Fuel Compositions Containing Fuel Additive

A fuel composition consisting of at least 95% by weight of predominantly or entirely hydrocarbon liquid fuel and 0.001 to 5.0% by weight of fuel additive, wherein the additive consists of: a) 20 to 90% by weight of at least one alkoxylated alcohol corresponding to Formula (I) R2R1—O—(—CHCH2O—)x—H (I) where —R1 is C6-C16, —R2 is H or CH3, and -x is 1-7; (b) 40 to 10% by weight of at least one polyalkylene glycol ester corresponding to the following general Formula (II) OR4R3—C-0(—CHCH2O—)-y—R5 (II) wherein —R3 is C11-C19, —R4 is H or CH3, -y is 1-20, —R3 is H or COR3; and

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description

With ever increasing fuel costs, such as petroleum based fuel costs, it has become ever more important and commercially desirable to consider and improve fuel economy within combustion processes, particularly within automotive powering combustion processes. Gasoline and diesel are the most prominent petroleum distillate-derived fuels used for motive power in vehicular transport. It is widely known that the fuel efficiency of a compression ignition engine is typically better than in a comparable spark ignition engine. It is also desirable to improve efficiencies within internal combustion engines but especially within diesel compression ignition engines by reducing, minimising or potentially avoiding build-up of deposits upon fuel injector components.

Diesel engines present a problem for the automotive and transportation industry because exhaust emissions typically include high levels of particulate matter (PM) together with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) Diesel engine particulate emissions can be visible in the form of black smoke exhaust. Currently, diesel engine particulate matter emissions can be controlled by the use of black smoke filters or catalytic converters. While these emission-control devices can be effective in decreasing particulate matter emissions, they are not effective in reducing NOx emissions and may have an adverse effect upon fuel economy.

Compression ignition engines have been tested using multiple different fuels from varying petroleum based feedstocks. In selecting a fuel composition, the effects of that composition upon several factors should be evaluated. Among these factors are engine performance (including efficiency and emissions), cost of end product, necessary infrastructure changes to produce the components of the composition and availability of feedstock to provide those components.

In different parts of the world, incentives are available for cleaner burning fuels to replace “classic” diesel. In Europe, the EN 590 specification diesel is characterised by an initial boiling point of 170° C. and a final boiling point of 590° C. The preferred sulphur content is less than 50 ppm. In the US there are, essentially, 2 different specifications. An EPO specification and a CARB specification diesel with less than 500 ppm sulphur requirements. The difference in the two specifications is aromatic content and distillation boiling point ranges.

Over the next decade it is expected that it will be desirable even further to decrease the amount of sulphur in diesel fuel. However, decreases in fuel sulphur content generally decreases lubricity of the fuel leading to increased engine wear and may adversely affect fuel economy and/or deposit accumulation upon fuel injector components.

One possible alternative or supplement to ordinary diesel is biodiesel. Biodiesel is a non-toxic, biodegradable replacement for petroleum diesel, made from vegetable oil, recycled cooking oil and tallow. Biodiesel belongs to a family of fatty acids called methyl esters defined by medium length, C16-C18 fatty acid linked chains. These linked chains help differentiate biodiesel from regular petroleum distillate-derived diesel. Biodiesel has performance characteristics similar to conventional petroleum-based diesel but can be cleaner burning.

Blends of biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel can reduce particle, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions compared with conventional diesel. Direct benefits associated with the use of biodiesel in a 20% blend with conventional petroleum-distillate derived diesel as opposed to using straight diesel, include increasing the fuel's cetane and lubricity for improved economy and engine life and reducing the fuel's emissions profile for CO, CO2, PM and HC and/or reductions in fuel injector deposits.

However, biodiesel is expensive to manufacture and may not help reduce NOx emissions. Some biodiesels, in fact, exacerbate NOx emissions.

It is a purpose of this invention to mitigate the above-problems and to use predominantly hydrocarbon-liquid fuel feedstocks currently available through the existing refinery and distribution infrastructures, optionally blended with known alternative non petroleum distillate predominantly hydrocarbon fuels.

A further purpose of the invention is to provide a method for improving fuel efficiency and/or reducing internal fouling deposits in engines operated at average ambient temperatures above 0° C.

These and other purposes are achieved by devising fuel compositions utilising hydrocarbon fuel such as petroleum-derived gasoline, diesel or kerosene incorporating an additive blend of two or three key components, generally as set out in claim 1 herein. In some embodiments, the fuel composition may include a fraction of synthetic blend derived from natural gas condensate.

Such useful fuel compositions can be high lubricity, high cetane fuel. However, certain bio-diesel blends have been known to create extra NOx emissions.

It has now surprisingly been found that fuel economy can be improved and/or injector fouling can be alleviated by using fuel compositions containing no more than two or at most three fuel additive components within ranges of selected relative proportions as defined within the text of e.g. Claim 1. Some preferred embodiments of fuel additive blends for particular fuel compositions are to be found in Table 1, at the end of this description.

Referring to the fuel additive in the ethoxylated alcohol (a) component, it is preferred that R1 is C9 or C10 and x is 2.5. The additive may, for example, contain 30 to 80% of ethoxylated alcohol. In some embodiments, the additive includes 40 to 60% ethoxylated alcohol component, and in other embodiments 50% to 60% by weight of (a) as defined in claim 1. In some embodiments it is preferred that the amount of (a) exceeds the sum of (b) and (c). This may particularly be the case for kerosene (heating oil) compositions and diesel fuel compositions. It may also be preferred within additive blends for diesel fuel compositions, that the alkanolamide component (c) may be absent. in such embodiments, the fuel additive then still consists of (a) plus (b).

In the polyethylene glycol ester component (b), preferably R3 is C17 and R5 is COR3. Polyethylene glycol diesters of oleic acid are preferred, as are polyethylene glycol ditallates, although the corresponding mono-oleates can be used. The preferred polyethylene glycol ester component (b) may include blends of different such glycol esters of the same general formula. In some embodiments the additive includes from about 40 to 15%, and in other embodiments 35% to 25% of polyethylene glycol ester constituent, and in further embodiments 30% to 25% by weight of (b).

In the alkanolamide component (c), when present, preferably R6 is C17 and R7 is CH2CH2OH. Oleic acid diethanolamides are highly preferred. The ethanolamide component may be a blend of different alkanolamides corresponding to the general formula III. In some embodiments, the additive includes 40% to about 15%, in other embodiments 25% to 15% by weight of alkanolamide.

As used throughout the specification and claims, terms such as “between 6 and 16 carbon atoms,” “C6” and C6-16” are used to designate carbon atom chains of varying lengths within the range and to indicate that various conformations are acceptable including branched, cyclic and linear conformations. The terms are further intended to designate that various degrees of saturation are acceptable. Moreover, it is readily known to those of skill in the art that designation of a component as including, for example, “C17” or “2.5 moles of ethoxylation” means that the component has a distribution with the major fraction at the stated range and therefore, such a designation does not exclude the possibility that other species exist within the distribution.

Ethoxylated alcohols can be prepared by alkoxylation of linear or branched chain alcohols with commercially available alkylene oxides, such as ethylene oxide (“EO”) or propylene oxide (“PO”) or mixtures thereof.

Ethoxylated alcohols suitable for use in the invention are available from Tomah Products, Inc. of 337 Vincent Street, Milton, Wis. 53563 under the trade name of Tomadol™. Preferred Tomadol™ products include Tomadol 91-2.5 and Tomadol 1-3. Tomadol™ 91-2.5 is a mixture of C9, C10 and C11 alcohols with an average of 2.7 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. The HLB value (Hydrophyllic/Lipophyllic Balance) of Tomadol™ 91-2.5 is reported as 8.5. Tomadol™ 1-3 is an ethoxylated C11 (major proportion) alcohol with an average of 3 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. The HLB value is reported as 8.7.

Other sources of ethoxylated alcohols include Huntsman Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah, Condea Vista Company, Houston, Tex. and Rhodia, Inc., Cranbury, N.J.

The monoester (b) can be manufactured by alkoxylation of a fatty acid (such as oleic acid, linoleic acid, coco fatty acid, etc.) with EO, PO or mixtures thereof. The diesters can be prepared by the reaction of a polyethylene glycol with two molar equivalents of a fatty acid.

Preferred polyethylene glycol esters (b) are PEG 400 dioleate, which is available from Lambent Technologies Inc. of Skokie, Ill., as Lumulse 41-O and PEG 600 dioleate, also available from Lambent as Lumulse 62-O. Another polyethylene glycol ester (b) suitable for use in the invention includes Mapeg brands 400-DOT and 600-DOT and/or Polyethylene glycol 600 ditallate from BASF Corporation, Speciality Chemicals, Mt. Olive, N.J. Other suppliers of these chemicals are Stepan Co., Lonza, Inc. and Goldschmidt, AG of Hopewell, Va.

Generally, the alkanolamide(s) (c) can be prepared by reacting a mono- or diethanolamide with a fatty acid ester.

A preferred alkanolamide is oleic diethanolamide. Alkanolamides suitable for use in the invention are available from McIntyre Group, University Park, Ill. under the trade name of Mackamide. One example is Mackamide MO, “Oleamide DEA”. Henkel Canada is another commercial source of suitable alkanolamides such as Comperlan OD, “Oleamide DEA”. Other commercial sources of alkanolamides are Rhodia, Inc. and Goldschmidt AG.

The components of fuel additive can be mixed in any order using conventional mixing devices. Ordinarily, the mixing will be done at ambient temperatures from about 0° C. to 35° C. Normally, the fuel additive can be splash blended into the base fuel. Ideally, the fuel additive will be a homogeneous mixture of each of its components.

Preferably, the fuel composition will comprise from about 0.001 to 5% by weight, preferably 0.001 to 3% or 0.01 to 3% of the fuel additive composition.

Fuel compositions according to the invention exclude the presence of other non specified or non defined fuel additive components within the present ‘closed’ definition of the term “fuel additive”.

It is also within the scope of this invention to provide a method of increasing the fuel economy efficiency of predominantly petroleum distillate fuels.

EXAMPLES

The following examples are intended to illustrate, but not in any way limit, the invention. Various blends were made to compare the characteristics of the various blends of fuel with performance in fuel efficiency (i.e. miles per gallon or mpg).

Reference is now made to the accompanying FIG. 1 which is a graph showing the average miles per gallon comparison between base fuel (unadditised) and additised fuel from buses tested according to Example 3 below.

Example Background

The test was carried out to investigate the effect that Sample D1 had on the fuel consumption of an indirect injection diesel engine under standard test conditions. The formation of deposits on the injector nozzles of the engine was also investigated.

Test Description:

The test was performed under the standard conditions of test procedure CEC F-23-A-01, Issue 11. Fuel consumption was measured by Mass Flow Rate and expressed in Kg/Hr.

Injector nozzle fouling results are expressed in terms of the percentage airflow loss at various injector needle lift points. Airflow measurements were accomplished with an airflow rig complying with ISO 4010.

Test Engine:

The engine used for the test was a Peugeot XUD9AL unit supplied by PSA specifically for the Nozzle Coking Test, as originally specified by CEC Working Group PF-23.

Engine part number: 70100 Swept volume: 1.9 litre Injection pump: Roto Diesel DCP R 84 43 B910A Injector body: Lucas LCR 67307 Injector nozzle: Lucas RDNO SDC 6850 (unflatted) Firing order: I, 3, 4, 2 (No. 1 at flywheel end)

Engine Build and Item Preparation:

The injector nozzles were cleaned and checked for airflow at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm lift. The nozzles were discarded if the airflow was outside of the range 250 ml/min to 320 ml/min. The nozzles were assembled into the injector bodies and opening pressures set to 115±bar.

Test Fuel:

Reference fuel CEC RF-06-03 was used throughout the study.

Additive Formulation Sample D1 is a blend consisting of:

50% Ethoxylated alcohol (Tomadol 91-2.5)-(a)

25% Polyethylene glycol diester (PEG 400 DOT)-(b)

25% Diethanolamide (Mackamide MO)-(c)

The fuel component was diesel fuel.

Initial Test Preparation:

A slave set of injectors were fitted to the engine. The previous test fuel was drained from the system. The engine was then run for 25 minutes in order to flush through the system. During this time all the spill-off fuel was discarded and not returned. The engine was then set to test speed and load and all specified parameters checked and adjusted to the test specification. The slave injectors were then replaced with the test units.

Engine Warm-Up:

5 minutes, idle speed at no load.

10 minutes, 2000 rev/min 34 Nm torque.

10 minutes, 3000 rev/min at 50 Nm torque.

Test Operating Conditions:

Immediately after the warm-up the following test cycle was run 134 times giving a total test time of 10 hours and 3 minutes.

Speed Torque Time Stage (rev/min) (Nm) (sec) 1 1200 ± 30 10 ± 2 30 2 3000 ± 30 50 ± 2 60 3 1300 ± 30 35 ± 2 60 4 1850 ± 30 50 ± 2 120

Other Operating Parameters:

Coolant outlet temperature 95 ± 2 ° C. Coolant delta 4 ± 2 ° C. Oil gallery temperature 100 ± 5 ° C. Air inlet temperature 32 ± 2 ° C. Fuel temperature at pump 31 ± 2 ° C. Fuel pump inlet pressure (stage 2) −50 to +100 mbar Fuel pump outlet pressure (stage 2) −100 to +100 mbar Exhaust back pressure (stage 2) 50 ± 10 mbar

Test Procedure:

The CEC F-23-A-01 test was performed through two test cycles;

Test Cycle 1: Ref. IF-XUD9-001.

This test cycle was performed with reference fuel unadditised with Sample D1. Test was commenced with clean test injector nozzles as per the standard test procedure. Fuel flow was recorded throughout the test cycle. At completion of test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.

Test Cycle 2: Ref: IF-XUD9-002.

The test cycle was then performed with reference fuel additised with Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1 part Sample D1:600 parts fuel, vol/vol. The test was commenced with clean injector nozzles as per the standard test procedure. Fuel flow was recorded throughout the test cycle. At completion of the test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.

Test Results:

IF-XUD9-001 FUEL FLOW RATES Kg/Hr. Test Hours Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 0 0.86 4.63 1.32 2.46 2 0.85 4.88 1.29 2.34 4 0.71 4.69 1.36 2.56 6 0.62 4.44 1.32 2.46 8 0.70 4.71 1.40 2.52 10 0.85 4.45 1.25 2.31 Min 0.62 4.44 1.25 2.31 Max 0.86 4.88 1.40 2.56 Average 0.77 4.63 1.32 2.44

IF-XUD9-002 FUEL FLOW RATES Kg/Hr. Test Hours Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 0 0.71 4.71 1.16 2.37 2 0.69 4.45 1.18 2.47 4 0.78 4.36 1.23 2.26 6 0.71 4.37 1.28 2.27 8 0.59 4.31 1.25 2.22 10 0.60 4.49 1.23 2.20 Min 0.59 4.31 1.16 2.20 Max 0.78 4.71 1.28 2.47 Average 0.68 4.45 1.22 2.30

Test Number: IFT-XUD9-001 Fuel Code: RF-06-03 Additive Code: Sample D1 Treat Rate: N/A Cylinder 1 169 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 229 23 10% 90% 0.1 295 30 10% 90% 0.2 377 54 14% 86% 0.3 460 102 22% 78% 0.4 548 221 40% 60% Cylinder 2 Nozzle 170 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 204 41 20% 80% 0.1 261 56 21% 79% 0.2 345 97 28% 72% 0.3 427 148 35% 65% 0.4 504 238 47% 53% Cylinder 3 Nozzle 171 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 223 18  8% 92% 0.1 278 23  8% 92% 0.2 361 41 11% 89% 0.3 442 83 19% 81% 0.4 526 209 40% 60% Cylinder 4 Nozzle 172 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 210 11 5% 95% 0.1 258 16 6% 94% 0.2 353 32 9% 91% 0.3 432 73 17%  83% 0.4 518 272 52%  48% Average 88% at 0.1 mm lift Nozzle fouling % = Clean − Dirty × 100

Test Number: IF-XUD9-002 Fuel Code: RF-06-03 Additive Code: Sample D1 Treat Rate: 1 PART in 600 Cylinder 1 F9 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 226 26 12% 88% 0.1 280 35 12% 88% 0.2 357 55 15% 85% 0.3 438 99 23% 77% 0.4 529 211 40% 60% Cylinder 2 Nozzle F10 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 223 22 10% 90% 0.1 283 27 10% 90% 0.2 360 40 11% 89% 0.3 436 69 16% 84% 0.4 516 170 33% 67% Cylinder 3 Nozzle F11 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 232 26 11% 89% 0.1 289 31 11% 89% 0.2 386 42 11% 89% 0.3 445 64 14% 86% 0.4 532 145 27% 73% Cylinder 4 Nozzle F12 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 230 19  8% 92% 0.1 281 28 10% 90% 0.2 359 46 13% 87% 0.3 437 76 17% 83% 0.4 516 148 29% 71% Average 89% at 0.1 mm lift Nozzle fouling % = Clean − Dirty × 100

Summary of Test Results: Fuel Flow Test Results:

Summary of Fuel Flow Rate Test Results Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Average fuel flow 0.77 4.63 1.32 2.44 for IF-XUD9-001, Kg/Hr. Average fuel flow 0.68 4.45 1.22 2.3 for IF-XUD9-002, Kg/Hr. % Difference in −11.7 −3.9 −7.6 −6.8 fuel flow.

Injector Nozzle Fouling Test Results:

% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 1, IF-XUD9-001 88% % Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 2, IF-XUD9-002 89%

Conclusions:

  • 1) The fuel flow rate results indicate that the addition of Sample D1 to the reference diesel at a dose of 1:600 vol/vol to reference fuel results in a reduction in fuel consumption over standard test conditions. The largest improvement in fuel economy was seen at the lowest rpm setting. The smallest improvement in fuel economy was seen at the highest rpm setting.
  • 2) The injector nozzle fouling test results indicate that addition of Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1:600 vol/vol to reference fuel does not result in increased deposits.

Example 2 Background

The test was carried out to investigate the effect that Sample D1 as used in Example 1 above had on the formation of deposits of injector nozzles of an indirect injection diesel engine.

Test Description:

The test was performed to the test procedure CEC F-23-A-01, Issue 11. Results are expressed in terms of the percentage airflow loss at various injector needle lift points. Airflow measurements were accomplished with an airflow rig complying with ISO 4010.

Test Engine:

The engine used for the test was a Peugeot XUD9AL unit supplied by PSA specifically for the Nozzle Coking Test, as originally specified by CEC Working Group PF-23.

Engine part number: 70100 Swept volume: 1.9 litre Injection pump: Roto Diesel DCP R 84 43 B910A Injector body: Lucas LCR 67307 Injector nozzle: Lucas RDNO SDC 6850 (unflatted) Firing order: I, 3, 4, 2 (No. 1 at flywheel end).

Engine Build and Item Preparation:

The injector nozzles were cleaned and checked for airflow at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm lift. The nozzles were discarded if the airflow was outside of the range 250 ml/min to 320 ml/min. The nozzles were assembled into the injector bodies and opening pressures set to 115±bar.

Test Fuel

Reference fuel CEC RF-93-T-095 was used throughout the study. Note that this reference fuel is specifically blended to encourage deposit formation.

Initial Test Preparation:

A slave set of injectors were fitted to the engine. The previous test fuel was drained from the system. The engine was then run for 25 minutes in order to flush through the system. During this time all the spill-off fuel was discarded and not returned. The engine was then set to test speed and load and all specified parameters checked and adjusted to the test specification. The slave injectors were then replaced with the test units.

Engine Warm-Up:

5 minutes, idle speed at no load.

10 minutes, 2000 rev/min 34 Nm torque.

10 minutes, 3000 rev/min at 50 Nm torque.

Test Operating Conditions:

Immediately after the warm-up the following test cycle was run 134 times giving a total test time of 10 hours and 3 minutes.

Speed Torque Time Stage (rev/min) (Nm) (sec) 1 1200 ± 30 10 ± 2 30 2 3000 ± 30 50 ± 2 60 3 1300 ± 30 35 ± 2 60 4 1850 ± 30 50 ± 2 120

Other Operating Parameters:

Coolant outlet temperature 95 ± 2 ° C. Coolant delta 4 ± 2 ° C. Oil gallery temperature 100 ± 5 ° C. Air inlet temperature 32 ± 2 ° C. Fuel temperature at pump 31 ± 2 ° C. Fuel pump inlet pressure (stage 2) −50 to +100 mbar Fuel pump outlet pressure (stage 2) −100 to +100 mbar Exhaust back pressure (stage 2) 50 ± 10 mbar

Test Procedure:

The CEC F-23-A-01 test was performed through three test cycles;

Test Cycle 1: Ref. IF-XUD9-003.

This test cycle was performed with reference fuel unadditised with Sample D1. Test was commenced with clean test injector nozzle. At completion of test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates were measured and recorded.

Test Cycle 2: Ref. IF-XUD9-004.

Engine prepared as per test procedure but the dirty injector nozzles from Cycle 1 were returned to the engine unclean. The test cycle was then performed with reference fuel additised with Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1 part Sample D1:600 parts fuel, vol/vol. At completion of the test cycle, injector nozzles' flow rates wee measured and recorded.

Test Cycle 3: Ref. IF-XUD9-005.

Repeat of the test Cycle 2 procedure with the dirty Injector nozzles returned to the engine unclean after flow rate measurement at the end of Cycle 2.

On completion of the third test cycle the test results were analysed for observed effects on injector nozzle fouling by the addition of Sample D1 to the reference fuel.

Test Number: IF-XUD9-003 Fuel Code: RF93-T-095 Additive Code: No additive Treat Rate: N/A Cylinder 1 F9 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 225 21  9% 91% 0.1 280 31 11% 89% 0.2 353 75 21% 79% 0.3 435 127 29% 71% 0.4 528 239 45% 55% Cylinder 2 Nozzle F10 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 224 21  9% 91% 0.1 275 32 12% 88% 0.2 350 83 24% 76% 0.3 429 184 43% 57% 0.4 522 395 76% 24% Cylinder 3 Nozzle F11 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 237 26 11% 89% 0.1 287 29 10% 91% 0.2 362 34  9% 91% 0.3 445 63 14% 86% 0.4 543 166 30% 70% Cylinder 4 Nozzle F12 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Dirty Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 247 23 9% 91% 0.1 298 27 9% 91% 0.2 369 31 9% 91% 0.3 439 50 11%  89% 0.4 521 113 22%  78% Average 90% at 0.1 mm lift Nozzle fouling % = Clean − Dirty × 100 Clean

Test Number: IF-XUD9-004 Fuel Code: RF93-T-095 Additive Code: Sample D1 Treat Rate: 1 PART in 600 Cylinder 1 F9 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 225 40 18% 82% 0.1 280 54 19% 81% 0.2 353 95 27% 73% 0.3 435 175 40% 60% 0.4 528 342 65% 35% Cylinder 2 Nozzle F10 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 224 29 13% 87% 0.1 275 54 20% 80% 0.2 350 95 27% 73% 0.3 429 121 28% 72% 0.4 522 342 66% 34% Cylinder 3 Nozzle F11 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 237 29 12% 88% 0.1 287 35 12% 88% 0.2 362 51 14% 86% 0.3 445 87 20% 80% 0.4 543 232 43% 57% Cylinder 4 Nozzle F12 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 247 22  9% 91% 0.1 298 28  9% 91% 0.2 369 45 12% 88% 0.3 439 79 18% 82% 0.4 521 173 33% 67% Average 85% at 0.1 mm lift Nozzle fouling % = Clean − Cleaned up × 100 Clean Clean = flows at start of test IF-XUD9-003 Cleaned up = flows at end of test IF-XUD9-004

Test Number: IF-XUD9-005 Fuel Code: RF93-T-095 Additive Code: Sample D1 Treat Rate: 1 PART in 600 Cylinder 1 F9 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 225 37 17% 83% 0.1 280 48 17% 83% 0.2 353 81 23% 77% 0.3 435 146 34% 66% 0.4 528 272 51% 49% Cylinder 2 Nozzle F10 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 224 48 21% 79% 0.1 275 62 23% 77% 0.2 350 111 32% 68% 0.3 429 188 44% 56% 0.4 522 343 66% 34% Cylinder 3 Nozzle F11 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 237 23 10% 90% 0.1 287 27  9% 91% 0.2 362 40 11% 89% 0.3 445 73 16% 84% 0.4 543 214 39% 61% Cylinder 4 Nozzle F12 Needle Corrected Airflow Nozzle Lift (mm) Clean Cleaned up Residual flow Fouling % 0.05 247 17 7% 93% 0.1 298 18 6% 94% 0.2 369 22 6% 94% 0.3 439 38 9% 91% 0.4 521 116 23%  77% Average 86% at 0.1 mm lift Nozzle fouling % = Clean − Cleaned up × 100 Clean Clean = flows at start of test IF-XUD9-003 Cleaned up = flows at end of test IF-XUD9-005

Summary of Test Results of Example 2:

% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 1, IF-XUD9-003 90%

% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 2, IF-XUD9-004 85%

% Nozzle fouling after Test Cycle 3, IF-XUD9-005 86%

Conclusions:

  • 1) The addition of Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1:600 vol/vol to reference diesel fuel does not increase the fuel propensity for injector nozzle deposit formation.
  • 2) The results indicated that addition of Sample D1 at a dose rate of 1:600 vol/vol to reference fuel may cause a reduction in existing deposits. Reduction in deposits appeared to stabilise after one test cycle with Sample D1 use.

Example 3 I. Trial Background

For three months 40 buses received an appropriate dosage of IFT additive sample D1. For each bus the daily mileage and gallons refuelled was used as data to calculate the daily fuel economy. This was accomplished by calculating the difference in miles driven then dividing that number by the gallons fuelled. The data used in this trial was taken directly from the fuel sheets recorded by re-fuelers.

To establish a pre-additive baseline fuel economy for each bus, mileage and gallons fuelled were calculated for three months prior to additisation. Once the additive was introduced into the buses, we employed the same methods to collect mileage and gallons fuelled data for three months to establish a post-additive fuel economy.

II. Population Characteristics

40 buses participated in the trial. Each engine make and model within the trial population is listed below:

    • 7 International Engines
      • 2—1994 engines
      • 4—1995 engines
      • 1—1996 engine
    • 33—Caterpillar Engines
      • 0—1994 engines
    • 28—1995 engines
      • 5—1996 engines.

In addition, 4 AE vans (all 1995 Chevy engines) participated in the trial and achieved an average of 7.75% fuel economy improvement.

III. Refueling Schedule

Buses were refuelled every other day and broken into two groups—Day and Night shift. To work within this re-fuelling schedule, we categorised the buses participating in the trial into the same four groups: Day 1, Night 1 and Day 2, Night 2. 4 buses participating in the programme were Day 1 buses; 7 were Day 2 buses. 24 buses participating in the programme were Night 1 buses, 5 buses were Night 2 buses. These buses were selected for us at random.

Our goal was to make sure that each bus received its dose of additive before it received its diesel for the day. Once the additive was added to the tank, the impact of the diesel entering the tank on top of the additive would cause the two to splash blend together. Therefore, it was necessary to additise buses every day to ensure that the Day 1 and Night 1 buses received additive on the appropriate re-fuelling day and the Day 2 and Night 2 received additive on the appropriate day.

Dosage for each bus was determined using the ratio of 1 gallon additive to 575 gallons diesel. Based on averages calculated for each bus from the three months prior to additisation, any bus that re-fuelled an average of 20 gallons or less received 400 ml of additive. Any bus that on average, re-fuelled between 21 and 30 gallons received 500 ml of additive. Any bus that on average, refuelled between 31 and 40 gallons received 600 ml of additive.

The additive was introduced into each bus the same way. A plastic tube was slightly inserted into the gas tank, the appropriate dosage of additive was measured in a standard, 2 cup (500 ml) measuring cup and with the help of a funnel, the additive was poured down the tube and entered the tank.

IV. Range of Data

The percent increase in fuel economy ranged from 27.78% (bus #505202) to 0.45% (bus #50680). The range of data can be explained by a number of factors that may have impacted the fuel economy of the bus, or the integrity of the data collection process. The factors listed below were beyond control in this trial:

Factors that Might Affect Fuel Economy:

    • Change in Bus Route: (charter in addition to daily route)
    • Change in Number of Stop/Starts within Route (traffic, construction, etc.)
    • Change of Bus Driver
    • Change in Weather
    • Change in Tire Pressure
    • Frequency of Oil Change
    • Maintenance Problems and Repairs
    • Buses not Available for Additisation.
      Factors that Might Affect Data Collection and Create the Appearance of a Change in Fuel Economy:
    • Lack of Data due to bus re-fuelled at other location
    • Lack of Data due to bus re-fuelled out of schedule
    • Lack of Data due to re-fueller failing to record data
    • Change in re-fueller, or re-fueller habits
    • Data recording error made by re-fueller.

For every bus there were a certain number of outliers: data points that appeared not to make sense. These points were either extremely high or extremely low when compared to the entire data set. In order to make sure the data used in the calculation of average fuel economy was statistically significant and not skewed by outliers, the “bell curve” method was applied.

The bell curve is a fundamental principle of statistics which allows use of the data that falls within the normal distribution for each specific bus and filters the outliers that skew the data. For each bus the average miles driven was calculated. Because recording the miles driven for each bus each day was a standard procedure and did not require the re-fueller to remember the additional step of re-setting the fuel meter, we felt that this number had the least chance of being recorded incorrectly. The miles driven was also the variable least likely to be affected by the additive. Assuming that the additive was to have some effect on fuel economy, the miles driven would stay the same since the driving route would not change. The number of gallons fuelled however, might increase or decrease as a result of the additive.

The standard deviation or the measurement of how far the data ranges from the average was calculated based upon the average miles driven. The standard deviation for each bus was then added and subtracted from the average miles driven to create a range of data points that fell within each bus's normal distribution. It is the points within this range that have been used to calculate the post additive average fuel economy.

The only data points for fuel economy that were used for bus 50689 were those whose miles driven ranged between 111 and 189.

Bell Curve Example: Bus #50689

Average Miles Driven: 150

Standard Deviation: 39

Range: 189 (150+39) to 111 (150−39).

It should be noted here that the data has been presented in two ways: filtered and unfiltered. The filtered data represents the statistically significant data that was filtered by taking the range of numbers within one standard deviation from the average. The unfiltered data represents the average taken from all of the numbers recorded, whether they were statistically significant or not.

V. Summary of Results

The 40 buses that participated in this trial saw on average, a 10.13% increase in fuel economy. The graph in FIG. 1 illustrates this fuel economy improvement, when compared to the baseline miles per gallon.

The range in fuel economy improvements is surprising considering all of the buses operate independently from each other and are independently subject to various factors that influence fuel economy. Therefore, the fuel economy of one bus has no effect on the fuel economy of another bus. These factors have been listed above. It is important to note however, the length of the trial ensured that any factor that would have affected fuel economy, would have had to affect fuel economy for three months consistently in order to be considered a significant variable. None of the factors listed above were a consistent variable for three months and therefore, did not significantly affect the trial.

SAVINGS ANALYSIS Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (7%) (10%) Assumptions Number of Buses 560 560 Weekly Fuel consumption per bus 60 60 Number of weeks in operation 45 45 Annual Diesel Consumption 1,512,000 1,512,000 (in Gallons) Cost of one gallon of diesel ($) 1,00 1.00 Total Annual Diesel Cost ($) 1,512,000 1,512,000 Additive Cost Dosage: 1:575 Cost per gallon ($) 0.02 0.02 Annual Diesel Consumption 1,512,000 1,512,000 (in Gallons) Annual Additive Cost ($) 30,240 30,240 Annual Savings Fuel Economy Improvement 7% 10% Current Annual Diesel Cost ($) 1,512,000 1,512,000 Reduction in Annual Diesel −105,840 −151,200 Cost ($) New Annual Diesel Cost ($) 1,406,160 1,360,800 Annual Additive Cost ($) 30,240 30,240 New Total Cost ($) 1,436,400 1,391,040 Annual cost savings 75,600 120,960 Savings per Gallon ($) 0.050 0.080

AVERAGE FOR ALL BUSES/VANS COMPARISON Additised Miles/Gallon Miles/Gallon Change Buses Total Buses 4.9307 5.4300 10.13% City 4.9381 5.4409 10.18% Highway 4.9258 5.4227 10.09% Vans Total Vans 7.6231 8.2136 7.75% City 7.4916 8.1463 8.74% Highway 8.0176 8.4157 4.97%

Example 4 Subject: Field Trial of Sample D1 in Rail Road Locomotives Preamble:

The following study was conducted by measuring one output of two processes, determining their stability to one another and inserting one controlled variable to each process and measuring the output.

Scope:

The scope of this example was to define the structure, limits and statistically evaluate the influence of Sample D1 additive on the performance and efficiency of 2000 and 3000 horsepower locomotives in the field.

BACKGROUND

A protocol was established to evaluate the additive utilising one set of General Purpose 38 engines and one set of Special Duty 40 engines with the following statistics:

GP38 Data - General Motors Electro-Motive Division Horsepower: 2000 No. of Cylinders 16 Cylinder Arrangement 45 “V” Cylinder Bore and Stroke 9 1/16″ × 10″ Total Displacement 10,320 in3 (169 litres) Operating Principle: 2 Stroke cycle, blower aspirated, unit fuel injection, water cooled cylinder and liners, oil cooled pistons, isochronous speed governor Full Throttle 900 RPM Idle Speed 315 PPM.

SD40 - 2 Data - General Motors Electro-Motive Division Horsepower: 3000 No. of Cylinders 16 Cylinder Arrangement 45 “V” Cylinder Bore and Stroke 9 1/16″ × 10″ Total Displacement 10,320 in3 (169 litres) Operating Principle: 2 stroke cycle, blower aspirated turbo charged, unit fuel injection, water cooled cylinder and liners, oil cooled pistons, isochronous speed governor. Full Throttle 904 RPM Idle Speed 318 PPM.

Rationale:

In theory, locomotive engines can be coupled electronically such that both engines respond identically to command control from either engine's control consol. With two theoretically identical engines operating in tandem, we have a platform base which can be subjected to comparison analysis.

Typical Protocol for Coupled Engines A & B

  • Phase 0—Fill both engines and mark full point on each engines fuel tank sight glass. Monitor fuel consumed by each engine for a duration of time sufficient to have required a minimum of 3 re-fuelling events without exceptions to establish a base line. Record and establish the percent of fuel (positive or negative) used by Engine A compared to Engine B, called AC. This is the baseline. Phase 0 should only be exited when a stable base line is established without exceptions.
  • Phase 1—Select the engine with the highest fuel consumption as compared to its coupled twin and introduce the additive by adjusting a full tank of fuel to a 600:1 fuel to additive ratio. Continue to monitor fuel consumed at re-fuelling by filling to the marked sight gage point. Adjust additive concentration in the selected engine according to the quantity of fuel used to maintain the 600:1 ratio. Record and establish the percent of fuel (positive or negative) used by Engine A compared to Engine B (AC) beginning with the first re-fuel after introduction of the additive to the selected engine. Phase 1 should only be exited after a minimum of 3 to 5 re-fuellings or a stable relationship is seen in the ΔC. Stability in this case, is defined as less than a 1% change in the AC from one re-fuel to the next (see Analysis Section),
  • Phase 2—Introduce the second twin engine to the additive by adjusting a full tank of fuel to the 600:1 ratio. Continue monitoring fuel consumed in the same manner as Phase 1. Record and establish the percent of fuel (positive or negative) used by Engine A compared to Engine B (AC) beginning with the first re-fuel after introduction of the additive to the second engine. The same rationale is used in exiting Phase 2 as was used in Phase 1.
  • Phase 3—Remove the additive from the engine selected in Phase 1. Continue monitoring fuel consumed in the same manner as Phases 1 and 2. Record and establish the percent of fuel (positive or negative) used by Engine A compared to Engine B (AC) beginning with the first re-fuel after stopping the additive in the first engine selected in Phase 1 engine. It will be necessary to calculate the residual diluted concentration in the tank at each re-fuel after having withdrawn the additive from the engine selected in Phase 1. The criterion for exiting Phase 3 is only after witnessing a gradual shift in relationships between the two engines and then a period of stability where they no longer exhibit a shift. This phase has the dual purpose of demonstrating that a shift will occur when the additive is removed and to estimate how long the residual benefit exists from the additive.
  • Phase 4—Remove the additive from the engine selected in Phase 2. Monitor fuel usage on both engines with neither engine having the additive. Record and establish the percent of fuel (positive or negative) used by Engine A compared to Engine B (AC) beginning with the first re-fuel after removal of the additive to the second engine. Termination of this phase and concluding the test would be similar to Phase 3.

Protocol Test Results:

Locomotive ID #'s 43 & 44 Type of work Long haul coal train up to 65 - 132 gross ton cars Number of re-fuellings 29 Number of exceptions* (data n/a) 6 Phase 0 ΔC= 6.87% (44 using more fuel than 43) Phase 1 ΔC= −6.37% (Engine 44 selected for Phase 1 - a 13.24% improvement in Engine 44's performance compared to Engine 43) Phase 2 ΔC= −1.54% (Engine 43's performance improved by 4.83% compared to Engine 44 which is also receiving the additive) Phase 3 ΔC= 0.02% (Engine 44 loses 1.56% in performance after having the additive withdrawn. Residual benefit of the additive has not been determined. Phase 4 ΔC= −4.28% (When additive withdrawn from both engines, Engine 43 now using more than engine 44) Locomotive ID #'s 179 & 180 Type of work Miscellaneous short haul freight of up to 40 - gross ton cars and rail yard switching Number of re-fuellings In progress Phase 0 ΔC= −0.94% (Engine 179 using more fuel than Engine 180) Phase 1 ΔC= 6.06% (Engine 179 selected for Phase 1 - a 7% improvement in Engine 179's performance compared to Engine 180) Phase 2 ΔC= In progress

Conclusions:

    • The addition of Sample D1 additive to the 3000 horsepower locomotive engine number 44 resulted in a 13% improvement in fuel efficiency compared to its twin engine number 43. These two engines were working a longer haul coal car assignment.
    • When introduction of the Sample D1 additive is made to the 2000 horsepower engine number 179 working primarily an inefficient switching assignment, the result was a 7% improvement in fuel efficiency compared to its twin engine number 180.
    • As the Sample D1 additive was introduced to engine 43 after having been introduced to engine 44, there was a 4.83% improvement in engine 43's performance compared to engine 44. Keeping in mind that the comparison numbers are derived from two now “clean” engines, we do not expect the shift to be as pronounced as it was when one engine is “clean” and the other “dirty”.

Although not subjected to performance testing herein, the following blended additive admixtures in Table 1 were formulated and dissolved into hydrocarbon fuel.

TABLE 1 TABLE 1 (a) (b) (c) Sample (preferably for diesel) D1 50 25 25 G1 60 20 20 (preferably for Kerosene) K1 75 12.5 12.5 D2 40 30 30 D3 45 27.5 27.5 (preferably for diesel) K2 60 40 0

Example 5

The engine used was a 14-litre NTA855R3 engine previously installed into a South West Trains Class 159 diesel multiple unit. The engine had been removed from the vehicle several weeks before completing a full operating life of 500,000 miles (nominal), in order to carry out the Sulphur Free Diesel (SFD) and additional test work. Upon completion of the tests, it was intended to submit the engine for a full overhaul.

Standards BS 2869 Class A2 gas oil was used for the test. The fuel was transferred to IBC units and dosed with the D1 additive in a ratio of 1:600 by volume.

The lubricating oil used was Shell Fortisol Fleet SG/CF-4, 15W-40.

The following test schedule was defined:—

    • Initial performance and emissions data with standard gas oil.
    • 40-hour conditioning run at 100% engine load and speed using the additised fuel.
    • Final performance and emissions data with the additised fuel.

Both the initial and final performance data consisted of Full Load Power Curves (FLPC), with data recorded at eight load conditions across the engine speed range. Two complete data sets were taken for both the initial and final configurations, one before and one after the emissions readings.

Gaseous and particulate emissions data was measured according to ISO 8178 Test Cycle F for rail traction, which applies a weighting factor to each of the three load conditions tested (full rated speed/load, zero load at idle speed and an intermediate load at 50% torque). Gaseous emissions comprised nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon dioxide (CO2) and oxygen (O2). To ensure repeatability, five sets of emissions data were taken for both the ‘before’ and ‘after’ tests, again with mean values being used for the subsequent data analysis and graph plotting.

All of the above test cycles were programmed into the test cell control system to enable automatic operation and ensure repeatability of measurement conditions.

Immediately prior to the conditioning run, the engine was run from the test cell day tank only in order to drain as much of the standard gas oil as possible from the supply system. During the 40-hour run, engine performance data (excluding emissions) was recorded at 30-minute intervals to enable subsequent identification of any trends as a result of the additive effects. The conditioning run was operated continuously, with the exception of one brief stop for service checks after 17.75 hours.

The engine fuel filter was renewed before the start of the initial FLPC tests, and again after the conditioning run and before the final FLPC tests. The engine lubricating oil was not renewed before testing, as this had been carried out approximately 20 hours previously. A sample of lubricating oil was taken for analysis before the start of the Initial FLPC tests, and again at the conclusion of the conditioning run.

All data throughout the testing was corrected to the relevant BS/ISO standards as follows: —

    • Power and fuel consumption corrected to BS ISO 15550:2002 and BS ISO 3046-1:2002 for standard reference conditions of 1000 kPa barometric pressure and 298 K ambient temperature.
    • Gaseous emissions corrected to BS EN ISO 8178-1 for mass flow corrections.
    • Nitrogen oxide emissions additionally corrected to BS EN ISO 8178-1 for relative humidity and air temperature.
    • Gaseous and particulate emissions weighted according to the requirements of BS EN ISO 8178-4.

To ensure accuracy of the gaseous emissions measurements, all analysers were calibrated at the start of each day, with ‘zero’ and ‘span’ checks carried out at the end of each day to check for analyzer drift.

FIGS. 2 and 3 show the comparison of specific fuel consumption, assessed on a mass and volume basis respectively. Both graphs show a comparable reduction in fuel consumption for a given speed/load setting. FIG. 4 represents this as a percentage reduction, based upon volume flow measurements. A minimum reduction of nearly 7% is evident at high load, improving further to 10.5% reduction at the lowest speeds.

FIG. 5 shows the ongoing fuel consumption reduction during the conditioning run. This shows that the fuel consumption improvement appeared to be stabilizing towards the end of the run.

Particulate emissions are shown in FIG. 6. A significant reduction of 95% in PM emissions is apparent.

The magnitude of the power reduction varied from 2-3% for the lower load settings, up to 4.5-5.5% at the higher load factors, see FIG. 7.

FIG. 8 shows the ongoing power reduction during the conditioning run. This indicates that the power reduction may not have stabilized at the end of the run.

Fuel Consumption Effects

Comparing the fuel consumption effects in both mass and volume terms produced comparable trends, indicating that there had been no effect on the fuel density.

By assessing the fuel consumption in specific terms, this showed a clear and significant combustion improvement from the use of the additive on a ‘per kW’ basis.

Even in absolute terms, the magnitude of the fuel consumption improvements was greater than the power reduction effect, further indicating an improvement in combustion conditions. This fuel consumption improvement appeared to have stabilised by the end of the conditioning run.

Emission Effects

Small improvements in THC, CO and CO2 were achieved, although these may be due at least in part to the reduction in power. Given the improvement in measured exhaust smoke levels, an improvement in the PM emissions was expected, but the magnitude of the reduction was a surprise. Although it does not make a particular difference to the scale of this reduction, it should be noted that due to the general engine deterioration already referenced since installation on the test bed, the untreated gas oil PM results were double the levels measured at the start of the original test programme.

Due to the calibration regime in place, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the measurements, particularly given the repeatability of the individual readings. However, the accuracy of the instrumentation was checked by mi Technology during its subsequent use on another assignment, with no defects established.

Power Effects

The details and potential cause of the observed power reduction are discussed below. Importantly, despite this reduction, the measured boost pressure remained largely unaltered, suggesting improved fuel/air mixing and more efficient combustion. Had there been no power reduction, it would be reasonable to have expected an increase in boost pressure accordingly.

An initial power reduction of around 3% was noted within the first few hours of the conditioning run. The rate of power reduction then eased off, following a more gradual downward trend for the remainder of the run, with the exception of a temporary stable point around the middle of the run. The reason for this trend change is not clear, although it may be a temperature effect, as it did follow the engine's service check when it was shut down. Following this service check, the power reduction trend continued for the remainder of the run, with no apparent stabilizing effect at the conclusion.

As noted, the magnitude of the power reduction was greatest at the higher loads. It is believed that this may indicate the reason for the effect. Other parameters (discussed later in this section) clearly indicate that the additive was having an effect on combustion conditions within the cylinder. One particular claim is for the additive to clean up combustion chamber components. It was clear from the engine oil consumption and the oil analysis results that engine wear was occurring, and indeed had worsened since the engine had first been installed on the test bed for the original test programme.

Given that a certain level of piston ring/liner wear had occurred within the engine (as indicated by the rising iron levels in the oil), it is also likely that a level of ring groove packing and carbon deposition on the top land of the piston would have occurred. Whilst generally undesirable, these deposits may have formed an additional seal in the ring area against combustion gas blowby. It is feasible that the additive had started to clear some of these deposits, exposing the full effects of the ring wear and increasing the blowby. This effect would be more pronounced at the maximum cylinder pressures of the higher engine ratings. The increased oil consumption observed during the latter stages of the load run is also likely to be, at lest partly, attributable to this effect.

In Summary:—

  • 1 A Cummins NTA855R3 engine due for overhaul has successfully completed a 40-hour load run using fuel dosed with the fuel additive D1 in a ratio of 1:600 by volume. Performance and emissions data has been measured before and after this load run.
  • 2 Significant improvements in specific fuel consumption were obtained across the load range, from a minimum of 6.9% at full load, increasing to 10.4% at lower loads, demonstrating a clear combustion improvement on a ‘per kW’ basis.
  • 3 For the gaseous emissions, there were improvements in hydrocarbons (4.3%), carbon monoxide (12.8%) and carbon dioxide (8.5%).
  • 4 Particulate matter and exhaust smoke both reduced significantly, by 95% and 24.6% respectively. The magnitude of the particulate reduction was unexpected.
  • 5 Performance data following the load run showed reductions in power output compared with the pre-load run data, also evident during the run itself. The reason for this power reduction is not known, but is not considered to be due to use of the additive. It is more likely that increased gas blowby was occurring on a worn engine, as suggested by the lubricating oil sample results.
  • 6 From the performance data at the end of the load run, the power reduction varied between 2-3% at the lower load settings, up to 4.5-5.5% at the higher loads.
  • 7 Despite the reduction in power output, the boost pressure at the conclusion of the test remained largely unaltered, indicating improved fuel/air mixing and subsequent more efficient combustion.
  • 8 Overall, the fuel additive has had its most beneficial effect on fuel consumption and particulate matter, confirming a combustion improvement, either directly and/or as a result of combustion chamber cleaning. It is assumed that the power reduction observed might be characteristic of the engine tested and not therefore typical for other engines using the additive.

Example 6 Long-Haul Fuel Consumption Test

The long-haul fuel-consumption test is based on SAE J1321 and provides a standardized test procedure for comparing the in-service fuel consumption of a test vehicle operating under two different conditions relative to the consumption of a control vehicle. A test route and load are selected that are representative of actual operations and are the same for both trucks; the route should be about 55 km long. The two trucks used in the test need to be as similar a specification as possible except, one is modified with the technology to be tested and one unmodified. During the test, each driver follows the same driving parameters so as to minimize the impact of driver variation. For the purpose of the test, each truck is equipped with a temporary fuel tank that allows fuel use to be measured by weight.

An initial long-haul test is run before introducing the additive to the test truck. In this test, the trucks are driven over the test route for several runs until it can be statistically established that the results are repeatable. Fuel use is accurately tracked based on the weight of temporary fuel tanks before and after each run. This test acts as the baseline. The same trucks are then run through the same test a second time, but the test truck has the additive added to the fuel to determine the potential improvement in fuel efficiency. This final test is done after running the test truck for several months using the additive to ensure any purge periods are met. As in the initial test, the test run is repeated until it can be established that the results are statistically repeatable. Comparisons are then made between the initial test results and the modified test results as well as between the trucks in the test to establish the impact that the technology has on fuel efficiency.

Cold-Start Test

Because most of the truck owners asked whether the fuel additives would have any impact on the cold-weather performance of the trucks, a cold-start test was included based on SAE J1635. A numerical rating system is used to rate how the vehicle functions under specific operating conditions.

The purpose of the test is to evaluate how easy it is to start and drive a truck after it has been left under freezing conditions for at least 8 hours.

Test Site and Test Vehicle

COOP St-Felicien, QC:

    • 2004 Kenworth T800, powered by a CAT C-15 engine
    • On- and off-highway roundwood tractor-trailer
    • Started using on DiesollFT on Sep. 5, 2005

Test Results

Long-Haul Fuel Consumption Test

The baseline test and the final test have been completed. As a result, valid base test and final test truck/control truck (T/C) ratios have been determined.

Based on these ratios, the calculated fuel economy is 5.2%.

Even if a fleet test was not included in the research plan, fleet data had been analysed for the period prior to start the usage of the additive and the data for the last two months of usage. T/C ratios have been determined for both periods and the calculated fuel economy using fleet data is 5.6%.

Cold-Start Test

The cold-start test was performed on Jan. 28, 2006. The Start-Idle-Driveability (S-I-D) score was 9-8-9, meaning excellent start, very good idle and excellent drivability. Details of the test results are included.

Conclusions

The expected fuel savings have been confirmed by the result of the Long Haul Fuel Consumption Test, 5.2% fuel economy, and also by the results of the fleet data calculations (5.6% fuel savings). The vehicle using the additive had a very good behaviour during the Cold Start Test.

Cold Start and Drivability Test COLD START AND DRIVABILITY TEST FORM TEST NO:     1          DATE: January 28th, 2006 START Data Amount Walking light on- Start times, s Temperature ° C. time, s Stalls during start 1 2 3 Total −4.0 0.0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Rating Criteria Total start time rating, points Stalls downgrade, points 9 0 START Rating (S) 9 IDLE Rating criteria Rating in N/P Subjective evaluation Rating in 1st/D 9 Excellent idle quality, cannot feel engine running 9 8 ✓ Engine operation smooth, flawless, barely perceptible. ✓ 8 7 Engine vibration noticeable, but unobjectionable 7 6 Slight engine roughness, but speed remains relatively constant 6 5 Moderately rough engine, irritating condition 5 4 Disturbing engine roughness, but still confident of operating 4 3 Uncertainty that engine will stay running; heavy roughness 3 2 Frequent stalls, will not operate consistently 2 1 Multiple stalls, uncontrolled operation, throttle manipulation required 1 Idle in Neutral (0)/PARK Stalls and re-start times Rating Idle Idle Fluctuation Re-start time, s Downgrade RPM Heavy Trace/Light None Stalls 1 2 3 Total Initial Stalls Fluct. Final 0 ✓ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0 0.0 8.0 Idle in 1st gear (manual, clutch disengaged) or DRIVE (automatic) Rating Idle Idle Fluctuation Downgrade RPM Heavy Trace/Light None Stalls Initial Stalls Fluct. Final 0 ✓ 0 8.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 IDLE Rating (I) 8 DRIVABILITY Idle 10 s in REVERSE Idle 10 s 1st/DRIVE 1st Cycle 1, Section 1 Segm., Accel. pedal Speed, Segment Km Operation travel km/h RPM Backfire Bucking Detonation Harshness Hesistation Stall Surge Vibration 0.0-0.2 Light acceleration 1/4  0-40 0.2-0.3 Steady 40 0.3- Heavy acceleration 1/2 . . . 7/8 40-55 ✓ ✓ 0.3-0.5 Steady 55 0.5- Brake to stop 55-0  Idle 10 s in N(0)/P 1st Cycle 1, Section 2 0.5- WOT acceleration Full  0-55 ✓ 0.5- Closed-throttle 0 55-15 deccel. 0.5-0.6 Steady 15 0.6- Moderate 1/4 . . . 1/2 15-40 acceleration 0.6-0.8 Steady 40 0.8- Brake to stop 40-0  Idle 30 s in N(0)/P Lock-to-lock steering manoeuvre 1st Cycle 2 0.8-1.1 Crowd acceleration  0-70 1.1-1.4 Steady 70 1.4- Closed-throttle 0 70-40 deccel. 1.4- Heavy acceleration 1.2 . . . 7/8 40-55 1.4-1.6 Steady 55 1.6- Brake 55-0  1.6- 5 s Idle 0 1.6- Interrupted acceleration 1.6-1.7 Moderate 1/4 . . . 1/2  0-40 acceleration 1.7- Brake 40-  Idle 30 s in N(0)/P 2nd Cycle 1, Section 1 0.0-0.2 Light acceleration 1/4  0-40 0.2-0.3 Steady 40 0.3- Heavy acceleration 1/2 . . . 7/8 40-55 0.3-0.5 Steady 55 0.5- Brake to stop 55-0  Idle 10 s in N(0)/P 2nd Cycle 1, Section 2 0.5- WOT acceleration Full  0-55 0.5- Closed-throttle 0 55-15 deccel. 0.5-0.6 Steady 15 0.6- Moderate 1/4 . . . 1/2 15-40 acceleration 0.6-0.8 Steady 40 0.8- Brake to stop 40-0  Idle 30 s in N(0)/P Lock-to-Lock steering manoeuvre 2nd Cycle 2 0.8-1.1 Crowd acceleration  0-70 1.1-1.4 Steady 70 1.4- Closed-throttle 0 70-40 deccel. 1.4- Heavy acceleration 1/2 . . . 7/8 40-55 1.4-1.6 Steady 55 1.6- Brake 55-0  1.6- 5 s Idle 0 1.6- Interrupted acceleration 1.6-1.7 Moderate 1/4 . . . 1/2  0-40 acceleration 1.7- Brake 40-0  Idle 30 s in N(o)/P Shut-off the engine Summary of drivability test Defect Backfire Bucking Detonation Harshness Hesitation Stall Surge Vibration Summary NO NO NO NO YES NO NO YES 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Downgrades 0 0 0 0 −0.5 0 0 0 DRIVABILITY Rating (D) 9 FINAL RATING: START, IDLE AND DRIVABILITY (SID) S I D 9 8 9 Explanation START IDLE DRIVABILITY Excellent Very good (Engine operation smooth, Excellent (Excellent drivability, no flawless, barely perceptible) trace of defects, solid/responsive) Elaborated by Marius-Dorin Surcel

Example 7

The objective of the test was to conduct fuel consumption tests on a heavy vehicle with and without a diesel additive in order to establish the fuel saving performance of the diesollFT additive. The following tests were conducted:

    • Constant speed fuel economy at 60 km/h and 80 km/h and maximum speed in top gear.

The fuel consumption tests were conducted on a Samil 100 truck. The vehicle was loaded with a simulation mass of 8 tons and was instrumented with calibrated Datron speed and fuel measuring equipment. The temperature of the fuel was measured and the results were calculated accordingly. The tests were only conducted when the wind speed was below 3 m/s.

First the test vehicle was run for one hour at maximum speed around the high speed oval track to warm the vehicle to operating conditions. The fuel consumption was then determined for the truck without any additive. The vehicle tank was topped with diesel and the additive was mixed at a ratio of 1 to 600 in the tank. The vehicle was run for 120 km and the fuel consumption was again determined. The initial results showed no significant improvement and it was decided to continue with the vehicle running on the additive for another period in order to increase the exposure of the engine to the additive.

After another 500 km the fuel consumption was repeated and the improvements in fuel consumption were still not significant. The vehicle was driven for another 257 km and the fuel consumption results then started to show an improvement of 3.9% and 4.1% at 60 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. After another 668 km the improvement went up to 5% for each speed. The test again was repeated after another 1527 km and the improvements were 5.5% and 8.0% at 60 km/h and 80 km/h respectively. The maximum speed fuel consumption did not vary significantly with or without the additive.

The following conditions were applicable before any test was started to ensure repeatability:

    • Every test was started at the same time in the morning.
    • For all the tests the vehicle was run to operating temperatures before recordings started.
    • Fuel temperature was measured for correction factors.
    • The wind speed was below 3 m/s for all the tests.
    • The same test driver was used all the time,

TABLE 1 Fuel consumption Consumption (km/l) Without With additive Speed Additive Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 60 km/h 3.122 3.148 3.125 3.244 3.282 3.294 80 km/h 2.439 2.435 2.461 2.538 2.563 2.635 Maximum 2.116 2.059 2.061 2.146 2.130 2.093 Speed

TABLE 2 Percentage difference The fuel consumption without the additive was used as baseline Percentage Improvement (%) Speed Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 60 km/h −0.85 −0.12 −3.90 −5.13 −5.52 80 km/h 0.15 −0.90 −4.05 −5.07 −8.04 Maximum 2.69 2.62 −1.40 −0.66 1.09 Speed Note: Negative value indicates better fuel consumption than baseline Positive value indicates worse fuel consumption than baseline

Results Fuel Consumption

Fuel Consumption without the Additive

TABLE 3 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp after temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.2 627 23.9 629.4 3.18 2 60.4 641 24.2 643.7 3.11 3 60.3 638 24.5 640.9 3.12 4 60.1 646 24.7 649.0 3.08 Average 60.3 638 24.325 640.8 3.122

TABLE 4 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp after temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.2 836 25.2 840.3 2.38 2 80.0 831 25.6 835.7 2.39 3 80.4 795 25.3 799.2 2.50 4 80.5 802 25.4 806.3 2.48 Average 80.3 816.0 25.4 820.4 2.439

TABLE 5 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp after temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 94.4 950 25.5 955.2 2.09 2 94.5 940 25.6 945.3 2.12 3 94.5 938 25.7 943.3 2.12 4 94.4 931 25.8 936.4 2.14 Average 94.5 939.8 25.7 945.1 2.116

Fuel Consumption with Additive after 120 km

TABLE 6 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.3 638 32.8 646.2 3.10 2 60.1 617 32.6 624.8 3.20 Average 60.2 627.5 32.7 635.5 3.148

TABLE 7 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.4 811 33.2 821.7 2.43 2 80.2 810 33.3 820.8 2.44 Average 80.3 810.5 33.3 821.2 2.435

TABLE 8 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 93.7 945 33.3 957.6 2.09 2 93.7 972 33.5 985.1 2.03 Average 93.7 958.5 33.4 971.3 2.059 Note: Only two runs were conducted because no improvement was noticed

Fuel Consumption with Additive after 620 km

TABLE 9 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.4 651 25.4 654.5 3.06 2 60.0 627 25.9 630.7 3.17 3 60.2 637 26.3 641.0 3.12 4 60.1 630 26.2 633.9 3.16 Average 60.2 636.3 26.0 640.0 3.125

TABLE 10 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.2 791 26.8 796.4 2.51 2 80.4 801 27 806.6 2.48 3 80.3 823 27.4 829.1 2.41 4 80.3 813 27.8 819.3 2.44 Average 80.3 807.0 27.3 812.9 2.461

TABLE 11 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 94.1 972 28.2 980.0 2.04 2 94.2 955 28.4 963.0 2.08 3 94.2 956 28.3 963.9 2.07 4 94.2 967 28.2 974.9 2.05 Average 94.2 962.5 28.3 970.5 2.061

Fuel Consumption with Additive with 757 km

TABLE 12 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.2 615 22.6 616.6 3.24 2 60.0 610 23.0 611.8 3.27 3 60.2 622 23.3 624.1 3.20 4 60.1 612 23.4 614.1 3.26 Average 60.1 614.8 23.1 616.6 3.244

TABLE 13 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.2 777 23.6 779.8 2.56 2 80.4 784 23.9 787.1 2.54 3 80.4 791 24.1 794.2 2.52 4 80.3 788 24.3 791.4 2.53 Average 80.3 785.0 24.0 788.1 2.538

TABLE 14 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 95.0 937 24.9 941.6 2.12 2 95.2 928 24.8 932.5 2.14 3 95.2 922 24.8 926.4 2.16 4 95.2 923 24.8 927.4 2.16 Average 95.2 927.5 24.8 932.0 2.146

Fuel Consumption with Additive after 1425 km

TABLE 15 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.7 599 26.9 603.1 3.32 2 60.2 605 27.0 609.2 3.28 3 60.2 608 27.6 612.6 3.26 4 60.3 608 27.9 612.8 3.26 Average 60.4 605.0 27.4 609.4 3.282

TABLE 16 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.5 782 28.6 788.7 2.54 2 80.3 771 28.9 777.9 2.57 3 80.0 765 29.2 772.0 2.59 4 80.3 776 29.4 783.3 2.55 Average 80.3 773.5 29.0 780.5 2.563

TABLE 17 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 95.0 935 29.6 944.0 2.12 2 95.1 923 30.3 932.5 2.14 3 94.9 930 30.6 939.9 2.13 4 95.0 929 30.6 938.8 2.13 Average 95.0 929.3 30.3 938.8 2.130

Fuel Consumption with Additive after 2952 km

TABLE 18 Fuel consumption at steady 60 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 60.3 604 34.0 612.5 3.27 2 60.3 605 34.2 613.6 3.26 3 60.1 589 34.2 597.4 3.35 4 60.1 597 34.2 605.5 3.30 Average 60.2 598.8 34.2 607.2 3.294

TABLE 19 Fuel consumption at steady 80 km/h for 2000 m Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 80.3 750 28.0 756.0 2.65 2 80.1 762 28.1 768.2 2.60 3 79.9 749 27.9 754.9 2.65 4 80.0 751 28.0 757.0 2.64 Average 80.1 753.0 28.0 759.0 2.635

TABLE 20 Fuel consumption at maximum speed Consumption Consumption Temp After temp Run Speed (km/h) (ml) (° C.) (ml) (km/l) 1 95.7 947 30.9 957.3 2.09 2 95.1 950 31.0 960.5 2.08 3 95.7 946 31.1 956.5 2.09 4 95.7 937 31.2 947.5 2.11 Average 95.6 945.0 31.1 955.4 2.093

Claims

1-30. (canceled)

31. A fuel composition comprising at least 95% by weight of at least predominantly hydrocarbon liquid fuel and 0.001 to 5.0% by weight of fuel additive, wherein the additive comprises:

a) 20 to 90% by weight of at least one alkoxylated alcohol corresponding to general Formula (I)
wherein R1 is C6-C16, R2 is H or CH3; and x is 1-7;
b) 40 to 10% by weight of at least one polyalkylene glycol ester corresponding to the following general Formula (II)
wherein R3 is C11-C19, R4 is H or CH3, y is 1-20, R5 is H or COR3; and
c) 40 to 0% by weight of at least one alkanolamide corresponding to the following general Formula (III)
wherein R6 is C12-C18, R7 is H or CH2CH2OH provided that the sum of (a), (b) and, when present, (c), constitutes 100% by weight of said fuel additive present in the fuel composition.

32. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein alkoxylated alcohol (a) comprises 20 to 70% by weight of the additive, preferably 40 to 60% by weight, more preferably 50 to 60% by weight.

33. A composition as claimed in claim 31 wherein R1 is C9-C11, and x is about 2.5.

34. A composition as claimed in claim 32 wherein R1 is C9-C11, and x is about 2.5.

35. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein polyalkylene glycol ester (b) comprises 40 to 15% by weight of the additive, preferably 35 to 25% by weight, more preferably 30 to 25% by weight.

36. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein R3 is C17 and R5 is COR3.

37. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein alkanolamide (c) when present comprises 40 to 15% by weight of the additive, preferably 25 to 15% by weight.

38. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein R6 is C17 and R7 is CH2CH2OH.

39. A composition as claimed in claim 31, wherein the liquid hydrocarbon fuel is naturally obtained petroleum distillate fuel or residual fuel oil such as diesel fuel, gasoline, or kerosene, optionally blended with other alternative predominantly hydrocarbon fuel.

40. A composition as claimed in claim 39, wherein the fuel is gasoline optionally blended with gas-to-liquid condensate and/or alkanol such as ethanol.

41. A composition as claimed in claim 39, wherein the fuel is kerosene optionally blended with any predominantly hydrocarbon based alternative thereto.

42. A composition as claimed in claim 39, wherein the fuel is diesel optionally blended with biodiesel, gas-to-liquid diesel condensates, and diesel/alkanol such as diesel/ethanol blends.

43. A composition as claimed in claim 39, wherein the fuel comprises of residual heavy fuel oil.

44. A fuel additive concentrate which comprises about 80 to 20% by weight of a fuel additive comprising (a) plus (b) optionally plus (c) as defined in claim 1 and about 20 to 80% of fuel solvent.

45. A concentrate as claimed in claim 44, wherein the fuel additive comprises about 70 to 30% by weight of the concentrate and the fuel solvent comprises about 30 to 70% by weight of the concentrate.

46. A concentrate as claimed in claim 44, wherein the fuel additive comprises about 60 to 40% by weight of the concentrate and the fuel solvent comprises about 40 to 60% by weight of the concentrate.

47. A concentrate as claimed in claim 44, wherein the solvent is a fuel selected from the group consisting of petroleum distillate fuel and/or alternative diesel, gasoline fuels, kerosene fuels, and combinations thereof.

48. A fuel composition formulated to produce improved fuel economy when subject to combustion, said composition comprising:

about 95 to 99.9999% by weight of predominantly hydrocarbon liquid fuel; and
about 0.0001 to 5% by weight of fuel additive concentrate as defined in claim 44.

49. A method of making a fuel additive suitable for use in a composition as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising the steps of admixing in any order a blend comprising the following components:

a) 20 to 90% by weight of at least one alkoxylated alcohol having the following general Formula (I)
wherein R1 is C6-C16, R2 is H or CH3; and x is 1-7;
b) 40 to 10% by weight of at least one polyalkylene glycol ester corresponding to the following general Formula (II)
wherein R3 is C11-C19, R4 is H or CH3, y is 1-20, R5 is H or COR3; and
optionally
c) 40 to 0% by weight of at least one alkanolamide corresponding to the following general Formula (III)
wherein R6 is C12-C18, R7 is H or CH2CH2OH
subject to the proviso that the sum of the amounts of components (a), (b), and, when present, (c) equates to 100% by weight of said fuel additive.

50. A method as claimed in claim 49, wherein the step of preparing the blend comprises admixing about 20 to 70% by weight, preferably 40 to 60%, more preferably 50 to 60% of alkoxylated alcohol (a).

51. A method as claimed in claim 49, wherein R3 is C17 and R5 is COR3.

52. A method as claimed in claim 49, wherein R6 is about C17 and R7 is —CH2CH2OH.

53. A method of making fuel additive concentrate comprising, in any order, the steps of:

preparing an additive blend comprising the steps of claim 49, in any order;
admixing about 80 to 20% by weight of the additive blend with about 20 to 80% by weight of at least predominantly hydrocarbon fuel solvent.

54. A method as claimed in claim 53, wherein the solvent is a fuel selected from the group consisting of petroleum distillate derived diesel, gasoline, kerosene, or combinations thereof, optionally blended with alternative non-petroleum distillate derived predominantly hydrocarbon fuel.

55. A method of making a fuel composition formulated to improve fuel economy when subject to combustion, said method comprising the steps of:

preparing a fuel additive concentrate according to a method as claimed in claim 53; and
admixing about 95 to 99.9999% by weight of predominantly hydrocarbon liquid fuel with 0.0001 to 5% by weight of said fuel additive concentrate.
Patent History
Publication number: 20090049740
Type: Application
Filed: Sep 29, 2006
Publication Date: Feb 26, 2009
Applicant: INTERNATIONAL FUEL TECHNOLOGY, INC. (St. Louis, MO)
Inventor: Ian David Hurst (Essex)
Application Number: 12/088,429
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: With Alkanol, Ketone, Or Phenol (44/411)
International Classification: C10L 1/18 (20060101);