Proceedings of ICEF2002

2002 Fall Technical Conference of the ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division
September 8-11, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

ICEF2002-506

A SIMPLIFIED RAILWAY DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVE EVALUATION TEST PROTOCOL

Fan Su, Malcolm Payne and Manuel Vasquez

Engine Systems Development Centre, Inc., Lachine, QC, Canada H8S 1B4

ABSTRACT and emissions. Utilization of the SCRE-251 stems from unique

A simplified test procedure for evaluating railway diesel advantages offered by its design. It uses piston with the same
fuel additives at reduced cost and time relative to existing bore and stroke as that of the GE-7FDL. Similar indicated mean
Association of American Railroads (AAR) Recommended effective pressure (IMEP~ 12] between the SCRE-251 and GE-
Practice RP-503 test procedure is i~;troduced in the paper. The 7FDL has demonstrated a direct agreement of performance
emphasis is placed on critical issues considered for obtaining characteristics witnessed on the two engines. In addition, the
accurate and reliable test results during the procedure mechanical simplicity of the SCRE-251 engine allows for
development. Results from procedure verification test are precise in-engine instrumentation.
reviewed in discussions of these issues. It is pointed out that
information of additives, reliable control and data recording Table 1: Specifications of SCRE-251
systems, identical engine components can minimize
Cylinder 1
experimental errors, and repeatability analysis of experimental
measurements reveals test errors. In addition, elaborating of test Engine Stroke 4
methodology can eliminate systematic errors and thereby
improve measurement precision. Finally, a comparison between Rated Speed/Rated Power 1050 rpm/250 hp
results of an RP-503 test and a Simplified Fuel Additive Test
(SFAT) using the same fuel additive product is presented. Idle Speed 400 rpm

Bore x Stroke 9.0 in. x 10.5 in.

INTRODUCTION
Displacement 668 cu. in.
It is a major challenge for railway industry to reduce
operating cost through locomotive engine fuel economy. After- Combustion Chamber Semi-Quiescent
market performance enhancing products can be an approach to
Compression Ratio 11.5, 11.7, 12.5, 13.7:1
realize this reduction. To evaluate these after-market products,
engine performance and emissions tests can be conducted Fuel Injection Type Direct Injection
following the Association of American Railroad Recommended
Practice (AAR-RP503) test procedure [1]. However, the 9 holes x 0.40 mm x
Fuel Injector 145o
expensive existing test can make it difficult for small business
to enter the market. The need for an alternative procedure that 27.5 ° CA BTDC
Fuel Injection Timing
(VariableI
could provide similar results with reduced overall cost and
improved efficiency results in a project: Simplified Fuel
Additive Test (SFAT) Protocol Development at Engine
Systems Development Centre, Inc (ESDC). Feasibility analysis The SFAT procedure was designed and experimentally
of the project indicated that a single-cylinder medium-speed verified to determine optimum sequence necessary for fuel
diesel research engine (SCRE-251) (specifications are given in additive evaluations. Three fuel additives were tested using the
Table 1), the research version of ALCO-251 locomotive single-cylinder engine testing system. A #2 D diesel was used
engine, could be employed to perform evaluation test for as baseline fuel in the tests with specifications that were
providing preliminary information (both positive and negative) representative of current in-use locomotive diesel engine fuels
with regard to effects of a fuel additive on engine performance

1 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 in North America. As described in [3], the test procedure As realized in the verification test, some parameters such as
basically consists of two steps: engine intake air pressure and temperature must be controlled
Step-l: Standard ASTM tests for determining baseline and and measured accurately because they bear directly on the test
additive-treated fuel properties (Table 2). These tests are used results. Experimental errors can easily mask fuel additive
to evaluate quality, such as fuel ignition quality, combustion effects. Therefore, critical issues that may affect accuracy of
roughness, contribution to engine deposits and corrosiveness, of test results are investigated and the best effort is put forth to
a treated fuel relative to that of the baseline fuel. Gathered minimize the overall test uncertainty. This paper discusses
information from the tests allows the testing laboratory to these issues by reviewing some of the test data. Repeatability of
approve or reject an engine test on limiting fuel specification experimental measurements as well as solutions adopted for
requirements [4] basis (Table 2). solving error related problems, such as eliminating noise
Step-2: A 75-hour single-cylinder engine test (20 hours signals, are introduced m the paper. As an example, results of
baseline fuel test, 55 hours additive-treated fuel test including an evaluation test are compared to that from other researchers
35 hours preconditioning period) for evaluating a candidate for the same fuel additive product.
product with respect to engine fuel economy and emissions.
The tests are conducted for engine operating at full load, which
is similar to 8-notch (rated power) of the locomotive diesel CRITICAL ISSUES FOR A C C U R A T E FUEL ADDITIVE
engine. The reasons of this are first, locomotives consume EVALUTION TESTS
approximate 58% of fuel at notch 8; secondly, it simplifies the
test procedure and reduces cost of the evaluation test. However,
tests at additional test modes are optional to customers. Test Procedure Questionnaire
Issuing questionnaire to an additive manufacture is a key
Table 2: Fuel Properties and Test Methods link to a successful evaluation test. Acquisition of basic
Property ASTM Limiting information about the additive, such as category, effects of
Method No. Requirements additive on fuel properfes and claimed benefits can help
Density @ 15 understand test results and define possible test problems. This
D1298 /
°C (60 °F) is essential to start a test. In addition, proper mixing method
Flash Point, ensures consistent additive-treated fuel be acquired. The
oC (oF) D93 Min 38 (100)
storage method of an additive and additive-treated fuel can
Cloud Point, Less than -12
oC (oF) D2500 (10) prevent degradation of ingredients. Operation requirements
such as reaction with fuel system components can avoid
Pour Point, °C
(oF) D97 / unexpected experimental errors. Other information, for
Kinematic example, effects of the additive on engine performance and test
Min 1.7, max results (or report) issued before, also plays important roles in
ViscositycSt D445
4.1
@ 40°C assessing expected characteristics of the additive-treated fuel.
Distillation, Generally, the purpose of the questionnaire is to identify the
50%, 90% and 90% point max
End Points, °C D86 338 (640) claimed benefits, to recognize any features of the additive that
may have adverse effect on engine component and engine
Carbon performance, and to define possible errors due to preparation of
Residue, % D524 Max 0.35
the additive-treated fuel.
Sulfur,
weight% D129 Max 0.5
Elimination of Noise Siqnals
Copper Strip As mentioned above, one of the benefits of using single-
Corrosion D130 Max No.3
cylinder engine is the simple design feature allowing for precise
Ash, weight% D482 Max 0.01 instrumentation. However, when signals are corrupted by
"noise", distortions cause degradation in quality of signal
Water and
Sediment, D2709 Max 0.05 transmission. Direct measurement of in-cylinder combustion
volume% pressure can provide important information for analyzing
Particulate changes in engine fuel consumption or exhaust emissions. An
Contamination D2276 AVL water-cooled piezoeiectronic pressure transducer (+0.2%
, mg/1
Cetane linearity of full scale) was installed in engine cylinder head
Number Min 40 flame deck to measure combustion pressure. The pressure
D976
Heat of measuring system was calibrated using an Ametek deadweight
Combustion, D240 / tester with an accuracy of +0.1% of indicated pressure. Results
BTU/Ib shown in Figure 1 demonstrate a good agreement between
measured pressure (2000+0.07%) and actual pressure input.
However, high frequency noise problems observed during

2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 engine tests had a pressure variation of about +0.3% of full the temperatures of sensor cooling water were maintained at 20
scale (corrupted-signal in Figure 2). To minimize the noise °C. IMEPs of each combustion cycles are plotted in terms of
signal, in the mean time, avoid loss of pressure information Relative-IMEP, which is defined as relative change between an
from using standard low-pass filtering techniques, efforts were IMEP and the mean value of all the test cycles, verses test cycle
made to limit noise sources such as making signal transfer (Figure 3). Variation of approximate 1.0% of IMEP
cable as short as possible, using reliable signal sample and measurements is within 1.5% of the transducer manufacturer
simultaneous hold accessories, etc. The modified high-speed specified IMEP stability.
pressure data recording system provides signal with variation of
less than +0.15% of full scale (clear-signal in Figure 2). Figure
2 shows pressure data of engine compression stroke (before
2
ignition). To display signals clearly, an offset was applied to IMF:P : ~q1.1+ 1 .Do-/.n,qi
1.5
the corrupted signal data set. Variation of IMEP measurements
was investigated through recordings of twenty successive
engine cycles for engine operating at full load. During this test, ~ 0.5 • 0

~ 0
2500 i i
Iqput P r e s s u r e = :2000psi ~ -0.5
-1
.1.5 Engine Operating Mode:
2000 ~ -1.5
1050rpm/186kW
-2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192
I
"~1500 Test Cycle
!

1000 ...... ~ ............................. t ......................... Figure 3. Variation of IMEP measurements

Tolerance Limit of Enaine Ooeratina Parameters

500 Engine operating parameters are largely dependent on the
.......................... I ................................. I characteristics of engine systems design and control of
instrumentation. As a powerful tool for medium-speed diesel
0 J .J J J engine research and development, SCRE-251 engine testing
0 5 10 15
Data Points xl0 4
system has special design features. Engine intake air is supplied
by an external compressor, which is designed to simulate
turbocharger pressure of locomotive engine. The temperature of
Figure 1. Pressure transducer calibration with a
the intake air is controlled using an inline air heater and cooler
deadweight tester (input=2OOOpsi)
system. In order to provide greater flexibility to the engine test,
an external oil circling system with oil pre-heater is selected
instead of an engine driven pump oil system. Similar reason to
those for lube oil leads to an external electrical water pumping
system. The cooling water temperature is thermostatically
controlled to different test conditions. Due to external control
of these, the reliability and accuracy of these devices and their
control systems are main factors to stability of engine operating
. . . . . . . . . . .
parameters.
2=
Carefully calibration of instrumentation limited uncertainty
,, o.1. ....................:-.
I iE n g i n e
. . . . . . . . . .
operating Mode:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i" of the measuring systems. Overall measurement uncertainty of
a system was experimentally determined by investigating
° 0 0 ........................q ............
tolerance limit of controlled engine operating parameters. At
least 70 recordings of intake air pressure, temperature, lube oil
temperature, cooling water temperature, fuel temperature as
0.12 ............ ~ ............. ~ ......... . ............ ~ ......... ~ ........ well as engine speed and load were collected from both the
i i Ii i i i i i i baseline and additive-treated fuel tests. Variation of each
50 1O0 t 50 200 250 300 350 400 450
Crank Angle (x 0.10 deg) parameter was statistically analyzed and compared to those
Figure 2. Noise corrupted signal specified in RP-503 (qable 3). Since temperature of fuel
supplied to engine was maintained using ventilation system of

3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the test cell, it varies between 27 to 37 °C. Results indicate that detected with regard to BSFC, CO, and NOx is approximately
variations in operating parameters are within ranges of those 1%, 5% and 5% respectively.
specified in the RP503 procedure.
Table 4: Repeatability analysis of fuel consumption
Table 3: Statistical analysis of the engine and emissions measurements
operating parameters
BSFC ; CO NO~ CO2
Engine Intake Intake Oil Coola Fuel Test Date
(g/kW-hr) (g/hp-hr) (g/hp-hr) (%)
Power Air Air ITemp. nt Temp.
(kW) Temp. Press. Temp. (°C)
(°C) (psi) (°C) (°C) Dec. 08,00 245.40 3.23 12.67 6.18

186.4 85.1 32.5 87.0 82.3 32.4 246.43 3.28 12.62 6.20
Mean
246.14
S.D. 0.75 0.13 0.07 1.31 1.30 1.67 245.90
Tolerance
246.28
SFAT Limit (With \ \ \
Test 99% 245.76
confidence Dec.14,00
186±2 85±0. 32.5±0. 87±3. 82±3. 32.4±4. 245.04
level, 95%
3 1 0 0 0
of the data 245.99
arewithin
245.24
the limit)
246.34
Power 245.90 \ \ \
measure Jan. 08,01
-ment Differ Differ< Differ Differ 245,67
RFL Limit device < 0.15 < < 90+10 ° 244.09
503 accuracy 20 °F psi 10 °F 10 °F F
: +2% of 246.54 3.31 12.14 6.19
full scale 245.25
Feb. 02, 01 245.87 \ \ \
246.87
245.8t 3.39 12.24 6.18
R~oeatability of Experimental Measurements
245.17
Repeatability of engine measurements under controlled
conditions is considered critical for evaluating fuel additives, Mar. 08, 01 245.89 \ \ \
since it represents precision of the measurement process. 244.49
Unrepeatable data demonstrate errors on magnitude of
245.72 3.30 12.42 6.19
measurement, data recording or experimental equipment. In Mean
other words, repeatability analysis can reveal experimental S.D./Mean
errors. In the SFAT, engine power output is maintained (%) 0.26 2.12 2.17 0.16
constant and fuel consumption and emissions changes are used (Max-
as indexes to performance of a fuel additive. Baseline fuel tests Min)/Mean 0.950 4.84 4.30 0.32
were conducted to investigate repeatability of fuel consumption (%)
and emissions measurements. In order to minimize accidental
errors, tests were conducted at different days and engine
operating-parameters were maintained as closely as possible Identical Enoine Components
among these tests. Engine brake specific fuel consumption Engine components from different manufactures may have
(BSFC) values, which are calculated from engine fuel different effects on engine performance. This was not realized
consumption rate and engine brake horsepower, and specific until an injector failure happened and a new injector nozzle
emission data are shown in Table 4. Standard deviation in (different manufacture) was used during a baseline test. The
BSFC measurement ~0.26%), degree of mutual agreements new nozzle yielding increased fuel consumption (engine
among these independent measurements, is within expected conditions were maintained constant), which lead to a series of
uncertainty (+0.3%) calculated from instrumentation accuracy comparison tests. Two injector nozzles from manufacture M1
for the test mode. Engine exhaust emissions were measured and two from another manufacture, M2, were tested under the
using an ECOM AC+, a portable emission analyzer with 2% same conditions. Test results are presented in Figure 4. As can
accuracy on each of its electrochemical sensors. Results be seen, brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of M2 nozzle
indicated that using the single-cylinder test engine system and is, on average, 3% higher than that of the M1 nozzle. Results of
the ECOM emission analyzer, smallest difference that can be nozzles from same manufacture are similar. Due to time and

4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 cost limitations, no extended tests were conducted, however, it
255-
is enough to demonstrate that fuel consumption variations
253- Additive1
observed may mask effects of a fuel additive on engine
performance. Therefore, to minimize possible errors, identical 251 - -t- Baseline
engine components are used in the evaluation tests. 249-
247-
245-
3OO ¢.) 243-
14.
O) 241-
290
28O ~ ,
I - - I i - - M1-1 I
"~'~ M1-2
239-
237-
'2zo r.,,. M2-1 235 I I I l l l l l l l f l l l l l l l = ~ l l l , a l l l l l , l l l l = l l l l l a l l Ill I~111

~I~, I "'~<'" M2-21 ,ill

Test Modes: ~----qli . . . . ;"
1 - 500rpm/2OkW~: ~ ...... ¥~' ~ j Engine Time (hrs)
O24O
3 - 700rpm/55kW Figure 5. BSFCs of preconditioning test
I~1 230 4 - 800rpm/82kW ( fuel additive 1)
220 5 - 900rpm/117kW
6 - 1000rpm/161 kW
210 7 - 1050rpm/186kW
255
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~a3
Test M0de "W251 I - - Additive2
~2~ -I- Baseline
Figure 4. Brake specific fuel consumption from using 247
different injector nozzles ~2~
0243
Additive Preconditionina ¢~ 241
Instrumentation and experimental methods can cause II1
239
systematic errors of an evaluation test. Instrumentation errors 237
can be minimized by calibration process. For elaborating test 235 IlllWllllllllll~ll~ll~WWlIWlllll=llllllllllllllllllll
method, considerable physical insight normally is required. tt~ L(3 tO LO Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (3 Lt3 t ~ tO Q Q

"Preconditioning" period is often necessary for evaluating fuel

additives [5, 6], although it was not specified in the RP-503 T. e(hrs)
procedure. The purpose of preconditioning test is to fully
establish effects of fuel-additive formulation on engine Figure 6. BSFCs of preconditioning test
performance and thereby stabilize engine conditions. To (fuel additive 2)
investigate this effect on the SCRE-251 engine testing system,
preconditioning fuel consumption rate of three fuel additive
evaluation tests were recorded at every half engine-operating
hour. During this period, the engine operated at full load (same
..~ 251
as baseline test) to shorten the conditioning time by using --Additive3 I
higher fuel consumption rate. Test results are shown in Figure 5 249-1 --e- Baseline
to 7. The first additive-treated fuel remains fairly stable during ~.~ 247"1
the 65 hours test and BSFC values are similar to that of the ~24~-
baseline test. However, the second and the third additive- ¢~243-
treated fuel tests showed the BSFC dropping slowly from the (~m241"
starting point to about the 30-hour point. The results of such an 239-
analysis show that it is necessary to consider a preconditioning 237-
test period in the SFAT procedure. Baseline data of Additive-2
235 I l l I l a l l l W l l l l = I l l l l , I I , , l l ~ , l l , I I I I I
and 3 tests were obtained by flashing engine (engine ran at full to o o c~o q.o. ~ t q ~ t q o o. tqtq tq o. o. o.
load for about 20 hours) after the previous additive-treated fuel
test. They are found similar to the baseline data of Additive-1. Erem T..e(hrs)
This back-to-back comparison test can establish more Figure 7. BSFCs of preconditioning test
confidence on the test results. (fuel additive 3)

5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING TEST RESULTS its flexibility in control, precise in-engine instrumentation, and
lower operating cost, especially for evaluation of fuel additives
There is no suitable way to use for evaluating a fuel- for medium-speed diesel engine used in rail, marine and
additive evaluation testing system, therefore extreme care must stationary applications. Critical issues that lead to reliable test
be taken to conduct a test in a manner that could minimize the results from using the SFAT are discussed in the paper and
overall experimental errors. Comparison with existing test conclusions are summarized as below:
results that are obtained under controlled conditions may
provide valuable information to the SFAT procedure. • Information about candidate fuel additive can help
Unfortunately, there are not many published data that are either minimize systematic and accidental errors.
obtained under controlled conditions or for medium-speed • Ensuring accurate measuring systems can realize full
engine applications. The only test for evaluating a fuel additive benefits of the SCRE-251 engine testing system.
for locomotive engine applications was conducted at Southwest • Repeatability analysis of BSFC, emissions and
Research Institute (SwRI) by following the RP-503 procedure. operating-parameter measurements can reveal
Its results are compared to that obtained from using the present experimental errors.
simplified procedure for the same fuel additive product (Table • Identical engine components are recommended to limit
5). accidental errors due to tolerance differences.
• The test is conducted at a "baseline-precondition-
Table 5: Comparison with existing test results product-baseline" manner. The check-up baseline test
Item SwRI test ESDC test can help generate more confidence on the test results.
Test procedure RP-503 SFAT • Experimental results indicated that the single-cylinder
Caterpillar engine testing system with precise error control is
Test Engine 1G2 & 12- SCRE-251 capable of conducting accurate fuel additive
EMD645E3B evaluation tests.
Gravity NS hiS • Repeat evaluation tests on individual additives will be
Distillation range NS NS conducted to validate the test procedure.
Fuel property Carbon residue NS NS
Cetane number NS NS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Heat of combustion NS NS This work is supported by funding from Transportation
Engine Development Centre (TDC), Transport Canada.
)erformance Fuel consumption -1.74% -1.61%
CO emissions NS NS NOMENCLATURE
AAR Association of American Railroads
Emissions NOx emissions NS NS
BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
Smoke \ NS BTDC Before Top Dead Center
Air temperature differ<20 ° F 185+/-2 ° F BTU British Thermal Unit
oC Degree Celsius
Engine Fuel temperature 90+/-10 ° F 90+/-6 ° F
operating CA Crank Angle
)arameter Coolant temperature differ<10 ° F 180+/-4.7 ° F CO Carbon monoxide
Oiltemperature differ<10 ° F 189+/-4.5 ° F CO2 Carbon dioxide
Note: NS - Non-significant change cu. in cubic inch
EMD Electro-Motive Division of General Motors
Corp.
ESDC Engine Systems Development Centre, Inc.
Results from the two tests might not be directly correlated oF
since the EMD 645 is a two-stroke engine and SCRE-251 is Degree Fahrenheit
four-stroke. However, due to similar size in engine power GE GE Transportation Systems Division
,!
components, the comparisons can provide preliminary g gram
information for evaluating the simplified test procedure. Repeat hr hour
tests are to be conducted to validate the SFAT test results, HP Horsepower
which are observed to be similar to those from the RP503 test. IMEP Indicated Mean Effective Pressure
in inch
CONCLUSIONS kW kilowatt
l liter
lb pound
The single-cylinder medium-speed research engine is a
max maximum
useful platform for accurate fuel additive evaluation tests due to

6 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 mg milligram
min minimum
mm millimeter
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NS Non-significant change
psi pound-force per square inch
RP Recommended Practice
rpm revolutions per minute
SCRE Single Cylinder Research Engine
SD Standard Deviation
SFAT Simplified Fuel Additive Test
SwRI Southwest Research Institute
TDC Transportation Development Centre of
Transport Canada

REFERENCES
1. "Fuel Additive Evaluation Procedure - Recommended
Practice RP-503", Association of American Railroads
Technical Services Division - Mechanical Section Manual
of Standards and Recommended Practices, 1994.

2. S. G. Fritz, " A Single-Cylinder Medium-speed Diesel

Engine Research Facility", SAE 881163.

3. F. Su, M. Payne, M. Vasquez and A. Taghizadeh,

"Simplified Additive Test Phase III: Testing and
Verification", Transportation Development Centre,
Transport Canada, TP 13823E.

4. "Diesel Fuel", SAE Surface Vehicle Standard J313

(Revised Mar. 1998), Society of Automobile Engineers,
1998.

5. E . J . Smith, "Development and Testing of Fuel-Efficient

Fuel Additive" SAE 852131.

6. V. Markworth, "Evaluation of A Fuel Additive - Final

Report" Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas,
July, 1992.

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use