Deposit Control in Modern Diesel Fuel Injection Systems

Rinaldo Caprotti, Nadia Bhatti and Graham Balfour

Infineum UK, Ltd.

2010-01-2250
Published 10/25/2010

Copyright 2010 SAE International

ABSTRACT
Modern diesel Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) systems are susceptible to the formation of a variety of deposits. These can occur in different locations, e.g. in nozzle spray-holes and inside the injector body. The problems associated with deposits are increasing and are seen in both Passenger Car (PC) and Heavy Duty (HD) vehicles. Mechanisms responsible for the formation of these deposits are not limited to one particular type. This paper reviews FIE deposits developed in modern PC and HD engines using a variety of bench engine testing and field trials. Euro 4/ IV and Euro 5/V engines were selected for this programme. The fuels used ranged from fossil only to distillate fuels containing up to 10% Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) and then treated with additives to overcome the formation of FIE deposits. It was observed that engine performance was significantly impacted by the formation of deposits which may lead to increased fuel consumption, loss in power, poor driveability and failure to start. The selection of appropriate fuel additive technology allows control of all deposit types, either by preventing their formation or restoring engine performance.

Europe a target of 120 g/km for passenger cars will be phased in from 2012 to 2015, with punitive financial penalties for failure to meet the targets. For light commercial vehicles, the fleet average CO2 limit will be 175 g/km, being phased in from 2014 to 2016. Diesel powertrains have already undergone major technical advances in order to satisfy regulatory and end user requirements, and these will continue to be further developed. Advances in Common Rail (CR) FIE have included increased injection pressure, multiple injection strategies, smaller nozzle holes and high efficiency injector nozzles. These measures ensure the precise and repeatable metering of even the smallest quantities of fuel as well as providing the excellent fuel atomisation and spray characteristics necessary across all engine operating conditions to promote more complete combustion. Other recent developments have included direct-acting piezoelectric injectors, which provide improved atomisation and more accurate fuelling control resulting in reduced gaseous emissions, higher power and torque and improved fuel economy [1]. These recent technical advances in fuel injection systems require components to be smaller and lighter to ensure highly dynamic response. They need to be manufactured to very exacting tolerances and have to operate within very small clearances to minimise any leakage at the very high pressures encountered in modern systems. Therefore, it is essential that the FIE is kept free from deposits of any kind and is operated with fuel which is fit for purpose, otherwise problems of power loss, emissions non-compliance, reduced fuel economy, poor driveability and difficulty in starting are likely to be observed.

INTRODUCTION
Modern-day diesel powered vehicles are subject to increasingly stringent exhaust emission regulations, whilst at the same time having to meet end user requirements with respect to power, torque, fuel economy, good driveability and increasing levels of refinement. In addition, concerns over climate change have resulted in measures being taken to reduce CO2 emissions from road transport. For example, in

DEPOSIT FORMATION IN OLD, CURRENT AND MODERN FIE SYSTEMS

Injector spray-hole deposits have been observed for many years. Historically, these were most problematical in InDirect Injection (IDI) engines operating with pintle type injector nozzles. This resulted in the development of the CEC-023 injector deposit test based upon a Peugeot XUD9 engine intended for passenger car applications. The test defined an acceptable level of deposit which would allow satisfactory engine performance. This enabled the engine manufacturers and FIE companies to develop FIE systems which were specifically designed to operate with the levels of deposits which would result from operation with typical market fuels [2]. Mentioned in this reference is that 'complete elimination of deposits is undesirable as nozzles are designed to give optimum performance with a certain level of deposit. This is the only FIE system where complete cleanliness is considered undesirable. However, the use of this particular type of FIE design was discontinued in the late 1990's because if its inability to meet stringent emission regulations. Direct Injection (DI) and High Speed Direct Injection (HSDI) engines did not suffer to the same extent, but more recently the trend for smaller holes and high efficiency nozzles has resulted in many more instances of injector spray-hole deposits causing problems [3, 4, 5]. The reasons for this increase include: 1. Smaller holes which for a given deposit level will result in a proportionately larger reduction in flow area and therefore larger flow rate reduction, resulting in loss of torque and power. 2. High efficiency nozzles with honed entry to nozzle holes and/or tapered nozzle holes resulting in reduction or elimination of cavitating flow within the nozzle. The collapse of cavities in such flow regimes is known to be effective in dislodging and preventing the build up of deposits. 3. Combustion and air management trends resulting in higher nozzle tip temperatures, which promote nozzle deposits. The trend towards downsized engines will tend to exacerbate this. The FIE systems utilised since the late 1990s, unlike those described in reference 2, require no or very minor level of deposits to perform at their best, hence ensuring the lowest possible level of noxious emissions and fuel consumption. Therefore, a fuel additive solution to control deposit formation is very complex to achieve as the requirements are dependent of the FIE type. It is therefore the remit of the additive and fuel formulator to develop solutions that are applicable to such a diverse range of FIE systems. This challenging target can however be met as described in reference [6] where the best level of spray-hole deposit is achieved for any FIE system in the market:

I). No deposits in modern FIE systems II). The level of deposit that the IDI system has been calibrated to [2] Internal Injector Deposits (IID) are a relatively new phenomenon, initially reported in PC applications [7, 8], and now increasingly observed in PC and HD vehicles. Currently the problem appears to be particularly acute in HD applications in North America, and as a consequence the CRC has now formed a working group to look at this issue. In addition, there have been reports of deposits in high pressure fuel pumps causing operational problems.

FUEL ADDITIVE APPROACH

The problems described in the previous chapter are seen in a variety of countries and can occur in PC and HD type applications equipped with High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) systems or with Electronic Unit Injectors (EUI). These problems are not specific to one fuel type as they are seen in markets that have Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) fuel, but also in markets where sulphur (S) level is up to 500 ppm. It would seem that the presence of Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) can significantly vary the level of deposit, sometimes more, equivalent or lower than that seen in fossil based diesel fuel. Therefore, the mix of issues is complex and is somewhat difficult to postulate mechanisms that describe all the phenomena experienced. It has been made aware to the authors that more than 20 companies around the world have reported one or more of these issues related to injector deposits. Traditionally, injector deposits have been tackled by the use of detergent/surfactants chemistries developed in the 1980s. Through their life, such fuel additives have undergone a variety of improvements to increase their performance and cost effectiveness. However, studies carried out recently [3, 4, 6] have confirmed that these chemistries are no longer the best option to deal with a type of deposit that is chemically different from the wholly carbonaceous type deposit seen in IDI type FIE or that which is formed in a completely different area of the fuel injector [7,8]. The challenge then becomes the development of an additive solution which can deal with all these types of deposits. This would then allow any fuel used in the market place to overcome most of the issues that have recently surfaced, and this is the task that has been addressed in this paper. New diesel detergent technology has been tested in a variety of FIE system applications to understand the potential for the control of different types of injector deposit. In some of these tests, the results obtained have also been compared with conventional diesel detergents. The testing carried out used modern engines which are fitted with the latest FIE systems. As such, the expectation is that

there should not be a large change in engine performance over the short period of time typical of the deposit test cycles described in this paper. Therefore, the effects that are observed in the testing carried out can be largely attributed to FIE deposits being formed.

Table 1. Zn and Na content of 25 ULSD market samples

Engine Testing
The testing undertaken encompassed the use of the CEC DW10 bench engine test and field trials using passenger cars fitted with CR Euro 4 engines to assess the performance regarding spray-hole deposits. HD bench engine tests were used to confirm additive performance in EUI Euro IV engines, whilst an advanced Euro V engine was used to understand the ability to prevent one particular type of internal injector deposits.

Test Fuels
In the market today there are a variety of fuel qualities. These range from fuels of different S level, to those containing different level of bio-component, typically FAME. In order to confirm the performance of the additives tested, a variety of fossil fuels and BX have been selected (X is the percentage of bio-component). Today, diesel fuel can contain biocomponent. In Europe B7 is now becoming more prevalent and as the level of the bio-component will further increase in the future, most of the data were developed in European type fuels containing 10% FAME. Zinc contamination has been used in most testing presented in this study. Metal contamination has shown to be present in field conditions. Two sources have been described, the first contamination occurs prior to fuel delivery into vehicle tanks; the other happens due to the corrosive attack of the fuel toward FIE components [5, 11]. Therefore, there is scope for metal contamination of fuel throughout its pathway from refinery to its combustion in the engine. The metal contamination, together with fuel degradation products, can accumulate within the FIE system causing deposits that can lead to increased fuel consumption, loss in power and poor drivability. A further study has been conducted to confirm this potential. Twenty five different ULSD fuel samples have been collected from service stations in the same market/ country. The level of metal contamination was measured. Several metals were found to be present including Zn, Na. The level of Zn and Na measured is reported in the table 1 below. In this market FAME is not yet used. The expectation is that the presence of this bio-component will further exacerbate the metal pick up potential.

Passenger Cars
With the plethora of fuel qualities available in the market place, there is an increasing incentive for an additive company to supply detergent technologies that work effectively across the board. The CEC F-098-08 Peugeot DW10 engine is widely recognised as the industry standard injector deposit test for Euro 5 and beyond [3, 6]. This section examines the appetite and propensity to form deposits of varying fuel types in this test with and without diesel detergents. Infineum's experience with this test has shown that base fuels of different origin have a varying degree of propensity to foul injectors resulting in power loss. The CEC procedure prescribes the use of DF-79-07 as the reference fuel for the test with and without metal contamination, where the metal contamination is 1 ppm Zinc (Zn). It can be noted that fossil fuels which are not contaminated with metal prior to the test do not usually show the tendency to foul injectors. However, the fouling levels can be quite substantial with the level of metal contamination used in the CEC reference fuel (which is indicative of the level of Zn observed in the field). Figure 1 demonstrates the level of power loss observed when using different fuels over an extended period of time. DF-79-07 at 32 hours has developed up to 6.5% power loss; conversely a standard EN590 fossil fuel (EU 1) achieved up to 12% power loss. Additional tests were then carried out to understand what the maximum possible fouling level was for both fuels. Extending the run time to 64 h did not change the level of deposit for the CEC reference fuel, however for EU 1 fuel, the deposit level further increased by an additional 5% by 80 h. Moreover, at the end of this test, this fuel continued to show a trend to develop further deposits. This phenomenon has also

Figure 1. DW10 power loss results for B0 reference fuels with 1 ppm Zn. been seen with other fuels from Europe and Asia Pacific in testing recently carried out. The level of fouling shown is similar to the EU 1 fuel, whilst different batches of the CEC reference fuel, tested in different DW10 engines, have only given between 4 and 6% power loss with 1 ppm Zn. These data suggest that the CEC reference fuel, if anything, is representative of market fuels which generate a low level of injector deposits. Possibly, the typical market fuel has a higher degree of fouling as also confirmed in other papers [9]. As previously mentioned, the use of FAME in the DW10 test can result in varying levels of injector fouling. Numerous papers, including that presented by the CEC working group, describe extensive studies in this area. There does not seem to be a clear and agreed position on why different biofuels in diesel generate different level of deposits. The level of possible oxidative degradation, as measured by the Rancimat test or inferred from the iodine value, and the level of impurities like mono-glycerides do not seem to correlate with the deposit formation rates observed [10]. Therefore, our work focussed on the use of test fuels containing biocomponent with 1 ppm Zn in an effort to provide consistency in deposit generation. The data in table 2 show that: 1. The European BX market fuels tested have a large deposit formation propensity when metal contamination occurs. 2. Using the same biofuel batch of RME, the results seen are very variable and also somewhat confusing. The RME10 alone has the highest level of injector deposit. When this test was repeated with 1 ppm Zn added, the result was better, from 15% to just below 5% power loss. This phenomenon has been seen in some studies, whilst others have reported the opposite effect [4]. 3. The reference fuel and the market fuel treated with the same batch of RME at different levels of BX gave substantially different results, from just below 5% power loss to more than 8%. 4. Different batches of commercial RME give can also give different results These data confirm that the behaviour of FAME is variable and can not be predicted as yet. Furthermore, the profile at 32 hours shows that deposit is still forming and, for some BX fuels, the downward trend is still very pronounced (not reported in this paper). The implication is that any additive treat rate that is used to control injector coking must take this into account. Therefore, any safe level selected for market use should be able to cope with fuels as severe as those shown. This is further supported by other studies where similarly high levels of deposits were reported for market fuels [9]. These types of injector deposits can be controlled with appropriate additive technology for entirely fossil and FAME containing diesel as shown in figure 2. The treat rate used (as active ingredient or as a component) for the new diesel detergent is substantially lower than the typical treat rate of conventional diesel detergent used in most standard market diesel fuel. The treat rate of the new diesel detergent used to develop the data in figure 2 is the same for fossil fuel and BX. For ease of interpretation, new diesel detergent has been abbreviated to NewD and conventional diesel detergent to ConvD in all figures going forward.

Table 2. DW10 results in BX fuels with and without 1 ppm Zn.

Figure 2. DW10 power loss results of base fuel with 1 ppm Zn and the same fuel treated with NewD, at a treat rate which is lower than typical treat rate of conventional detergent for most standard fuel qualities in the market place today. With the same additive technology it is possible to achieve reliable and consistent clean up performance in this type of test. The injectors are first run on base fuel for 32h, as per the CEC test, or until a certain level of power loss has been reached. Then, the same fuel treated with additive is used to assess its cleaning ability. Typically, additive treat rates used are higher than those applied to keep the injector clean. The ability of the new diesel detergent to remove deposits at a treat rate which is typical for top premium fuel qualities in the market place today can be seen in figure 3. The power loss in this engine test is proportional to the deposit level as confirmed by the findings of the CEC 098 working group. The clean up profile suggests that the vast majority of the deposit is removed in the first hour, approximately 70%, which corresponds to 2% absolute power loss. This is generally considered by the industry to be the maximum acceptable level for modern powertrains. The rate of cleaning reduces after the first hour and all the deposit is removed with a further 11 hours of running. The data have been obtained in a typical European B7 market fuel. It has been observed, that by varying the relative treat rates of the new diesel detergent technology, the rate/profile of power restoration in the first few hours will differ greatly, whilst the subsequent rate of cleaning is somewhat similar regardless of the additive treat rate level, see figure 4. This shows the potential that, at elevated treat rate, the new detergent can reach the industry target of less than 2% power loss well within a tank full of premium fuel (equivalent to 80% normalised power loss in figure 3). Several papers report that conventional diesel detergents, usually long chain poly-isobutylene/polar bridge/N rich surfactants, are less effective in this environment [8]. This describes the typical chemical signature of most diesel

Figure 3. Normalised power loss- DW10 clean up performance of new diesel detergent technology at treat rate which is typical for premium diesel fuel.

Figure 4. Clean up effects of varying additive treat rates in the first hour and after 32 hours run time in DW10. detergents currently used in the market place. Infineum's latest data confirms this. These types of detergents are ineffective in the DW10 test at typical market treat rates for fossil and for FAME containing fuels. The relative treat rates of conventional and new diesel detergent to achieve the same level of performance in the DW10 test are shown in figure 5. It is worth noting that with the conventional detergent it is not possible to reach a good level of clean up at market relevant treat rates. The level of conventional detergent can be reduced by utilising a Metal De-Activator (MDA). However, this approach is only applicable for maintaining clean injectors as MDAs are far less effective in clean up mode.

Field tests
In order to confirm the applicability of the bench engine test results to real life conditions, some passenger cars were tested in the field to assess their tendency to form injector deposits. This helped further understanding of the impact that field deposits can have on the designed engine performance and

Figure 5. Relative treat rate comparison (as active ingredient or component) of new diesel detergent technology vs. conventional current detergent in DW10. the benefits of restoration/prevention when utilising additive treated fuel. premium market fuel was used for 3,000km followed by an additional 3,500km with the same fuel top treated with the new diesel detergent technology (No added Zn contamination). In programme two, the used vehicle was fitted with new injectors. The fuel used was contaminated with Zn at 1 ppm, a level used in the reference fuel in the DW10 test and also found to be of possible market relevance [11]. After successful accumulation of deposits in 10,000 Km, the effect of utilising the new diesel detergent technology was assessed for a further 5,000 Km. For each programme, the vehicle was tested at regular intervals to indicate whether deposits were formed and if so, their impact on engine performance. To do this, a variety of tests were carried out. The typical testing regime involved the vehicle being preconditioned with a 12 hour soaking period followed by the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) for emission testing and fuel consumption (standard and hot conditions). Other cycles were also used to confirm the presence of deposit via power loss at different engine conditions. When one cycle was showing differences, the other tests were giving similar ratings confirming the validity of the results. The details of the test protocols are described below.

Test fuels
The fossil fuels tested were all EN590 compliant. Base fossil fuel was obtained directly from a European refinery, whilst the FAME (RME- rich) was sourced from a major producer and contained antioxidant. The premium market treated diesel fuel was sourced from the forecourt in a single batch. Zinc contamination was only used in programme 2.

Test Vehicles
Vehicles selected for this testing programme were two modern passenger car vehicles that comply with Euro 4 emission standards. The vehicles had CR fuel injection systems and did not have a diesel particulate filter. This type of vehicle is highly relevant as it represents 29% of European market sales in 2007, a segment known in the industry as Bclass. Each vehicle had completed approximately 100,000km of uncontrolled driving prior to the field trial and, when field tested, was loaded to simulate four passengers with luggage. Driving conditions were mostly uncontrolled highway driving, with some low speed operations, with driving speed dependant on speed limits and weather conditions. The vehicles were fully checked before the trial to ensure that there were no engine or vehicle problems.

Testing Programmes
Two different programmes were completed. For each programme, the vehicles were taken as received and assessed for the impact of deposits on the engine performance. Programme one was aimed at assessing the impact of fuel quality. As such, the vehicle was run as received. European

Test protocols
11- NEDC - This is the emissions regulatory cycle used in Europe for passenger cars and is well known. Therefore, it is not described in this paper. 22- Full load acceleration: measured using street load simulation and a warm engine, with a coolant temperature of about 90C. The vehicle is driven in gear at idle/low speed

Figure 6. Graph to show impact of deposits on power for injector sets A, B and C. (this must be always the same at the start of each test). Then, the throttle is set at 100%. When the engine speed reaches a set rpm, which is vehicle dependent, the throttle is then set to 0% to return to the original conditions. This is done three times. The average of the higher rpm data is used in this paper. For the vehicle tested, the gear used for this protocol was the 4th and the rpm were increased from 1000 to 4500rpm. 33- Full load: measured using the mode for constant vehicle speed and a warm engine, with a coolant temperature of about 90C. A constant vehicle speed is driven and the pedal value is set at 100% and maintained for about 3 minutes. The power at the roller is measured. From these data, it is possible to estimate the power provided to the wheel. The speed selected was 90 km/h. The results of both programmes will be discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs. Results of Programme One Programme one consisted of three distinct stages. At no stage was Zn contamination added to the fuel prior to fuelling the vehicle. The first stage assessed the vehicle as received from the field, which had accumulated approximately 100,000km of uncontrolled driving and fuel source. The vehicle was then fitted with new injectors and run for 2,000km. This was to assess the potential for power increase, similar to that seen in the initial phase of most CEC DW10 tests. Figure 6 compares the observed power loss across the injector sets. For ease of interpretation the differences in injector sets are described below: 1). Injectors as received from the field with approx 100,000km accumulated: Injector set A 2). Same vehicle fitted with new injectors: Injector set B at 0km 3). Same vehicle fitted with new injectors which have been run in for 2,000km: Injector set C Comparing injector set A vs. new injector set B, a 1.6% increase of power was measured with protocol 22. Similarly, a change in power was also observed when testing injector set C and B, a further 2.4% increase. Therefore, the total potential power loss between injectors as received from the field and the best possible with new run in injectors is 3.9%. This is a substantial level of power loss which is very likely to be experienced by a driver, particularly when accelerating. The loss in engine performance due to fouling is also reflected in an increase in fuel consumption as measured by protocol 11. The penalty was approximately 5.2%. The value of this initial test is that it indicates the maximum power achievable by a clean set of nozzles. This defines the true target for any test aimed at removing deposits as the value obtained with new injectors is lower than what achievable in the field after a running in period. The second stage involved assessing the impact of a premium market fuel on the already fouled injectors, set A. The vehicle with the old injectors (set A) ran in segments of 750km to a total accumulation of 3,000km. After each segment, the

Figure 7. Protocol 22- Power curve over time with treated premium market fuel and new diesel detergent technology.

Figure 8. Protocol 22-Power curve over time with B10 diesel fuel and treated with new diesel detergent technology vehicle was assessed in the same way as described above. The fuel utilised in this segment was a European market premium diesel fuel. Figure 7 shows the power loss observed over the period of testing in protocol 22. It can be noted that when using premium treated market fuel, the final power output further decreased by approximately 3.6% from the already fouled injectors or 7.3% power loss from new injectors after run in (Set C). The power level is seen to be stabilising from 2,250km to 3,000km. The test was then continued with premium market fuel top treated with the new diesel detergent additive at a level similar to that used for today's standard fuel. The fuel additive was added to the already treated premium market diesel fuel. At the end of an additional 3,500km, there was a power recovery of 1.8%, using the same test protocol. This resulted in a fuel consumption benefit of 9.4%; this is a very large value. However, whilst the absolute amount may be questioned as being too high, the trend to better fuel consumption with lower power loss has been confirmed also in the second programme and in other papers [4, 9]. Programme two involved generating deposits in the FIE system in a more controlled manner. A second vehicle was selected as per the criteria described above and fitted with a new set of injectors. The vehicle was fuelled with a B10RME dosed with 1 ppm Zn contamination and ran for 10,000km, after which the new diesel detergent was added at premium market treat rate. Figure 8 shows the power response over the mileage accumulated in the two phases using protocol 22. Within 10,000km a considerable power loss of 13.4% was observed, however the addition of the new diesel detergent at market relevant treat rates substantially restores power, almost to the original level achieved with clean injectors. It is worth noting that most of the power is recovered within 2,500 km. For the vehicle tested, a small passenger car, this is equivalent to three tanks full.

Figure 9. Protocol 33-Comparison of power loss in full load acceleration test Figure 9 shows the comparison of power loss in the full load acceleration test (protocol 33), where only three results are shown for improved clarity. There is a substantial loss when the deposit is formed, see the 10,000 km point vs. start of test. When using treated fuel, the majority of the deposit is removed and the power restored within 5,000 km. The results obtained in protocol 33 show the same benefit as that shown in figure 8. The fuel consumption data shown in figure 10, mirrors what is seen in programme one. NEDC data was measured at the start, after 10,000 km and after a further 5,000 km with treated fuel (the 15,000 km point). Throughout the programme the metal contamination in the fuel was maintained at 1 ppm Zn. Fuel consumption penalty with loss in power due to spray-hole deposit is seen both in cold (standard) and hot test conditions. The penalty is substantial. The use of the new diesel detergent restores fuel consumption to a level similar to that of new injectors/without deposits. This set of results further confirms how contaminated fuels can lead to power loss and performance debits: particularly critical is the increase in fuel consumption. The use of the correct fuel additive technology can result in part or complete restoration of power. This can re-establish the fuel consumption to a level which is the lowest achievable by the vehicle.

HD
Recent work presented at the SAE World Congress in 2009 [12] highlighted the potential for deposit formation in EUI systems. Here, there is the potential for lubricant to enter the fuel in the high pressure area of the FIE system. Although the level of oil leakage is minimal and injector dependent, this contaminant is known for its criticality in generating injector deposits. All engine lubricants contain Zn based components to prevent wear. The reference cited earlier demonstrated that such component can lead to spray-hole deposits [3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12]. A programme mirroring the protocol in reference 12 was carried out to assess the ability of the new diesel detergent additive technology to prevent or remove deposits in this type of FIE system. The details of the projects are listed below. The engine used is described in the table 3 below and is the same as used for the previous work [12].

Figure 10. Protocol 11- Fuel consumption in l/100km measured in the NEDC.

Figure 11. Response of two European fuels Table 3. Engine parameters Two European market fossil fuels were used for this project. The main fuel, used for all comparison testing and as reference fuel, was than made into RME10. The RME used was treated with a high level of antioxidant to ensure that no degradation occurred over time. This fuel was free of any detergent additive. The second diesel was a premium fuel widely sold across Europe. This fuel contains a substantial level of conventional diesel detergent. The results obtained when using the two fuels was surprising. What was interesting was not so much the level of power loss due to spray-hole deposits, figure 11, but the difference seen between the two fuels. The reference fuel was tested three times during the project. The result shown is typical of what was seen and the difference between the test runs was small, with less than 1% power loss at the end of the tests. Surprisingly, the level of deposit formed with the premium fuel is substantially more. It was not possible to understand why such difference was seen. However, the data reinforce what has been seen in the DW10 test: the deposit formation rate is fuel dependent and the presence of conventional diesel detergent technology, at high market treat in the premium fuel, is not able to control injector spray-hole deposits formation in modern FIE systems. The next stage of the project was aimed at understanding, using the RME10 fuel, what could be the impact of conventional and new detergent technology. The keep clean data, when trying to prevent deposit formation, are summarised in figure 12. It is clear that there is a step change in performance when the new detergent technology is used. The control of the injector deposit is significant when compared to the three runs with the same untreated base fuel. This also confirms that the difference seen in figure 11 is

The inability to control the amount of lubricant leakage meant that the level of contamination would be very difficult to estimate or measure and highly dependant on the injector set used. Therefore, it would be meaningless to compare results from different tests. To overcome this, a metal free lubricant was used. Controlled metal contamination was achieved via the addition of Zn at 1 ppm in fuel. The bench engine testing protocol used consists mainly of a high load cycle and is the same as Cycle 1 with the final phase extended by 14 hours to 34 hours in total. Instead of ZDDP (present in lubricant) a Zn salt was used to ensure consistent level of contamination in the fuel, avoiding any potential uncontrolled precipitate/loss of this component.

Figure 12. Comparison of power loss in kW between base fuel and detergent treated fuel. significant. Conventional detergent can help in controlling deposits in this environment. However, as per the data shown in figure 5, the level of additive required is much higher than for the new detergent additive technology. Several studies have reported that the use of MDA can help and this study confirms this. The use of MDA with conventional diesel detergent can reduce the overall treat rate, although always at a level well above that used for the new detergent. However, although not tested here, the main limitation of this approach is in the ability to clean up. The previous data show the ability of the new diesel detergent to control deposit formation. This is further demonstrated in figure 13, where the new diesel detergent, at a typical market treat for standard fuel quality, is able to remove some of the deposit. The rate of removal is not large. It suggests that at this treat rate and at least in this base fuel, the additive might eventually return power loss to zero. Moreover, it is also very likely that, similarly to the DW10 test, higher treating levels could achieve a higher degree of power recovery. FAME containing, and occur both in PC and HD applications. Moreover, the nature of the deposit can be very different, from metal salts to ashless polymeric materials. Another complexity is that it is not clear which are the boundary conditions that can generate such deposits, although some suggestions have been reported in the literature [7, 8]. One of the OEM reporting such problems was able to generate IIDs in a bench engine test using advanced Euro V HD engines. After some initial testing that showed the potential of the new diesel detergent, a back to back bench engine test was performed. The test engine, fitted with a CR FIE, underwent a 300 h endurance test. The test was mainly run at high load, with fossil fuel meeting EN590. At the end of the test, the engine was showing a variety of problems. The OEM running this test identified IIDs as the cause of these problems. They observed deposits on the injector needle and on the pushrod which caused sticking of these components in their guidance. This sticking resulted in some injectors not injecting at all at low rail pressures, thus causing difficulties in restarting and poor running at idle due to incomplete combustion or non-firing cylinders. The photographs of the critical components are shown in figure 14. They show the extent of the deposit after the 300 hour run. The visual evaluation of the deposits seen suggests the presence of thick carbonaceous and varnish-like material.

Internal Injector Deposits

In the last two to three years, the industry has seen the occurrence of a new type of deposit in modern FIE systems, never experienced before, in various regions. The deposits have been analysed and several mechanisms have been proposed [7, 8]. The authors of this paper have been made aware of a range of these types of issue in the market. The situation is rather complex as these IIDs do not seem to correlate strongly to specific types of diesel fuel, fossil or

Figure 13. Clean up ability of new additive technology in HD applications injectors were removed and dismantled for inspection. The OEM observed no evidence of any internal deposit whatsoever, as shown in figure 15. This can only be ascribed to the presence of the new diesel detergent technology.

Figure 14. Photographs of critical components after 300 hours run with EN590 fossil fuel The same fuel was then treated with the new diesel detergent technology at a typical treat rate for standard fuel qualities used in the market today to control injector deposits in modern PCs. The use of this additive completely overcame the problem. At the end of the 300 h test with treated fuel, the

Figure 15. Photographs of critical components after 300 hours run with EN590 fossil fuel and new detergent

It is clear that the new diesel detergent additive technology is also able to control this type of internal injector deposit seen in this engine group. It must be stressed that the nature of these deposits, to the best of our knowledge, is not related to sodium salt deposition. The analysis of the deposit will be carried out in the near future, though its nature is expected to be due to a mix of different mechanisms/deposit formation pathways.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
FIE Fuel Injection Equipment HSDI High Speed Direct Injection HPCR High Pressure Common Rail EUI Electronic Unit Injector IDI Indirect Injection IID Internal Injector Deposits NewD New Detergent ConvD Conventional Detergent

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Modern diesel FIE systems are susceptible to the formation of a variety of deposits that occur in nozzle spray-holes and also inside the injector body. These problems are increasing in the field and are seen in both PC and HD vehicles. Mechanisms responsible for the formation of these deposits are not limited to one particular type and are sometimes not well understood. The data presented in this paper confirms that: Conventional diesel detergent technology can match the performance of the new diesel detergent in keep clean (prevention) type testing, although at high treat rates. However, it is impossible to achieve a good degree of deposits removal (clean up) even if treat rate is increased well above the level acceptable in the market. The new diesel detergent additive technology can control these new types of deposit either by preventing or by removing them when present on injector components and at injector spray-holes. Remarkably, increasing additive treat rate, where tested, can achieve full control of spray-hole deposits within a short time. The performance has been confirmed in bench engine tests and field trials using a variety of PC and HD configurations. Testing was carried out with market fuels ranging from fossil to fuels containing up to 10% FAME, confirming the effectiveness of this product in market representative fuels. Testing has confirmed that removal of injector deposits can restore the best driving conditions and achieve the lowest signature fuel consumption.

REFERENCES
1. Dober, G., Tullis, S., Greeves, G., Milovanovic, N., Hardy, M., Zuelch, S., The Impact of Injection Strategies on Emissions Reduction and Power Output of Future Diesel Engines, SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0941, 2008, doi: 10.4271/2008-01-0941. 2. Panesar, A., Martens, A., Jansen, L., Lal, S., Ray, D., Twilley, M., Development of a New Peugeot XUD9 10 Hour Cyclic Test to Evaluate the Nozzle Coking, SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1921, 2000, doi: 10.4271/2000-01-1921. 3. TAE Symposium, 2005: Injector Deposit Test For Modern Diesel Engines, Graupner, O., Klaua, T.; Siemens VDO Automotive AG, Caprotti, R., Breakspear, A.; Infineum UK, Schik, A., Rouff, C.; APL Automobil Prueftechnik Landau Gmh. 4. Caprotti, R., Breakspear, A., Graupner, O., Klaua, T., Detergency Requirements of Future Diesel Injection Systems, SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3901, 2005, doi: 10.4271/2005-01-3901. 5. Capriotti, R., Leedham, A., Graupner, O., Klaua, T., Impact of Fuel Additives on Diesel Injector Deposits, SAE

CONTACT INFORMATION
Infineum UK LTD www.infineum.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Continental for the support of carrying out some of the testing presented in this paper. We would also like to thank our colleagues in Fuels Technology for their contribution, in particular Marko Zupancic.

Technical Paper 2004-01-2935, 2004, doi: 10.4271/2004-01-2935. 6. TAE Esslingen Symposium 2007: Beyond 2008: The challenges for diesel detergency, Caprotti, R, Breakspear, A, Graupner, O, Klaua, Ts, Kohnen, O. 7. TAE Esslingen Symposium 2009: Effects of Fuel Impurities and Additive Interactions on the Formation of Internal Diesel Injector Deposits, Ullmann, J, Geduldig, M, Stutzenberger, H, Caprotti, R, Balfour, G. 8. Ullman, J., Geduldig, H., Stutzenberger, H., Capriotti, R., Balfour, G., Investigation into the Formation and Prevention of Internal Diesel Injector Deposits, SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0926, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-0926. 9. 2007 13th Asia Fuel and Lube Conference: Injector fouling effects in modern Direct Injection Diesels, Barbour, RH, Macduff, MAJ, Panesar, A, Quiegley, R. 10. JSAE, Injector Workshop Japan, July, 2007: Development of Peugeot DW10 Direct Injection Diesel Nozzle Fouling Test. 11. TAE Esslingen Symposium 2009: Diesel fuel degradation and contamination in Vehicle Systems, Williams, R, Balthazar, F. 12. Tan, J., Pischinger, S., Tomazic, D., Lamping, M., Thomas, K., Tatur, M., Coking Phenomena in Nozzle Orifices of DI Diesel Engines, SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2(1): 259-272, 2009.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. ISSN 0148-7191 doi:10.4271/2010-01-2250

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerService@sae.org SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org Printed in USA