The Impact of Lubricant Fo

The Impact of Lubricant Fo

on the Performance o

on the Performance o

Adsorber Catalyst

Adsorber Catalyst

Shawn D. Whitacre

August 25, 2005

Presented at: Diesel Engine Emission Reduction 

Chicago, IL Contact info: (303) 275-4267

Shawn_Whitacre@nrel.gov

NREL/PR-540-38641
Disclaimer and Government License

This work has been authored by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract No. DE-AC36Department of Energy (the “DOE”). The United States Government (the “Government”) retains athe work for publication, acknowledges that the Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrepublish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for Government puNeither MRI, the DOE, the Government, nor any other agency thereof, nor any of their employeeor implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulnesproduct, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned ri

specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or othimply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Government or any agency thereof. authors and/or presenters expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of MRI, the agency thereof. 
Presentation Outlin

• Background/Motivation• Summary of Phase I• Experimental Design• Results• Conclusions
Government/Industry Spon

Advanced Petroleum Bas

– Diesel Emission Contr

DOE sponsors: Steve Goguen and Kevin S
Motivation for Resea

• Lubricant effects on automotive th

catalysts are well documented

– Phosphorus

• Similar impacts anticipated in dies

– May involve other “poisons”, includin

• ASTM already working on lubrican

trap equipped engines (PC-10)

• Interactions may be subtle, but sti

when useful life requirements are 
Engine Oil Formulat

Basestock

Detergent Inhibitor

Viscosity modifier

Sulfur C

Sulfon
APBF-DEC Lubricants P

• Part 1: Characterize effects of lubricant 

engine out emissions

• Part 2: Develop methods to accelerate e

emission control systems (ECS) to lubricemissions

Phase I Phase I

Determine the impact of lubricant prcomposition on engine-out/catalyst-i

Determine if lubricant formulation imperformance and durability of diesel 

Phase II Phase II
Phase I Summary

• Results Presented at DEER 2• Oil formulation has significan

engine-out emissions

• Not all lubricant additive syste

emissions similarly

• Lubricant sulfur content not a 

predictor of sulfur emissions
Phase II Test Protoc

• 400-hour test• Evaluations at 100-hour intervals

– Focus on NO

x reduction efficiency

• Oil consumption measurement• New LNT for each test• Oil change at 200-hours• DEC base fuel (0.6-ppm S/15-pp• Post-analysis of catalyst by XRF
Test Hardware – Pha

 2002 Cummins ISB – 300 hp @  5.9L, inline 6 cylinder Cooled-EGR Single NO

x adsorber (7L)

 In-pipe regeneration fueling
Operating Modes

Mode 

Engine 

Speed (RPM) 

Load 

(FT*Lbs) 

Average 

Catalyst 

Mid 

Temp. oF 

(oC) 

Sp

Vel

(1

1 1650 140 650 (343) 302 2100 175 650 (343) 703 1400 160 750 (399) 324 1900 225 750 (399) 635 1200 275 850 (454) 336 1700 350 850 (454) 62
Phase 2 Analysis Appr

Engine-outEmissions

Oil

Ad

Ca

Ad

Ca

Fuel/OilProperties

CaDe
Test Matrix

ZDDP Level

Calcium Detergent Level

A

C
Properties of Test O

Test 

Number 

Ash* 

(%) 

S* 

(ppm) 

Ca 

(ppm)

P 

(ppm)

Zn 

(ppm)

N* 

(ppm)

TBN 

(mg 

KOH/g)

@

1 0.775 1695 1853 427 471 1128 6.99 2 1.522 2928 3258 1210 1320 1329 12.34 3 1.131 3980 2050 1430 1590 1477 7.3 4 1.316 4195 3160 1340 1520 1314 10.6 5 1.310 2228 3241 419 475 1368 9.6 6 1.497 4197 3518 1280 1480 1315 10.2 7 0.775 1695 2065 451 505 1128 6.7 8 0.775 1695 2329 483 546 1128 8.7 
Catalyst Deposit Pro

Sulfur

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

Front Middle Rear

Catalyst Position

Percent of Total 

Sulfur Deposits

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

Front 

Percent of Total 

Phosphorous Deposits

• Samples extracted from three positions an

Uniquant x-ray fluorescence

• Phosphorus deposits concentrated in front 
Phosphorus Impact 

Performance

-80%-60%-40%-20%

0%

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 

Phosphorous Exposure over 400 Hours of Agi

Change in NOx Reduction Efficiency (%)

Lubricant-Test Number: A-1 A-7 B-3 E-2 F-4 C-5 D-6

Low ZDDP

Hig
Impact of Detergen

01234

0.5 1.0 1.5 2

Phosphorus Exposure (g/liter)

Average Sulfur + Phosphorous Deposits (g/liter)

Low Ca Sulfonate High Ca Sulfonate High Ca Phenate High Ca 

High C

Low Calcium Sulfonate
Relative Impact of Fuel an

0

20406080

100

0 100 200 300 

Aging Hours

NOx Reduction Efficiency (%)

Lo P/Lo Ca Oil w/ 0.6 ppm S Fuel Lo P/Lo Ca Oil w/ 15 ppm S Fuel Hi P
Preliminary Conclusions – 

 Sulfur and phosphorus in lube oil 

impact LNT performance

 Deposits of lube oil derived speci

concentrated on front of catalyst

 Detergent level/type may impact 

phosphorus deposition

 Fuel sulfur still appears to be dom

terms of degradation 

 Final reporting still in progress

 Will be available late 2005