Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.
-
Upload
barrie-hudson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.
![Page 1: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Analysis of the ISM Matrix
Draft 3
November 5, 2004
![Page 2: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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%
![Page 4: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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)
![Page 7: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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)
![Page 15: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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)
?
![Page 21: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Oil Consumption
• Model Fit: OC=f(Lab, Oil)– Lab A Statistically Significantly Different
– No Oil Differences
![Page 34: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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
![Page 35: Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110101/56649e725503460f94b71733/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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)