Israeli Fuels Committee Tel Aviv

Transcription

1 Israeli Fuels Committee Tel Aviv Tuesday 22 nd June, 2010

2 Proposed Agenda Introductions Possible New Fuels Specification? Specific Questions Israeli Fuel Standard Water Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDIDs) 2

3 Israeli Diesel Fuels Specification - Time for an update?

4 Current Fuels Specification XUD9: 85% Flow Loss maximum Old obsolete IDI technology no longer produced However vehicle park still contains such vehicles on the road Remains a valid CEC test and a good evaluator of an additive s capability NFM (BNPe) : Maximum of 100mls foam & 15 seconds collapse time Remains the test of choice for evaluating anti foam performance You may wish to consider adding the DW10 test in order to update the specification to include the latest diesel direct injection vehicle & CEC Approved engine test technology? If so then you may wish to consider the following factors before deciding on any specifications. 4

5 DW10 Considerations DW10 is now a fully Approved CEC test - CEC SG-F-098 DF79 is the CEC recommended base reference fuel for DW10 tests Data submitted in any other fuel e.g. RF93 (XUD9 Reference Fuel), may show different response to additives and make like for like additive performance benefit comparison difficult 1200L per test versus 60 L for the XUD9 Test engine lasts from hrs (6-20 tests) At ~$20k per test versus the ~$4k the DW10 is easily the most expensive CEC fuels test The XUD9 should continue to be used to confirm detergent additive effectiveness even when DW10 performance is good. As Zn-doped fuels may respond to certain non-detergent chemistry in the DW10 but show no benefit in the XUD9 5

6 DW10 Considerations contd. CEC do not set pass/fail limits. No pass/fail limits have yet been agreed by the industry. However a pass/fail limit of a </= 2% Power Loss result appears likely to become the pass/fail limit. DW10 CEC Recommended Base Reference fuel should be the base fuel for proof of performance demonstrations, currently coded DF79. Or alternatively a local base fuel may be considered but will require 1200L per test shipped to test lab location Essential that like for like data is considered in order to evaluate competing additives on an even basis. Current CEC DW10 test procedure requires 1 ppm Zn be added to the test fuel. 6

7 DW10 Power Loss RF-93 Basefuel with 1ppm Zn T175 Linear (T175) %Power Loss Test Cycle y = x R 2 = Power loss extrapolated to 32 cycles is -7.73%. 7

8 DW10 Power Loss DF-79 Basefuel with 1ppm Zn T %Power Loss Test Cycle Number After 32 cycles power loss is nearly 10% and is continuing to trend downwards. 8

9 But what will the result be of such a specification change?

10 DW10 & XUD9 Performance Compared Detergent Tier Detergent Performance DW10 %PL XUD9 DF79 RF-93 %Flow Remaining DW10 Ref XUD9 Ref Standard XUD-9 15 Mid Range XUD Premium Super Premium Ultra ZerO ZerO 5 tank CU Adopting DW10 </=2% Power Loss performance would provide a significant detergency improvement in Israeli fuel specifications. To achieve this there would need to be an increase in additive treat rate. 10

11 DW-10 %Power Loss in RF-93 and Current Detergents %Power Loss % PL 12x to reach target -4.6% PL Current Detergent = 3x 1 ppm Zn Test Cycle -9.2% PL Base Fuel Tests conducted in early version of DW10 development at outside laboratory. 11

12 New Detergents DW10 Performance in RF93-2.1% PL at 2.3x 9040 Series. 1 ppm Zn Extrapolated -8% PL Base Fuel 12

13 Lubrizol 9040 Series DW10 Performance in DF79-1.6% PL 5.9x 9040 Series 1 ppm Zn -9.2% PL Base Fuel Note 5.9X detergent treat in DF79 required compared to 2.3X in RF93 to achieve similar 2% Power Loss & versus 12x of current detergents. 13

14 So Possible New Fuels Specification? DW10: 2% Max Power Loss in DF79 XUD9: Set at appropriate level for chosen DW10 performance i.e. 60% or 100% Flow Remaining. NFM (BNPe) : Remains the industry test of choice to demonstrate anti foam performance But realise this will require increased treat rates over current specification but will give Israel significantly better levels of performance and come into line with other countries adopting same DW10 specifications. 14

15 Specific Questions Is the new CEC DW-10 test method already an accepted test method by the auto-oil industry? Yes the new CEC DW10 test method is a full CEC Approved test method accepted by the industry Are there any regulations (in the EU or elsewhere) that refer to this method? Not to our knowledge. EU does not usually specify performance tests into fuel specifications. Deposit control additives are not mandatory in EU. USA mandates gasoline LAC but not diesel additives. What is the threshold performance limit for this test (% power loss)? Industry has not agreed any Pass/Fail limits yet but the concensus appears to be heading towards a <2% Power Loss limit.. Can the DW-10 test replace the XUD-9 test for old engines (e.g. EURO I, EURO II, etc.) or is it recommended to use both tests? Lubrizol recommends that both tests are retained as XUD9 is still a good additive evaluation tool for older style vehicles Also there are some chemistries that might show good DW10 Power Loss prevention without offering any performance in the XUD9 technology 15

16 Specific Questions Are both tests conducted with a constant reference fuel? What are the specifications of this fuel (e.g. Biodiesel content?) No. The CEC Recommended base reference fuels are: XUD9 : RF93 DW10 : DF79 (doped with 1 ppm mass Zn) Does the result of the test include the performance of the base fuel (without the additive)? No. A single DW10 test assesses the engine power output at End of Test versus Start of Test. Usually expressed therefore as a percentage Power Loss. 1 ppm Zn is added to the test fuel as per the CEC Approved test procedure If a base fuel result is required also then a separate test will be required. 1200Litres per test. 1 ppm Zn will also need to be added to conform to CEC test procedure. 16

17 Specific Questions What is your view for adding the additional demand from additives - The additives will be composed only from C, H, N, O? This way we could minimize the risk of adding metals, Cl, etc. to the fuel. The DW10 is a much more severe test v XUD9 as would be expected Direct injection thus higher temperatures direct exposure of injector tip to combustion process Injectors are multi holed (6) and smaller being only ~110um wide cf 1mm needle lift in XUD9 So DW10 demands more additive and/or new more effective chemistry to deal with this more severe environment OEMs strongly object to metals in fuels due to interference with or fouling of emissions control equipment etc in modern vehicle technology. They strongly recommend no deliberate addition of any metals to fuel. If you want antifoam performance then you will need to allow Si in the additives. All fuel additives should be halogen free to avoid creation of dioxins during combustion. 17

18 Specific Questions So far, the Israeli standard demands a maximum 100 ml foam and a 15 sec vanishing time using the French test (NF M ). Are there any new developments in this area? The NF M test (commonly known as the BNPe test) is still the industry test of choice for evaluation of fuel foaming properties. There are no new developments to this ongoing. What happens to the engine if water entered to it? Does the engine only stop or some parts are destroyed? If small amounts of water enter the combustion chamber no harm is caused as the water turns to steam and exits as water from the exhaust system. But even small amounts of water can corrode fuel pump and nozzles so OEMs consider corrosion inhibitors very important where water content is a problem. Water & water emulsions can be a particular problem with FAME containing fuel especially when at higher FAME levels. 18

19 Specific Questions What steps and recommendations car manufactures are doing to prevent such damages? In countries where water contamination in fuel is considered severe OEMs install water separators ( fish bowl ) which then must be serviced during routine servicing of vehicle. Do you have reports or publications that dealing with this issue? We are not aware of this being a particular problem elsewhere. No specific reports or publications known to best of our knowledge. We know that in the recent publications of the gasoline and diesel fuel standards there are new guidelines for good housekeeping (CEN-TR ), how car manufacturers dealing with the recommendations which relate to the cars? The CEN guidelines advise of best practice which is to keep water from entering fuel storage and distribution systems as much as possible and carry our good housekeeping practices to remove any water that does build up e.g. refineries, pipelines & terminals. Whilst OEMs will take precautions in regions where water is a particular problem (see above) the main emphasis of the CEN guidelines is to prevent water reaching service stations & vehicles by 1. Preventing or 2. Removing water from the system before it gets to be a vehicle problem. 19

20 Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDID)

21 Content Types of diesel injector deposits What are IDID? What causes IDID? Industry activity to date Industry relevance OEM Oil Co s Additive Companies Lubrizol activity and Summary Conclusions Further information 21

22 Diesel Injector Deposits Internal Diesel Injector Deposits Control valve plunger Needle guide Above the needle seat Conventional Nozzle Deposits Inside spray channel reduce the hydraulic flow leading to a loss of power Injector tip deposits adversely effect the fuel spray leading to loss of power, increased emissions and fuel consumption 22

23 Internal Diesel Injector Deposits Internal deposits slow the response, or cause sticking, of moving internal parts, resulting in a loss of control of injection event timing and/or amount of fuel delivered At least two different types of IDID observed: Waxy or soap deposits Tie to Na-soap fuel filter plugging? (USA issue) Carbonaceous or lacquer deposits Tie to black fuel filter plugging? Aged soap type deposits? (USA issue) Performance problems manifested as: Poor/no start Rough idle/drivability Excess power/particulate production (sticking open) Loss of power (sticking shut) Seen as distinct from conventional nozzle deposits In form: internal vs external to fuel pressure-side In function: sticking vs physical blockage But not necessarily different in physical/chemical nature 23

24 Postulated causes IDID Various Parties Mechanical Fuel Additive Higher pressures and temperatures in common rail systems Tighter tolerances in current and future injectors Narrower injection channels Less clearance in needle guide Multiple injection events per cycle makes injector more sensitive to response time Hydrocracked stock content Aromatic hydrocarbon (solubilizing) content Low MW acids Polar species N, S (LSD vs ULSD) Inorganic/ionic carryover (Na, Ca, etc) Biodiesel type, content and impurities (acid, Na) CARB diesel Corrosion inhibitor (type and amount ) Lubricity additive (type and amount ) Deposit control additive (type; interaction with lubricity) Cetane improver Cold flow improvers (wax anti-settling agents) Anti-foamants (Europe) Conductivity improvers There is no shortage of theories around the chemical cause(s) of IDID! 24

25 Industry Activity Forums SAE and Esslingen TAE paper/presentations SAE Diesel Deposit Forum: Chicago, October 2008 SAE Diesel Deposit Forum: San Antonio, November 2009 SAE Meet the Experts Diesel Deposit Panel, April 2010 Working Groups CRC (North America) Diesel Performance Group formed a Deposit Panel to investigate IDIDs (Oct 2008) Data Analysis subpanel to collate/evaluate available data (Mar 2010) Bench/Rig/Engine subpanel to evaluate/compare available screen tests (Mar 2010) DGMK (Europe) members planning to investigate fuel/additive and engine effects on IDIDs There has been significant industry activity related to IDID 25

26 Industry Relevance - OEM The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), representing US heavy duty OEMs, have expressed an urgent concern Almost all US HD OEMs (Cat, Cummins, Deere, DDC (Daimler) and Navistar) have reported experiencing incidences of IDID. Most incidences have been observed in development engines in dyno testing or field trials However, at least one manufacturer (Deere) has reported significant IDID-related warranty claims in Tier 3 production engines in the field since the introduction of ULSD in the US. European OEMs are more concerned with IDID hindering the development of next generation engine technologies although several instances of field problems have been reported with current hardware OEM engine and injector manufacturers report that future injectors may be even more sensitive to IDID OEMs have expressed concern over the rising number of incidences of IDID 26

27 Industry Relevance - OEM John Deere Cummins Navistar Leading EMA push to have IDID investigated by industry. Power loss, driveability experienced in Tier 3 common rail engines in the field. Hindering development of interim- Tier 4 engines. Increased incidence of injector sticking on Tier2/3 engines in 06/ 07 coinciding with intro of ULSD. First to make Na soap link to filter plugging. Now concerned with second carbonaceous type IDID in developmental large engines Caterpillar Detroit Diesel (Daimler) Bosch Experienced IDID in dyno testing, but resolved problem by removing premium additive package from fuel. Have not had problem since. Developing bench rig test based on fuel samples submitted from other OEMs Experienced IDID in dyno testing, but resolved problem by removing premium additive package from fuel. Investigated and eliminated biodiesel as source of the problem in that instance. OEM experiences with IDID are often transient Severe IDID problems in developmental common rail engines Various cycles, fuels, locations, test cells Injector sticking resulting in overfueling and particulate increase Joint publication with Lubrizol at SAE forum; Problem resolved with 9040-series additive Origin of many theories. Propose that some IDID arise from reaction between acidic species and succinimide deposit control additives Work based on lab glassware studies and inference from deposit analysis. Contradicted by more extensive analysis and engine testing. 27

28 Industry Relevance Additive Companies Afton Infineum Innospec Claim that sodium salts of alkenyl succinic acids commonly used as corrosion inhibitors were the major constituents in all deposits obtained to date Sodium from refinery carry over Corrosion inhibitors from pipeline or additive packs Claim to have a quick proprietary engine test Claim that mono acid lubricity improvers do not cause IDID Joint work with Bosch and subsequent publication, postulates a link between deposits and both monoacidic lubricity additive and traditional succinimide dispersants Work based on glassware studies and inferential deposit analysis. Subsequently challenged and contradicted by more extensive analysis and engine testing. Conclude that there are a number of possible causes for injector and filter fouling A single universal explanation is unlikely Deposits are essentially carbonaceous and sodium free. Plenty of ideas, but no solution proposed 28

29 Industry Relevance Oil Co s BP (North America) Filter plugging in filling stations and vehicles are metal carboxylates (soaps). Bench rig demonstration that pipeline corrosion inhibitor reacts with Na commonly found in tank water bottoms, form soap. Subsequent glassware did not discriminate types of corrosion inhibitor. ULSD may amplify problem due to higher corrosivity, leading to overtreats of corrosion inhibitor, and lower solubility of soaps. Tie point to IDID proposed Possible solutions Sodium limit on refinery production Filtration in refinery / terminals Alternative corrosion inhibitor chemistry Chevron (North America) Steam stripping of H2S can lead to carry over of water into the diesel fuel Drying can be by vacuum and/or salt Improper operation can leave residual sodium in the fuel (ppm level) Salt drying is used in many North American facilities Analysis of injector supports conclusion of DDSA presence in deposits with Na/Ca Many Oil Co s are aware of the IDID issue, but few are currently playing a publicly active role 29

30 Lubrizol Activity Summary We have worked very closely with OEMs in Europe and North America We continue both bilateral collaboration and also participation in consortia SAE Panel OEM and oil company collaboration Analysis of injector and filter deposits to gain insight into causes. Engine testing of mono acidic lubricity improvers and succinimide deposit control additives in the DW10 test has shown no observable signs of IDID even after extended testing Joint work with Navistar and other OEMs has demonstrated Lubrizol s 9040-series additive provides a solution to both clean up and prevent deposits in problem engines For both IDID and conventional nozzle deposits In dyno and vehicle tests In production and development engines 30

31 Summary Deposit Control Lubricity Corrosion Lubrizol s 9040 Series additives have been effective in solving a number of OEMs injector deposit issues Lubrizol offers these additives in both bulk fuel and aftermarket formulations Joint work with Navistar has demonstrated solutions to severe developmental engines with 9040 Series products albeit at higher doses than typical bulk treat. Proprietary work with other OEMs has shown bulk treat rates can be effective in vehicles in the field. Monoacidic lubricity improvers similar to LZ539 have been tested in a proprietary test and did not generate sticking deposits Lubrizol 539 Series have withstood the test of time without problems or incidences of harms and remain robust and reliable In-house attempts to force IDID with monoacid have failed. Lubrizol also offers nonacidic lubricity improvers through the LZ9350 Series Lubrizol does not supply the refinery or pipeline corrosion inhibitors that are currently under scrutiny due to concerns of filter plugging and IDID Lubrizol is actively developing and evaluating technologies that might be suitable Lubrizol provides Solutions, not just ideas 31

32 IDID Conclusions Internal diesel injector deposits are not an entirely new phenomenon. However, changes to hardware, injection and combustion strategies, fuel composition and/or additive use have resulted in an increase in incidence and severity of performance effects of IDID. IDID is clearly a complicated phenomenon. Verification of theories related to the cause and solution of IDID should be based on controlled engine/vehicle testing. While some significant causal factors may be identified and eliminated or controlled, it is likely that many other factors may never be well understood or controlled. Na-soap and black fuel fuel filter plugging issues may be based on one or more of the same mechanisms of formation as IDID. 32 Proven solutions to prevent and clean up susceptible engines are more likely to be successful than eliminating all possible causes of IDID.