2023 | 008

Demonstrating significant fuel

consumption and emissions savings
with combustion improver additives
Fuels - Conventional Fuels

Adrian Bourdeaux, Infineum UK Ltd

Amy Challinor, Infineum UK Ltd
Dewi Ballard, Infineum UK Ltd
Jose Gonzalez Celis, Stolt Tankers B.V.

This paper has been presented and published at the 30th CIMAC World Congress 2023 in Busan,
Korea. The CIMAC Congress is held every three years, each time in a different member country. The
Congress program centres around the presentation of Technical Papers on engine research and
development, application engineering on the original equipment side and engine operation and
maintenance on the end-user side. The themes of the 2023 event included Digitalization &
Connectivity for different applications, System Integration & Hybridization, Electrification & Fuel Cells
Development, Emission Reduction Technologies, Conventional and New Fuels, Dual Fuel Engines,
Lubricants, Product Development of Gas and Diesel Engines, Components & Tribology,
Turbochargers, Controls & Automation, Engine Thermondynamis, Simulation Technologies as well as
Basic Research & Advanced Engineering. The copyright of this paper is with CIMAC. For further
information please visit https://www.cimac.com.
 ABSTRACT
Historically, the benefits achieved when employing marine fuel combustion improver additives have
been disputed. Given this scepticism relating to the claims made regarding substantial improvements
in fuel consumption and emissions made in connection to the use of such additives, Infineum have
designed a rigorous test program, to provide statistically significant data, in order to fully evaluate the
impact of combustion improver additives.

The performance of various fuel additive components, targeting combustion improvement, have been
explored in HSFO and VLSFO fuels using a Caterpillar MaK 6M20 four stroke, six cylinder test engine
at a range of operating points. Over the course of the program, to determine the impact on
combustion, each test followed an A-B-A cycle of base fuel, additised fuel, base fuel. This approach
enabled the statistical analysis of the data and thus ensured that any additive effect was genuine.
During the test day, both fuel consumption and emissions measurements were continuously recorded
(CO, CO2, NOx, SO2, filter smoke number, particulates). In addition, in order to gain a greater
understanding of the impact of the fuel additive, the chamber pressure and heat release were
monitored, as key combustion parameters.

Using this test program we were able to identify a successful marine fuel additive which has proven
capability in both HSFO and VLSFO to bring statistically significant fuel consumption savings.
Emissions savings have also been achieved; in HSFO the additive delivered impressive emissions
reductions for NOx, total hydrocarbons and filter smoke number. In VLSFO, reductions in filter smoke
number and carbon monoxide were achieved.

This paper details the scientific approach that Infineum have undertaken to establish the impact of
combustion improver additives in current marine fuels and the benefits that such additives can provide.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Regulatory Drivers Towards Improving
Vessel Efficiency
Following the revised regulations by the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) which
requires fuel oil used by ships to not exceed a
sulphur content of 0.5 %m/m, the organisation has
turned its focus to reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, committing to phasing these out
from international shipping as soon as possible. A
revised GHG strategy, which is expected to be
adopted at the 80th session of the Marine
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) in
2023, is likely to set out the ambition to pursue
efforts towards net-zero emissions by 2050. As
part of these efforts, mandatory short-term
measures such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator
(CII) have been introduced as amendments to the
International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI with the
aim of reducing carbon intensity of all ships by
40% by 2030, and 70% by 2050, compared to
2008 levels.[1]
CII came into force for ships of 5,000 gross
tonnage (GT) and above on November 1st 2022.
Annual reporting of fuel consumption will start in
2023, allowing the first energy efficiency rating
(measured in grams of CO2 emitted per cargo-
carrying capacity and nautical mile) to be given for
each vessel in 2024, when ships will be given a
rating from A to E, with A being the best. This
straightforward rating system will give a clear
indication of how efficiently a ship transports
goods or passengers. Ships obtaining a D rating
for three consecutive years, or an E rating for one
year will have an obligation to develop a corrective
action plan within their Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP) to improve their
energy efficiency performance and bring them
back to a C rating.[2] Fuel additives are recognised
within Annex 9 of MEPC.213(63) as an additional
means of improving engine efficiency.[3]
1.2 Carbon Intensity Index (CII)
Not only does CII provide a classification
framework, but it also sets out an annual reduction
factor needed to ensure continuous improvement
of a ship’s operational carbon intensity within a
specific rating level. The reduction factor is
relative to the 2019 reference line, which starts at
5% in 2023, with 2% added annually until January
2026 when IMO's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) is to review the effectiveness
of the implementation of the CII requirements and
develop and adopt further amendments as
required. These goals are designed to encourage
ship owners to consistently improve operational
efficiency across their fleet, and we could expect
CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008
these thresholds to become increasingly stringent
out to 2030. In our view, maintaining the current
CII rating alone will be challenging, and vessel
operators will need to incorporate numerous
approaches in their continuous improvement plan
to obtain strong CII ratings in the next few years.
Since CII is based directly on fuel consumption, it
can be influenced in a number of ways including
how a specific ship is operated, its technical
efficiency, and fuel choice. Several measures can
be taken to improve vessel efficiency and
influence CII rating including i) reducing drag via
routes such as hull coatings, regular cleaning
regimes, propellor polishing, ii) operational factor
improvement such as slow steaming and route
selection, and finally, iii) optimising power
generation with supplementary battery
hybridisation, waste heat recovery, solar and wind
power utilisation, and additive choice which will be
the focus of this paper.
Moving to carbon free, or carbon neutral fuels is
the most significant future route to achieving
IMO’s GHG reduction targets. However, it is
expected that conventional fuels will power the
majority of fleets in the near to medium term as
these future fuels are not yet available on a
commercially viable scale, and engine technology
is not yet commonplace. In fact, ammonia and
hydrogen are forecast to make up nearly 40% of
marine fuel consumption in 2050, however only
around 3% in 2030.[4] Given Infineum’s wealth of
experience in the Fuel Additives Industry,
Infineum saw this as a critical opportunity to
research and develop combustion improver
technology with a focus on bringing a scientifically
justified, data-driven formulation approach to
enable the industry to optimise the efficiency of
existing infrastructure and reduce emissions.
Effective combustion improvers can help to
reduce vessel fuel consumption, lower the CO 2
output per nautical mile travelled and lower other
key emissions such as NOx, SOx, CO, Total
Hydrocarbons (THC) and Filter Smoke Number
(FSN), thereby providing shipowners a reliable
fuel additive toolkit in the quest to reduce CII and
align with future regulatory drivers.
This paper investigates the use of a four-stroke
static engine test for scoping of Infineum additive
chemistries and evaluating the statistical
significance of their impact in commercially
available High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) and Very
Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VSLFO). A promising
additive technology which delivered improved fuel
consumption and emissions via an A-B-A test
method approach was then benchmarked against
commercially available combustion improver
Page 1
products. Over the course of over 70 test days, 2.2 Static Engine Selection and Set Up
Infineum built a significant understanding of the
Having established that a static engine test was
impact of additive chemistry and used this
the most appropriate route to achieve the aims of
knowledge to develop a novel combustion
this project, Infineum scoped available two-stroke
improver fuel additive product. The no operational
and four-stroke engine test options ranging from
harms performance of this combustion improver
single cylinder to complete engines. Constraints
fuel additive was then verified in a large two-
included access to fuel supply, measurement
stroke static engine before collecting fuel
equipment, and running time. Overall, the four-
economy and emissions data in a two-stroke
stroke 6-cylinder Caterpillar MaK 6M20 engine at
powered 33,000 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT)
a European test facility was found to be a suitable
chemical tanker sea trial.
option; key engine parameters could be
continuously monitored, variable additive dosing
2. TEST METHODOLOGY could be accommodated, and commercial fuels
2.1 Development Approach to Combustion could be sourced to facilitate additive screening.
Improver Chemistry The engine characteristics are summarised in
Table 1.
The aim of this work was to review the potential of
new chemistries and existing commercially Table 1. Four-stroke 6-cylinder Caterpillar MaK
available combustion improvers, to better 6M20 engine specifications.
understand their impact on fuel consumption and
emissions in marine fuels. Appropriate test Parameter Details
development was therefore required to ensure the Charge air compression Single stage turbo charger
data collected would meet the criteria of producing
Rated speed 1000 rpm
statistical significance on any combustion
improvement recorded. Rated power 1020 kW
Bore/stroke 200 mm/300 mm
Historically, accurate assessment of additive
Engine displacement 56.4 L
impact on fuel economy and emissions in marine
engines running on distillate or residual fuels has Compression ratio 14.8
been problematic. There were three broad Maximum injection pressure >1500 bar
categories of testing that could be pursued: (i) the
use of a bench test to mimic combustion, such as
FIA-100 fuel combustion analysis (test method
IP541/06[5]), (ii) the use of a static engine test, or
(iii) the use of a vessel for a field trial approach.

Initial laboratory testing was able to rule out bench

test methods such as the FIA-100 as appropriate
tools for additive development. This is because
additives that provide a cetane number
improvement can be measured using this test,
however Infineum found that relating the data
back to fuel consumption and emissions
reductions was not possible. It was determined
that utilisation of a static engine test for this initial
work had the highest chance of success due to
the ability to screen a range of additives at various
treat rates and combinations, at differing engine
operating points. It would also reduce interference
from variables such as wind, current, load,
temperature, and humidity, encountered in field
trials onboard sea-going vessels. Critically, a
static engine could generate statistically significant
data that could be then used to define appropriate
additive selection for further work. It was
envisaged that a field trial would become the next
step in development process once a suitable
additive was identified.
Figure 1. Process flow diagram for the Caterpillar
MaK 6M20 engine and auxiliary units used for the
static engine testing.
The fuel purification system that led to the engine
can be seen in Figure 1. The injection system was
a Pump Line Nozzle (PLN). During the
experiments, measurements were made of the
CO, CO2, NO, and THC in the exhaust gas using
an ABB Advanced Optima 2000 exhaust gas
measurement system. FSN and fuel consumption
were measured using an AVL 415S Smoke Meter
and a Krohne OPTIMASS 6400F Coriolis flow
meter, respectively. Continuous data was sampled
at a frequency of one measurement per second,

CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008 Page 2

and measurements were only ever taken within a
single day to reduce impact of external climactic
and operational variables.
In addition to fuel consumption and emissions
measurements, Infineum were able to measure
data relating to the cylinder pressure for short
periods during testing. This enabled the heat
release of the combustion profiles to be plotted
against crank angle, and provided a better
understanding of the combustion mechanism
observed during testing.
An additive dosing unit was installed in the fuel
line as close as possible to the engine to enable
accurate additive dosing control, day to day
changing of additive chemistry and ensure that
sufficient fuel and additive mixing could be
achieved prior to fuel injection into the engine. The
volume in the fuel line between additive dosing
point and the combustion chamber was equivalent
to 30 minutes of fuel operation. Additive dosing
levels were verified via small fuel samples that
were taken throughout the day and then tested via
ICP-AES (ASTM D5185)[6].
2.3 Test Protocol
enabled additised data to be analysed in
comparison to two non-additised tests, therefore
indicating if any statistically significant fuel
consumption or emissions impacts were
correlated to additive use, or simply the result of
engine operational drift over the test day. For an
additive impact to be established, it must be
observed only when the additive was being dosed
into the fuel, and the subsequent non-additised
measurements should reflect those of the initial
non-additised measurement.
Table 2. Typical operating protocol used for the
Caterpillar MaK 6M20 engine.
Operation Time (hrs)
Engine warm up (MGO fuel) 0.5
Switch fuel from MGO to VLSFO or HSFO 1
Non-additised fuel measurements (A) 1
Commence additive dosing and flush fuel line 1
Additised fuel measurements (B) 1
Stop additive dosing and flush fuel line 1
Non-additised fuel measurements (A) 1
Switch fuel from VLSFO or HSFO to MGO 1

An A-B-A protocol (see Table 2) was designed in Engine cool down 0.5
cooperation with the Infineum Data Science Team
to provide statistically significant results for the 2.4 Fuel Selection
fuel additive testing. Initially, the engine was
HSFO with a high Calculated Carbon Aromaticity
operated on the desired non-additised fuel (either
Index (CCAI) was sourced from a distributor under
HSFO or VLSFO, after starting up on marine gas
the assumption that the higher the CCAI, the
oil), and the engine reached steady state,
poorer the ignition quality of the fuel.[8] This gave
measurements were taken for the first ‘A’ phase.
the greatest scope for performance differentiation
Following this the additive dosing was initiated at
with additive chemistry, with the fuel
the desired treat rate, and the line was flushed to
characteristics detailed in Table 3. Once
ensure engine inlet fuel contained the additive
confidence in the test protocol was attained and
prior to the initiation of the ‘B’ phase. Once stable
VLSFO became widely available on the market in
performance was obtained, measurements were
2020, Infineum moved on to investigate
recorded. After the ‘B’ phase, additive dosing was
performance in VLSFO (fuel characteristics also
stopped, fuel was flushed, and the second ‘A’
detailed in Table 3). This <0.50% sulphur fuel has
phase could commence. Occasionally an A-B-B’-A
increased significantly in use since the
pattern was adopted to enable more than one
introduction of the IMO 2020 sulphur cap and has
additive or additive treat rate to be explored. A
become a widely used fuel-type in today’s marine
minimum 30-minute measurement period was
industry.
targeted throughout all test days with most data
collected over an hour for each phase. The mean
Table 3. Fuel characteristics for fuel used in the
values over this period were calculated and
Caterpillar MaK 6M20 test engine.
compared.
Characteristic HSFO VLSFO
Data analysis was carried out after each test day,
and therefore each result was able to inform the S (%) 1.20 0.44
subsequent day’s test plan. Firstly, the data was CCAI 873 812
organised so that ‘non-additised fuel’ and Density @ 15 °C (kg/m )3
992 949
‘additised fuel’ could be assessed. Key
parameters of interest were the Specific Fuel Oil Viscosity @ 50 °C (mm2/s) 72.2 294.0
Consumption (SFOC ISO 3046-1)[7], and Total Sediment Potential, TSP (%) 0.05 0.01
emissions (CO2, CO, NO, THC and FSN were all Pour point (°C) -12 27
assessed). Using the A-B-A test approach

CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008 Page 3

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Initial Screening – Static Engine Testing
with HSFO
Initial scoping of engine performance at various
speeds and loads was performed to collect strong
baseline data and establish test methodology and
data analysis approach. The engine operating
point chosen for further testing in this program
was low-speed/low-load (700 rpm, 25% load). In
this operational regime, typical marine engines in
the field are likely to have a lower operating
efficiency than higher speed/load, and therefore
combustion performance of the fuel is more
critical.[9] The use of these operating conditions
were aligned with the operating point of interest
for a major four-stroke OEM that Infineum have
been collaborating with.
Once Infineum were confident in baseline engine
operation, additive chemistries were scoped.
Overall, numerous test days at varying speed/load
operating points were assessed which enabled
Infineum to create meaningful conclusions on
additive impact. With the operating conditions
defined, multiple formulations were tested over a
10-day period in the same HSFO. All of these
contained a catalytic metal colloid, which
demonstrated consistent improvement in SFOC
ISO 3046-1 (see Table 4). A linear model to
predict SFOC ISO 3046-1 from treat rates
allowing for day-to-day variability is presented in
Figure A1.
The formulation tested on Day 7 gave a 1.5% SFOC
improvement
From the model, we can show that the probability
of obtaining the improvement shown in Figure 2
over all days and treat rates by random chance is
less than 0.01%. The candidate later tested in
field trials (Day 7) is highlighted and has an R2 of
0.97. This gives Infineum a very high confidence
in the statistical significance of the impact of the
catalytic metal colloid on SFOC ISO 3046-1
improvement.
Infineum identified an additive consisting of a
combination of colloidal dispersion of a catalytic
metal and an effective asphaltene dispersant to
have a significant improvement on emissions and
fuel economy. The asphaltene dispersant has the
additional benefit of providing fuel sludge
management credits upstream of the fuel injector.
Repeat measurements further confirmed that the
use of such a formulation could provide significant
improvements for both fuel consumption and
emissions, and aided selection of a final additive
formulation.
Examination of the heat release traces obtained
from engine operation can help to understand
combustion fuel economy and emissions
reduction phenomena (see example in Figure 3).
The presence of combustion improver additive
was shown to reduce the ignition delay and
increase initial heat release. This has a positive
impact on combustion and work done compared
to non-additised fuel. A lower peak heat release
was observed with additised fuel. This is known to
reduce peak cylinder temperature, thereby
lowering NOx emissions.[10] These localised
combustion chamber hot spots at high peaks also
contribute to additional heat transfer and crevice
loss which is minimised by additive.[11] The higher
heat trace after the peak indicates that the heavier
longer-chain hydrocarbons are burning more
completely, leading to reduced THC and fuel
economy benefits.[11]

Figure 2. Graph showing the correlation between

treat rate of catalytic metal colloid in the different
formulations tested and SFOC ISO 3046-1
improvement.

Table 4. Example of SFOC ISO 3046-1 and emissions reduction via Infineum Combustion Improver
Additive in HSFO.
Parameter SFOC ISO CO CO2 NO THC FSN
3046-1 (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh)
Non-additised fuel 1 mean 243.5 386 70230 940 242 3.97
Non-additised fuel 2 mean 241.5 392 69167 1012 269 4.34
Non-additised fuel average 242.5 389 69698 976 255 4.15
Additised fuel average 239.5 379 69188 940 246 3.82
Additised vs non-additised (% difference) -1.22 -2.64 -0.73 -3.72 -3.81 -7.91

CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008 Page 4


Figure 3. Additive impact on combustion heat
release trace.
The candidate was then tested at different treat
rates on Day 7 (highlighted in Figure 3) and was
chosen to progress to further no-harms and field
trial performance evaluation. The within-day treat
rate variation was implemented to minimise
impact from external factors e.g. humidity and
temperature. An R2 of 0.97 was achieved on this
day, showing strong correlation between
catalytical metal colloid content and reduced
SFOC ISO 3046-1.
Figure 4. Combustion heat release trace showing
impact of additive and varying treat rate (TR) on
fuel combustion properties taken from Figure 2
Day 7 testing. (a) Increasing treat of additive in
fuel raises the initial heat release and shortens
ignition delay compared to non-additised fuel
thereby having a positive impact on combustion.
(b) Increasing treat rate lowers the peak heat
release which correlates to lower NOx emissions.
(c) Late cycle heat release is consistently higher in
additised fuel which causes better heavy end
combustion leading to lower THC and FSN.
Figure 4 shows the clear effect of increasing treat
rate of the Day 7 additive formulation on fuel
combustion, with a higher treat rate achieving
further enhanced improvement to the combustion
profile. The increase in initial heat release has a
positive impact on the work done. Lowering the
peak heat release minimises heat transfer and
crevice loss, and reduces the formation of NOx,
with NO reductions of 2.8%, 5.8%, and 8.2% seen
CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008
with increasing treat rate. Maximising combustion
of the heavier end of the fuel at high crank angles
minimises the THC emissions with a reduction of
1.8%, 3.3%, and 10.2% seen respectively with
increased treat rate.
3.2 Infineum Marine Combustion Improver
Results in VLSFO
Following the promising data obtained in HSFO,
Infineum were interested to understand if the
combustion improver additive could also be used
to impact fuel consumption and emissions when
VLSFO was used. The same A-B-A test schedule
was employed for VLSFO. Once again, Infineum
were able to obtain significant and reproducible
improvements in fuel consumption, CO, CO 2 &
FSN emissions (see Table 5). Due to the lower
NOx emission baseline in VLSFO compared to
HSFO, Infineum were unable to establish a
statistically significant impact on NOx. The low
NOx emission baseline was expected due to the
very low TSP result for the VLSFO (< 0.01
%m/m), indicating low asphaltene content.
Table 5. Average of SFOC ISO 3046-1 and
emissions reductions via Infineum Combustion
Improver Additive in VLSFO over multiple test
days.
Parameter SFOC ISO CO CO2 FSN
3046-1 (g/kWh) (g/kWh)
(g/kWh)
Additised vs
non-additised -0.9 -7.5 -0.8 -13.8
(% difference)
Infineum recognise that fuel composition of
VLSFO is different to HSFO, which means the
energy content and combustibility of the two fuels
are different, however the relative improvement in
SFOC ISO 3046-1 in both types of fuel were of
similar magnitude with Infineum Combustion
Improver Additive.
The fuel consumption average saving across test
days is ~1%, which is lower than some
commercially available additives claim for marine
fuel consumption savings, which can be in excess
of 4%. As a result, Infineum were especially
interested in benchmarking commercially available
candidates relative to Infineum additive chemistry
in our test programme.
3.3 Commercial Benchmark Additive
Assessments in HSFO
A commercially available ferrocene-based additive
was assessed at the treat rate recommended by
the supplier as well as at comparative treat rate to
Infineum additive. Under the same test conditions
Infineum were only able to obtain marginal fuel
Page 5
economy improvement with the commercial
benchmark additive, and Infineum could not
replicate the claims made in relation to this
technology. Comparisons of the Infineum
Combustion Improver Additive with a commercial
benchmark is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Improvement in SFOC ISO 3046-1
observed in HSFO and VLSFO with Infineum and
commercially available additive chemistries at
recommended treat rates.
These results demonstrate that to fully understand
the additive impact on a vessel, a controlled trial
or relevant engine test is required in an
appropriate fuel. Read across of results from
bench tests is not sufficient to provide the ship
operator with the confidence that the additive
impact will relate to their engine and needs. The
culmination of Infineum’s four-stroke static engine
testing led to the identification of a combustion
improver additive formulation that obtained
significant and repeatable fuel economy and
emissions reductions. This formulation was
selected for further two-stroke static engine
testing, and sea going field trials to verify the
impact of Infineum chemistry in real-life scenarios.
4. TWO-STROKE STATIC ENGINE
TESTING
To verify that the Infineum Combustion Improver
Additive had no operational harms in large two-
stroke engines, Infineum commissioned an 85-
hour (10 day) test programme in a MAN B&W
4S50ME-T9.7 two-stroke test engine. To verify no
operational harms, the decision was made to test
at 50% above Infineum’s maximum recommended
treat rate, which may allow for potential instances
of human error in fuel dosing in the field. Additive
dosing was performed using the configuration
shown in Figure 6, and the engine characteristics
are summarised in Table 6. The engine was
operated using a fuel conforming to the ISO 8217
CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008
grade ‘RMA 10’ and the cylinder oil was injected
at a rate of 1.0 g/kWh. Cylinders 1 and 3 were
injected with a 70BN, SAE 50 commercial marine
cylinder oil, whilst cylinders 2 and 4 were injected
with a 100BN SAE 50 commercial marine cylinder
oil.
Figure 6. Diagram of the fuel system set-up and
image of the MAN B&W 4S50ME-T9.7 two-stroke
engine used for no operational harms testing.
Table 6. Engine characteristics for the MAN B&W
4S50ME-T9.7 test engine used.
Parameter Unit Details
No. of Cylinders 4
Bore mm 500
Speed min-1 117
Power kW 7120
Mean Effective Pressure MPa 2.1
It was recognised that it was important to test for
no operational harms at all loads. Therefore, a
reference hour of operation at load factors of 25,
50, 75, 85 and 100% were performed at the start
of testing with untreated fuel, before moving on to
the 80 hours of operation with additised fuel. The
engine load diagram for the testing is shown in
Figure 7. The engine was operated at 50% load
for an extended period, reflecting the average
main engine load factors in 2018.[12]
Figure 7. Engine load variation over the test
period.
Page 6
After the test, both piston and cylinder liner wall
surface were inspected. Compared with previous
experience in 85 hrs engine operation, Infineum
observed;
• Deposit amount on the piston surfaces =
normal to clean
• Deposit amount on the cylinder liner wall
surface = normal to clean
• Fuel injector nozzle hole condition = clear
• Liner condition = good
• Engine condition during engine operation
= good
• Deposit thickness on piston crowns = low
Figure 8 contains images of the piston crown, ring
grooves, top land, and piston ring side condition
taken during the post-test examination. It is worth
noting here that from visual appearance, the
deposit thickness was thinner than usual on the
piston crown. Overall, the test facility did not
observe any harmful effects on the engine during
80 hours operation with Infineum Combustion
Improver Additive.
Figure 8. Images collected during the piston
surface condition examination for cylinders 1 and
2 after 80 hours of operation with Infineum
Combustion Improver Additive. Cylinders were
using 70 BN and 100 BN cylinder oils respectively.
The images in Figure 9 provide a reference
condition for pistons operated in the same engine,
for the same test duration, and using the same
70BN lubricant. In this test, a non-additised fuel of
the same grade was used. However, it should be
noted that cylinder oil injection rate was higher
(1.5 g/kWh) compared to the 1.0 g/kWh used
during the Infineum additive trial.
Figure 9. Images collected following a same
duration (85 hour total) test on the MAN B&W
4S50ME-T9.7 engine. This test used non-
additised fuel of the same grade, 1.5 g/kWh of the
CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008
same 70BN commercial cylinder oil and a different
load profile.
5. TWO-STROKE FIELD TRIAL
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) set
out by the United Nations[13] provide a pathway for
the maritime industry to reach a sustainable
future. Given the promising static engine test
performance discussed in this paper, Infineum
collaborated with Stolt Tankers B.V. to design a
rigorous field trial test procedure, and verify the
combustion improver additive in a real-world
application. In particular, fuel economy
improvement contributes to SDG 13, which is
related to climate action by enabling ships to
reduce emissions and maximise the energy
extracted from fuels used. Through collaborating
in this manner, SDG 17 was also achieved and
highlights the commitment of Stolt to developing a
sustainable shipping future.
Infineum’s Combustion Improver Additive was
tested for its performance in the 33,000 DWT
chemical tanker Stolt Ebony. The vessel is
powered by a two-stroke direct drive MAN B&W
5G50ME-B9 engine, generating 7,945 hp at 85
rpm. The engine was operated using a MAN
Category II cylinder oil at a rate of 4.9 L/hr and
had served under 30,000 hours of operation prior
to the trial start.
5.1 Trial protocol
The vessel schedule began in Antwerp, where
200 MT of VLSFO fuel was bunkered into a tank
which had been pre-dosed with Infineum
Combustion Improver Additive. The same fuel was
also bunkered into a larger 400 MT tank, with fuel
characteristics shown in Table 7.
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emissions
Spectrometry (Energy Institute IP 501)[14] was
used to confirm the treat rate of the additised tank
and verified dispersion of the additive within the
fuel. To avoid stop/start operation from port visits
and Emission Control Areas (ECA) during the trial,
the engine began consuming additised fuel in
open waters on departure from Dakar (see Figure
10). The additised portion of the trial lasted for 9
days, whilst the non-additised portion was
collected over 12 days.
Page 7
 experience a confused sea during the trial, with
wind/sea directions generally aligned. The wind
speed also remained relatively constant
throughout. However, the wind direction in relation
to the bow was a harsher angle during the
additised portion of the trial. The effective wind
speed calculated in

Figure 11 is an average of the effective wind

conditions over all days of the trial period,
accounting for wind speed and direction relative to
the vessel heading.

Figure 10. Stolt Ebony route map for the duration

of the Infineum Combustion Improver field trial.[15]
Figure 11. The effective wind conditions during the
The trial recorded vessel speed, heading and
non-additised and additised portion of the trial.
wind/sea speed and directions as well as
Red arrow indicates direction from bow, with value
monitored main engine performance as normally
in red the average effective wind conditions over
recorded by the crew. The ship was operated in
the trial period. Similar wind speeds were
constant rpm mode (rather than constant load),
experienced over the whole trial period, however
with the electronically controlled auto-tuning of
the wind direction from the bow was narrower for
injection timing switched on. The most substantial
the additised portion of the trial.
addition to data normally captured by the vessel
was the recording of O2, CO, CO2, NO, NO2, and
As the propeller speed was operated at constant
SO2 emissions via a Testo 340 flue gas analyser
rpm, one of the other key parameters to consider
which was positioned in the stack.
is the engine load variation. During the non-
additised portion of the trial, engine load fluctuated
Table 7. Fuel characteristics measured to ensure
between 74 and 78%, with an average of 76%.
compliance with ISO 8217.
During the additised portion, engine loads were
between 73 and 77%, with an average of 75%.
Parameter Method Unit Result
Viscosity @ 50 oC ASTM D7042 cSt 91.66
The relationship between engine load and
Density @ 15 oC ISO 12185 kg/m3 930.5 optimised SFOC is non-linear, and typically has a
Sulphur ISO 8754 % (m/m) 0.50 minimum SFOC at 75% engine load for MAN
o
Flash Point ISO 2719 B C >67 engines, meaning that the impact of engine load is
Acid Number ASTM D664 mg KOH/g 0.74 likely to be negligible or slightly favourable for the
Total Sediment Acc. ISO 10307-2 % (m/m) 0.03
Micro Carbon Residue ISO 10370 % (m/m) 4.92
non-additised portion of the trial.[9]
o
Pour Point ISO 3016 C 18
Water Content ASTM D6304 % (V/V) 0.06 To summarise, effective wind conditions during
Ash INT 1002 % (m/m) 0.029 the additised portion of the trial are likely to
Vanadium IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 13 negatively impact SFOC. Meanwhile engine load
Sodium IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 35
Calcium IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 11 differences are likely to be negligible. This means
Zinc IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 4 that the additive portion of the trial was likely at a
Phosphorus IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 5 disadvantage for showing SFOC improvement.
Aluminium + Silicon IP 501 (mod) mg/kg 51
CCAI CCAI - 808 5.3 Trial Results
*Fuel also free of contaminants according to During the additised portion of the trial, there was
industry standard GC/MS testing. a reduction in the fuel consumed of 3.5%, partly
as a result of the reduced engine load. However,
5.2 Trial conditions when adjusted for the power output of the engine,
The variability in running a field trial on a sea the SFOC (g/kWh) shows a clear reduction of at
going vessel are the parameters which are outside least 0.8% which can be attributed to the fuel
of the control of the crew, which may impact the additive. The average SFOC for each trial day is
ability to compare reference non-additised and shown in Figure 12.
additised data. The major consideration is the
sea/weather conditions, and how this relates to
the heading of the vessel. The trial vessel did not

CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008 Page 8


Figure 12. Specific Fuel Oil Consumption (SFOC)
recorded during the additised and non-additised
portion of the trial. The mean result with additive
was greater than one standard deviation away
from the mean of the non-additised portion. The
probability of the variation observed would occur
due to chance is less than 1.00%.
The additive also had positive impacts on the NOx
and SOx emissions of the vessel over the trial
period, accomplishing a NOx reduction of 4% and
SOx reduction of 12%, which are shown in Figures
A2 and A3. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the
piston surface and injector condition, respectively.
This shows not only no harms from additive use,
but also potential credit from the additive on
resisting the build-up of hard deposits on the
injector nozzle openings which could hinder the
proper atomisation of fuel into the combustion
chamber.
Figure 13. Images of piston surface condition of
cylinder 5 after a) additive portion of the trial, and
b) non-additised portion of the trial.
Figure 14. Injector nozzle condition after a)
additised portion of the trial and b) non-additised
portion of the trial. Hard deposit build-up can be
seen on the injector following operation with non-
CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008
additised fuel, whilst the additised fuel kept
nozzles free from deposit build-up.
6. CONCLUSION
In needing to meet ever more stringent fuel
savings and emissions reductions targets, the
marine industry has numerous operational options
at its disposal. In this paper, Infineum have shared
the development of test methodology to
statistically prove an additive solution that can
help ensure compliance with existing regulations,
and may be built into a vessel’s SEEMP to help
maximise efficiency and obtain better CII ratings.
Infineum have shown how the test methodology
was used in the initial screening of chemistries,
with their performance rigorously verified in four-
stroke static engine testing. This testing showed
an improvement of ~1% SFOC ISO 3046-1 in both
HSFO and VLSFO, and a NO emission reduction
of 4% in HSFO. The performance of the most
promising candidate was then verified in a field
trial with a major shipping company, where the
operational vessel saw improvements of 0.8% in
SFOC despite adverse sea/weather conditions.
Further, the additive was able to reduce NO x
emissions by 4% and SOx emissions by 12%,
which was in alignment with earlier four-stroke
engine testing.
7. REFERENCES
1. Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC), MARPOL Annex VI Revision,
MEPC.328(76), 2021 Amendments to the
annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the
international convention for the prevention of
pollution from ships, International Maritime
Organization (IMO), 2012.
2. DNV,
https://www.dnv.com/maritime/insights/topics/
CII-carbon-intensity-indicator/, (accessed
January 2023).
3. Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC), Annex 9 Resolution, MEPC.213(63),
Guidelines for the development of a ship
energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP),
International Maritime Organization (IMO),
2012.
4. Lloyd’s List, Shipowners focus on 2030
carbon cut target, Maritime Insights &
Intelligence Limited, 2023.
5. IP 541: Determination of ignition and
combustion characteristics of residual fuels;
Constant volume combustion chamber
method, Energy Institute Publications, 2006.
6. Standard Test Method for Multielement
Determination of Used and Unused
Lubricating Oils and Base Oils by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission
Page 9
 Spectrometry (ICP-AES), American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International, 2018.
7. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines -
Performance; Part 1: Declarations of power,
fuel and lubricating oil consumptions, and test
methods - Additional requirements for engines
for general use, International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 2002.
8. Fuel Quality Guide – Ignition and Combustion,
Conseil International des Machines à Figure A2. NOx emissions readings during the
Combustion (CIMAC), 2011. additised and non-additised portion of the trial.
9. J. P. Jalkanen, L. Johansson, J. Kukkonen, A. The mean result with additive was greater than
Brink, J. Kalli, and T. Stipa, Atmos. Chem. one standard deviation away from the mean of the
Phys., 2012, 12, 2641-2659. non-additised portion. The probability of the
10. Cambustion, variation observed would occur due to chance is
https://www.cambustion.com/applications/egr- less than 1.75%.
nox-development, (accessed February 2023).
11. L. Eriksson and M. Sivertsson, SAE Int. J.
Engines, 2015, 8, 1069-1079.
12. D. Rutherford, X. Mao, L. Osipova and B.
Comer, ICCT, 2020, 1-16.
13. The Sustainable Development Goals Report,
United Nations, 2022.
14. IP 501: Determination of aluminium, silicon,
vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium, calcium, zinc
and phosphorous in residual fuel oil by ashing,
fusion and inductively coupled plasma Figure A3. SOx emissions readings during the
emission spectrometry, Energy Institute additised and non-additised portion of the trial.
Publications, 2005. The mean result with additive was almost two
15. Alfa Laval, StormGeo (Software), standard deviations away from the mean of the
https://www.stormgeo.com/, (accessed non-additised portion. The probability of the
February 2023). variation observed would occur due to chance is
less than 0.25%.
8. APPENDIX

Figure A1. Linear model predicting SFOC ISO

3046-1 using treat rate and day. The R2 value of
0.90 and Pvalue=<.0001 means that the
improvement seen with additive had a less than
0.01% chance of occurring due to random chance.
This gives Infineum confidence in the potency of
the catalytic metal colloid investigated.

CIMAC Congress 2023, Busan Paper No. 008 Page 10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)