Evaluation of Fuel Matrix Additive

i

Final Report

Submitted by:

Dr. Georgios Karavalakis (Primary Investigator)

Jiacheng Yang

University of California

CE-CERT

Riverside, CA 92521

951-781-5799

951-781-5790 (fax)

Evaluation of Fuel Matrix Additive

Prepared for:

The Fuel Matrix, LLC

Tom Horst

513 W. Sunset Road

Henderson ▪ Nevada ▪ 89011

November 2015

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ii Executive Summary iii

1 Introduction 4 2 Experimental Procedures 4

Test Vehicle and Test Fuels 4 2.1

Test Cycles and Test Matrix 4 2.2

Emissions Testing and Measurements 5 2.3

3 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometer Testing Results 6 NOx Emissions Results 10 3.1

CO2 Emissions Results 12 3.2

CO Emissions Results 14 3.3

PM Emissions Results 16 3.4

THC Emissions Results 18 3.5

4 Summary 18

Appendix 20 Appendix A: Executive Order for Test Engine 20 Appendix B. Comprehensive Emission Results 22 Appendix C. Test Matrix 24

Appendix D. Fuel Properties Analysis Report 26

iii

Executive Summary

Testing was conducted for a heavy-duty vehicle on CARB ULSD and two blends treated with

Fuel Matrix additive as part of an evaluation of gaseous and particulate emissions. The test

vehicle was fitted with a 2009 model year Cummins ISX engine and a diesel particulate filter

(DPF). Emissions and fuel economy measurements were made over the Heavy Heavy-Duty

Diesel Truck (HHDDT) Cruise High-Speed cycle using a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer. The

testing consisted of comparisons between the baseline CARB ULSD and the additized fuels.

Emphasis was given on carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC),

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions.

The results of this study are summarized below.

The use of Fuel Matrix additive resulted in important statistically significant NOx

reductions compared to the baseline CARB ULSD over the HHDDT Cruise High-Speed

cycle. The reductions in NOx emissions were on the order of 55.26% and 57.54%,

respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 (0.9 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD) and

Fuel Matrix 2 (0.80 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD) on a g/mile basis. The

reductions in NOx emissions on a g/bhp-hr basis were on the order of 58.12% and

59.61%, respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 and Fuel Matrix 2 compared to CARB

ULSD.

Overall, CO2 emissions showed reductions with the Fuel Matrix fuels compared to the

baseline CARB ULSD, with some reductions being statistically significant.

CO emissions showed decreases with the use of Fuel Matrix fuels compared to CARB

ULSD.

PM mass emissions for the baseline CARB ULSD and the Fuel Matrix fuels were found

to be at very low levels due to the presence of the DPF, with no statistically significant

differences between the test fuels.

4

1 Introduction

Testing was conducted to evaluate the emissions performance of Fuel Matrix additive. The Fuel

Matrix additive was treated on a typical automotive CARB ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel

and subsequently tested on a truck with a 2009 Cummins ISX engine equipped with a diesel

particulate filter (DPF). The testing consisted of comparisons between the baseline operation

with CARB ULSD and operation with the additized Fuel Matrix fuel into CARB ULSD. This

included comparisons of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total

hydrocarbons (THC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particular matter mass (PM) between the

baseline of the vehicle and the Fuel Matrix fuel additive for the same vehicle. The truck was

tested over hot-start tests using single, duplicate, and triplicate Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck

(HHDDT) Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle.

2 Experimental Procedures

Test Vehicle and Test Fuels 2.1

A 2010 heavy-duty truck with a 2009 Cummins engine was utilized for this program. This truck

was powered with a CARB ULSD and CARB ULSD, which treated with Fuel Matrix additive in

two different concentrations. A description of the test vehicle is provided in Table 2-1. The

emission control systems included direct diesel injection (DDI), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),

engine control unit (ECM), oxidizing catalyst (OC), periodic trap oxidizer (PTOX) and a

turbocharger with a charge air cooler. The certification Executive Order for the engine tested are

provided in Appendix A.

Table 2-1. Engine and vehicle Specifications

The road load coefficients were calculated based on the frontal area of the vehicle and a factor

accounting for its general shape. The road load and associated coast down coefficients were

verified with chassis dynamometer coast downs prior to testing. The vehicle was tested at a test

weight of 65,000 lbs, which represents the averaged loaded weight of a Class 8 truck in the US.

The baseline CARB ULSD was a typical automotive California diesel fuel and procured from a

local fuel station. The CARB ULSD was treated with Fuel Matrix additive at 45 mL

concentration per 50 gallons of diesel fuel (Fuel Matrix 1). An additional test fuel was created

(Fuel Matrix 2), which contained 32 mL of Fuel Matrix additive per 40 gallons of diesel fuel.

Test Cycles and Test Matrix 2.2

Each fuel was tested using the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HHDDT) Cruise Hi-Speed

driving cycle. Single, duplicate, and triplicate tests were conducted over the HHDDT Cruise Hi-

Speed cycle for all test fuels. The speed-time profile of the test cycle is shown in

Figure 2-1.

ManufacturerEngine

ModelEngine Family

Horse

powerDisplacement

Peak

Torque

Cummins ISX 435ST 9CEXH0912XAK435 HP @

1800 RPM14.9 L

1450/1650

FT-LB @

1200 RPM

Vehicle

Year

Empty

Weight

License

Plate #

2010 20,000 lbs WP64133

Mileage

International 3HSCUAPR0BN357675 467,027 miles

Engine

Model Year Engine Type

2009 Compression-ignition

VehicleManufacturer VIN number

5

Figure 2-1. Description of a single HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed Test Cycle

The following are basic parameters of a single HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed cycle:

• Duration: 760 seconds / 12.67 minutes

• Distance: 10.55 miles

Each cycle was warmed up by 2 minutes of operation at 45 mph, so tests were conducted as ‘hot-

running’ tests. There was approximately a 20 minute soak period between tests for the

completion of the emissions measurements, instrument calibrations, and for PM filter changing.

On the first day of testing, baseline CARB ULSD was conducted over two of single HHDDT

Cruise Hi-Speed and a triplicate HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycles. After a fuel change to

CARB fuel with Fuel Matrix 1, testing was conducted over two of the single HHDDT Cruise Hi-

Speed and two of the triplicate HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycles.

On the second day of testing, testing was started with two of the dual HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed

test cycles with CARB ULSD with Fuel Matrix additive 2. After a fuel change, baseline CARB

ULSD was conducted over a dual HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle.

In addition to the preconditioning before each test, the vehicle was also warmed up

approximately 30 minutes at the beginning of each test day to ensure that the vehicle would not

be in cold-start mode prior to any of the test sequences. The preconditioning cycles would warm

up both the vehicle and dynamometer to the testing conditions, thus reducing emissions

variability between tests.

A detailed test matrix for the two days of testing is provided in the Appendix B.

6

Emissions Testing and Measurements 2.3

The chassis dynamometer testing was conducted in University of California, Riverside (UCR)

Center for Environmental Research and Technology’s (CE-CERT’s) heavy-duty chassis

dynamometer facility. The dynamometer includes a 48” Electric AC Chassis Dynamometer with

dual, direct connected, 300 horsepower motors attached to each roll set. The dynamometer

applies appropriate loads to a vehicle to simulate factors such as the friction of the roadway and

wind resistance, as would be experienced under typical in-use driving conditions. Pictures of the

setup of the vehicle on the chassis dynamometer are provided in Figure 2-2.

The emissions measurements were obtained using CE-CERT’s Mobile Emissions Laboratory

(MEL). For all tests, standard emissions measurements of THC, CO, NOx, CO2, and PM, were

measured. CO and CO2 emissions were measured with a 602P nondispersive infrared (NDIR)

analyzer from California Analytical Instruments (CAI). THC emissions were measured with

600HFID flame ionization detector (FID) from CAI. NOx emissions were measured with

600HPLC chemiluminescence analyzer from CAI. Emissions measurements were conducted

according to the provisions of Title 40, Part 1065 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Figure 2-2. Typical Setup of Test Vehicles on the Chassis Dynamometer

The mass concentrations of PM2.5 were obtained by analysis of particulates collected on 47mm

diameter 2 μm pore Teflo filters (Whatman brand). The filters were measured for net gains using

a UMX2 ultra precision microbalance with buoyancy correction following the weighing

procedure guidelines of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Sampling for the PM was done

cumulatively over the entire duration of HHDDT Hi-Speed Cruise cycle due to the low mass

levels expected for these pollutants.

3 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometer Testing Results

The emissions results for each test are presented in this section. This includes emissions results

for the truck tested with the baseline CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel Matrix 2 for NOx,

PM mass, THC, CO, and CO2 on a g/mile and g/bhp-hr basis. The results include the individual

test results, the averages, the percentage difference, and the standard derivation for the baseline

CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel Matrix 2 fuels. For the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test

cycle, statistical comparisons were made between the results for the different configurations

7

using a two-tailed, equal variance t-test, with the p-values for the t-test provided in the following

tables. Values are considered to be statistically significant for p < 0.1, which represents a 90%

confidence level. The statistically significant differences are shaded in the Tables 3-1 and 3-2.

The results for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle are presented in g/mile and in g/bhp-hr in

Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, respectively. More details on the testing results are also included in

Appendix C.

8

Table 3-1. Test Results for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed Cycle in g/mile

Test Fuel Test Date Test Number Trace THC CH4 CO NOx CO2 PM

CARB

11/12/2015 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 0.053 0.012 0.003 17.870 1903 0.0057

11/12/2015 2 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_1 0.022 0.010 0.003 18.258 1914 0.0007





Average 0.031 0.011 0.003 15.595 1929 0.0017

Stdev 0.021 0.004 0.000 4.697 56 0.0020

Fuel Matrix 1

11/12/2015 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_2 0.073 0.004 0.003 7.679 1811 NA





Average 0.032 0.009 0.003 6.978 1878 0.0028

Stdev 0.023 0.006 0.000 1.015 74 0.0000

Fuel Matrix 2





Average 0.023 0.006 0.003 6.622 1853 0.0006

Stdev 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.992 56 0.0004

Summary

% Difference

Fuel Matrix 1 to CARB 4.68% -15.00% -1.43% -55.26% -2.62% 58.14%

Fuel Matrix 2 to CARB -24.70% -39.08% -5.06% -57.54% -3.96% -63.74%

TTEST

Fuel Matrix 1 to CARB 0.916 0.612 0.485 0.003 0.231 NA

Fuel Matrix 2 to CARB 0.518 0.134 0.030 0.006 0.068 0.308

*Shaded values mean a statistically significant differences represent a 90% confidence level

9

Table 3-2. Test Results for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed Cycle in g/bhp-hr

Test Fuel Test Date Test Number Trace THC CH4 CO NOx CO2 PM

CARB







Average 0.011 0.004 0.001 5.721 705 0.0006

Stdev 0.008 0.002 0.000 1.765 22 0.0007

Fuel Matrix 1






Average 0.011 0.003 0.001 2.396 642 0.0009

Stdev 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.422 6 0.0000

Fuel Matrix 2





Average 0.008 0.002 0.001 2.310 644 0.0002

Stdev 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.412 4 0.0001

Summary

% Difference

Fuel Matrix 1 to CARB -1.78% -22.02% -7.86% -58.12% -8.97% 38.88%

Fuel Matrix 2 to CARB -28.73% -41.70% -9.75% -59.61% -8.69% -65.64%

TTEST

Fuel Matrix 1 to CARB 0.967 0.424 0.001 0.003 0.000 NA

Fuel Matrix 2 to CARB 0.452 0.114 0.000 0.006 0.001 0.302

*Shaded values mean a statistically significant differences represent a 90% confidence level

10

NOx Emissions Results 3.1

Average NOx emissions results for the truck with the CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel

Matrix 2 are presented in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle.

The results showed relatively consistent reductions in NOx emissions for the Fuel Matrix

additive, with reductions of 55.26% and 57.54%, respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 (0.9 mL

Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD) and Fuel Matrix 2 (0.80 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of

CARB ULSD) on a g/mile basis. The reductions in NOx emissions on a g/bhp-hr basis were on

the order of 58.12% and 59.61%, respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 (0.9 mL Fuel Matrix per

gallon of CARB ULSD) and Fuel Matrix 2 (0.80 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD).

The reductions in NOx emissions for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle were all

statistically significant with a 90% confidence level.

The reduction in NOx emissions for the Fuel Matrix fuel relative to CARB ULSD was observed

for both the acceleration and the high-speed portion in the HHDDT Cruise High-Speed test

cycle, as shown in Figure 3-3. The real-time data (representative data was taken during the first

day of testing) presented in Figure 3-3 shows that during the acceleration periods, NOx

emissions for the Fuel Matrix 1 decreased approximately 50% compared to those of CARB

ULSD. For the high-speed portion of the test cycle, average NOx emissions for the Fuel Matrix 1

only accounted a third to those of CARB ULSD.

Figure 3-1. Average NOx Emissions on a g/mile Basis

0

5

10

15

20

CARB Fuel Matrix 1 Fuel Matrix 2

NO

x Em

issi

on

s (g

/mi)

11

Figure 3-2. Average NOx Emissions on a g/bhp-hr Basis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


NO

x Em

issi

on

s (g

/bh

p-h

r)

12

Figure 3-3. Real-Time NOx emissions comparison

CO2 Emissions Results 3.2

CO2 emissions results for the truck with the CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel Matrix 2

fuels are presented in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5, respectively, for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed

test cycle. The results reported here show some reductions in CO2 emissions with the use of Fuel

Matrix compared to CARB ULSD on a g/mile basis, but not at a statistically significant level. On

a g-bhp/hr basis the reductions in CO2 emissions with the additized fuels relative to CARB

ULSD were statistically significant.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 200 400 600 800

Spp

ed

(m

ph

)

NO

x Em

issi

on

s (g

)

Cycle Time (s)

CARB Fuel Matrix 1 Speed (mph)

13

Figure 3-4. Average CO2 Emissions on a g/mile Basis

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100


CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

(g/m

i)

14

Figure 3-5. Average CO2 Emissions on a g/bhp-hr Basis

CO Emissions Results 3.3

CO emissions results for the truck with the CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel Matrix 2 fuels

are presented in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-7 for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle. The

results showed relatively consistent decreases in CO emissions for the Fuel Matrix additive

relative to CARB ULSD, with these decreases being on the order of 1.43% and 5.06%,

respectively, for Fuel Matrix 1 and Fuel Matrix 2 on a g/mile basis, and on the order of 7.86%

and 9.75% for Fuel Matrix 1 and Fuel Matrix 2 on a g/bhp-hr basis compared to CARB ULSD.

The reductions in CO emissions were all statistically significant for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-

Speed test cycle, except for the Fuel Matrix 1 on a g/mile basis.

500

550

600

650

700

750


CO

2 (

g/b

hp

-hr)

15

Figure 3-6. Average CO Emissions on a g/mi Basis

0.0020

0.0022

0.0024

0.0026

0.0028

0.0030

0.0032

0.0034

0.0036

0.0038


CO

Em

issi

on

s (g

/mi)

16

Figure 3-7. Average CO Emissions on a g/bhp-hr Basis

PM Emissions Results 3.4

PM mass emissions, expressed in g/mile and g/bhp-hr, are shown in Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9,

respectively. In general, PM mass emissions for the baseline CARB ULSD and the Fuel Matrix

fuels were found to be at very low levels due to the presence of the DPF. The results reported

here did not show any statistically significant differences in PM mass emissions between the test

fuels over the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed cycle.

0.0010

0.0011

0.0011

0.0012

0.0012

0.0013

0.0013

0.0014


CO

Em

issi

on

s (g

/bh

p-h

r)

17

Figure 3-8. Average PM Emissions on a g/mi Basis

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

0.0035

0.0040


PM

Em

issi

on

s (g

/mi)

18

Figure 3-9. Average PM Emissions on a g/bhp-hr Basis

THC Emissions Results 3.5

THC emissions results for the truck with the CARB ULSD, Fuel Matrix 1, and Fuel Matrix 2

fuels did not show statistically significant fuel differences for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test

cycle. THC emissions showed mixed results for the Fuel Matrix Additive, with some increases

for the HHDDT Cruise Hi-Speed test cycle. It should be noted that THC emissions remained in

very low concentrations for all test fuels.

4 Summary

Testing was conducted for a heavy-duty vehicle on CARB ULSD and two blends treated with

Fuel Matrix additive as part of an evaluation of gaseous and particulate emissions. Emissions

measurements were made over the Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HHDDT) Cruise High-

Speed cycle using a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer.

0.0000

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.0010

0.0012

0.0014


PM

Em

issi

on

s (g

/bh

p-h

r)

19

The results of this study are summarized below.

The use of Fuel Matrix additive resulted in important statistically significant NOx

reductions compared to the baseline CARB ULSD over the HHDDT Cruise High-Speed

cycle. The reductions in NOx emissions were on the order of 55.26% and 57.54%,

respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 (0.9 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD) and

Fuel Matrix 2 (0.80 mL Fuel Matrix per gallon of CARB ULSD) on a g/mile basis. The

reductions in NOx emissions on a g/bhp-hr basis were on the order of 58.12% and

59.61%, respectively, for the Fuel Matrix 1 and Fuel Matrix 2 compared to CARB

ULSD.

Overall, CO2 emissions showed reductions with the Fuel Matrix fuels compared to the

baseline CARB ULSD, with some reductions being statistically significant.

CO emissions showed decreases with the use of Fuel Matrix fuels compared to CARB

ULSD.

PM mass emissions for the baseline CARB ULSD and the Fuel Matrix fuels were found

to be at very low levels due to the presence of the DPF, with no statistically significant

differences between the test fuels.

20

Appendix

Appendix A: Executive Order for Test Engine

21

22

Appendix B. Comprehensive Emission Results

Table B1. Comprehensive Emission Results in g/mi Basis

Emission Factors (g/mi)

Test Date Test ID Fuel Trace Dist mi THC CH4 NMHC CO NOx CO2 PM Comment

g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi mg/mi

11/12/2015 201511120836 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 10.509 0.053 0.012 0.043 0.003 17.870 1902.7 0.006 Valid

11/12/2015 201511120917 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_1 10.604 0.022 0.010 0.014 0.003 18.258 1914.3 0.001 Valid



11/12/2015 201511121039 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 10.710 0.922 0.028 0.907 0.004 7.136 2178.5 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121159 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_1 10.550 0.797 0.011 0.795 0.004 8.645 2128.1 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121159 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_2 10.652 0.073 0.004 0.070 0.003 7.679 1810.9 NA Valid


11/12/2015 201511121302 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 10.706 0.024 0.018 0.008 0.004 5.896 1979.2 0.003 Valid



11/12/2015 201511121344 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_3 10.589 0.060 0.014 0.049 0.004 14.555 2065.2 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121444 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 10.641 0.384 0.019 0.371 0.004 18.638 2079.8 NA Regen

11/13/2015 201511130758 Fuel Matrix 2 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x2_1 10.702 0.037 0.006 0.032 0.003 5.812 1867.3 0.001 Valid






*Regeneration of DPF could cause large amount of PM and NOx emission, these regeneration cycles were not take into consideration into the fuel matrix performance evaluation

23

Table B2. Comprehensive Emission Results in g/bhp-hr Basis

Test Date Test ID Fuel Trace Cycle Duration hp bhp-hr Distance THC CH4 NMHC CO NOx CO2 PM Comment

s mi g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr

11/12/2015 201511120836 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 757 133.43 28.06 10.509 0.020 0.005 0.016 0.001 6.694 712.7 0.0021 Val id

11/12/2015 201511120917 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_1 757 135.29 28.45 10.604 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.001 6.805 713.5 0.0003 Val id



11/12/2015 201511121039 CARB HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 757 154.24 32.43 10.710 0.305 0.009 0.300 0.001 2.356 719.4 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121159 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_1 757 152.99 32.17 10.550 0.261 0.004 0.261 0.001 2.835 697.9 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121159 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_2 757 144.60 30.41 10.652 0.025 0.002 0.024 0.001 2.690 634.4 NA Val id


11/12/2015 201511121302 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 757 156.94 33.00 10.706 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.001 1.913 642.1 0.0009 Val id



11/12/2015 201511121344 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x3_3 757 148.20 31.16 10.589 0.020 0.005 0.017 0.001 4.946 701.7 NA Regen

11/12/2015 201511121444 Fuel Matrix 1 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP 757 148.51 31.23 10.641 0.131 0.007 0.127 0.001 6.351 708.7 NA Regen

11/13/2015 201511130758 Fuel Matrix 2 HHDDT Cruise HI-SP_x2_1 757 148.16 31.15 10.702 0.013 0.002 0.011 0.001 1.997 641.4 0.0003 Val id






Emiss ion Factors (g/bhp-hr)

24

Appendix C. Test Matrix

Table C1. First Test Day Matrix (11/12/2015)

Trace Time (sec)

Time (Hrs) Test Number

Cumulative Time

MEL/HDCD warm up 3600 1.00 1.00

Vehicle warm up (oil & coolant) 1800 0.50 1.50

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 1.53

HHDDT cruise hi-speed 757 0.21 1 baseline

CARB 1.74

soak 1200 0.33 2.08

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 2.11

HHDDT cruise hi-speed (3 back-to-back cycles) 2271 0.63

2 baseline CARB 2.74

soak 1200 0.33 3.07

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 3.11

HHDDT cruise hi-speed 757 0.21 3 baseline

CARB 3.32

soak 1200 0.33 3.65

Fuel Change 3600 1.00 4.65

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 4.68

HHDDT cruise hi-speed (3 back-to-back cycles) 2271 0.63 1 Fuel Matrix 1 5.32

soak 1200 0.33 5.65

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 5.68

HHDDT cruise hi-speed 757 0.21 2 Fuel Matrix 1 5.89

soak 1200 0.33 6.23

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 6.26


soak 1200 0.33 7.22

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 7.26

HHDDT cruise hi-speed 757 0.21 4 Fuel Matrix 1 7.47

MEL/HDCD shut down & Data Process 1800 0.50 7.97

25

Table C2. Second Test Day Matrix (11/13/2015)

Trace Time (sec)

Time (Hrs) Test Number

Cumulative Time

MEL/HDCD warm up 3600 1.00 1.00

Vehicle warm up (oil & coolant) 1800 0.50 1.50

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 1.53


soak 1200 0.33 2.08

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 2.11


soak 1200 0.33 3.07

Fuel Change 3600 1.00 4.07

2 mins at 45 mph 120 0.03 4.11

HHDDT cruise hi-speed (2 back-to-back cycles) 2271 0.63

4 baseline CARB 4.74

MEL/HDCD shut down & Data Process 1800 0.50 5.24

26

Appendix D. Fuel Properties Analysis Report

Test Method Property Units Value

D4052

API@60F 38.2

SPGr@60F 0.834

Density @ 15°C g/ml 0.8336

D5291 CH

Carbon wt% 85.96

Hydrogen wt% 13.68

Oxygen by difference wt% 0.36

Date post:	07-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Evaluation of Fuel Matrix Additive

Documents