The Effect Of XFT Fuel Catalyst On Fuel Consumption In Similar Tractor-Trailer Test Units Using The SAE/TMC J1321 Type II Test Protocol Test Conducted By: GPEC Consultants, LLC Member: SAE, TMC, AWMA and NEHA-NRPP Final Report Prepared By: GPEC Consultants, LLC January 19, 2013 Report Prepared For: Syntek Global, Inc. 12382 Gateway Park Place Suite B800 Draper, Utah 84020
C O N T E N T S Executive Summary Page 3 Introduction Page 3-4 Methodology Page 4 Test Purpose Page 4 SAE J1321 Type II Test Procedure Page 5 Test Route Page 5 Baseline/Control Test Fuel Page 5-6 Test Vehicles Page 6-9 Catalyst Treated Test Fuel Page 10 Instrumentation Specifications Page 11-12 Test Results Page 12-13 Conclusion Page 13 Appendices Appendix I Scale Calibration Page 14 Appendix II Weight Scale Ticket Sample Page 15 2
Executive Summary Following discussions with the, Vice President of Technical Services, with Syntek Global Inc., it was determined that a fuel consumption analysis would be conducted, with Syntek Global s XFT fuel catalyst, utilizing at least two, 2006 Kenworth tractors equipped with C15 Caterpillar engines under the test protocol of the SAE/TMC J1321 Type II test procedure. The designated equipment for this study was selected using the strictest of criteria. Trucks with similar mileage, engine horsepower, transmissions, differentials, etc., were selected so as to improve the over-all accuracy of the evaluation and to comply with J1321 test requirements (see section 7; subsection 7.1). A specific test route was selected (see section 5.0) and all pre-selected test equipment was inspected and prepared for the impending test procedure (see section 7.0; subsection 7.2). Baseline (pre-catalyst treated) test runs were performed on October 28, 2012. The vehicles were then operated for approximately 5,000 miles to condition the engines with the XFT fuel catalyst as prescribed by the fuel catalyst manufacturer. Subsequent fuel catalyst treated test runs were then performed on November 24, 2012. It should be noted, that prior to each segment of the evaluation, the trucks were subjected to a warm-up trial run (56.8 mile test route) wherein they navigated the pre-selected test route to insure that all truck systems were functioning and at operating conditions before the test runs were allowed to continue (see section 5.0). Finally, all trailer weights were monitored and weights adjusted (see Appendix II; section 7.0; subsection 7.3) in place and prior to testing. Twenty-two gallon fuel cells were affixed between the frame rails and behind the cab of each of the test trucks (see section 9.0; subsection 9.1). The test trucks consisted of a control truck (untreated) and a catalyst fuel treated truck. The fuel cells were weighed prior to each test run and at the conclusion of the final test run. Each test segment required four test runs to accomplish the fuel use and time use controls required as part of the J1321 test procedure. All trucks were dispatched at thirty second intervals with turn-around times between test runs of less than 12 minutes. Acceptable test run times were completed within a window of 2% of total time. Acceptable test run fuel consumption was required to fit within a.5% window. 1.0 Introduction The purpose for this final report is to describe and report the findings of a fuel economy test performed for and on behalf of Syntek Global, Inc. The test procedure prescribed to, as part of this evaluation, is the SAE/TMC J1321 Type II fuel economy test procedure. As part of the evaluation, a procedures and process sheet was utilized to insure that all facets of the test procedure were carefully considered and adopted. Temperature, wind and all pertinent 3
environmental conditions adequately met the specified requirements as prescribed by the SAE/TMC procedure. Route conditions including elevation change, length, refueling access, and moisture accumulation were also well within the guidelines of the required test procedure. The procedure and findings enumerated in the body of this report were performed by GPEC Consultants, LLC. 2.0 Methodology The volumetric fuel consumption analysis followed during the course of this fuel consumption evaluation is a prescribed test method adopted and ratified by the Society of Automotive Engineers and Technical Maintenance Council, hereinafter referred to as the SAE/TMC J1321 Type II Fuel Consumption Test Procedure. All of the test data accumulated during this procedure was obtained via the use of a gravimetric fuel tank weigh method. More detailed information regarding the J1321 Type II Test Procedure, will be discussed and incorporated into the body of this report. 3.0 Test Purpose The purpose of this evaluation was to objectively compare and measure fuel consumption during a two phase test series. Fuel consumption from the baseline or untreated test routes were compared with the fuel consumption identified during the treated segment test routes. Additional fuel delivery lines were installed from the weigh cell through the fuel filter and into the injection pump on each trunk wherein baseline and catalyst treated fuel tests were then performed using mechanically and dimensionally similar tractor-trailer test units. Auxiliary fuel lines installed and routed to weighed fuel cells 4
4.0 SAE J1321 Type II Test Procedure The prescribed test method utilized during the course of this test procedure is referred to as the SAE/TMC J1321 Type II Test Procedure. This procedure followed the approved test protocol, as prescribed by the recommended course of action with no deviation. To minimize adverse fuel consumption anomalies, the following requisite processes were incorporated into each individual test run. 4.1 All windows were closed during the entirety of all test runs. 4.2 Windshield wipers and lights were in the OFF position during each test run. 4.3 Heater fan motor and Air Conditioning units were in the OFF position at all times. 4.4 Engine cooling system fan was locked into the RUN position for all test runs. 4.5 Test truck gross weight deviations were compensated and balanced as part of the pre-test weigh in procedure (see section 7.1). 4.6 Fuel weigh cells were located directly behind the cab and between the fuel rails. 4.7 All tractors and trailers were of the same make and model. Required trailer specifications were at 53 in length, 8 6 width and 13 6 in height. 4.8 Tire pressures, condition and tread depth were verified before each test segment. 4.9 Wheel hub temperature was monitored at the end of each test run. 4.10 Engine operating parameters were verified at the end of each test run. 4.11 Fuel density was measured and calculated prior to the baseline (untreated) and catalyst treated segments of the evaluation to identify fuel energy. 5.0 Test Route The test circuit incorporated into this test procedure was a 56.8 mile course located on north I-15 and south I-84 beginning in Perry, Utah. A sight at the beginning point of the test route, with direct access to and from I-15 was utilized as the start stop point as well as the area wherein the portable fuel cells were fueled and weighed. The route setup followed I-15 northbound thereby intersecting with I-84. The northern most directional change point consists of an off ramp, stop sign, overpass and on ramp which returns back to the starting point on the very most southern end of the test route. The south end transition includes an off ramp, stop sign, overpass and northbound return on ramp. All traffic delays experienced during required signage stops were timed in seconds, while the truck engines were at idle. That time was then subtracted from a required 60 second idle time period required at the end of each test run. 6.0 Baseline/Control Test Fuel All of the fuel utilized during both segments of this test procedure was purchased at a Shell fuel oil supplier located in Perry, Utah. Sufficient fuel was purchased 5
and stored in 55 gallon drums so as to insure that the fuel supply was consistent throughout all test segments (baseline and treated). A #2 diesel fuel with a specific gravity of.825 was purchased and verified for energy content prior to initiating the J1321 Test Procedure. This process was critical for both segments of this test procedure to insure that fuel energy remained consistent throughout. For the catalyst treated test segment (phase II) of this evaluation the stored fuel was treated with the Syntek XFT fuel catalyst and mixed so as to meet the required manufacturers treatment specifications with a 1:10,000 treatment ratio. Fuel utilized for both baseline and treated segments of the evaluation 7.0 Test Vehicles 7.1 The tractors selected for this test procedure were T-800 series manufactured by Kenworth in 2006 and were equipped with C 15 Caterpillar engines. The trucks were not equipped with day cabs. Both tractors were setup to pull 53 Great Dane tandem axle van trailers equipped with LP22.5 tires. The Kenworth tractors were powered by 475 h.p. C15 Caterpillar engines and equipped with Eaton Fuller 10 speed manual transmissions. Differentials for both test tractors were set at a 3.70 ratio. The control trailer was ballasted with 76,030 pounds GVW (see Appendix II) for the baseline segment of testing and 76,040 lbs. GVW for the catalyst treated segment of testing. The catalyst treated trailer was ballasted with a GVW weight of 76,040 lbs. for baseline testing and 76,040 lbs for the catalyst treated tests. Test trailer weights were load equalized and within weight variation specifications as required by the J1321 test procedure. 6
7.2 Truck Preventative Maintenance Maintenance records for the test vehicles were reviewed and analyzed as part of the pre-test selection process. Sufficient support data supplied conclusive evidence that all prescribed maintenance routines had been implemented and performed according to standard manufacturers mechanical practices. Most major work was performed by certified independent shops with an emphasis on utilizing OEM supplied parts. The trucks were then inspected to insure that all brakes were adjusted to legal specifications with no unnecessary brake lining drag or drum resistance. Further, the test trucks were also inspected to insure that there was no axle alignment issues and that there was no irregular or premature tire wear. Equipment records were evaluated to insure that incremental preventive maintenance services had been performed as scheduled and the work had been executed properly. Finally, all of the truck tires were evaluated to insure that tire pressures were set at manufacturers specifications. When all cursory inspections were complete, the trucks were driven and evaluated to insure that all the truck systems operated to the standards prescribed by the truck manufacturers. 7.3 Equipment Preparation Weighted trailer dynamics were given meticulous care so as to replicate, as closely as possible, the weight values included as part of the control truck and XFT fueled truck test cycles (see appendix II). Each test unit was equipped with sufficient load so as to attain a GVW of very near 76,040 lbs. Similar load bearing components were used for each test segment since the truck owner routinely transported the same freight. All truck weights were consistently evaluated and equalized. The fuel cells were attached to the truck, behind the cap and above the frame rails, through the use of safety straps so as to securely fasten them to each test truck. Additional fuel lines were incorporated into the active fuel system already installed by the truck manufacturer. The additional fuel lines were attached to the fuel weigh cells with aviation type quick couplers so as to minimize connection leakage and failure, during each test run. The test trucks received fuel only from the fuel cell, and no other fuel storage source on the truck. Finally, truck and trailer tire pressures were checked and properly adjusted. Heater fan motors and air conditioning control systems were set to the OFF position. The engine cooling fans were locked into the ON position and were operational at all times (see section 4.0). 7
Testing fuel for energy content Checking tire tread depth 8
Checking tire air pressure Checking hub temperature 9
8.0 Catalyst Treated Test Fuel The fuel catalyst evaluated during this procedure is an organometallic additive produced and marketed by Syntek Global Inc. It is a fuel borne catalyst that the manufacturer claims readily mixes with liquid hydrocarbon fuels at a ratio of 1: 10,000. The reported mode of action suggests that the catalyst helps to reduce ignition delay, thereby affecting a more rapid mixing process in the enriched combustion gasses at the critical time of combustion related thermal expansion. The manufacturer claims that the XFT fuel catalyst will increase engine horsepower and torque thereby reducing required engine fuel demand. The fuel catalyst manufacturer goes on to say that this fuel borne catalyst employs the use of a soluble organo-metallic chemistry that helps to improve combustion chamber mixing through improved molecular dispersion. Finally, the same Shell oil #2 diesel fuel (.825 specific gravity) utilized during the baseline test runs was purchased, stored and utilized during the XFT catalyst treated segment of this J1321 test procedure. Fuel storage drums 9.0 Instrumentation Specifications 9.1 Gravimetric Fuel Cell Specifications Six specifically designed Gravimetric fuel cells with a twenty-two gallon fuel capacity and matching dry weights of 24.8 lbs. were used to determine overall fuel consumption, by fuel weight. Each truck was assigned two specific fuel cell numbers to insure the accuracy of the data being collected (two backup fuel cells). The assigned fuel cells also helped facilitate more rapid tank exchanges between test runs. Each fuel cell was cleaned, filled with fuel and weighed in preparation for each fuel cell exchange between test runs. All connections utilized to attach the fuel cells to the truck fuel system were aviation type quick connectors. Aviation connectors are more reliable and are less likely to separate 10
or leak. When filled and weighed, the fuel cells were mounted on the truck, behind the cab and above the frame rails. The tanks were held in place with safety straps, that were connected to special brackets attached to the fuel cells to insure that they were secure and stable. J1321 test fuel cells 9.2 Weigh Scale A new, Fairbanks FB1100 Digital Bench Scale was freshly calibrated (see appendix I) to a maximum resolution that meets and exceeds the requirement of the J1321 test procedure. This scale was used to weigh each fuel cell prior to installation and subsequent to each specific test run. The fuel weights determined through the use of the scale, were recorded in pounds up to and including two decimal points. As per standard operating procedures, the scale was zeroed before each freshly filled fuel cell was weighed and prior to weighing fuel cells that had just completed a test run. More importantly, scale accuracy was verified and validated with a known weight frequently during the entirety of the test procedure. To insure reliable and consistent data collection, the scale was positioned on a heavy duty trailer wherein all fuel weight measurements were documented. Test conditions were very favorable for both test segments of the this J1321 test procedure. Wind conditions were very nominal, which eliminated the need for a covered trailer to weigh the fuel cells. The nominal winds had no affect on the scale accuracy during the course of both test segments. If a fuel cell weight was suspect or in question, the scale was rezeroed and the fuel cell was weighed again. Every effort was incorporated into this process to insure the accuracy of the data being collected. 11
10.0 Test Results 10.1 Summary Trailer utilized for weighing fuel cell The results of testing are calculated utilizing prescribed protocol as described in the TMC/SAE J1321 Type II, recommended practice. The portable fuel cell method of testing, using contrasting weighed fuel volumes, has clearly identified a statistically precise variance in overall average fuel usage. For the most part, the J1321 test procedure, when performed correctly, produces data that falls well within a + or -1% deviation for all test runs as an aggregate. Generally, the weighed fuel volume increases and decreases more significantly as test vehicle speed increase or decreases. Likewise, vehicle speed changes counteract the timed route designs as prescribed in the J1321 test procedure. For the purpose of this evaluation, vehicle speed was maintained at 65 mph. Route selection included minimal use of stop signs and minimal traffic flow. The average of the three data specific and inclusive test runs identified a 5.05% reduction in fuel use with the Syntek XFT fuel catalyst. 12
11.0 Conclusion Fuel cell mounted on truck rails behind cab This carefully controlled engineering standard test procedure conducted on the two (2) 2006 Kenworth tractors provides clear evidence of reduced fuel consumption of 5.05%. The statistical level of confidence and/or accuracy is measured at + or - 1%. 13
Scale Calibration Appendix I 14
LW'S TRAVEL PLAZA PERRY, UT 84302 Date: 11/24/2012 Ticket Number **35579 Account: CASH Customer: EXTREME FREIGHT Truck ID.: 001 Steering: 11380 Trailer ID.: 002 Drivers: 32040 Driver: ON Trailer: 32620 Weighing Fee: $10.00 Total: 76040 lbs. GROSS Signature: Sample Weigh Scale Tickets (Control II) LW'S TRAVEL PLAZA PERRY, UT 84302 Date: 11/24/2012 Ticket Number **35847 Account: CASH Customer: EXTREME FREIGHT Truck ID.: 002 Steering: 11380 Trailer ID.: 003 Drivers: 32030 Driver: ON Trailer: 32630 Weighing Fee: $10.00 Total: 76040 lbs. GROSS Signature: Sample Weigh Scale Tickets (Treated II) Appendix II 15