1、_ SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising there
2、from, is the sole responsibility of the user.” SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyright 2010 SAE International All rights reserved. No part of this publication m
3、ay be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (outside U
4、SA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerServicesae.org SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.orgSAE values your input. To provide feedbackon this Technical Report, please visit http:/www.sae.org/technical/standards/J2663_201006SURFACEVEHICLERECOMMENDEDPRACTICEJ2663 JUN2010 Issued 2010-06 Test Procedure to Mea
5、sure Permeation of Elastomeric Hose or Tube by Weight Loss RATIONALE Elastomer hoses are used in automotive fuel systems to transport fuel and fuel vapors to different locations in the vehicle. These hoses are in contact with fuel or fuel vapor which can permeate through the hoses over time dependin
6、g on the type of fuel and the permeation barrier properties of the hose. This method was developed to provide a simple yet accurate test method that can be used to measure the rate at which fuel permeates through hoses to allow comparisons of different materials and constructions, and to allow estim
7、ates to be made regarding their contributions to SHED emissions in larger assemblies. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE 22. REFERENCES 22.1 Applicable Documents 22.1.1 SAE Publication 22.2 Related Publications . 23. USEFULNESS AND LIMITATIONS 34. SAFETY 45. APPARATUS 55.1 Reservoir Design for Method B . 56
8、. TEST FUELS 67. PROCEDURE . 68. CALCULATIONS . 79. DETERMINATION OF STEADY STATE AND CALCULATION OF PERMEATION RATE . 710. REPORTING . 811. NOTES 811.1 Marginal Indicia . 8APPENDIX A - RECOMMENDED PERMEATION TESTING PLUG DESIGN . 9APPENDIX B - PERMEATION TESTING -THWING ALBERT CUP DESIGN . 13APPEND
9、IX C - EXAMPLE OF GRAPHICAL TEST RESULT PRESENTATION . 19SAE J2663 Issued JUN2010 Page 2 of 191. SCOPE This test method is intended for measuring fuel permeation at elevated temperature through low permeating hose or tubing samples of elastomeric or composite construction. The expected accuracy of t
10、he method is about 10% of the sample permeation rate. Hose permeation testing can be done two ways: Method A Plug and Fill or Method B using a fuel reservoir. Method A involves plugging one end of the hose, filling the sample to about 90% full with test fuel, plugging the other end, and then exposin
11、g the plugged sample to a desired test temperature, with the weight loss measured over time. Method B involves plugging one end of a hose, and then connecting the other end to a fuel reservoir. The hose sample and reservoir are then exposed to a desired test temperature with the weight loss measured
12、 over time. This procedure presents a recommended plug design that permits inserting the plugs prior to adding the test fluid. One of the plugs has a small fill hole with a gasketing system that insures low permeation. This design prevents assembly problems created by pressurizing a fuel filled conf
13、iguration, when inserting plugs with high insertion forces. Method A is intended for samples with low surface to volume ratios, so that the % fuel loss over the test period is low, and the resultant fuel compositional change does not significantly affect the permeation rate (typically less than 10%
14、fuel loss for CE10 fuel). Method B should be used when fuel loss with Method A would be too large. This is typically done where hoses are small diameter (less than 18 mm) and have high permeation rates. The size of the reservoir chosen for Method B depends on the permeation rate of the sample and sh
15、ould be large enough to assure that fuel loss over the test period is less than about 10%. The amount of fuel loss that might be acceptable will depend on the fuel composition and the type of material tested. Uniform deviations from linearity of the weight loss versus time curves that are not a resu
16、lt of changes in environmental conditions such as temperature should be considered suspect regions and could be a result of compositional or configurational changes might be affecting the permeation rate. Standard permeation test temperatures are 40 C and 60 C. Standard test fuels are Fuel C and Fue
17、l CE10. Other fuels, such as Fuel CM15, and other volatile liquids may be tested according to this procedure as desired. The method is not applicable for measuring permeation of higher boiling materials that will not completely evaporate from the exterior sample surface at the test temperature. 2. R
18、EFERENCES 2.1 Applicable Documents The following publications form a part of this specification to the extent specified herein. Unless otherwise indicated, the latest issue of SAE publications shall apply. 2.1.1 SAE Publication Available from SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, T
19、el: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) or 724-776-4970 (outside USA), www.sae.org.SAE J30 Fuel and Oil Hoses SAE J1537 Validation Testing of Electric Fuel Pumps for Gasoline Fuel Injection Systems SAE J1681 Gasoline, Alcohol, and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing SAE J1737 Test Procedur
20、e to Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation SAE J2665 Test Procedure to Measure the Fuel Permeability of Materials by the Cup Weight Loss Method 2.2 Related Publications SAE J2663 Issued JUN2010 Page 3 of 19The following publicati
21、ons are provided for information purposes and are not a required part of this SAE Technical Report. Tuckner, P., “Fuel Permeation Testing Configurations, Methods, and Correlations,” SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-1126, 2001 Tuckner, P. and Baker, J., “Fuel Permeation Testing Using Gravimetric Methods,”
22、 SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1096, 2000 Greenfield, M.L. and Rossi, G., “Vapor and Liquid Composition Differences Resulting from Fuel Evaporation,” SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-0377, 1999 Brahmi, A. and Wolf, R., “A Comparison of Vapor and Liquid Fuel Permeation of Fuel Systems Polymers,” SAE Technic
23、al Paper 1999-01-0380, 1999 Robinson, K.A., “Coolant Hose Clamp Fitting Design Guide,” SAE Technical Paper 960269, 1996 3. USEFULNESS AND LIMITATIONS The weight loss method, when used in accordance with the guidelines discussed in the procedure section, can be an easy, effective and relatively inexp
24、ensive technique for determining the permeation rates of hose or tubing samples. a. It is an appropriate method for testing hose or tubing with permeation rates above about 1 GMD. The maximum permeation rate that can be accurately determined with this method will depend on the sample surface to volu
25、me ratio and/or the canister size. b. The method is useful to establish a value for the permeation rate of a test fuel through a given sample to within about 10%.c. Method A is appropriate when the fuel is a pure fluid or for fuel mixtures when the change in fuel composition does not affect the meas
26、ured permeation rate. d. Method B is preferred in testing smaller diameter hoses (low fuel volume capacity), that can have high permeation rates, with materials and fuels where fuel compositional changes affects permeation rates. CM15 is known to cause changes in permeation rates with many polymers
27、over the compositional range where the methanol is lost sooner. The method does have some limitations: a. The permeation rate of the individual components of a fuel mixture cannot be determined. b. The method should be used with caution when the components of a fuel mixture have widely different per
28、meation rates: the more highly permeating component(s) can be depleted from the mixture before the test is completed. As a guide, it is recommended that the total fuel loss during the test be limited to a maximum of 10%. This limit may be higher or lower depending on the fuel composition being teste
29、d. The objective is to be able to show that the permeation rate does not change noticeably over the range of weight loss being observed. c. For low permeation rates, below about 1 GMD, the weight change may be small enough that accuracy can be a problem. To address this issue, smaller configurations
30、 that can be run on balances with greater sensitivity or extending the time between weight loss measurements can help achieve more accurate values. It is desirable to have the weight loss of the sample between measurements equal to at least 10 times the sensitivity of the balance used. d. When using
31、 Method A for hoses with high permeation rates and/or small diameters, the rapid loss of fluid may prevent attainment of steady state at a time when the composition change has begun to affect changes in the permeation rate, or where all of the fuel is lost before steady state has occurred. In this c
32、ase, it is more appropriate to use Method B (the canister method) to increase the volume of fuel in the test system. e. The following is a list of potential sources of error that should be minimized as much as possible: 1. Weighing accuracy and small weight changes. SAE J2663 Issued JUN2010 Page 4 o
33、f 192. Buoyancy effects, weight loss due to loss of plasticizers or additives. 3. Leakage around fittings or plugs used to seal the ends of the hose or tube. 4. Leakage at welds or seams in the canister. Canisters should be carefully designed and leak checked, for example with Helium, prior to being
34、 used. 5. Fuel depletion and change in test fluid composition. This is generally not an issue with Method B when using a properly sized canister, provided the sample is well mixed. Failure to mix the fuel in the sample with the fuel in the reservoir at regular intervals during the soak period may le
35、ad to errors. 6. Temperature control and temperature variation within the oven or chamber. 7. Weight changes due to water vapor permeation into and out of the sample or absorption of fuel by the outer hose layers from other samples. This can be an issue when testing low permeating hoses in an enviro
36、nment where humidity or venting is not controlled. It is advisable to place samples in a contained environment that is vented with dry air or nitrogen at the test temperature. This can be most important for testing at room temperature in climates with significantly varying humidity. These sources of
37、 error should be reviewed and good experimental techniques employed to minimize the sources of error. Examples of these techniques are described in the method. 4. SAFETY This method is intended for measuring permeation of potentially toxic and/or flammable liquids at elevated temperatures. Each labo
38、ratory is responsible for assuring that this method is performed in a safe manner according to its internal safety regulations and practices. SAE J2663 Issued JUN2010 Page 5 of 195. APPARATUS a. Impermeable plugs or blind fittings designed to seal the end of the test sample. For elastomeric hose sam
39、ples, profiled plugs described in Appendix A are recommended. One of the plugs may be designed with a fill hole and seal to allow for easier assembly of the test configuration. The design intent of these sealing plugs is to provide sufficient expansion of the hose over the plugs to insure good conta
40、ct throughout the plug insertion length. 7% expansion was chosen as the initial design criteria. The plug design also includes a double tapered insertion section, that is intended to provide a larger expansion portion of the plug to prevent the plug from being pushed out the end of the hose at possi
41、ble higher temperatures and pressures during the test. The double taper is intended to begin at the inner diameter of the hose and then expand to 12% and then back to the 7% primary expansion of the plug. The double taper transition is intended to be gradual enough to insure good uniform contact ove
42、r this profile. The intent is to have enough expansion to insure good contact and sealing pressure, but not so much where insertion becomes very difficult. This design was developed to provide the greatest chance for uniform sealing and appears to work very well, but was not optimized for insertion
43、force, which may be higher than is desired. The plugs are made with a rear collar at a defined distance from the end of the plug, so when inserted completely into the hose, the permeation area can be calculated from the hose diameter and its length minus the plug insertion distance. General design g
44、uidelines for the plugs are shown in Appendix A. b. Scale or Analytical balance capable of measuring the sample as accurately as the sample weight and size will allow. A balance accurate to at least 0.001 g is recommended. Those that have the capacity to measure 400 to 0.0001 g can provide more sens
45、itivity for very low permeation hoses. c. Explosion proof oven or vented chamber capable of holding the filled samples and maintaining their temperature within 1 C of the desired test temperature. d. Plug gages to measure the hose sample I.D. e. Fuel Reservoir for Method B (see Reservoir Design belo
46、w). 5.1 Reservoir Design for Method B Reservoir design is key to achieving good reproducible results with this method. Care must be taken in the design and fabrication of the reservoirs to assure that they are completely fuel tight and do not contribute to fuel weight loss. Reservoirs can be of two
47、design types: a. One Piece Construction, where the reservoir consists of a one piece welded reservoir with an integral tube connection that serves as the both the fill port for the fuel and the interface for the sample being tested. The limitation of this design is the need to check all welded inter
48、faces to insure no leaks, and the larger cost of making new complete canisters for each different size hose. b. Multi-component Gasketed Design, consists of a standard canister with interchangeable hose adapters connected by a simple low permeation gasketed joint. Gasketed surfaces are designed to m
49、inimize permeation loss and can be evaluated as a control sample define a know permeation through the gasket and to assure that it is insignificant compared to that of the hose being tested. The advantage of this type of modular design is low cost because that a standard canister reservoir can be reused with different small fittings made for evaluating different size hoses. These fitting can be made using the same design profiles s
