israeli fuels seminar -...

© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved.© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved.

Israeli Fuels Seminar

Tel Aviv

May 13th 2014

© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved.2

Seminar Presentation Contents

• Introductions

• Global fuel quality and vehicle market drivers update

• EU and US fuel and vehicle regulatory update

• Review of latest developments in deposit control both gasoline and diesel (Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi), Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDID))

• CEC fuel tests update

• Ethanol and methanol

• Improving storage life and stability of both gasoline and diesel

• The significance of relaxation of some properties in emergency time


Introductions


Introductions

Siva Konar

Sales Manager – Israel

10 years with Lubrizol

Brian Sword

Project Manager - Israel

24 years with Lubrizol

Based at Hazelwood Technical & Marketing Centre, Hazelwood,

Derbyshire, UK

Applied Chem

- Dina Braverman

Lubrizol Corporation Overview


Growth. Innovation. People.

The Lubrizol Corporation Overview

2014


Company Overview – Who We Are

Lubrizol is a global specialty

chemical company

We combine complex, specialty chemicals to optimize

the quality, performance and value of our customers’

products while reducing their environmental impact.


Company Overview – Who We Are

• Problem solvers– Deliver innovative, practical specialty chemical solutions

for customers’ toughest challenges

• Technology-driven– Hold nearly 2,000 patents and counting

• Global– Serve customers in more than 100 countries with

approximately 7,000 employees worldwide

• Growth-oriented– Reinvest in our business thanks to strong record

of financial success and sustained performance

• Owned by Berkshire Hathaway – Supports our commitment to continually reinvest in our business

Success in the specialty chemical marketplace depends on two things:

performance chemistry and a performance team.


The Lubrizol Corporation Segments

• Growth. Innovation. People.

Lubrizol Additives Lubrizol Advanced Materials

The Right Mix of People, Ideas and Market Knowledge

• Advanced chemical technology for the global transportation, industrial and consumer markets

• Unique, hard-to-duplicate formulations resulting in successful solutions for our customers

• A talented and committed global work force delivering growth through skill, knowledge and imagination


56%29%

11%4%

North America Europe Asia/ME Latin America

A Balanced International Presence


Revenue and employee information - 2012

We sell in more than 100 countries

with more than half of our sales outside of North America

6,798Employees

Consolidated Revenues Worldwide Employees

$6.1Billion

35

%

29

%

28

%

8%


Geographic Footprint


Lubrizol: Part of Berkshire Hathaway

• One of the world’s largest public companies– 2012: revenues $162 billion, net income $15 billion

– Headquarters: Omaha, Nebraska

• Owns more than 70 businesses internationally in

sectors:

– Insurance and financial services

– Utilities and energy

– Manufacturing, service and retail

• Chairman & CEO: Warren E. Buffett

One of the world’s largest companies, Berkshire Hathaway is ranked # 7 on the Fortune 500


Lubrizol Additives Overview


• Recognized industry leader

• Largely performance specification driven

– Industry and specific vehicle manufacturer

– Performance changes driven primarily by improving fuel economy and reducing air emissions

• Significant industry consolidation over last 10-15 years

• Technology development focused on formulated solution/finished product to make customers more successful


Our Markets


Leading Market Positions

• Our Markets. All marks property of The Lubrizol Corporation.

Brands Applications

Lubrizol® Lubricants, Fuels

Anglamol® Gear oils

AMPS® Acrylic fibers, water treatment,

coatings and adhesives

Carbopol® Hair and skin care and cleansing

systems, hair styling, toothpaste, oral and

topical pharmaceuticals, household cleansing and

care products

TempRite® Piping systems for plumbing, fire

sprinkler and industrial applications

Estane® Recreational goods, hoses

and tubes, medical applications

Solsperse® Printing, auto finishes

Lanco® Furniture/appliance coatings


Serving Diverse End Uses…

• Our Markets.

Our portfolio has limited exposure

during economic downturns due to

a rich diversity of end uses, the global

nature of demand and strong value

drivers for our products

Our End Use MarketsVehicle Equipment MaintenanceIndustrialConstructionConsumer/Personal CareVehicle ProductionTextiles/Performance FabricsPaper & Packaging/PublishingResource Extraction/Other


Our Products Work for You on the Road…

• Our Markets.

Worldwide:

You’ll find Lubrizol technology in 1 out of 3 passenger cars

Better performance and longer equipment life


Engineered Polymers

LifeScience Polymers

Performance Coatings

Wherever you look,

Lubrizol is there

And at Home… Anywhere You Are!

• Our Markets.

Personal and Home Care

CPVC Piping Systems and Materials


Lubrizol Downstream Fuel Products and Energy Exploration

Water Treatment Segments Overview

2014


Lubrizol Fuel Products – 3 Main Business Units

Automotive

Consumer Products

Downstream

(Bulk Gasoline/Diesel)

Refineries to Terminals

through Stations – Gas /

Diesel / Ethanol / Bio (Bulk)Cetane Improver, Flow Improver, Lubricity

Improver, Catalyst Regeneration,

Detergents, Friction Modifiers, Corrosion

Inhibitors, Multi-Functional, Home Heating

Bottled products –

AftermarketComplete System Fuel Cleaners,

Friction Modifiers, Fuel Stabilizers,

Corrosion Inhibitors Marine

Open flame burners, Rail

Road, Turbine…Slag Control, Emission Reduction,

Combustion Improvers, Detergents

Industrial Fuel


Terminal operations and fuel retailers use bulk additives to reach additional fuel qualities and

performance characteristics.

Lubrizol products enable our customers to achieve competitive advantage in their markets by

allowing them to blend the highest quality, best performing fuels for today’s complex engines.

Our Product Line:

• SulfrZol® 54 Sulfiding Agent

• Flow Improving Additives

• Lubricity Additives

• Cetane Improvers

Downstream

• Multi-Functional Diesel Fuel

Additives

• Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel

• E85 Detergents / Additives• Friction Modifiers

• Biodiesel Blends

•Gasoline Additives

• LAC

• Top Tier


The aftermarket products arena is very competitive. Whether our customers specialize in oil additives,

fuel additives, driveline additives, flush products, or all of the above, they are all looking for an edge.

PowerZol branded products from Lubrizol deliver value in providing customers with leading additive

technologies and even fully formulated products that consumers can trust.

What’s Hot

• Complete Fuel System Cleaners

• Diesel Engine Clean-Up

• OEM Branded Products

• Oil Flush Treatments

Aftermarket Consumer Products


Many industries use heavy residual fuels, such as power generation, steel mills, ocean transportation,

and even home heating. Efficiency and emissions are key issues that demand solutions.

Lubrizol additives enable customers to improve combustion efficiency, reduce emissions, and better

manage equipment maintenance and downtime.

Our Products:

• Combustion Improvers

• Multi-Functional Diesel Fuel

Additives

• Slag Control

• Emissions reducers

Industrial Fuels


Lubrizol Energy Exploration - 3 Main business

units

Upstream

(Refinery Process

and Oilfield

Specialty Chemicals)

Exploration / Production /

Refining / Pipeline TransportAntifoulants, Corrosion Inhibitors,

Settling Aids, Foamers, Dispersants,

Emulisifiers, Wetting Agents

Water Treatment

Cooling Systems, Boilers,

Production ProcessesDispersants, Anti-Scalants, Corrosion

Inhibitors, Deposit Control Additives,

Biocides

Specialty Monomers

AMPS® MonomersBeginning monomer for Scale Inhibitors,

Friction Reducers, Water Control

Polymers, Cementing and Drilling

Polymers


Oilfield and refinery operations require specialty chemicals to improve the effectiveness, safety, and

value of many petroleum processes, as well as to meet some minimum fuel specifications.

Lubrizol works closely with service companies, distributors, and end users to identify industry needs

and deliver critical solutions that demand the most advanced chemical technologies available.

Our Product Line

• Paraffin & Asphaltene Control

• Demulsifier Bases

• Dispersants

• Anti-Scalants

• Deposit Control Agents

• Antifoulants

• Corrosion Inhibitors

• Drilling Additives

Foamers

Emulsifiers

Energy Exploration – Upstream / Water

Treatment

• Specialty Monomers

• AMPS® Monomer Acids

• AMPS® Monomer Salts


Lubrizol Global Technology Centers

Supporting Fuel Additive Development and

Customer Service

Kinuura, Japan

Hazelwood, UKWickliffe, USA


North America

Wickliffe, USA

Mechanical Testing

• Honda 2-cyl Generator

• 2.3L Ford IVD

– ASTM D 6201

• Modified Sequence VIB Fuel-borne Additive Fuel Economy Test

• Engine Oil Sequence Tests

• Volkswagen 1.9L tdi

• Engine Oil Sequence Tests

• Single Cylinder Screener Engines

- Cat 1K, 1P

Also :

Applications Science

Blending

R&D


North America – External Facility

Lubrizol/TRC Fleet Capability

• IVD/CCD– BMW 318i 1.8L I4 ASTM D 5500

– Ford 2.3L 4-cyl Ranger

– GM 4.3L CPI Truck

– Honda 2.2L I4 V-Tec ULEV

– Toyota 1.8L 4-cyl Corolla

• Fuel/Lube Interaction– DC 2.7L V6 Intrepid

– Ford 4.6L V8 Crown Victoria

• Valve Sticking – GM V8 ‘Top Tier’ Truck

• Diesel HSDI– VW 1.9L tdi Jetta

• PFI – Chrysler 2.2L Turbo ASTM D 5598

– GM 4.3L SCPI ‘Top Tier’ Truck

• E85 Flex Fuel

Performance Test Capabilities

• US EPA-Accepted Vehicle and DynoEmissions Test Lab

• Worldwide Emissions Cycle Repertoire

• CRC Driveability

• CRC Octane/Acceleration


Hazelwood - UK

Mechanical Test

facilities

• All types of engines and rig tests are run on site, using computerised test rigs and state of the art test cells

• Fuel additive test engines include:

– M102E IVD

– M111E IVD

– M111E Fuel Econ

– VW Waterboxer

– Peugeot XUD-9

– Peugeot DW-10

• ISO 9001, EN45001 accredited


Field Trial Capability

• Dedicated team of field trial engineers located at Hazelwood.

• Extensive experience with fuel and lubricant multi-car field trials.

• Typical statistically designed test programs involve:

– Vehicle running in.

– Engine strip down and rating

– Distance accumulation

– End of test strip down and rating.

– Statistical analysis of outcome.


Global Fuel Quality and Vehicle Market Drivers Update


Major Markets Sales Overview

• India, Russia, Brazil, Japan and W. Europe markets down by 1.9%, but strong growth in USA and exceptional in China!

-1.9%

7.5%

18.8%

-0.2%

-3.1%-5.1%

-10.8%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

W. Europe USA China Japan Brazil Russia India

%S

ale

s C

han

ge F

rom

2012

Veh

icle

Sale

s (

Th

ou

san

ds)2013 %Change

Source: AID Newsletters


W. Europe: Vehicle Sales Down 1.9% in 2013

• UK is only major European market to show a strong sales gain.

• Spain showed a 3.3% gain after years of volume declines.

• Other major markets such as Germany, France and Italy showed substantial reductions from 2012 levels.

• Overall total of 11,546,563 PC vehicles sold in W. Europe in 2013.– Down 1.9% compared to 2012 – a 20 year volume low.

-4.2%

10.8%

-5.7%

-7.1%

3.3%

-0.1%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Germany UK France Italy Spain Belgium

% S

ale

s C

han

ge f

rom

2012

Veh

icle

Sale

s (

Th

ou

san

ds)

2013 %Change



W. European Diesel Car Sales 2013

• European diesel share was 53.4% in 2013– Down by 5% compared to 2012

– Reason: price conscious purchasers are buying smaller, cheaper gasoline cars.

– Exception is growth in SUV-crossover vehicles (16.3% MS in 2013). Mainly purchased as diesel variants.

• Impact of higher costs for Euro 6 diesel cars is unknown.

-5.6%

8.5%

-13.3%

-5.8%

1.1%

-6.6%

-28.3%

-4.6%

-35.0%

-30.0%

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Germany UK France Italy Spain Belgium Netherlands Austria

% D

iesel

Car

Sale

s C

han

ge f

rom

2012

% D

iesel

Car

Sale

s

2013 %Diesel 2012-13 %Change



W. Europe PC Sales: Major Manufacturer

• VW Group leads the W. European market with 24.8% MS.

• Renault helped by sales of economy Dacia brand.

• PSA and Fiat biggest losers in 2013 amongst major OEMs.

– PSA lost nearly 9% MS.

– Fiat held back by poor Alfa and Lancia sales.

-0.9%

-8.9%

4.0%

-4.0%-3.5%

-0.6%

-6.9%

-1.9%

3.8%

-2.3%

-1.9%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

VWGroup

PSAGroup

RenaultGroup

GMGroup

Ford BMWGroup

FiatGroup

HyundaiGroup

Daimler ToyotaGroup

Nissan

% C

han

ge s

ince 2

012

Veh

icle

Sale

s 2

013 (

Th

ou

san

ds)

2013 Sales %Change from 2012



VW Group Focus: W. Europe

• VW Group sales showed slight 0.9% overall decline in 2013 compared to 2012.

• Slight declines in Volkswagen and Audi brands countered by strong growth for:

– Skoda: up by 5.6%

– Seat: up by 10.7%.

-0.9%

-4.0%

-1.4%

5.6%

10.7%

-2.4%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

VW Group Total Volkswagen Audi Skoda Seat Others

% C

han

ge S

ince 2

012

Veh

icle

s S

old

2013 (

Th

ou

san

ds)

2013 % Change from 2012



W. Europe: Electric Car Sales 2013

• 2013 electric vehicle sales in W. Europe grew by 60%.

– Total of approximately 39,000 registrations.

• Still only 0.4% MS.

• Norway has the highest electric car MS at 5.5%.

55.0%

99.5%

69.4%

45.0%

66.7% 63.1%

51.5%

67.3%57.6%

53.2%

-30.5%

5.0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

% C

han

ge 2

013

-12

Veh

icle

s S

old

2013

12-mths 2013 %Change 2012-13



W. Europe: Hybrid Car Sales

• Gasoline hybrid vehicle sales continue to be weak in Europe

– Diesel still dominates due to lower overall cost and superior real-world fuel economy.

• Toyota has 85% MS.

53.4%

1.5% 0.3%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Diesel Hybrid Electric

Mark

et

Sh

are



European Sales Outlook 2014

• December 2013 showed a 12.7% sales increase

compared to December 2012

– Fourth rise in four months.

– Limiting 2013 to 1.9% fall compared to 2012.

– Providing some hope that 2014 sales will continue to grow

from recessionary levels seen over last few years.

– Much of growth in the UK from private customers.

Up by 23.7% in December 2013.

• February 2014 W. Europe sales figures are 6.3% up

compared to same time last year supports moderately

positive outlook.



US Passenger Car Sales

• 7.5% increase in US vehicle sales in 2013.– 15,582,136 vehicles sold.

• Best US sales year since 2007, when 16.2 million vehicles were sold.– Boosted by good deals and credit offers.

– But rate of improvement slowed to 0.2% in December 2013.

7.3%

10.8%

7.4%9.1%

7.2%

-0.4%

9.4%

-0.6%

26.2%

8.1%

12.6%

2.5%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

% S

ale

s C

han

ge f

rom

2012

Veh

icle

Sale

s 2

013 (

Th

ou

san

ds)

2013 Sales % Change Since 2012


US Passenger Car Sales: Comments

• US OEMs have benefitted from the sales upturn.

– GM, Ford and Fiat/ Chrysler all showed healthy sales

gains.

• VW showed a disappointing performance in a rising

market with a -0.6% reduction.

– Passat sales fell by nearly 40% in December!

– But Jetta sales remained constant and Audi and Porsche

showed strong gains.

• Interest in light duty trucks appears to be growing again.

– Even split between passenger cars and trucks/SUVs.

– SUV-Crossover vehicles are also growing in popularity

again (as in other world regions).


Conclusions

• Significant growth in USA and China.

• Some promising signs in Europe for 2014, particularly in UK and Germany.

• 2013 saw falls in other key world markets.

• Consumers in declining markets are likely to be keeping their vehicles for longer –opportunities for high quality lubricants and fuel additive to maintain vehicle performance over extended lifetime.

-1.9%

7.5%

18.8%

-0.2%

-3.1%-5.1%

-10.8%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

W. Europe USA China Japan Brazil Russia India

%S

ale

s C

han

ge F

rom

2012

Veh

icle

Sale

s (

Th

ou

san

ds)

2013 %Change


EU Fuel and Vehicle Regulatory Update


General Vehicle Technology Trends

• Dramatically reducing CO2 with further large decreases

in other emissions, particularly NOx and PM are the

ongoing drivers.

• As NOx legislated limits continues to tighten, efficiency

improvements to the gasoline engine will improve its

overall cost attractiveness versus diesel.

– Increasing GDI penetration compared to PFI.

• Both gasoline and diesel engines will benefit from some

common technology improvements.

• Adoption of full `plug-in’ electric vehicles is likely to

remain low over the next decade due to the very high

cost of battery packs.


Common Improvements to Gasoline and

Diesel Engines

• Both gasoline and diesel engines will deliver further

reductions to CO2 emissions through some common

strategies:

– Downsizing with increased power per unit cylinder capacity.

– Increased levels of turbo charging.

– Stop-start systems.

– Reduced internal friction through improved materials and

coatings.

– Longer term - Increasing levels of hybridisation / electrification of

drive train.

This last measure is currently considered essential to reach the

EU 2020 CO2 target, but will involve a considerable cost

penalty.

Many of the above trends are likely to contribute towards increased

requirement for fuel additive deposit control


Improving the Efficiency of the Gasoline Engine

• Market adoption of gasoline direct injection will continue

to increase.

Wall Guided(Generation I)More common in the US

Wall guided flow

Ramp style piston

Solenoid injector

Spray Guided (Generation II)More common in Europe

Spray guided flow

Dish style piston

Piezo injector


• Improved fuel economy and CO2 emissions via more efficient

combustion and reduced pumping losses

Why Turbo-GDI Engines?

1: Fuel Economy and CO2 Benefits

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

Capacity (cc)

0

2

4

6

8

10

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

Fuel cons. (l/100km)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

CO2 (g/km)

30

% re

du

ctio

n

24

% im

pro

ve

me

nt

25

% im

pro

ve

me

nt

Examples comparing VW engines in Passat saloon


• Boosting and direct injection give increased power and mid-range

torque, making the engine respond like a bigger engine

Why Turbo-GDI Engines?

2: Performance and Driveability Benefits

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

Capacity (cc)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

Power (bhp)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1.8 PFI 2.0 PFI 1.4 TSI

Torque (Nm)

30%

reductio

n

Sim

ilar p

ow

er,

Sm

alle

r engin

e

more

torq

ue

,

Sm

alle

r engin

e

Examples comparing VW engines in Passat saloon


• Addition of direct injection and turbo charging, combined with downsizing, leads to significant increase in power density and therefore stress on fuel and lubricant

T-GDI: Challenges for Fuel and Lubricant

Power Density – Running Hotter and Harder

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

1.2 PFI 1.4 PFI 1.2 TSI 1.4 TSI 1.4 TSI+

Power density (kW/litre)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1.2 PFI 1.4 PFI 1.2 TSI 1.4 TSI 1.4 TSI+

BMEP (bar)

“If we just look at EcoBoosting, we’re certainly seeing higher operating temperatures and

much higher specific loads. So imagine now very small engines operating at very high

combustion temperatures.” Daniel Kapp,

Director of Powertrain Research, Ford


• In Europe Volkswagen/Audi have adopted T-GDI engines as

standard on all but the smallest / lowest cost cars in Europe.

– Example: Passat (Magotan in China) has no port-injected gasoline engine

options

• BMW and Peugeot-Citroen are co-operating in the use of 1.6 T-GDI

engines in their high performance small cars

• GM and Ford Europe have a growing number of T-GDI engines in

their ranges of cars

• Porsche have introduced a high performance T-GDI engine into their

sports cars

• Virtually all other OEMs are following fast with these engines

Examples of T-GDI Adoption in Europe


• Ford have brought in their “EcoBoost” range of T-GDI engines. V-6 and in

line 4 engines are available in vehicles such as the Taurus and F-150 pickup

• GM have T-GDI engines as part of their “Ecotec” range of engines. These

are used in all of their marques including Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac and

Pontiac

• Chrysler are considering introducing GDi technology and have the option of

using new owners FIAT designed engines if desired.

• Toyota also considering introducing this type of technology

Examples of T-GDI Adoption :North America


Direct Injection Gasoline Testing

• Lubrizol has studied GDI engines since 1998 and has found:

• Injector fouling:– GDI injector fouling is more severe, with a higher

additive appetite, than a comparable PFI injector.

– High sulfur, high olefin fuels that foul PFI injectors are also pro-fouling to GDI injectors

– GDI injector fouling tended to be worse under a “lean” operating cycle

• Additives:– Current Lubrizol technology performs well in both

PFI and GDI vehicles, however GDI vehicles tend to require higher dosages.

– The modern synthetic package formulation at a Top Tier market dose controlled GDI injector fouling to<1% fouling in 5K miles


Mild Hybridization: Cost Effective Alternative

• Upcoming global fuel economy standards will be hard to meet

without some degree of vehicle electrification.

• However, full hybridization is very expensive (typically around $3 –

4000 per vehicle.

• Mild hybridization is much cheaper and could deliver 10 – 15% fuel

consumption improvements.

– Could be especially beneficial for smaller, lower cost vehicles.

• Several German OEMs have promoted 48V mild hybrid systems.

– Uses belt-alternator starter device generates power and

electrically boosts IC engine.

– Assists automatic stop-start engine systems with smoother

starting.

– 2015 Audi Q7 will be first commercial 48V mild hybrid.


21st Century Diesel Fuel Injector Coking

• New more sophisticated engine designs have shown increased susceptibility to a wider range of fuel injector deposit problems.

• Recognition of wider range of deposit forming pre-cursors such as:

– low stability FAME feed stocks and

– trace metal contamination of fuel leading to organometallic deposits.

• Lead to development of CEC F-98-08 Peugeot DW10 injector coking test.

– Standard test uses DF-79 mineral fuel + 1ppm zinc.

• Deposit Control Additives (DCAs) developed to prevent nozzle coking in older engines were found to be much less effective in the new test.


Euro 6: Further Refinements to Diesel FIE

• Increasing fuel injection pressures > up

to as much as 2500 bar.

• Fuel injection channels:

– Reducing diameter to as little as 80

microns.

– Increasing number per injector

perhaps to as many as 24.

• Likely to increase severity towards

formation of coking deposits.


Section Summary

• Many common approaches for gasoline and diesel

engines to reduce emissions and CO2.

• Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi) with turbo charging will

become increasingly attractive compared to higher costs

of Euro 6 compliant diesel vehicles.

• Increasingly sophisticated close coupled three way

catalysts and filters will be required for gasoline vehicles.

• Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) deposit control additives

increasingly necessary with adoption of advanced fuel

injection systems.


Electric Vehicles Outlook


Electric Vehicles: The Positives

• Policy makers and governments are increasingly favouring battery

electric vehicles.

• Highly energy efficient:

– `tank to wheel’ efficiency is around 60 – 80%

– Greatest energy savings at low speeds – most suited for city

driving.

– Could contribute to a significant reduction in CO2, but to achieve

this must be powered by clean electricity.

Could actually result in increased CO2 in countries like Poland and

China, where most electricity is generated using coal.


Electric Vehicles (EVs): The Negatives

• However, EVs likely to remain a low volume, niche product for at least the next decade.

• Overwhelming reason is battery cost and range.

– Current battery pack cost estimated at 15,000 – 40,000 €.

– Cost would have to be cut by at least a factor of three.

– Range is also very limited with a maximum of 200 km

Dependent on ambient temperatures and driving conditions.

• Also would need a dense network of public charging facilities.

• Will need `smart’ electric grid infrastructure to avoid negative environmental impact.

– Otherwise would result in further building of power stations to meet peak demand from EVs.



OEMs: Conflicting Views on EVs

• Volkswagen – sceptical concerning political targets.

– Believes that substantial market penetration is prevented

by cost.

– EV uptake may only reach 3% by 2020.

• Renault – Nissan: Probably the most supportive OEM.

– Claim that EVs fit in with typical European driving patterns.

– Economic due to:

lower cost of electricity compared to fuel.

– Launched new Nissan Leaf vehicle in 2012.

– Believe than 10% market share possible by 2020.


More on the Nissan Leaf EV

• Launched in Europe in 2010.

• Compact 5 Door hatchback.

– Maximum range of 160 km / 100 miles.

– 80 kW electric motor with 140 kph (87 mph) maximum speed.

Similar to power of 1.6l petrol engine.

• Purchase cost of around €30,000 after government subsidies and tax incentives.

– Nissan claims competitive with alternatives such as Toyota Priusand VW Golf 1.6 Tdi `Bluemotion’.

– Li-Ion battery pack will be purchased along with car and not leased or rented.

Expected to have 5 – 10 year life depending on operating conditions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Nissan_Leaf_001.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Nissan_Leaf_001.JPG


European Electric Car Update 2013

• Sales remain very weak even with the recent

introduction of new models.

– 2039 sales in February 2013 or 0.26% of total market.

56% rise compared to February 2012.

Only 43 of those sales were in the UK!

But large part of increase due to 440 registrations of new

Renault Zoe model for dealer and press demonstrators.

– UK Zoe cost is £13,650 (includes £5000 subsidy) + £70 per

month battery rental.

Other sales into city electric vehicle car-sharing schemes.

• In comparison, gasoline hybrid car sales grew by 22% in

2012

– Total 125,750 vehicles – around 1% of total car sales.

– Lead as in US by Toyota Prius range.


North American Fuel and Regulatory Trends


North America: Overview

• Review of Federal emissions and fuel economy

standards:

– Light and heavy duty vehicles / engines.

• California LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) standards.

• Meeting Tier 3 and LEV III emissions standards.

• Renewable Fuels Standard.

• Diesel fuel standards.

• Diesel and hybrid vehicle uptake.


Federal Light Duty Emissions Standards

• Federal Tier 2 standards replace Tier 1 regulations.

– Tier 2 introduced tighter emissions limits and introduced more

stringent standards for heavier vehicles.

Same emissions standards apply to all vehicle weight categories

– From passenger cars to minivans and large SUVs.

– Requires more sophisticated emissions control for larger vehicle to

comply with same g/mile standards as lighter ones.

– Tier 2 phased in from 2004 with full implementation for all vehicle

weights from 2009.

– Same emissions limits apply to both gasoline and diesel

powered vehicles.

• Tier 2 introduction has required tighter fuels quality standards to

allow use of advanced aftertreatment.

– ULS Diesel fuel: 15 ppm sulphur max.

– Gasoline: average 30 ppm sulphur with 80 ppm maximum.


Tier 2 Certification `Bins’

• Tier 2 emissions standards structured into 8 permanent

and 3 temporary certification levels of different

stringency.

– Known as `certification bins’.

• Plus average fleet standard for NOx emissions.

• OEMs can choose to certify vehicles to any of the

available bins.

• Average NOx emissions of OEM fleet must meet

0.07g/mile across range of `bin’ certified vehicles.

– Emissions measured according to FTP 75 (Federal Test

Procedure).


Tier 2 Bin Certification Levels: `Full Useful Life’

• Full useful life = 120,000 miles or 10 years.

• NOx limits are most challenging particularly for diesel

• Bin 5 level has NOx limit of 0.07 g/mile – equal to fleet average.

Must offset sales of vehicles with NOx levels > Bin 5 with sufficient Bin 5

certified vehicles.

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.07

0.040.03

0.02

0.000

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

NO

x (

g/m

ile)

Bin Certification Level


New Federal Tier 3 Standards

• Anticipated phase in from 2017 with full implementation by 2025.

– Same time period as new CAFE and GHG standards.

• EPA proposal will set more stringent emissions standards for light, medium and certain heavy duty gasoline vehicles.

• Proposed standards intended to ultimately harmonise with California’s LEV requirements.

• Gasoline sulphur content also to be reduced to reduce catalyst poisoning and allow development of enhanced powertrains.

– Level to be reduced to 10 ppm sulphur.

• March 2014: EPA publishes Final Tier 3 regulation confirming 2013 proposals.


Federal Tier 3 Emissions Standards

• Just as for Tier 2, manufacturers will certify each vehicle

type to a `bin’ standard with sales weighting to derive

fleet average for MY.

• Proposed LDV NMOG + NOx emissions reductions

compared to Tier 2:

– MY 2017: -46%.

– MY 2025: -80%.

• Particulate emissions limit of 3 mg/mile by 2025 using

FTP cycle.

– 80% reduction compared to Tier 2.

• `Regulatory’ useful vehicle life to be extended to 150,000

miles or 15 years.


CARB Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) Programs

• Federal standards are generally applicable with exception of California.

– State was excepted in 1993 due to severe air pollution.

– Has pursued more stringent emissions targets in LEV and LEV II programs.

– New LEV III program and Federal Tier 3 largely harmonized by MY 2025.

Will allow OEMs to meet one standard across all US states.

– Emissions standards generally applicable to both gasoline and diesel light and medium duty vehicles.

• Other US states may voluntarily adopt LEV standards including:

– Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia.


California LEV III: MY 2015 - 2025

• LEV III compared to LEV II:

– combines NMOG and NOx standards into a single category.

– Fleet average NMOG + NOx levels more stringent than LEV II.

– Adds several emissions standard `bins’.

– Increased 150,000 mile durability requirement for emissions

control systems.

– All LD vehicles to show near zero evaporative emissions by

2022.

– Particulate matter emissions to be significantly reduced

100% of vehicles must achieve:

– < 3 mg/mile by 2017

– < 1 mg/mile by 2028.

May require use of gasoline particulate filters for direct injection

engines.

– Phase in of more severe fleet emissions requirements.


California LEV III Fleet Average NMOG + NOx

• Fleet will need to reach SULEV fleet average NMOG +

Nox emissions level by 2025.

73% reduction compared to 2008 levels.

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

NM

OG

+ N

Ox (

g/m

ile)

LDT2 + MDPV PC + LDT1

Emissions levels

converge by 2025


Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards

• April 2010 - New national program introduced for passenger

cars (PC) and light duty trucks (LDT).

– First ever regulation of GHG emissions under Clean Air Act by

EPA.

– In addition to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)

standards under Energy Policy and Conservation Act by NHTSA.

– Covers vehicle model years (MY) 2012 – 16.

• Results of new standard is that national light duty fleet will

have by MY 2016:

– CAFE level of 34.1 mpg.

– GHG emissions level of 250 g/mile

equivalent to 155 g/km.


CAFE and GHG Standards 2017 - 2025

• Building on 2012 – 2016 standards (last slide).

• Two implementation phases for PC and LDT:

– MY 2017 – 2021: 40.9 mpg fleet average basis by end of phase.

– MY 2022 – 2025: 49.6 mpg fleet average by end of phase.

Conditional subject to interim review in 2018 -19.

• Matching CO2 proposed standard equivalent to 163 g/mile CO2 (101 g/km) by 2025.

• Incentives / credits for EV, PHEV, FCV etc.


CAFE and GHG Standards 2017 - 2025

• Year on year targeted reductions for CO2 and fuel economy.

– Around 4% FE improvements for PC per year; lower for LDT.

• Fleet averages assume shift in market share towards PC away from

LDT by 2025.

35.3 36.4 37.5 38.840.9

42.945

47.349.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

CAFE (mpg)

243232

223213

200190

181172

163

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

CO2 (g/mile)


Heavy Duty Emission Standards

• Heavy duty engines (not complete vehicles) are certified according to Transient FTP engine dynamometer cycle.

• Must also pass 3 further tests:

– Supplemental engine test (SET)

Steady state test -To ensure emissions control during steady state driving.

– Not-to Exceed (NTE)

Limits typically higher than FTP cycle.

• Emissions compliance must be demonstrated over `useful life’ of engine:

– 10 years or 435,000 miles for heavy duty engines.

Revised for 2004 Model Year.


2007 Heavy Duty Emissions Standards

• New significantly more stringent standards introduced for Model Year 2007 onwards.

– Standards phased in by pollutant between MY 2007 – 10 on percent of sales basis.

• NOx limit is once again most stringent change.

– Previous limit for 2004 -06 MY vehicles was 10x higher at 2.0 g/bhp-hr.

– 2010 was the first year that substantial numbers of engines meeting this limit were available.

Pollutant Limit

g/bhp-hr 2007-10 2010

PM 0.01 100 100

NOx 0.20 50 100

NMHC 0.14 50 100

% Engines Meeting Limit


Heavy Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency + GHG

• New final rule published by EPA and NHTSA in

September 2011 to reduce fuel consumption and GHG

emissions from HD vehicles.

• Standards for 3 regulatory categories of HD vehicles:

– Combination tractor-trailers (Class 7 and 8).

– HD pick up trucks and vans.

– Commercial vocational vehicles.

• Both gasoline and diesel HD engines are included.

• GHG emissions include:

– Hydro fluorocarbon (HFC)

– Nitrous oxide (N20)

– Methane (CH4)


Heavy Duty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency + GHG

• Complicated set of standards with separate sub-

categories depending on vehicle weight, usage and

configuration.

• Example: Class 7 and 8 combination tractors:

– Final standard is for tractor cab with separate standard for

installed engine.

– Fuel consumption standards become mandatory starting

MY2016 (tractor cab) and MY 2017 (engine)

– New standards estimated to result in 7 – 20% fuel

consumption and GHG improvement compared to

MY2010.

• Fuel efficiency and GHG targets vary for other classes of

HD vehicle.


Diesel Fuel Developments

• EPA Ultra-low sulphur diesel rule required a reduction to 15 ppm

max by October 2006 for 80% of on-road diesel fuel.

– All on-road diesel < 15 ppm S by Dec 1st 2010.

• Non-Road diesel rule introduced by EPA in 2004 required 2 phase

reduction in sulphur levels

– Enables dramatic emissions reductions from off-road equipment.

– < 500 ppm from June 1st 2007.

– < 15 ppm from June 1st 2010.

• ASTM D975 changed in June 2008 to allow blending of up to 5%

FAME.


RFS-2: Renewable Fuel Standard

• Requires a specific amount of renewable feedstocks to be used in

gasoline and diesel production.

– Replaces `RFS-1’.

– Rule finalised by EPA in February 2010.

– Includes targets for incorporation of specific bio-mass derived

fuels.

– Targets for highway and non-road diesel fuel are new to RFS2.

– Calculated to require 136 billion litres of renewable fuel by 2022.

• RFS-2 benefits projected by 2022:

– Displace 7% of annual gasoline and diesel consumption.

– Decrease oil imports by $41.5 billion.

– Decrease GHG emissions by 138 million MT.

Equivalent to removing 27 million vehicles from use.


RFS-2: 2013 Biofuel Volume Requirements

• Concerns that program is unsustainable and compliance unachievable due to lack of advanced biofuels production.

– Particularly cellulosic ethanol .

2013 requirement has been dramatically reduced from 1 billion to 14 million gallons (1 US gallon = 3.8 litres).

• Limits on compliance are being approached due to 10% ethanol blending limit in gasoline.

Biofuel US Gallons

(million)

Litres

Cellulosic 14 5.3 x107

Biomass based Diesel 1.28 million 4.84 x 109

Advanced biofuel 2.75 million 1.04 x1010

Renewable fuel 16.55 million 6.26 x 1010


Increasing Ethanol Blend Limit

• US EPA and DOE continue to determine whether ethanol blend levels in gasoline can be increased up to 15%.

– Evaluate viability of `intermediate’ ethanol blend levels as contributor in meeting RFS2 goals.

– Testing for impact on vehicles and non-automotive engines:

Tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Catalyst and engine durability.

Drivability.

Fuel system materials compatibility.

– E15 blend level approved by EPA for MY 2001 onwards.

– No decision yet on older vehicles, motorcycles, HD gasoline engines, off-road equipment

– GM has approved for MY 2012 onwards and Ford for MY 2013 onwards.


World Wide Fuels Charter (WWFC)

5th Edition Highlights


World Wide Fuels Charter History

• First version released in 1998:

– Aim was to represent OEMs views on gasoline and diesel

fuel quality needs and to promote global harmonisation of

fuel specs.

• 5th edition published in September 2013.

– 7 years since last edition released.

• Charter backed by 4 global automobile associations:

– ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association).

– Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

– Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA).

– Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA)

– Plus 15 associate members from national organisations.


WWFC 5th Edition Changes from 4th Edition

• Major change is addition of `Category 5’ fuel quality level above

existing Category 4:

– Provides for introduction of future advanced emissions control

systems and improved fuel efficiency.

• Category 1 – 4 definitions have not changed substantially.

• Table shows WWFC Categories against target emissions levels.

WWFC

Category

US Emissions Level EURO Emissions Level

1 Tier 0 EURO I

2 Tier 1 EURO 3/III

3 LEV / ULEV EURO 4/IV

4 Tier 3, LEV II, HDD 2010 EURO 6/VI

5 US 2017 LD FE, LEV III


Requirements for All Markets

• Introductory section defines needs for all categories regardless of fuel quality level:

– Additives to be compatible with engine oils.

– No ash forming components.

– Good housekeeping to minimize contamination.

– Pipeline corrosion inhibitors must not interfere with fuel quality.

Reference to IDID issues caused by specific corrosion inhibitor.

– Adequate labelling of dispenser pumps.

– Ethanol and FAME components should comply with WWFC committee guidelines


Key Gasoline Specifications by Category

Property Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5

Sulphur, ppm max 1000 150 30 10 10

Olefins, %vol max - 18 10 10 10

Aromatics, %vol max 50 40 35 35 35

Benzene, %vol max 5 2.5 1 1 1

Unwashed gums (mg/100 ml) max 70 70 30 30 30

Washed gums (mg/100ml) max - 5 5 5 5

Injector Cleanliness % flow loss 10 5/10 5/10 5/10 5/10

IVS Sticking - Pass Pass Pass Pass

M102E IVD Control* (mg/valve) 9.0 merit 50 30 30 30

M111E CCD* (mg/engine) - 3500 2500 2500 2500

*Alternative IVD and CCD tests proposed in Charter.

Note that M111E CCD test has never been approved by CEC.


Gasoline Enhancements by CategoryC

at 1

to C

at 2 Limit

Changes

• Stability

• Aromatics

• Benzene

• Density

• Injector cleanliness

Properties Included

• Olefins

• Sediment

• Washed gums

• IVD deposits

• CCD deposits

Cat 2

to C

at 3 Limit Changes

• Sulphur

• Olefins

• Aromatics

• Benzene

• Unwashed Gums

• IVD deposits

• CCD deposits

Properties Included:

Particulate contamination

Cat 3

to C

at 4 Limit Changes

• Sulphur

Properties included

Sulphur corrosion

CA

T 4

to

CA

T 5 Limit Changes

• RON 91 not allowed

• Density


WWFC and Fuel Additives: Gasoline

• Intentional addition of metal containing additive prohibited.

– Except for potassium based AVSR in non catalyst cars.

• Deposit control additives (DCAs) are recommended to prevent build up of deposits in:

– PFI, DI injectors and IVD.

US and European industry standard tests recommended.

• DCA formulations should be formulated with synthetic carrier fluids to prevent:

– Inlet valve sticking and

– Excessive CCD build up.

Several CCD tests are set out in the Categories with limits set


WWFC and Gasoline: Ethanol

• Ethanol blended gasolines may increase evaporative

emissions and volatility.

• Fuel grade ethanol must have a specification to control

pHe (acidity measure).

– Necessary to prevent FIE system corrosive damage

through trace contamination by acidic species, e.g.,

chlorides and sulphates.

• Blending of methanol is not permitted. Can cause:

– corrosion of metallic components of fuel systems

– degradation of plastics and elastomers.


Key Diesel Specifications By Category

Property Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5

Cetane Number, min 48 51 53 55 55

Sulphur ppm max 2000 300 50 10 10

Trace Metals - - ND ND ND ND

Total Aromatics % wt max - 25 20 15 15

PAH (di+, tri+), % wt max - 5 3 2 2

Water, ppm max 500 200 200 200 200

Oxidation Stability, min hours 30 35 35 35 -

FAME Content, % vol max 5 5 5 5 ND

Ash, % wt max 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.001

Injector Deposits (XUD9 % Flow

Loss at 0.1mm)

- 85 85 85 85

Injector Deposits (DW10 % PL ) - - - 2 2

Lubricity by HFRR (microns max) 460 460 460 400 400

ND = Non-detectable


Diesel Fuel Enhancements by CategoryC

at 1

to C

at 2 Limit Changes

• Cetane No.

• Density

• Viscosity

• Sulphur

• T95

• Water

• Stability

Properties Included

• Trace Metals

• Aromatics+PAH

• T90, FBP

• Fe Corrosion

• TAN

• Injector deposits

• Particle contamination

Cat 2

to C

at 3 Limit Changes

• Cetane No.

• Density

• Sulphur

• Aromatics+PAH

• T90, T95, FBP

• Carbon residue

Properties Included:

Foam Volume+ Decay Time

Cat 3

to C

at 4 Limit Changes

• Cetane No.

• Sulphur

• Aromatics+PAH

• Ash

• Lubricity

Properties included

DW10 injector deposits

CA

T 4

to

CA

T 5 Limit Changes

• FAME not allowed

• Density

Properties Excluded

• Rancimat stability


WWFC and Biodiesel Feedstocks

• Vegetable oils must be converted to esters before use as diesel fuel component.

• FAME concerns include:

– Poor oxidative stability leading to acids and deposits.

Oxidation stability test limits recommended.

Further work on setting appropriate oxidation limits required.

– Low temperature issues such as low fluidity and sediment formation.

– Hygroscopic - so need to control water content

Could result in corrosion and microbial growth.

– Higher levels of deposit formation within fuel injectors

Deposit control additives (`detergents’) are advised.

– Incompatibility with certain FIE seals and metals:

e.g. Brass, bronze, copper, zinc.


WWFC and Fuel Additives: Diesel

• No intentional addition of metal based additives.

• Presence of trace metals and other `undesirable’ elements is limited

to < 1 mg/kg across all categories.

• DCAs are recommended to prevent nozzle coking and mitigate

against the effects of trace metal contamination.

– Evaluation of effectiveness through:

XUD-9 CEC F-23-01: < 85% flow loss for Categories 2 – 5.

DW10 CEC F-98-08: < 2% Power loss for Categories 4 and 5.

• Diesel fuel antifoamants are recommended and corresponding limits

set across Categories 3 – 5.

– Must not interfere with emissions control durability.

• Lubricity improver additives also needed to meet HFRR limits across

categories.


WWFC and Fuel Additives: Diesel

• Enhancing diesel fuel cetane number is considered by WWFC

authors to be beneficial.

– Increases from 48 to 55 CN across Categories 1 – 5.

– Improves cold startability, exhaust emissions (particularly NOx)

and reduces engine noise.

– Both natural fuel cetane and cetane number improving additives

such as 2-ethylhexyl nitrate can provide these benefits.

48

51

53

55 55

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5

Ceta

ne

Nu

mb

er


WWFC Summary

• WWFC 5th Edition introduces a new `Category 5’ fuel

quality level:

– Aimed at future advanced emissions control systems e.g.

US Tier 3 and Californian LEV III.

• Existing Category 1 – 4 definitions have not changed

substantially.

• Intentional addition of metals prohibited.

• Fuel additives continue to be recommended to control

fuel injection system deposits for both gasoline and

diesel.

• CEC F-98-08 DW10 nozzle coking procedure added to

requirements for Categories 3 -5.

– Requires effective deposit control additives.


Review of latest developments in deposit control both

gasoline and diesel (GDi, IDID)


Understanding the Spectrum of Diesel Injector Deposits

UNITI Mineral Oil Technology Congress

1st – 2nd April 2014 Stuttgart

Presenter: Robert Quigley Co-Authors: Robert Barbour,

David Arters, Jim Bush.


Needle: IDID Lacquer

The Spectrum of Diesel Injector Deposits

Inorganic Salts

Control Valve

Nozzle Coking

Needle: IDID Soap


Injector Nozzle Coking Deposits

• Until recently, the principal form of deposit affecting

diesel fuel injectors.

• Typically carbonaceous in nature – derived from mineral

fuel decomposition.

• Deposit control additives (DCAs) developed mainly to

control this type of carbonaceous nozzle coking.

– Using industry tests such as:

CEC F-98-08 Peugeot XUD-9

Cummins L10 Injector Depositing test


Condensation of

gaseous components

Sticking, incorporation

of particles

Adsorption of gaseous

components

Reaction of

hydrocarbons

Deposit layer

compression

Deposit Formation

Oxidation of soot

and hydrocarbons

Evaporation of

volatiles

Desorption

gaseous fraction

Abrasion of

complex deposits

Deposit Removal

Breaking off of

porous deposits

Deposit Formation and Removal Mechanisms


CEC F-98-08 DW10 Injector Coking Test

• Sensitive to injector nozzle coking induced by both FAME and trace

metals.

– Combination of both in same fuel can increase severity.

• New DCAs successfully developed to prevent these deposit types.


Injector Channel Cross

Sections - SEM

DW10 Nozzle Coking Deposit Imaging

After DCA Treatment

Base fuel + Zinc


DW10 Dynamometer Deposit Removal: Bulk Dose

• DCA bulk / constant use dose shows good power recovery over 16 cycles.


DW10 Dyno Deposit Removal: Aftermarket Dose

• DCA aftermarket dose shows power recovery.

• Deposits generated by pro-fouling FAME take longer to remove with DCA

than those generated by pure mineral fuel plus zinc.

-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ch

an

ge i

n P

ow

er

(%

)

DW10 Test Cycle

DF79 + 1ppm Zn Base DF79 + Zn + DCA B10 Base B10 + DCA


Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDID)

• Many explanations postulated for increasing incidences including:

– Mechanical and fuel quality factors.

– Certain PIB succinimides claimed to contribute to lacquer type.

Adverse reaction with carboxylic acid based lubricityimprovers postulated.

Low stability FAME feedstocks may also contribute.

– Wax or soap type:

Na / Ca salts of specific low MW di-acid corrosion inhibitors (e.g. dodecenyl succinic acid).

– Inorganic deposits from contamination by refinery salt driers or seawater.


IDID Prevention with Novel DCA in

6.8 L Dyno Engine

• Ability of novel DCA to control sodium soap injector deposits

generated in 6.8 litre engine test.


Sodium Soap Removal with DCA

(6.8 Litre Engine)

• (1) Build up of sodium soap deposits followed by

• (2) Rapid removal with `aftermarket’ dose of DCA.

DCA dosing

starts


Lacquer Deposit Removal with DCA

(6.8 Litre Engine)

• (1) Simulation of lacquer build up with low MW succinimide.

• (2) Rapid removal with aftermarket DCA treatment.

DCA dosing

starts


IDID Field Study – Marine Vessel

• Marine vessel fitted with four new, Tier II common rail

diesel engines.

• Typical 8 hour operation periods at constant, high load.

• Performance issues found within a month of

commissioning.

– Black smoke, loss of engine performance, engine hard-to-

start or no-start.

• Fueling every 1-2 days. Multiple fuel suppliers were used.

– The fuel tanks were free of water and sediment.

• An investigation was carried out to identify the cause of

the problem and provide a rapid solution to the operator.

• 43 injector failures were randomly distributed between

cylinders and engines over a 40 day period.


Failure Mode Analysis

• Failures were identified as caused by sticking of internal injector components.

• The Diesel Metering Valve (DMV) acts as a pilot valve, actuated by a solenoid controlled by the ECM.

• When deposits build up, the DMV sticks and the injector ceases to function.

• Calcium and dodecenyl succininicacid common to both fuel and injector deposits.

• The analysis indicated that the novel DCA was likely to be effective in removing and preventing the deposits.

Deposited DMV


Marine Trial Vessel: Results of DCA Treatment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Inje

cto

r S

tickin

g F

ail

ure

s

Trial Day

pre-additive with-additive

43 failures 0 failures

• DCA treatment comprised of:

– (1) High dose initial deposit removal.

– (2) Lower maintenance dose.


Inorganic Salt Deposits

• Purely inorganic salts such as sodium sulphate and

chloride.

• Found within nozzle channels and inside injector body.

• Probably arise from fuel contaminated by refinery salt

driers or seawater contamination.

• This type of deposit is more resilient to removal with

deposit control additives.

– As a result, a specialised solution has been developed

which has been successfully tested in real life applications.


Control Valve

Needle: IDID Lacquer

No Additive

Needle: IDID Soap

No Additive

Nozzle Coking

No AdditiveWith DCA

With DCA

With DCA

Inorganic Salts

Specialised

Solution

Possible

Spectrum Of Deposits Summary

DCA

Effective


New Lubrizol Direct Injection Gasoline Results


Direct Injection Vehicle Deposit Control Trial

• Two direct injection gasoline vehicles selected for a deposit control (`keep clean’) IVD and CCD trial.

• Each operated for 16,093 km (10,000 miles) on base fuel followed by IVD and CCD rating.

• Further 16,093 km (10,000 miles) accumulation with base fuel plus Lubrizol additive.

Vehicle Model Year Initial Odometer

BMW 335i 2009 82,505 km

(51,266 miles)

VW Jetta 1.9 GLi 2008 166,606 km

(103,524 miles)


Direct Injection Vehicle Deposit Control Trial

• Test Cycle Overview

– 16,093 km (10,000 mile) duration on test track

Condition Speed kph (mph) Duration (min)

Steady State 88.5 (55) 45

Hot Soak 0 75

• Vehicle inspections at start and end of testing:

– Valve weights

– Combustion chamber deposit (CCD) ratings

– Injector flows

– Images


Direct Injection Deposit Control Vehicle Trial:

IVD Results

• Chart shows comparison of IVD deposits for both test vehicles

after 16,093 km (10,000 miles).

– IVD deposit levels were substantially lower for both vehicles

when operated on fuel treated with Lubrizol additive.

300

570

157

402

47.7%

29.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BMW 335i VW Jetta Gli

%IV

D I

mp

rov

em

en

t

Av

era

ge I

nle

t V

alv

e D

ep

osit

s (

mm

) Base + Lubrizol Additive % Improvement


Direct Injection Vehicle Trial:

Cylinder Head Deposits

• Chart shows comparison of cylinder head deposits for

both test vehicles after 16,093 km (10,000 miles).

– Deposit levels were substantially lower for both vehicles


3.2

2.42.5

1.4

23%

42%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


% I

mp

rov

em

en

t

Av

era

ge C

ylin

der

Head

Dep

osit

s (

mg

) Base + Lubrizol additive % Improvement


Direct Injection Vehicle Trial:

Piston Top Deposits

• Chart shows comparison of piston top deposits for both

test vehicles after 16,093 km (10,000 miles).

– Deposit levels were substantially lower for both vehicles


1.81.7

1.4

0.725%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2


% I

mp

rov

em

en

t

Av

era

ge P

isto

n T

op

Dep

osit

s (

mm

)

Base + Lubrizol additive % Improvement


Summary

• 16,093 km (10,000 mile) deposit control trial carried out on 2 direct injection gasoline vehicles.

• Both vehicles showed substantial reductions in IVD and CCD deposit levels when operated on Lubrizol additive over the test period

– Compared to base fuel references.

– Previous Lubrizol work1 has shown that increased fuel system deposits can lead to:

Deteriorating emissions, fuel economy and acceleration.

• Injector flows:

– Could not be rated for BMW (fitted with piezo injectors).

– Inconclusive for VW Jetta.

1 SAE 1999-01-1498


CEC Fuel Test Update


CEC Fuels Tests Overview

All publically available information is obtainable from the CEC website:

https://www.cectests.org/

By accessing the “Links” tab on the site an overview of each test method is

available, access to newsletters etc.

https://www.cectests.org/


CEC Fuels Tests

M102E Inlet Valve Deposit (IVD) CEC F-05-93

A Mercedes Benz four cylinder, in-line, four stroke, water cooled, 2.3 litre gasoline injection engine type

M102.982 with 8 valves and standard KE JetronicTM fuel management system.

This test method is designed to evaluate the propensity of gasoline or gasoline additive formulations to

prevent intake valve deposits in fuel injected engines.

The engine is operated for a period of 60 hours under cyclic conditions, simulating stop and go operation,

with the inlet valve pegged to prevent rotation. The ability of a gasoline or a gasoline formulation to

influence deposit formation on the inlet valves is determined. The results are expressed by the weight of

the deposits accumulated during the test on the intake valves and in terms of merit rating.

The target reproducibility (R) for base fuel is 131 mg/valve.

Specified in the World-Wide Fuel Charter

NOTE:

Is one of three fuels tests, (CEC F-05-93 (M102E Inlet Valve Cleanliness), CEC F-16-96 (VW

Waterboxer) and CEC F-20-98 (M111 EVO) currently reaching their end of life during 2015 and will

be brought to the attention of the ACEA, ATC and CONCAWE Liaison Group.


CEC Fuels Tests

VW Waterboxer Inlet Valve Sticking (IVS) CEC F-16-96

A Volkswagen 1.9 litre 44 kW water cooled boxer engine of VW type 2 series, with hydraulic valve lifters and

type 34 PICT carburettor.

The test is run typically as an engine situated in a test cell coupled to a temperature control unit for the purpose

of pumping refrigerated coolant through the engine when not running although can be run as an engine in a

vehicle situated in a cold room.

Designed to determine whether gasoline fuel is likely to cause inlet valve sticking. When an engine has stood for

several hours, a small quantity of fuel may collect in the annulus between the valve stem and guide. If the fuel /

fuel additive combination should be prone to increased viscosity and sticking tendency at low temperatures then

this could affect the operation of the inlet valves, and in a severe case the valve could stick in the open position

which will prevent the engine from starting.

This test results in either a Pass (where no sticking of the intake valve is detected as measured in accordance

with the test method), or a Fail (where intake valve sticking is detected). As such normal CEC statistical targets

do not apply in this test.

The Pass reference fuel is designed to result in no valve sticking during the test, and the Fail reference fuel is

designed to result in valve sticking as defined in the test method

NOTE:

Is one of three Fuels tests, CEC F-05-93 (M102E Inlet Valve Cleanliness), CEC F-16-96 (VW Waterboxer)

and CEC F-20-98 (M111 EVO) currently reach their end of life during 2015 and will be brought to the

attention of the ACEA, ATC and CONCAWE Liaison Group.


CEC Fuels Tests

M111 Inlet Valve Deposit (IVD) CEC F-20-98

A Mercedes Benz in line four cylinder, four-stroke, water cooled, 2.0 litre gasoline engine with 16 valve D.O.H.C

arrangement and electronic fuel injection.

Was originally planned to replace the M102E but the test is less severe so the M102E has remained an industry

favourite.

Test method is designed to evaluate the propensity of gasoline or gasoline additive formulations to prevent intake

valve deposits in fuel injected engines with a test duration of 60 hrs under cyclic conditions.

Results run are given as a weight of the inlet valve deposits.

The test does not support the evaluation of combustion chamber deposits although a method for collecting such

deposits is described.

The target reproducibility (R) for base fuel is currently 107.

The test is mentioned in the World Wide Fuel Charter for CCDs (combustion chamber deposits) evaluation despite

the comment above.

NOTE:

Is one of three Fuels tests, CEC F-05-93 (M102E Inlet Valve Cleanliness), CEC F-16-96 (VW Waterboxer) and

CEC F-20-98 (M111 EVO) currently reach their end of life during 2015 and will be brought to the attention of

the ACEA, ATC and CONCAWE Liaison Group.


CEC Fuels Tests

Peugeot XUD9 Diesel Engine Injector Nozzle Coking CEC F-23-01

The test engine is a Peugeot XUD9A/L four cylinder in-line, four stroke 1.9 L naturally aspirated, indirect

injection engine using unflattened needles with an air-flow rig used to measure air flow loss through the

injector nozzles.

The engine is operated at light load/speed, cyclic conditions for a period of 10 hours. The propensity of the

fuel to provoke deposit formation in the nozzles is determined by measuring the injector nozzle air flow

before and after the test operation. The results are expressed in terms of the percentage airflow reduction

at needle lift values of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm needle-lift for all 4 nozzles with the performance criteria being

a single value of the average percentage air-flow reduction at 0.1 mm lift of all 4 nozzles.

The reproducibility target for base fuel is 12.3.

The test is included in the World Wide Fuels Charter, in which the acceptance criteria for passenger car

diesel fuel is a maximum flow loss of 85 % at 0.1 needle-lift.

NOTE:

Peugeot has announced that no further batches of XUD9 engines can be manufactured for CEC F-

23-01 Test Method Holders. Working group discussions are ongoing as to how to find an alternate

supplier of XUD9 engines. All laboratories have been asked to check their stocks of hardware in

order to establish how much longer the test can be run.


CEC Fuels Tests

Peugeot DW10B Diesel Engine Injector Nozzle Coking CEC F-98-08

The test engine is a Peugeot DW10B TED4 as used in the Peugeot 407 vehicle in 2006. It is four cylinder, common rail, in

line, 2.0 L turbocharged, EGR, overhead camshaft, bowl in piston and wall guided direct injection.. Equipped with Siemens

piezo electronically controlled 6-hole injectors. Rated at 100 kW at 4000 rpm with Max. pressure of 1600 bar.

The DW10 Nozzle Fouling test was developed to demonstrate the propensity of some fuels to provoke fuel injector fouling in

modern engines, and also to demonstrate the ability of deposit control fuel additives to prevent or control the deposits.

The objective of the test is to discriminate between fuels that differ in their ability to produce injector deposits in direct

injection diesel engines with the target to be able to discriminate between a fuel that produces no measurable deposits and

one which produces deposits that cause the 2% loss in power considered unacceptable by engine manufacturers.

The test cycle used consists of 12-stages each lasting 1hour.

If new injectors are used these are bedded in for 16 cycles on the non-fouling DF79 reference fuel.

Test fuel is flushed through the engine and the test is runs for 8 cycles (hours) and then stops for 4cycles (hrs). Repeated 3

times with the test finishing after a further 8 cycles.

The percentage power loss at Stage 12 over the 32 cycles (hours) is the final result of this test.

The reproducibility target is 1% power loss for the high base reference fuel (DF-79-07). This target was chosen, so that the

test would be able to protect against fuels giving more than 2% power loss.

A reproducibility target of 5% power loss was set for the low reference fuel (DF-79-07 + 1ppm Zinc).

There are currently no repeatability targets set.

OEMs state fuels giving more than 2% power loss are deemed to be unacceptable for modern European passenger car

engines.


CEC Fuels Tests

Peugeot DW10C Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDID) TDG-F-110

This is a new test procedure currently under development by the CEC working group in

collaboration with the contracted test lab.

The proposed test engine is a Peugeot DW10C. It is an in line, 2.0 L turbocharged, four

cylinder, four valve, common rail with Delphi pressure balanced solenoid controlled 6-hole

injectors, EGR, overhead camshaft, bowl in piston and wall guided direct injection. Rated at

120 kW at 3750 rpm with Max. pressure of 2000 bar.

The Working Group is reported to be working well with ISP France (the CEC contracted test

lab) working on developing the test procedure. Current best estimate for commencement of

Phase 2 is currently Autumn 2014.

The Group is presently in the process of choosing dopants for a calibration fluid for test

validation

There are some concerns about the levels of contaminants being used to produce the

deposits in this test as well as discrimination issues between fuels.


CEC Fuels Tests

Lubrizol’s CEC involvement in Fuels Tests

M102E IVD - Member

VW Waterboxer IVS - Member

M111E IVD - Member

XUD9 Injector Coking - Chairman

DW10B Injector Coking - Secretary

DW10C – Indirect Diesel Injector Deposits - Vice Chairman and Secretary


Ethanol


Ethanol

• Not used in Israel as yet but widely used in Europe/US

for a number of years.

• E5 common and accepted as “the norm” in most

European markets with E10 now being introduced

across some member states.

• E10 in use in US for many years, indeed regulatory

testing must use E10 reference fuel. E15 being

considered.

• Limited global use at higher % levels for use in

specifically designed Flexi Fuelled Vehicles (FFV) e.g.,

Brazil (Alcool), Sweden (E85) etc.

• Lubrizol additives are formulated for use in ethanol fuels.


Ethanol - Intake Valve Deposits

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 20 40 60 80 100Inta

ke V

alv

e D

ep

osit

s (

mg

)

Ethanol Content of Fuel (vol %)

• With no additive present, ethanol impacts the amount of IVD produced by

an engine.

• Lower levels of ethanol in fuel produce higher amounts of deposits, but

these lower levels are regulated in the US to contain deposit control additive

to prevent IVD formation, whereas European and high ethanol fuels are not.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Gasoline IVD (mg)

E8

5 IV

D (

mg

)Ethanol - Intake Valve Deposits

• In this relatively short, 8,046 km (5,000 mile) test, different batches of E85

resulted in levels of IVD from 111 mg to 342 mg.

• Most commercial E85 does not contain deposit control additive.


Combustion Chamber Deposits

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Co

mb

usti

on

Ch

am

ber

Dep

osit

s (

mil

s)

Ethanol Content of Fuel (vol %)

• In the combustion chamber, ethanol appears to burn cleanly and results in a

lower level of combustion chamber deposits (CCD) compared to gasoline.

• At higher levels of ethanol, CCD levels are less than half the level produced

by gasoline.


Methanol


Methanol: Fuel & Vehicle Issues

• Lubrizol has very limited experience of methanol as a major fuel

component thus far.

• Methanol experience as a fuel and thus its effect on

fuel/vehicle/lubricant issues is based so far only on Chinese

experience.

• Methanol is poisonous in both liquid and vapour form. Need to

consider escape into water sources and evaporated fumes from

vehicle refueling.

• Rather than convert to methanol why not use the CNG directly or

convert to MTBE for octane enhancer?


Methanol: Fuel & Vehicle Issues

• Concerns based on experience in China are:

– Elastomer compatibility (solubility): methanol is more aggressive than ethanol, so M15 could

only be used in a car capable of running E20 for example

– Regulated emissions: EU VI technology requires durable catalyst performance over a wide

range of conditions in the different cycles that need to be run. OEMs cannot guarantee that

all types of catalyst used in different engines types will function to specification under all

operating conditions if methanol is used.

– Volatility:

Regulations: it is difficult to ensure that regulations regarding fuel fumes from the filler

can be fulfilled with methanol

Methanol fumes are of course very poisonous

• Regards relaxation of properties in emergencies. Main concern would be emissions in EU VI cars.

It may not concern Israel that the emission limits are not fulfilled, especially in an emergency;

however, it is quite likely that the OBD will cause a EU 6 car to go into limp home mode once it

detects that emission limits are being exceeded.

• In the case of military vehicles, the German army have found that Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs)

and exhaust catalysts can become hot enough to attract heat seeking Stinger missiles. For this

reason, the German army is removing DPFs and cats from vehicles likely to be used in a theatre

of war!


Methanol: Lubricant Issues

• Increased sludge formation.

• Poor engine cleanliness, especially in the piston region.

• Possible degradation to methanoic acid in the oil, which leads

to accelerated deterioration in oxidation, sludge, deposits etc.

• Recommend high quality fluids to try and counter any

methanol effects on lubricant.

• Use more oxidatively resistant lubricants with excellent sludge

performance.

• Overall, the simple message is that much higher quality

products are going to have to be accepted as needed and

used, both in terms of base oils and additive systems.


Improving storage life and stability of

both gasoline and diesel.


Fuel Instability

• Long term fuel storage can lead to oxidation and

possible bacterial degradation and contamination

causing problems in use from deposits and gums.

• Three common types of fuel stability testing:

– Oxidative

ASTM D-2274

– Thermal

ASTM D-6468

– Oxidative (FAME fuels)

EN15751 (IP574) - Rancimat

• Several other fuel stability test procedures exist.


Fuel Instability

Solutions

Lubrizol has gasoline and diesel fuel stabiliser and

corrosion inhibitor technology

Control of gum, varnish, colour insolubles and corrosion

Improves stability of fuel in storage and under thermal loads

Custom designed additive packs incorporating various

anti-oxidant agents as relevant are possible dependent on

exact customer needs and application.

– e.g. to counter biodiesel FAME or metallic contamination

causes for Rancimat deterioration


Relaxing some properties in emergency time


Emergency Situation

• Lubrizol is not a refiner or vehicle manufacturer.

• Little or no influence sought on such fuel specifications.

• No experience of “emergency situations” envisaged.

• No indication given as to the extent limits may be relaxed

or for how long.


Emergency Situation

• Sulphur

• Lubricity

• Density

• Distillation Curve

• Reid Vapour Pressure (RvP)

• Octane Number


Emergency Situation

• Sulphur (10 ppm m/m) and lubricity (460 μm)

– Relaxing (increasing S limit) will increase emissions due

to less efficient catalysts/DPFs but depending on refinery

process may decrease (improve) diesel lubricity wear

potential.

– May block catalysts/DPF/oxygen sensors causing limp

home mode.

– Could affect new car warranties due to “improper fuel

use”

– Consider, for example, US gasoline specification allows

up to 80 ppm S and a diesel lubricity specification limit of

520 μm.


Emergency Situation

• Density (720-775 / 820-845 kg/m3), RvP (45-60 kPa) &

Distillation

– RvP directly related to vehicle performance & emissions

– Relaxing (increasing) RvP limit could lead to increased CO

emissions, engine speed issues, stalling, misfires, lean

mix.

– May be possible to relax RvP limits in emergencies e.g.

EU has given a waiver to Spain – similar climate to Israel –

to 68 kPa.

– For cooler northern EU climates 70 kPa allowed in

summer.


Emergency Situation

• Octane Number (95 RON)

– Canada = 87 Regular – 93 Super

– US = limits set per state but generally range from 87 – 91

– In 2012 Russia’s most popular fuel grade was 92 RON

despite a large imported EU vehicle parc which is designed

for 95 RON

– Could Octane be aided in emergency situations by:

Relaxation of olefins limit (18)?

Increase of ethanol (5) / methanol (3) / ETBE/MTBE (15)?


Emergency Situation

Could jet fuel be used in place of diesel?

• NATO S-1750 specification allows use of jet fuel for

ground vehicles when treated with a S-1750 approved

additive.

• Additive treats at set 1000 ppm v/v.

• Additive is a combined cetane improver and lubricity

product to counter the effects of the jet fuel.

• Used to simplify battle field fuel logistics.

• Additive actively used for contingency planning during

periods of fuel shortage or uncertainty by some EU

governments.


Presentation Summary

• Introductions

• Global fuel quality and vehicle market drivers update

• EU and US fuel and vehicle regulatory update

• Review of latest developments in deposit control both gasoline and diesel (Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi), Internal Diesel Injector Deposits (IDID))

• CEC fuel tests update

• Ethanol and methanol

• Improving storage life and stability of both gasoline and diesel

• The significance of relaxation of some properties in emergency time

© 2014 The Lubrizol Corporation, all rights reserved.

Working together, achieving great things

When your company and ours combine energies, great things can happen.

You bring ideas, challenges and opportunities. We’ll bring powerful additive and

market expertise, unmatched testing capabilities, integrated global supply and

an independent approach to help you differentiate and succeed.

israeli fuels seminar -...

Documents