFuel ratings were obtained by the Modified Uniontown Technique under bothfull- and part-throttle conditions. Full-throttle primary reference fuelcurves were used to establish the Road ON under full-throttle conditions.Part-throttle primary reference fuel curves were used to establish L.eRoad ON at part-throttle. Thirty-seven cars were tested at .ut-throttle,and twelve of these cars were also tested at part-throttle. All ratingswere conducted on chassis dynamometers. The CRC Modified Uniontown ratingtechnique is described in Appendix D.D. Data AnalysisAnalyses were conducted on both full-throttle and part-throttle data.Other subgroups of data were analyzed, including all-car averages, allautoatic-transmission-car averages, all-U.S.-car averages, all-importedcar averages, model averages, and individual cars. Linear and secondorder equations were developed using RON, MON, (RON) 2 , (MON) 2 , heavy aromatics, and ethanol content as variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)techniques were used to evaluate individual contributions of cars, fuels,car-fuel interactions, and test error to the variability of the road testratings.
-4-IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTSA. Test ResultsMlAverage full-throttle and part-throttle Road ON ratings for the twentytest fuels are listed in Tabies Va and Vb, together with the standarddeviations and the minimum and maximum ratings for each fuel. Becauseof difficulties with three of the ethanol-containing fuels, twenty-onemissing data points at full-throttle and twelve at part-throttle wereestimated. In addition, one data point on Fuel 15, a non-ethanol fuel,was estimated. Road ON estimates were made by developing a predictionequation for each car that did not test all fuels, and then calculatingthe missing Road ON. The use of these estimated ratings completed thedata set in Table Va which covers all thirty-seven cars at full-throttleand twelve cars at part-throttle. Table Vb gives the average values whenonly the vehicles in which all fuels were rated are included. The averagefull-throttle ratings varied from 89.3 to 94.2 ON and 88.9 to 93.9 ONamong the twenty test fuels for the 37-car and 26-car data sets, respectively. Individual fuel ratings varied as much as 7.3 ON (Fuel 7) amongthe thirty-seven cars, and 5.3 ON (Fuel 17) among the twenty-six cars.The twelve-car average part-throttle ratings were 3.8 ON lower than thethirty-seven full-throttle ratings. The eight-car part-throttle ratingswere 3.5 ON lower than the twenty-six full-throttle ratings on the average. Individual fuel ratings varied as much as 8.7 ON (Fuel 20) amongthe twelve cars, and 6.6 Ott (Fuel 16) among the eight cars.Three import car models (E 215, T 218M, and T 222), three models havingthe same engine (one M V250 and two 0 V250's), and four Model PC 137'swere tested. Average full-throttle ratings for these selections arelisted in Appendix E, Table E-l.-'Average full-throttle ratings for each of the thirty-seven cars arelisted in Table E-2. Average part-throttle ratings for each of thetwelve cars are listed in Table E-3. Individual experimental observations are tabulated in Appendix H.B. Full-Throttle Data Analysis1.Multiple Regression AnalysisA total of twenty-nine equation models were developed, as shown inTable VI. Six of these equations were used for only those indiviualcar anal3ses where RON or MON was not a significant variable. Resultsof the aralyses are shown in Appendix F for both full-throttle andpart-throttle ratings. Full-throttle results are presented in TablesF-1 through F-9. Equation models 1-16 are shown in Table F-1 usingthe all-car average data. Equation models 1-6 are shown in TablesF-2 through F-8 for all cases: car model averages (three or more ofthe same model), all-car averages, all-car averages testing all fuels,all-U.S.-car averages, all-automatic-transmission-car averages, allimported-car averages, and individual cars. Equation mdel3 3, 8, andIi
-5-10 were used for a 37-car individual data analysis and are shown inTable F-9. For the individual car cases, additional equations areshown where all terms are significant.a. All-Car Average DataThe all-car average results show that Road octane ratings werepredicted best by Equations 3, 7, 8, and 10. As shown below,these equations include only the RON, MON, (RON)2, and heavyaromatics terms. The inclusion of the ethanol term as well asother quadratic terms did not improve prediction accuracy, andtheir coefficients were not statistically significant at the95% confidence level.Full-Throttle Regression EquationsFor 37-Car Road ON 4.2940.4321O*-174.765 4.6130.420NOTE:*AromaticsbEthanolb4(R 0.0090.690Underlined values are not significant at the 95% confidence level.26-car average equation.were eliminated.Eleven cars that did not rate all design fuels-i
-6-The inclusion of the (RON)2 and heavy aromatics terms (Equation10), along with RON and MON, substantially improved predictionaccuracy ove,- Equation 3; the standard deviation was reducedfrom 0.276 o 0.178, and the square of the coefficient of correlation (R) was increased from 0.977 to 0.991. It is interesting to compare Equation 4 with Equation 10 and to note thatthe heavy aromatics term was not significant (Equation 4), unlessthe (RO.)2 term was used (Equation 10).A.-The last equation shown is based on those twenty-six cars thatrated all twenty fuels, and is shown for comparison.Prediction of the 37-car average full-throttle Road ON usingEquations 3, 8, and 10 are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The improvement in prediction accuracy is illustrated.A!The 37-car average equation model (Equation 8), in terms of RON,MON, an, (RON) 2 , demonstrates the effect of fuel octane levelon the relative contribution of RON and MON to Road ON quality.For premium unleaded type fuels, for eAample, a change in RONwill have little effect on actual Road octane quality, whereasthe opposite is true for regular unleaded type fuels. Thiseffect is shown in Table VII for the linearized second-ordermodel.b. Individual Car DataThe observed individual Road ON ratings for the thirty-seven carsversus predicted Road ON ratings for all twenty fuels is shown inthe scatter diagram on Figure 4. Regressirg the individual ratingsgave results similar to the all-car average data; the coefficientswere essentially the same. The large standard deviations shown inTable F-9 are due to variations in ratings among the thirty-sevencars. These variations are not present when all-car average dataare used.The coefficient for the ethanol term was significant in eight ofthe thirty-seven cars (22%) tested. All but two of these coefficients were positive, indicating a possible Road octane bonus forthese cers. This is in contrast to the all-car average resultswhich showed that the ethanol term was insignificant in combinationwith any other terms.Road ON averages and regression results varied considerably amongthe thirty-seven cars. The following table shows these variationsin the twenty-fuel average full-throttle Road ON's (standard deviations and ranges), as well as the means; the standard deviations; and the ranges for the constant, RON, and MON coefficientsfor Equation 3 regression parameters.TI
-7-Variation of Full-Throttle Road ONRegression Results Among CarsMeanStandardDeviationMin.Max.Full-Throttle Road ON (37 Cars)91.9031.05189.72594.845Full-Throttle Road ON (Equation 3)Constant, boRON Coefficient, 60.1420.1460.729MON Coefficient, b2The RON coefficients varied from near zero to approximately 0.6,the MON coefficients from approximately 0.1 to 0.7, and theconstant from -7 to 44.2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)The full-throttle data were subjected to ANOVA techniques to evaluatethe overall contributions of fuel effect, car effect, car-fuel interaction, and test error to the variability in the observed Road octaneratings.The fuel effect, a measure of the variation caused by fuel composition,was highly significant and caused most of the variability -- about 65%.ThewasThe.thecar effect, a measure of the difference in ratings between cars,highly significant and caused about 20% of the variability observed.car effect is confounded with the laboratory effect, though; hence,two effects cannot be separately determined.The car-fuel interaction, the variation resulting from the differencesin response of individual cars to individual fuels, was significantand accounted for about 7%of the variability.Error, a measure of the variability of replicate ratings, representedabout 8% of the total variability.Standard deviations of the effects are summarized below for all cars(except E 215), and for two models for which three or more of thesame model were tested. A more detailed tabulation of the ANOVAresults is given in Appendix G.Ii
-8-Analysis of Variance Summary for All Carsand for Two Car tlodelsICar ModelAll Cars(Ex. E 215)PC 137.-0 V250/M V250No. ofCarsCarsEstimatedStandard Deviation(s-Values)Fuels . Fuel x 281.6390.1320.554ErrorThe s-values shown are estimates of the standard deviations of thedifferent effects. They provide a measure of the relative influenceof each effect on Road octane number.The data were also analyzed on a laboratorv-' ,oratory basis toprovide an indication of the variation in oie .,ects among the laboratories, and to examine effects which were independent of laboratoryeffects. The following table presents a summary of this analysis.Table G-2 of Appendix G gives the results in more detail.AAAnalysis of Variance Summary forIndividual LaboratoriesLabNo.CarsofCarsEstimatedStandard DeviationFuels(s -Values)Fuel x 0.790*0.6871*12571*0.745043610.1911The component of variance for the car-fuel interaction effectis negative an6 non-significant. Hence, the standard deviationis imaginary and meaningless. WU **Insufficient da.a for ANOVA.
-9-The table shows that the car, fuel, and car-fuel interaction effectswere similar to the all-car ANOVA. In many cases, the error standarddeviations are greater than standard deviations attributable to carfuel interaction.C. :-,rt-Throttle Data Analysis1. Multiple Regression AnalysisEquations 1-6 and 8-16 were used for regressions on the twelve-caraverage data. Only gquations 2, 3, and 4 gave low standard deviations,high correlations (R' values), and statistically significant coefficientsfor the variables. Regression results for these equations and Equation 5are shown below. Results for all fifteen equations are shown in AppendixF, Table F-l0. Individual car results are presented in Table F-ll; Equations 1-6, 8-9, 4b, 5b, and 6b are included.Part-Throttle Regression EquationsFor 12-Car Road ON ined value is not significant at the 95% confidence level.As in the full-throttle results, Equation 3 was an effective predictorof Road ON. The MON coefficient was much larger than the RON coefficient, however, and in fact, MON alone was a reasonably good predictor,as shown in Equation 2.Figure 5 graphically illustrates the good correlation using Equation 3;however, adding the percent heavy aromatics term, although very small,decreased the standard deviation from 0.144 to 0.119. The correlationis shown in Figure 6.The table also shows results for Equation 5 which includes a term forpercent ethanol in the fuels, one of the design variables. The ethanolterm was very small, however, and statistically insignificant.LA&. .1I'"lImi" ".l
-10-There were large variations in the regression results among thetwelve cars tested at part-throttle. The following table showsmeans, standard deviations, and ranges for the twenty-fuel averageratings and the regression equation parameters (Equation 3).Variation of Part-Throttle Road ONRegression Results 1uong Car.jS tanddrdLleanDeviationMin.Max.Part-Throttle Road ON (12 Cars)bu.0352.19783.80590.75Part-Throttle Road ON EquationConstant, b032.2677.37322.27643.611RON Coefficient, b10.1020.084-0.0500.230MON Coefficient, b20.5380.1010.4060.770Average Road ON values ranged from 84 to 91. The constant varied from22 to 44, the RON coefficient from slightly negative to 0.2, and theMON coefficient from 0.4 to nearly 0.8.2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)The part-throttle data were also evaluated by ANOVA. In the partthrottle data, the car effect was the most significant factor, with66% of the total variability. Its influence was only 20% in the fullthrottle data. The fuel effect caused only 23% of the variability,and the car-fuel interaction was not significant. The ANOVA resultsare given in more detail in Appendix G, Table G-4.Comparison of the part-throttle with the full-throttle ANOVA is presented in the following table.Part-Throttl e and Full -Throttl eStandard DeviationsNo. ofCarsCarsEstimatedStandard Deviation(s- alues)FuelsFuel x e122.1531.2870.00.937RatingI.Error
P!The most significant difference between the two data sets is thatthe car effect is much larger in the part-throttle fuel ratings.D. Comparison of Results With Previous ProgramsIn the past, the Road Test Group has conducted fuel rating programs fromwhich relationships for all-car averages have been developed in t-e formRoad ON bo bI RON b2 MON. Comparison of this program's full-throttleequation with those of previous years is shown below:1963-1980 All-Car Full-Throttle Road ON EquationsNo. ofCarsTestedConstant*bProgramPremium Grade Fuels19641966196735401414.1221.0532.04Regular Grade Fuels196319651969303635Unleaded 90.980.990.98Constants are 'ecalculated to account for rounding off of coefficientsfrom three-decimal form (Appendix F) to two-decimal form.NOTE:Underlined values are not significant at the 95% confidence level.The results of the 1980 fuel rating program show that the MON coefficientis approximately 50% higher than the RON coefficient, as compared withthe 1978 program in which the RON and MON coefficients were about equal.In the other three programs conducted on unleaded fuels in 1971, 1973,and 1975, the MON coefficients were considerably higher than the RONcoefficients.-" '-,m .,,n ", w -.,,.-,,,.3i
-12-In this program and in jhe 1978 program, the quadratic equation formwhich cntained a (RON)4 term, i.e., Road ON bo bIRON b2MON b6 (RON) , has given the best correlation because of non-linearity infuel-rating respoqse. In the 1975 program, however, the best equatiocontained a (MON)4 term, i.e., Road ON bo blRON b2MON b7(MON).Comparison of the full-throttle quadratic equation from this programwith those of 1975 and 1978 are shown below:1978 and 1980 All-Car Full-ThrottleQuadratic Road ON EquationsICoefficientsNo. .99197834- 425-.020-0.209.9882indicateThe negative coefficient for (RON) in the 1978 and 1980 programsfuelsoflevelRONtheasdecreasesRONofthat the relative importance2 indicates that(MON)forcoefficientnegativetheincreases. In 1975,fuels inthe relative importance of MON decreases as the MON level ofthat theindicatingcreases. These findings are contradictory, possiblyequation form used is not the best one.data from thisAnalysis of variance of the full-throttle and part-throttleprograms:1978and1975theprogram are compared below with1975-1980 Full-Throttle and Part-ThrottleStandard DeviationsRating1ZiNo. ofCarsCarsEstimatedStandard DeviationValues)(sFuel x CarFuelsErrorFul 614
-13-In all three programs, the fuel effect accounted for most of the variabilityin the full-throttle data. At part-throttle, the car effect was the greatestsource of variability. Car-fuel interaction was significant in the 1978 program, but not in the 1980 program.V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMISPast programs have always shown significant effects of RON and MON, but no significant gasoline composition effects. This program showed that heavy aromaticsadversely affects Road ON, and that ethanol gave beneficial effects in a few cars.These effects are believed to be due to imperfect fuel distribution in the intakemanifold. Certain cylinders do not receive all the high-octane tail-end components such as heavy aromatics, and conversely, they may receive a higher portionof light, high-octane components such as ethanol.This program also showed that the fuel effects vary among car models. This wasdemonstrated by the ethanol effect showing up in only a few cars. The findingsconcerning heavy aromatics and ethanol in this program are not necessarily relevant to the 1980 model car population, because the test car population is somewhat different from the 1980 car population. For example, manual transmissionsand imported cars were grossly underrepresented. These car design differencesmay have significant effects on the cars' response to the fuel variables.In previous programs, there has been little attempt to select test cars to represent the U.S. car population. The only effort in this direction was to recommend that select models from the octane requirement survey program be tested;however, the selection has been biased by specifying automatic transmissions.The result has been that too few imported cars and manual transmissions havebeen tested. It is important to have them properly represented in the testprogram. It is recommended that a procedure be established to assure a properselection of test car models representing current or future vehicle populations.Another recommendation for future programs is that fuels containing other oxygenated compounds (alcohols and ethers) be included because of the growinginterest in and use of those products. Also, some type of test should be usedto look at gasoline octane distribution to help explain the effects of highoctane components on Road ON.-I-i
--*'.j wr . ---I-1rI-JI-I1II 1itt---
ANDFIG U]RES
-/1 -/ A:IitIIIS
4JtocnChUD C)tDtnCA.co--D-ocmiC jcm cvjmcnto w4.*4j-0- r-UUcvCJemItren-cco-o% 1.aCL0ILlEl mOE .0uit0m Cw)-000 wwwwwa4.cC0-wCUif-f)if-ClKeLmmmmOorcmCigwwwU ocwww.C!-OfIoo% ofrco coccoc cCDCDIIDL.Im)d000000m3c nO0Oot0%ccU)U)U)U)CDOOO Cl1 to ll'I! C1-l-----!0'
-18Cl j0V)C00C0M Ch0)CD04JD-- Fm9-.0; 0)C%iD0l0.4-s-0-cc 0-j9-0 1k:4-uiU)-o)LL.C-w 0SCjC a-a-0C)0C0D*CDCcl:goijC)C.,oCSLa.- 2. -t4-linc0nmiUU)04go0.0 1so0 CDI-i--i-ra 1L Ii-.4-)aC4
O4.IC'%JCJ C.rCV) C lJ) c'))MC.j C.JC%JC'i JtT mmmC')iLLLON)C')n) C') CV' cr)C' CV) CV) V3)m' V) C') C')m' m' C-3 m'm' )flIlejCo0tmCV) %TC4Jc)qrqrCsn-:CO')O CO.1.(cJ%1%m m4TqcD10 C%enqz CIMC%q -. l) C)g % 40Ce VCJC1C%iU)a)) 10C-i fn tr0Vts4-'0hCO4DI'.W M) q*C'a%0coO
-20-TABLE IVTEST CARSDispl.No.C.l. Liters/CuInCar CodeModelYearNo.TestedE 215HC5 225HIA 238HIK 238HLV 225IIF 243KI 137LIA 238M V250NC5 225?C7 228NFH 450NH 450HIG 230HIJNIK 6NL9 2160 V250OCA 133OCA 223OCA 24201 V258OL 223PC 137PL 2174T 218MT ns.Variable 08.47413
Road ON -163.216 4.294(RON) - O.021(RON)2 0.432(MON) - 0.012 (Heavy Aromatics) This equation indicates that the effect of RON on Road ON decreases with increas-ing RON level, and that heavy aromatics have an adverse effect on Road ON which is independent of its direct effects on RON and MON.
Reading: Wikipedia entry on CRC Used in link-level protocols – CRC-32 used by Ethernet, 802.5, PKzip, – CRC-CCITT used by HDLC – CRC-8, CRC-10, CRC-32 used by ATM Better than parity or chec
Asynchronous File Transfer Protocols Older microcomputer file transfer protocols used asynchronous point-to-point circuits, typically across telephone lines via a modem. y XMODEM x XMODEM-CRC (CRC-8) x XMODEM-1K (CRC 1K blocks) y YMODEM(CRC-16) y ZMODEM (CRC-32) y KERMIT (CRC -24) Asynchronous
Histologically or cytologically confirmed, advanced, incurable non- CRC solid tumor; patients must have progressed on or be intolerant to standard therapies. c 2 prior therapies and 1 prior therapy for MSI-H CRC and non-CRC, respectively. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02460198 and NCT02628067 KEYNOTE-164 a /158 b (MSI-H CRC/non-CRC) Age .
CRC Chromium - All/Total (includes Chromium (VI) categories, metal and others) Y Y 0.1 CRC-Other Chromium Unlisted Compounds - Specify Compound (Component of CRC) 0.1 10049055 Chromium chloride (II) (Component of CRC) Y Y 0.1 12018018 Chromium dioxide (IV) (Component of CRC) Y Y Y 0.01 1308141 Chromium h
Fuel transfer pump (35) is mounted on the back of unit injector hydraulic pump (1). The fuel transfer pump pushes pressurized fuel out of the outlet port and the fuel transfer pump draws new fuel into the inlet port. Fuel is drawn from fuel tank (12) and flows through two micron fuel filter (11) . Fuel flows from fuel filter (11) to the inlet .
Chemtronics Tri-V Trans-DCE 73.0 5.4 16.2 Max Kleen Extreme nPB 46.3 6.4 19.2 CRC Cable Clean Degreaser nPB 40.0 8.0 24.0 CRC Electronic Component Cleaner Trans-DCE 38.7 5.3 15.9 3M Novec Electronics Cleaner Trans-DCE 35.1 7.0 20.9 CRC Lectra Clean Perc 28.1 11.5 34.4 CRC Ele
Cecilia Stoll was a CRC student from the Spring Semester of 1982 through the Spring Semester of 1983. Cecilia is from Sao Paulo, Brazil and made her way to CRC in connection with a local Paragould family with whom she was living. After attending CRC, she attended Oklahoma Christian University from 1983 -
Araldite 501 A/B Page 1 of 5 6/7/2009 Advanced Materials . Araldite 501 A/B . EPOXY LAMINATING SYSTEM - Good mechanical strength - High temperature resistance up to 248 F (120 C) DESCRIPTION : Araldite 501 A/B epoxy adhesive is a two-part system that cures at either ambient or elevated temperatures. It is designed for use in repair of composite aircraft components, maintaining its .
