Patent Application
20090049740
With ever increasing fuel costs, such as petroleum based fuel costs, it has become ever more important and commercially desirable to consider and improve fuel economy within combustion processes, particularly within automotive powering combustion processes. Gasoline and diesel are the most prominent petroleum distillate-derived fuels used for motive power in vehicular transport. It is widely known that the fuel efficiency of a compression ignition engine is typically better than in a comparable spark ignition engine. It is also desirable to improve efficiencies within internal combustion engines but especially within diesel compression ignition engines by reducing, minimising or potentially avoiding build-up of deposits upon fuel injector components.
Diesel engines present a problem for the automotive and transportation industry because exhaust emissions typically include high levels of particulate matter (PM) together with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) Diesel engine particulate emissions can be visible in the form of black smoke exhaust. Currently, diesel engine particulate matter emissions can be controlled by the use of black smoke filters or catalytic converters. While these emission-control devices can be effective in decreasing particulate matter emissions, they are not effective in reducing NOx emissions and may have an adverse effect upon fuel economy.
Compression ignition engines have been tested using multiple different fuels from varying petroleum based feedstocks. In selecting a fuel composition, the effects of that composition upon several factors should be evaluated. Among these factors are engine performance (including efficiency and emissions), cost of end product, necessary infrastructure changes to produce the components of the composition and availability of feedstock to provide those components.
In different parts of the world, incentives are available for cleaner burning fuels to replace “classic” diesel. In Europe, the EN 590 specification diesel is characterised by an initial boiling point of 170° C. and a final boiling point of 590° C. The preferred sulphur content is less than 50 ppm. In the US there are, essentially, 2 different specifications. An EPO specification and a CARB specification diesel with less than 500 ppm sulphur requirements. The difference in the two specifications is aromatic content and distillation boiling point ranges.
Over the next decade it is expected that it will be desirable even further to decrease the amount of sulphur in diesel fuel. However, decreases in fuel sulphur content generally decreases lubricity of the fuel leading to increased engine wear and may adversely affect fuel economy and/or deposit accumulation upon fuel injector components.
One possible alternative or supplement to ordinary diesel is biodiesel. Biodiesel is a non-toxic, biodegradable replacement for petroleum diesel, made from vegetable oil, recycled cooking oil and tallow. Biodiesel belongs to a family of fatty acids called methyl esters defined by medium length, C16-C18 fatty acid linked chains. These linked chains help differentiate biodiesel from regular petroleum distillate-derived diesel. Biodiesel has performance characteristics similar to conventional petroleum-based diesel but can be cleaner burning.
Blends of biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel can reduce particle, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions compared with conventional diesel. Direct benefits associated with the use of biodiesel in a 20% blend with conventional petroleum-distillate derived diesel as opposed to using straight diesel, include increasing the fuel's cetane and lubricity for improved economy and engine life and reducing the fuel's emissions profile for CO, CO2, PM and HC and/or reductions in fuel injector deposits.
However, biodiesel is expensive to manufacture and may not help reduce NOx emissions. Some biodiesels, in fact, exacerbate NOx emissions.
It is a purpose of this invention to mitigate the above-problems and to use predominantly hydrocarbon-liquid fuel feedstocks currently available through the existing refinery and distribution infrastructures, optionally blended with known alternative non petroleum distillate predominantly hydrocarbon fuels.
A further purpose of the invention is to provide a method for improving fuel efficiency and/or reducing internal fouling deposits in engines operated at average ambient temperatures above 0° C.
These and other purposes are achieved by devising fuel compositions utilising hydrocarbon fuel such as petroleum-derived gasoline, diesel or kerosene incorporating an additive blend of two or three key components, generally as set out in claim 1 herein. In some embodiments, the fuel composition may include a fraction of synthetic blend derived from natural gas condensate.
Such useful fuel compositions can be high lubricity, high cetane fuel. However, certain bio-diesel blends have been known to create extra NOx emissions.
It has now surprisingly been found that fuel economy can be improved and/or injector fouling can be alleviated by using fuel compositions containing no more than two or at most three fuel additive components within ranges of selected relative proportions as defined within the text of e.g. Claim 1. Some preferred embodiments of fuel additive blends for particular fuel compositions are to be found in Table 1, at the end of this description.
Referring to the fuel additive in the ethoxylated alcohol (a) component, it is preferred that R1 is C9 or C10 and x is 2.5. The additive may, for example, contain 30 to 80% of ethoxylated alcohol. In some embodiments, the additive includes 40 to 60% ethoxylated alcohol component, and in other embodiments 50% to 60% by weight of (a) as defined in claim 1. In some embodiments it is preferred that the amount of (a) exceeds the sum of (b) and (c). This may particularly be the case for kerosene (heating oil) compositions and diesel fuel compositions. It may also be preferred within additive blends for diesel fuel compositions, that the alkanolamide component (c) may be absent. in such embodiments, the fuel additive then still consists of (a) plus (b).
In the polyethylene glycol ester component (b), preferably R3 is C17 and R5 is COR3. Polyethylene glycol diesters of oleic acid are preferred, as are polyethylene glycol ditallates, although the corresponding mono-oleates can be used. The preferred polyethylene glycol ester component (b) may include blends of different such glycol esters of the same general formula. In some embodiments the additive includes from about 40 to 15%, and in other embodiments 35% to 25% of polyethylene glycol ester constituent, and in further embodiments 30% to 25% by weight of (b).
In the alkanolamide component (c), when present, preferably R6 is C17 and R7 is CH2CH2OH. Oleic acid diethanolamides are highly preferred. The ethanolamide component may be a blend of different alkanolamides corresponding to the general formula III. In some embodiments, the additive includes 40% to about 15%, in other embodiments 25% to 15% by weight of alkanolamide.
As used throughout the specification and claims, terms such as “between 6 and 16 carbon atoms,” “C6” and C6-16” are used to designate carbon atom chains of varying lengths within the range and to indicate that various conformations are acceptable including branched, cyclic and linear conformations. The terms are further intended to designate that various degrees of saturation are acceptable. Moreover, it is readily known to those of skill in the art that designation of a component as including, for example, “C17” or “2.5 moles of ethoxylation” means that the component has a distribution with the major fraction at the stated range and therefore, such a designation does not exclude the possibility that other species exist within the distribution.
Ethoxylated alcohols can be prepared by alkoxylation of linear or branched chain alcohols with commercially available alkylene oxides, such as ethylene oxide (“EO”) or propylene oxide (“PO”) or mixtures thereof.
Ethoxylated alcohols suitable for use in the invention are available from Tomah Products, Inc. of 337 Vincent Street, Milton, Wis. 53563 under the trade name of Tomadol™. Preferred Tomadol™ products include Tomadol 91-2.5 and Tomadol 1-3. Tomadol™ 91-2.5 is a mixture of C9, C10 and C11 alcohols with an average of 2.7 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. The HLB value (Hydrophyllic/Lipophyllic Balance) of Tomadol™ 91-2.5 is reported as 8.5. Tomadol™ 1-3 is an ethoxylated C11 (major proportion) alcohol with an average of 3 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. The HLB value is reported as 8.7.
Other sources of ethoxylated alcohols include Huntsman Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah, Condea Vista Company, Houston, Tex. and Rhodia, Inc., Cranbury, N.J.
The monoester (b) can be manufactured by alkoxylation of a fatty acid (such as oleic acid, linoleic acid, coco fatty acid, etc.) with EO, PO or mixtures thereof. The diesters can be prepared by the reaction of a polyethylene glycol with two molar equivalents of a fatty acid.
Preferred polyethylene glycol esters (b) are PEG 400 dioleate, which is available from Lambent Technologies Inc. of Skokie, Ill., as Lumulse 41-O and PEG 600 dioleate, also available from Lambent as Lumulse 62-O. Another polyethylene glycol ester (b) suitable for use in the invention includes Mapeg brands 400-DOT and 600-DOT and/or Polyethylene glycol 600 ditallate from BASF Corporation, Speciality Chemicals, Mt. Olive, N.J. Other suppliers of these chemicals are Stepan Co., Lonza, Inc. and Goldschmidt, AG of Hopewell, Va.
Generally, the alkanolamide(s) (c) can be prepared by reacting a mono- or diethanolamide with a fatty acid ester.
A preferred alkanolamide is oleic diethanolamide. Alkanolamides suitable for use in the invention are available from McIntyre Group, University Park, Ill. under the trade name of Mackamide. One example is Mackamide MO, “Oleamide DEA”. Henkel Canada is another commercial source of suitable alkanolamides such as Comperlan OD, “Oleamide DEA”. Other commercial sources of alkanolamides are Rhodia, Inc. and Goldschmidt AG.
The components of fuel additive can be mixed in any order using conventional mixing devices. Ordinarily, the mixing will be done at ambient temperatures from about 0° C. to 35° C. Normally, the fuel additive can be splash blended into the base fuel. Ideally, the fuel additive will be a homogeneous mixture of each of its components.
Preferably, the fuel composition will comprise from about 0.001 to 5% by weight, preferably 0.001 to 3% or 0.01 to 3% of the fuel additive composition.
Fuel compositions according to the invention exclude the presence of other non specified or non defined fuel additive components within the present ‘closed’ definition of the term “fuel additive”.
It is also within the scope of this invention to provide a method of increasing the fuel economy efficiency of predominantly petroleum distillate fuels.
The following examples are intended to illustrate, but not in any way limit, the invention. Various blends were made to compare the characteristics of the various blends of fuel with performance in fuel efficiency (i.e. miles per gallon or mpg).
Reference is now made to the accompanying
The test was carried out to investigate the effect that Sample D1 had on the fuel consumption of an indirect injection diesel engine under standard test conditions. The formation of deposits on the injector nozzles of the engine was also investigated.
The test was performed under the standard conditions of test procedure CEC F-23-A-01, Issue 11. Fuel consumption was measured by Mass Flow Rate and expressed in Kg/Hr.
Injector nozzle fouling results are expressed in terms of the percentage airflow loss at various injector needle lift points. Airflow measurements were accomplished with an airflow rig complying with ISO 4010.
The engine used for the test was a Peugeot XUD9AL unit supplied by PSA specifically for the Nozzle Coking Test, as originally specified by CEC Working Group PF-23.
The injector nozzles were cleaned and checked for airflow at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm lift. The nozzles were discarded if the airflow was outside of the range 250 ml/min to 320 ml/min. The nozzles were assembled into the injector bodies and opening pressures set to 115±bar.
Reference fuel CEC RF-06-03 was used throughout the study.
Additive Formulation Sample D1 is a blend consisting of:
50% Ethoxylated alcohol (Tomadol 91-2.5)-(a)
25% Polyethylene glycol diester (PEG 400 DOT)-(b)
25% Diethanolamide (Mackamide MO)-(c)
The fuel component was diesel fuel.
A slave set of injectors were fitted to the engine. The previous test fuel was drained from the system. The engine was then run for 25 minutes in order to flush through the system. During this time all the spill-off fuel was discarded and not returned. The engine was then set to test speed and load and all specified parameters checked and adjusted to the test specification. The slave injectors were then replaced with the test units.
5 minutes, idle speed at no load.
10 minutes, 2000 rev/min 34 Nm torque.
10 minutes, 3000 rev/min at 50 Nm torque.
Immediately after the warm-up the following test cycle was run 134 times giving a total test time of 10 hours and 3 minutes.
The CEC F-23-A-01 test was performed through two test cycles;
Test Cycle 1: Ref. IF-XUD9-001.
This test cycle was performed with reference fuel unadditised with Sample D1. Test was commenced with clean test injector nozzles as per the standard test procedure. Fuel flow was recorded throughout the test cycle. At completion of test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.
The test cycle was then performed with reference fuel additised with Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1 part Sample D1:600 parts fuel, vol/vol. The test was commenced with clean injector nozzles as per the standard test procedure. Fuel flow was recorded throughout the test cycle. At completion of the test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.
The test was carried out to investigate the effect that Sample D1 as used in Example 1 above had on the formation of deposits of injector nozzles of an indirect injection diesel engine.
The test was performed to the test procedure CEC F-23-A-01, Issue 11. Results are expressed in terms of the percentage airflow loss at various injector needle lift points. Airflow measurements were accomplished with an airflow rig complying with ISO 4010.
The engine used for the test was a Peugeot XUD9AL unit supplied by PSA specifically for the Nozzle Coking Test, as originally specified by CEC Working Group PF-23.
The injector nozzles were cleaned and checked for airflow at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm lift. The nozzles were discarded if the airflow was outside of the range 250 ml/min to 320 ml/min. The nozzles were assembled into the injector bodies and opening pressures set to 115±bar.
Reference fuel CEC RF-93-T-095 was used throughout the study. Note that this reference fuel is specifically blended to encourage deposit formation.
A slave set of injectors were fitted to the engine. The previous test fuel was drained from the system. The engine was then run for 25 minutes in order to flush through the system. During this time all the spill-off fuel was discarded and not returned. The engine was then set to test speed and load and all specified parameters checked and adjusted to the test specification. The slave injectors were then replaced with the test units.
5 minutes, idle speed at no load.
10 minutes, 2000 rev/min 34 Nm torque.
10 minutes, 3000 rev/min at 50 Nm torque.
Immediately after the warm-up the following test cycle was run 134 times giving a total test time of 10 hours and 3 minutes.
The CEC F-23-A-01 test was performed through three test cycles;
Test Cycle 1: Ref. IF-XUD9-003.
This test cycle was performed with reference fuel unadditised with Sample D1. Test was commenced with clean test injector nozzle. At completion of test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.
Test Cycle 2: Ref. IF-XUD9-004.
Engine prepared as per test procedure but the dirty injector nozzles from Cycle 1 were returned to the engine unclean. The test cycle was then performed with reference fuel additised with Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1 part Sample D1:600 parts fuel, vol/vol. At completion of the test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates wee measured and recorded.
Test Cycle 3: Ref. IF-XUD9-005.
Repeat of the test Cycle 2 procedure with the dirty Injector nozzles returned to the engine unclean after flow rate measurement at the end of Cycle 2.
On completion of the third test cycle the test results were analysed for observed effects on injector nozzle fouling by the addition of Sample D1 to the reference fuel.
% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 1, IF-XUD9-003 90%
% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 2, IF-XUD9-004 85%
% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 3, IF-XUD9-005 86%
For three months 40 buses received an appropriate dosage of IFT additive sample D1. For each bus the daily mileage and gallons refuelled was used as data to calculate the daily fuel economy. This was accomplished by calculating the difference in miles driven then dividing that number by the gallons fuelled. The data used in this trial was taken directly from the fuel sheets recorded by re-fuelers.
To establish a pre-additive baseline fuel economy for each bus, mileage and gallons fuelled were calculated for three months prior to additisation. Once the additive was introduced into the buses, we employed the same methods to collect mileage and gallons fuelled data for three months to establish a post-additive fuel economy.
40 buses participated in the trial. Each engine make and model within the trial population is listed below:
In addition, 4 AE vans (all 1995 Chevy engines) participated in the trial and achieved an average of 7.75% fuel economy improvement.
Buses were refuelled every other day and broken into two groups—Day and Night shift. To work within this re-fuelling schedule, we categorised the buses participating in the trial into the same four groups: Day 1, Night 1 and Day 2, Night 2. 4 buses participating in the programme were Day 1 buses; 7 were Day 2 buses. 24 buses participating in the programme were Night 1 buses, 5 buses were Night 2 buses. These buses were selected for us at random.
Our goal was to make sure that each bus received its dose of additive before it received its diesel for the day. Once the additive was added to the tank, the impact of the diesel entering the tank on top of the additive would cause the two to splash blend together. Therefore, it was necessary to additise buses every day to ensure that the Day 1 and Night 1 buses received additive on the appropriate re-fuelling day and the Day 2 and Night 2 received additive on the appropriate day.
Dosage for each bus was determined using the ratio of 1 gallon additive to 575 gallons diesel. Based on averages calculated for each bus from the three months prior to additisation, any bus that re-fuelled an average of 20 gallons or less received 400 ml of additive. Any bus that on average, re-fuelled between 21 and 30 gallons received 500 ml of additive. Any bus that on average, refuelled between 31 and 40 gallons received 600 ml of additive.
The additive was introduced into each bus the same way. A plastic tube was slightly inserted into the gas tank, the appropriate dosage of additive was measured in a standard, 2 cup (500 ml) measuring cup and with the help of a funnel, the additive was poured down the tube and entered the tank.
The percent increase in fuel economy ranged from 27.78% (bus #505202) to 0.45% (bus #50680). The range of data can be explained by a number of factors that may have impacted the fuel economy of the bus, or the integrity of the data collection process. The factors listed below were beyond control in this trial:
Factors that Might Affect Fuel Economy:
For every bus there were a certain number of outliers: data points that appeared not to make sense. These points were either extremely high or extremely low when compared to the entire data set. In order to make sure the data used in the calculation of average fuel economy was statistically significant and not skewed by outliers, the “bell curve” method was applied.
The bell curve is a fundamental principle of statistics which allows use of the data that falls within the normal distribution for each specific bus and filters the outliers that skew the data. For each bus the average miles driven was calculated. Because recording the miles driven for each bus each day was a standard procedure and did not require the re-fueller to remember the additional step of re-setting the fuel meter, we felt that this number had the least chance of being recorded incorrectly. The miles driven was also the variable least likely to be affected by the additive. Assuming that the additive was to have some effect on fuel economy, the miles driven would stay the same since the driving route would not change. The number of gallons fuelled however, might increase or decrease as a result of the additive.
The standard deviation or the measurement of how far the data ranges from the average was calculated based upon the average miles driven. The standard deviation for each bus was then added and subtracted from the average miles driven to create a range of data points that fell within each bus's normal distribution. It is the points within this range that have been used to calculate the post additive average fuel economy.
The only data points for fuel economy that were used for bus 50689 were those whose miles driven ranged between 111 and 189.
Bell Curve Example: Bus #50689
Average Miles Driven: 150
Standard Deviation: 39
Range: 189 (150+39) to 111 (150−39).
It should be noted here that the data has been presented in two ways: filtered and unfiltered. The filtered data represents the statistically significant data that was filtered by taking the range of numbers within one standard deviation from the average. The unfiltered data represents the average taken from all of the numbers recorded, whether they were statistically significant or not.
The 40 buses that participated in this trial saw on average, a 10.13% increase in fuel economy. The graph in
The range in fuel economy improvements is surprising considering all of the buses operate independently from each other and are independently subject to various factors that influence fuel economy. Therefore, the fuel economy of one bus has no effect on the fuel economy of another bus. These factors have been listed above. It is important to note however, the length of the trial ensured that any factor that would have affected fuel economy, would have had to affect fuel economy for three months consistently in order to be considered a significant variable. None of the factors listed above were a consistent variable for three months and therefore, did not significantly affect the trial.
The following study was conducted by measuring one output of two processes, determining their stability to one another and inserting one controlled variable to each process and measuring the output.
The scope of this example was to define the structure, limits and statistically evaluate the influence of Sample D1 additive on the performance and efficiency of 2000 and 3000 horsepower locomotives in the field.
A protocol was established to evaluate the additive utilising one set of General Purpose 38 engines and one set of Special Duty 40 engines with the following statistics:
In theory, locomotive engines can be coupled electronically such that both engines respond identically to command control from either engine's control consol. With two theoretically identical engines operating in tandem, we have a platform base which can be subjected to comparison analysis.
Although not subjected to performance testing herein, the following blended additive admixtures in Table 1 were formulated and dissolved into hydrocarbon fuel.
The engine used was a 14-litre NTA855R3 engine previously installed into a South West Trains Class 159 diesel multiple unit. The engine had been removed from the vehicle several weeks before completing a full operating life of 500,000 miles (nominal), in order to carry out the Sulphur Free Diesel (SFD) and additional test work. Upon completion of the tests, it was intended to submit the engine for a full overhaul.
Standards BS 2869 Class A2 gas oil was used for the test. The fuel was transferred to IBC units and dosed with the D1 additive in a ratio of 1:600 by volume.
The lubricating oil used was Shell Fortisol Fleet SG/CF-4, 15W-40.
The following test schedule was defined:—
Both the initial and final performance data consisted of Full Load Power Curves (FLPC), with data recorded at eight load conditions across the engine speed range. Two complete data sets were taken for both the initial and final configurations, one before and one after the emissions readings.
Gaseous and particulate emissions data was measured according to ISO 8178 Test Cycle F for rail traction, which applies a weighting factor to each of the three load conditions tested (full rated speed/load, zero load at idle speed and an intermediate load at 50% torque). Gaseous emissions comprised nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2). To ensure repeatability, five sets of emissions data were taken for both the ‘before’ and ‘after’ tests, again with mean values being used for the subsequent data analysis and graph plotting.
All of the above test cycles were programmed into the test cell control system to enable automatic operation and ensure repeatability of measurement conditions.
Immediately prior to the conditioning run, the engine was run from the test cell day tank only in order to drain as much of the standard gas oil as possible from the supply system. During the 40-hour run, engine performance data (excluding emissions) was recorded at 30-minute intervals to enable subsequent identification of any trends as a result of the additive effects. The conditioning run was operated continuously, with the exception of one brief stop for service checks after 17.75 hours.
The engine fuel filter was renewed before the start of the initial FLPC tests, and again after the conditioning run and before the final FLPC tests. The engine lubricating oil was not renewed before testing, as this had been carried out approximately 20 hours previously. A sample of lubricating oil was taken for analysis before the start of the Initial FLPC tests, and again at the conclusion of the conditioning run.
All data throughout the testing was corrected to the relevant BS/ISO standards as follows: —
To ensure accuracy of the gaseous emissions measurements, all analysers were calibrated at the start of each day, with ‘zero’ and ‘span’ checks carried out at the end of each day to check for analyzer drift.
Particulate emissions are shown in
The magnitude of the power reduction varied from 2-3% for the lower load settings, up to 4.5-5.5% at the higher load factors, see
Comparing the fuel consumption effects in both mass and volume terms produced comparable trends, indicating that there had been no effect on the fuel density.
By assessing the fuel consumption in specific terms, this showed a clear and significant combustion improvement from the use of the additive on a ‘per kW’ basis.
Even in absolute terms, the magnitude of the fuel consumption improvements was greater than the power reduction effect, further indicating an improvement in combustion conditions. This fuel consumption improvement appeared to have stabilised by the end of the conditioning run.
Small improvements in THC, CO and CO2 were achieved, although these may be due at least in part to the reduction in power. Given the improvement in measured exhaust smoke levels, an improvement in the PM emissions was expected, but the magnitude of the reduction was a surprise. Although it does not make a particular difference to the scale of this reduction, it should be noted that due to the general engine deterioration already referenced since installation on the test bed, the untreated gas oil PM results were double the levels measured at the start of the original test programme.
Due to the calibration regime in place, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the measurements, particularly given the repeatability of the individual readings. However, the accuracy of the instrumentation was checked by mi Technology during its subsequent use on another assignment, with no defects established.
The details and potential cause of the observed power reduction are discussed below. Importantly, despite this reduction, the measured boost pressure remained largely unaltered, suggesting improved fuel/air mixing and more efficient combustion. Had there been no power reduction, it would be reasonable to have expected an increase in boost pressure accordingly.
An initial power reduction of around 3% was noted within the first few hours of the conditioning run. The rate of power reduction then eased off, following a more gradual downward trend for the remainder of the run, with the exception of a temporary stable point around the middle of the run. The reason for this trend change is not clear, although it may be a temperature effect, as it did follow the engine's service check when it was shut down. Following this service check, the power reduction trend continued for the remainder of the run, with no apparent stabilizing effect at the conclusion.
As noted, the magnitude of the power reduction was greatest at the higher loads. It is believed that this may indicate the reason for the effect. Other parameters (discussed later in this section) clearly indicate that the additive was having an effect on combustion conditions within the cylinder. One particular claim is for the additive to clean up combustion chamber components. It was clear from the engine oil consumption and the oil analysis results that engine wear was occurring, and indeed had worsened since the engine had first been installed on the test bed for the original test programme.
Given that a certain level of piston ring/liner wear had occurred within the engine (as indicated by the rising iron levels in the oil), it is also likely that a level of ring groove packing and carbon deposition on the top land of the piston would have occurred. Whilst generally undesirable, these deposits may have formed an additional seal in the ring area against combustion gas blowby. It is feasible that the additive had started to clear some of these deposits, exposing the full effects of the ring wear and increasing the blowby. This effect would be more pronounced at the maximum cylinder pressures of the higher engine ratings. The increased oil consumption observed during the latter stages of the load run is also likely to be, at lest partly, attributable to this effect.
The long-haul fuel-consumption test is based on SAE J1321 and provides a standardized test procedure for comparing the in-service fuel consumption of a test vehicle operating under two different conditions relative to the consumption of a control vehicle. A test route and load are selected that are representative of actual operations and are the same for both trucks; the route should be about 55 km long. The two trucks used in the test need to be as similar a specification as possible except, one is modified with the technology to be tested and one unmodified. During the test, each driver follows the same driving parameters so as to minimize the impact of driver variation. For the purpose of the test, each truck is equipped with a temporary fuel tank that allows fuel use to be measured by weight.
An initial long-haul test is run before introducing the additive to the test truck. In this test, the trucks are driven over the test route for several runs until it can be statistically established that the results are repeatable. Fuel use is accurately tracked based on the weight of temporary fuel tanks before and after each run. This test acts as the baseline. The same trucks are then run through the same test a second time, but the test truck has the additive added to the fuel to determine the potential improvement in fuel efficiency. This final test is done after running the test truck for several months using the additive to ensure any purge periods are met. As in the initial test, the test run is repeated until it can be established that the results are statistically repeatable. Comparisons are then made between the initial test results and the modified test results as well as between the trucks in the test to establish the impact that the technology has on fuel efficiency.
Because most of the truck owners asked whether the fuel additives would have any impact on the cold-weather performance of the trucks, a cold-start test was included based on SAE J1635. A numerical rating system is used to rate how the vehicle functions under specific operating conditions.
The purpose of the test is to evaluate how easy it is to start and drive a truck after it has been left under freezing conditions for at least 8 hours.
COOP St-Felicien, QC:
Long-Haul Fuel Consumption Test
The baseline test and the final test have been completed. As a result, valid base test and final test truck/control truck (T/C) ratios have been determined.
Based on these ratios, the calculated fuel economy is 5.2%.
Even if a fleet test was not included in the research plan, fleet data had been analysed for the period prior to start the usage of the additive and the data for the last two months of usage. T/C ratios have been determined for both periods and the calculated fuel economy using fleet data is 5.6%.
The cold-start test was performed on Jan. 28, 2006. The Start-Idle-Driveability (S-I-D) score was 9-8-9, meaning excellent start, very good idle and excellent drivability. Details of the test results are included.
The expected fuel savings have been confirmed by the result of the Long Haul Fuel Consumption Test, 5.2% fuel economy, and also by the results of the fleet data calculations (5.6% fuel savings). The vehicle using the additive had a very good behaviour during the Cold Start Test.
The objective of the test was to conduct fuel consumption tests on a heavy vehicle with and without a diesel additive in order to establish the fuel saving performance of the diesollFT additive. The following tests were conducted:
The fuel consumption tests were conducted on a Samil 100 truck. The vehicle was loaded with a simulation mass of 8 tons and was instrumented with calibrated Datron speed and fuel measuring equipment. The temperature of the fuel was measured and the results were calculated accordingly. The tests were only conducted when the wind speed was below 3 m/s.
First the test vehicle was run for one hour at maximum speed around the high speed oval track to warm the vehicle to operating conditions. The fuel consumption was then determined for the truck without any additive. The vehicle tank was topped with diesel and the additive was mixed at a ratio of 1 to 600 in the tank. The vehicle was run for 120 km and the fuel consumption was again determined. The initial results showed no significant improvement and it was decided to continue with the vehicle running on the additive for another period in order to increase the exposure of the engine to the additive.
After another 500 km the fuel consumption was repeated and the improvements in fuel consumption were still not significant. The vehicle was driven for another 257 km and the fuel consumption results then started to show an improvement of 3.9% and 4.1% at 60 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. After another 668 km the improvement went up to 5% for each speed. The test again was repeated after another 1527 km and the improvements were 5.5% and 8.0% at 60 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. The maximum speed fuel consumption did not vary significantly with or without the additive.
The following conditions were applicable before any test was started to ensure repeatability:
Fuel Consumption without the Additive
Fuel Consumption with Additive after 120 km
Fuel Consumption with Additive after 620 km
Fuel Consumption with Additive with 757 km
Fuel Consumption with Additive after 1425 km
Fuel Consumption with Additive after 2952 km
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/GB2005/003760 | Sep 2005 | GB | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/GB2006/003638 | 9/29/2006 | WO | 00 | 9/30/2008 |
