Analysis of the ISM Matrix

Draft 3

November 5, 2004

2

Executive Summary

• Both Levels of Soot Data Used in Analysis– Crosshead Wear, Sludge, Top Ring Weight Loss, Oil

Filter Delta Pressure, Injector Screw, Valve Adjusting Screw, Rocker Hat, Cylinder Liner Wear and Scuffing

• Soot Correction for CWL and IAS Possible• Oil Discrimination on Some Parameters• Lab A has Significantly Higher Oil Consumption

and Lower Sludge Ratings• Lab D is Dropped from the Analysis• Outlier Criteria a Possibility

3

ISM Matrix

Test Number: Average Soot

Lab A Lab G Lab B

ISMA

1: 3.7%

2: None

1: 3.4%

2: None

1: None

2: None

1004-3

1: 3.5%

2: 4.3%

1: 3.4%

2: 3.9%

1: 3.5%

2: 3.9%

830-2

1: None

2: 4.0%

1: None

2: 3.8%

1: None

2: 4.1%

4

Cross Head Weight Loss

• Model Fit: CWL=f(Lab, Oil, Average Soot)– No Lab Differences

• Lab G 0.84 Mild if Fit Procedure Change Instead of Soot

– All 3 Oils Statistically Significantly Different

– CWL Increases 3.0332 per 1% Avg Soot

Crosshead Weight LossOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

LS Mean @ 4% Soot 8.6385 4.8680 6.3605Mean @ 4% Soot 8.6416 4.8678 6.2149StdDev @ 4% Soot 0.5784 0.1477 0.0070Mean @ New Soot 8.9000 4.7667 6.8767StdDev @ New Soot 0.5568 0.6110 NAM11 EGR Target 99.8000 12.2000 5.1000

5

ISM Matrix Average Crosshead Wear as a Function of Soot

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

TGA Average Soot

Ave

rag

e C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMA

The Outlier: Lab D

6

ISM Matrix Average Crosshead Wear as a Function of SootOutlier Lab Removed

y = 3.0336x - 3.4927

R2 = 0.766

y = 4x - 11.1

R2 = 1y = 3x - 5.8

R2 = 1

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

TGA Average Soot

Ave

rag

e C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMA

Linear (1004)

Linear (830)

Linear (ISMA)

7

ISM Matrix Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear as a Function of Within Test Variability

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Standard Deviation of Exhaust Crossheads

So

ot

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMAThe Outlier: Lab D

NO RELATIONSHIP OBSERVED

8

ISM Matrix Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear as a Function of Total Oil Consumption

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Total Oil Consumption

So

ot

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMAThe Outlier: Lab D

NO RELATIONSHIP OBSERVED

9

ISM Matrix Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear as a Function of Tailpipe Temperature

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500

Average Tailpipe Temperature

So

ot

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMAThe Outlier: Lab D

10

ISM Matrix Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear as a Function of Pre-Turbine Temperature

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10 110 210 310 410 510 610 710 810 910 1010

Average Pre-Turbine Temperature

So

ot

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMAThe Outlier: Lab D

11

ISM Matrix Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear as a Function of Crankcase Pressure

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Average Crankcase Pressure

So

ot

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMAThe Outlier: Lab D

12

M11 EGR Crosshead Wear as a Function of ISM Crosshead WearOil Averages

0.0000

10.0000

20.0000

30.0000

40.0000

50.0000

60.0000

70.0000

80.0000

90.0000

100.0000

4.5000 5.0000 5.5000 6.0000 6.5000 7.0000 7.5000 8.0000 8.5000 9.0000

ISM Soot Adjusted Crosshead Wear (mg)

M11

EG

R S

ott

Ad

just

ed C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

=Standardized Distance

13

What About Outlier Criteria

• E178– Assume Known Standard Deviation

– With n=6 and Alpha=0.01, T=2.68

• Outlier Criteria Creates Outlier

Crosshead Weight LossOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

Mean @ 4% Soot 8.6416 4.8678 6.2149StdDev @ 4% Soot 0.5784 0.1477 0.0070Mean-Outliers 7.8819 4.1344 4.8125StdDev-Outliers 1.1943 0.7867 0.6423

14

ISM Matrix Average Crosshead Wear as a Function of SootOUTLIER CRITERIA USED

y = 3.0301x - 3.481

R2 = 0.766

y = -1.4548x + 9.905

R2 = 0.0798

y = 3.0278x - 5.9361

R2 = 1

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

TGA Average Soot

Ave

rag

e C

ross

hea

d W

ear

(mg

)

1004

830

ISMA

Linear (1004)

Linear (830)

Linear (ISMA)

15

Oil Filter Delta Pressure

• Model Fit: LN(FDP)=f(Lab, Oil)– No Lab Differences

– Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004

– Use of Natural Log Transformation

Oil Filter Delta PressureOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

LN(FDP) LS Mean 5.8658 2.8128 4.5648FDP LS Mean 352.7643 16.6565 96.0434LN(FDP) Mean 5.8658 2.8130 4.8099LN(FDP) StdDev 0.4894 0.7237 3.5459FDP Mean 352.7488 16.6599 122.7192M11 EGR Target 182.0000 141.9000 144.0000

16

ISM Matrix Oil Filter Delta Pressure as a Function of Oil

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Nat

ura

l L

og

Oil

Fil

ter

Del

ta P

ress

ure

The Outlier: Lab D

Outlier: Lab A (Not Removed)

ISMA 830 1004

Lab G

17

M11 EGR Oil Filter Delta Pressure as a Function of ISM Oil Filter Delta PressureOil Averages

130.0000

140.0000

150.0000

160.0000

170.0000

180.0000

190.0000

200.0000

210.0000

220.0000

230.0000

240.0000

250.0000

260.0000

270.0000

280.0000

0.0000 50.0000 100.0000 150.0000 200.0000 250.0000 300.0000 350.0000 400.0000

ISM Oil Filter Delta Pressure (kPa)

M11

EG

R O

il F

ilte

r D

elta

Pre

ssu

re (

kPa)

=Standardized Distance

18

Average Sludge Rating

• Model Fit: ASR=f(Lab, Oil)– Weak Evidence Lab A Statistically Significantly Different

– No Oil Differences

Average Sludge RatingOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

ASR LS Mean 8.8167 9.0333 8.9222ASR Mean 8.8167 9.0333 8.8500ASR Std Dev 0.4535 0.0577 0.3536M11 EGR Target 8.8000 8.4000 8.5000

19

ISM Matrix Average Sludge Rating as a Function of Oil

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

9

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Ave

rag

e S

lud

ge

Rat

ing

(m

erit

s)

The Outlier: Lab D

ISMA 830 1004

2 Results: A & B

Severe Results at Lab A

3 Results: B, G, G

20

M11 EGR Sludge as a Function of ISM SludgeOil Averages

7.6000

7.8000

8.0000

8.2000

8.4000

8.6000

8.8000

9.0000

7.6000 7.8000 8.0000 8.2000 8.4000 8.6000 8.8000 9.0000 9.2000

ISM Average Sludge Rating (merits)

M11

EG

R A

vera

ge

Slu

dg

e ra

tin

g (

mer

its)

?

21

Top Ring Weight Loss

• Model Fit: TRWL=f(Lab, Oil)– No Lab Differences

– No Oil Differences

Top Ring Weight LossOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

TRWL LS Mean 59.7170 57.5670 61.0970TRWL Mean 59.7167 57.5667 60.0000TRWL StdDev 9.0183 9.8637 22.3446M11 EGR Target 202.5000 133.9000 129.9000

22

ISM Matrix Top Ring Weight Loss as a Function of Oil

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

To

p R

ing

Wei

gh

t L

oss

(m

g)

The Outlier: Lab D

ISMA 830 1004

Lab A

23

M11 EGR Top Ring Weight Loss as a Function of ISM Top Ring Weight LossOil Averages

100.0000

125.0000

150.0000

175.0000

200.0000

225.0000

250.0000

275.0000

300.0000

55.0000 56.0000 57.0000 58.0000 59.0000 60.0000 61.0000 62.0000 63.0000 64.0000 65.0000

Top Ring Weight Loss (mg)

To

p R

ing

Wei

gh

t L

oss

(m

g)

No Discrimination

24

Injector Adjusting Screw Weight Loss

• Model Fit: AVGIAS=f(Lab, Oil, Average Soot)– No Lab Differences

– Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different

– AVGIAS Increases 114.72 per 1% Avg Soot

Injector Screw WLOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

LS Mean @ 4% Soot 123.2500 39.3900 122.1700Mean @ 4% Soot 123.2133 46.5720 117.2240StdDev @ 4% Soot 34.1405 13.2723 42.1323Mean @ New Soot 138.8000 35.5333 137.4700StdDev @ New Soot 7.9196 7.0401 NA

25

ISM Matrix Injector Adjusting Screws Weight Loss as a Function of Soot

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

TGA Average Soot

Ave

rag

e In

ject

or

Ad

just

ing

Scr

ews

Wei

gh

t L

oss

(m

g)

1004

830

ISMA

The Outlier: Lab D

Soot Relationship Not as StrongNo Discrimination Between ISMA and 1004

26

Valve Adjusting Screw Weight Loss

• Model Fit: VSWL=f(Lab, Oil)– No Lab Differences

– Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004

Valve Adjusting Screw WLOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

VSWL LS Mean 21.8383 15.0203 24.2803VSWL Mean 21.8383 15.0200 18.0500VSWL StdDev 8.4080 2.1261 10.8187

27

ISM Matrix Average Valve Adjusting Screw Weight Loss as a Function of Oil

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Ave

rag

e V

alve

Ad

just

ing

Scr

ew W

eig

ht

Lo

ss (

mg

)

ISMA 830 1004

2 Results: B & D

No Discrimination Between ISMA and 1004

28

ISM Matrix Average Valve Adjusting Screw Weight Loss as a Function of OilOUTLIER CRITERIA USED

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Ave

rag

e V

alve

Ad

just

ing

Scr

ew W

eig

ht

Lo

ss (

mg

)

ISMA 830 1004

No Discrimination Between ISMA and 1004

29

Rocker Hat Weight Loss

• Model Fit: RHWL=f(Lab, Oil)– No Lab Differences

– Some Evidence ISMA Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004

Rocker Hat Weight LossOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

RHWL LS Mean 1.1084 1.4901 2.5756RHWL Mean 1.1083 1.4900 1.6450RHWL StdDev 0.4709 0.2000 0.3889

30

ISM Matrix Average Rocker Hat Weight Loss as a Function of Oil

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Ave

rag

e R

ock

er H

at W

eig

ht

Lo

ss (

mg

)

ISMA 830 1004

2 Results: B & D

No Discrimination Between 830 and 1004

With Outlier Criteria

31

Cylinder Liner Wear

• Model Fit: ALW=f(Lab, Oil)– No Lab Differences

– No Oil Differences

Cylinder Liner WearOil 1004 Oil 830 Oil ISMA

ALW LS Mean 5.6863 7.5663 3.9933ALW Mean 5.6833 7.5667 3.1500ALW StdDev 3.4307 3.2563 0.6364

32

ISM Cylinder Liner Wear as a Function of Oil

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Matrix Oil

Cyl

ind

er L

iner

Wea

r (m

icro

met

ers)

ISMA 830 1004

Lab D

No Discrimination

33

Oil Consumption

• Model Fit: OC=f(Lab, Oil)– Lab A Statistically Significantly Different

– No Oil Differences

34

Total Oil Consumption as a Function of Lab

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Test Lab

To

tal

Oil

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

Kg

)

A G B D

35

Scuffing

• Injector Adjusting Screw Scuffing– No Scuffing on Oil ISMA

– Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot)

– Scuffing on Oil 830 in Lab A, Lab B, but Not Lab G

• Valve Adjusting Screw Scuffing– Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot)

• Rocker Hat Scuffing– Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot)