Poland

1

Questions to be answered by car manufacturers and LPG suppliers:

1 Which kind of major engine injection system (liquid PI; gaseous IPI; liquid DI) do we have to

consider for the future?

Nowadays, the most popular are the multipoint gas injection systems (gaseous phase). Considering

LPG properties we should focus on the parameters, which are important for these systems. In the

future, when the liquid DI system is developed and becomes more popular, the revision of EN 589 will

have to be carried out.

2 Is the calculated Autogas MON good enough for engine designing?

At the moment, MON is good enough for the multipoint injection system. In the future, when the liquid

DI injection system becomes more popular, RON will be more appropriate. Presently, there is no need

to change the specification.

3 Does it correlate fine with measured values?

There is no correlation between the measured and the calculated octane number. Generally, LPG is

used in engines which were designed as petrol engines. Petrol has lower octane numbers than LPG,

so even if the calculated MON differs from the measured, it shouldn’t cause serious problems.

4 What would be the MON (or RON?) required by the industry in the future (according to

technological DI developments and LPG developments –liquid/gaseous injection)?

As it was mentioned in point 1, due to the liquid direct injection systems, the EN 589 specification

should be extended to a RON parameter.

5 Which approach would you favour to the vapour pressure (mini & max, or min of ???)?

Upper limit of vapour pressure should stay at the current limit. Not only because of safety aspects, but

also because it protects against excessive amount of light hydrocarbon (methane, ethane).

6 Are you satisfied with the current five climatic grades?

Current five climatic grades are adequate.

7 Would you prefer the approach favouring the C3-C4 composition or excluding the

C3<and>C4 and olefins, impurities…?

Current EN 589 specification does not specify requirements concerning hydrocarbon composition,

however it is indirectly limited by the vapour pressure parameter. Specification in a present form is

Poland

2

advantageous for it both, secures the quality of LPG in respect of hydrocarbon composition and does

not exclude the possibility of fulfilment by a given batch of fuel the other requirements (e.g. for heating

gas).

Another argument against introduction of the C3-C4 composition requirements is that, there is no

precision method set for C3 C4 determination according to ISO 7941:1998. This standard only gives

the precision method for commercial propane or butane, but not for their blend. Our experience shows

that there is no correlation between precision of determination of hydrocarbon composition in

commercial propane (or butane) and LPG, which is a blend of these components. In order to asses if a

sample of LPG meets the requirements the correctly set precision method is necessary.

8 What is your position on adding a calorific value range parameter to the specifications? How

narrow should the range be?

There is no need to introduce an additional parameter because its calorific value is indirectly limited by

other parameters and a possible change range is not significant. In case of introducing this parameter,

we should decide on the way of determination it. Experimental determination of this parameter would

require the update of the analytical methodology. Calculation method, on the other hand would carry

an error due to the lack of precision method of individual hydrocarbons content determination.

9 What is your position on the presence of olefin in Autogas?

Similar to previous points, introduction of a new parameter determined based on ISO 7941 method,

which method does not provide the precision of individual hydrocarbon determination for propane-

butane blend, is disadvantageous.

Moreover, LPG fuel is not subject to a long term storage, so there is a very little risk of oxidation and

polymerization.

10 Do you have studies available establishing the relationship between the sulphur content in

Autogas and deterioration of catalysts/environmental performance?

Our experiments show that LPG containing sulfur AT 20-30 ppm level, is characterized by odour at the

satisfactory level, and decreasing the requirement only to this level would be acceptable.

Other comments

The most important issue is to elaborate the precision of hydrocarbon composition determination

according to ISO 7941, for with lack of this precision it is impossible to determine the precision of

parameters calculated based on hydrocarbon composition.

There is a need to elaborate the water content requirement set in the standard with respect to the way

of carrying out of its determination. In this matter there is a discrepancy between EN 589 and EN

15469 standards. It is also suggested to introduce other methods of determination of water content (for

example based on the Karl-Fischer method) to the EN 589 standard.

We also suggest revising the copper strip corrosion determination method. During our laboratory work

it was noticed many times, that the standard colour scale did not match the real colours. Therefore, the

colour standard being in use should be reviewed.

We would like to draw your attention to the problem of the additives package impact on the increase of

the evaporation residue parameter. This parameter constitutes a significant limitation to achieving of

Poland

3

“Premium” quality and improvement of operating properties of LPG fuel as a result of introduction of

appropriate additives package, just as it is with petrol. Currently, a car is started powered by modern

petrol which provides proper lubrication, cleanliness of a fuel system, combustion etc.; then the car is

switched over to LPG which is deprived of even natural lubricant agents and without the possibility of

removing from the system impurities generated during combustion. The refining additives packages

available on the market improve LPG operating properties causing however exceeding of the

evaporation residue parameter.

Zdj~cia plytek miedzi wykonane w poszczeg6lnych laboratoriach

Pr6bka 1Kod

laboratoriumLABl LAB2 LAB 3 LAB4 LAB5 LAB 6 LAB? LAB9

Zdj~eie

Oeena klasa 1 klasa 2e klasa 4 klasa 2 klasa 2 klasa 4 klasa 2 klasa 4

Probka 2Kod

laboratoriumLAB1 LAB 2 LAB 3 LAB4 LAB5 LAB6 LAB? LAB9

Zdj~eie

Oeena klasa 2 klasa 3a klasa 2 klasa 1 klasa 1 klasa 2 klasa 1 klasa 4

current proposed importance Notes: comments sulphur content

50 30 H Agreement from the member

ok

olefin not specified 15%?? L 18% is mentioned In euro 5-6 legislation

not specified

MON 89 91 M 89 RON not specified country

specific L not specified

vapor pressure min

1,5 bar relative

2 bars? 1,5

vapor pressure max

15 bars roughly @40°C

L 1,5

min autogaz net calorific value/kg

not specified density table could be attached in an annex

not specified

evaporation residue

60 ??? L connected to the development and referring of a new test method

60

diene 0,5 0,3??? as a way to counter oily residue

0,3

max C5+ (or a filter test?)

not specified 2%??? as a way to counter oily residue

not specified

H: High/ M Medium/ L:Low

Pr6bka 3Kod

laboratoriumLABl LAB2 LAB3 LAB4 LABS LAB6 LAB? LAB9

Zdj~eie

Oeena

Pr6bka 4Kod

laboratorium

klasa 3

LABl

klasa 4a klasa 1 klasa 2 klasa 2 klasa 1 klasa 4 klasa 1

LAB2 LAB3 LAB4 LABS LAB6 LAB? LAB9

Oeena klasa 2 klasa 2c klasa 3 klasa 1 klasa 1 klasa 3 klasa 3 klasa 4