Fuel filtration: Protecting the diesel engine

Stanfel, Christine

doi:10.1016/s0015-1882(09)70124-7

Cited by 34 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average IFT is 12.3 mN/m, slightly lower than that observed in the 2004 survey; however, the range of IFT values was significantly less in this survey. The IFT of diesel fuel has dropped since ULSD fuel was introduced to 9−25 mN/m, likely as a result of increased surfactancy from lubricity and other additives [13]. The IFT values of Bxx blends collected in this survey were similar to those of U.S. ULSD samples, but at the lower end of the range.…”

Section: Interfacial Tensionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Figure 9 shows soluble water levels for the Bxx survey samples. The average KF titration (KF, ASTM D6304, Procedure B) for the B20 samples was 130 ppm, about 30% higher than expected for ULSD based on limited data from Stanfel [13]. …”

Section: Karl Fisher Moisturementioning

confidence: 71%

“…Typical ultra-low-sulfur No. 2 diesel (ULSD) fuel will be saturated between 50 and 100 ppm water [13]. The soluble water was measured by coulometric Karl Fisher (KF, ASTM D6304).…”

Section: Karl Fisher Moisturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of Biodiesel Blends Samples Collected in the United States in 2008 (Revised)

Alleman¹,

Fouts²,

McCormick³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the summer of 2008, NREL conducted a nationwide survey of the quality of B20, a blended fuel consisting of about 20 volume percent (vol%) biodiesel and 80 vol% petroleum diesel. Thirty-three samples were collected prior to the announcement of a new ASTM specification, D7467, for B6−B20. The B20 samples were tested against multiple properties-those included in the eventual D7467 specification and other properties of interest. Because this study preceded the announcement of the specification, the samples could not be termed "on" or "off" specification.Previous NREL surveys have shown that biodiesel blending has been problematic, because the samples have been almost evenly distributed above and below B20. In this survey, only 60% of the samples were nominally B20 (i.e., B18−B22), and the majority of the rest of the samples contained less biodiesel, typically B2, B5, and B10. Two samples contained over 20 vol% biodiesel, likely the result of poor blending.The induction period (IP) stability and acid value (AV) are key parameters in the quality of a Bxx blend. Although the D7467 specification was not applicable at the time of sample collection, 25% of the samples were below the 6-hour proposed limit. It is noteworthy that the average IP, 8.4 hours, was well above the 6-hour limit. Every sample but one met the proposed AV specification of 0.3 mgKOH/g, a low failure rate similar to that of previous NREL surveys.The minimum flash point of Bxx blends is allowed to vary depending on the type of diesel fuel used and the cloud point of the blend. The average cloud point was -12.6°C, and the samples all readily met the flash point minimum of 38°C. The B20 samples all met the sulfur limit of 15 ppm, except for one sample that was likely contaminated. The range of cetane number for the blends was 46 to 52.The current specification contains a combined water and sediment value, although there is interest in separating these parameters into Karl Fisher water and particulate contamination. As expected by its polar nature, biodiesel will have a higher water saturation point than that of diesel fuel. The average Karl Fisher water content of the B20 samples was 130 ppm, about 30% higher than that of conventional diesel fuel. Almost all the samples showed very low particulate contamination except one, which was likely contaminated during collection. The metal content of the blends was also low, although the amount of sodium in one sample would not have allowed the B100 to meet the D6751 specification.

show abstract

Section: Interfacial Tensionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Karl Fisher Moisturementioning

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of Biodiesel Blends Samples Collected in the United States in 2008 (Revised)

Alleman¹,

Fouts²,

McCormick³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A typically‐used hydrophobic material is silicone‐treated cellulose. Other successful materials are hydrophobic depth‐coalescing media, for example glass microfibers . In this system the injection pressure operates in the region of about 21 000 kPa (30 000 psi) and therefore only the operation cost of the process is high.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water removal from biodiesel/diesel blends and jet fuel using natural resin as dehydration agent

Tsanaktsidis¹,

Favvas

Tzilantonis³

et al. 2015

Can J Chem Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water removal from both biodiesel and diesel/biodiesel blends was studied using a natural removable additive, natural resin. Specifically, two different samples of biodiesel/diesel blends and one of JP8 fuel were studied before and after the blending process with the natural additive. As well as moisture concentration, the properties of density, kinematic viscosity, conductivity, flash point, and heat of combustion were also investigated. Using the proposed method of water removal improves the physicochemical properties of biodiesel/diesel fuel blends, increases the heat of combustion up to 361 J/g, reduces the moisture by ∼66 %, and reduces the conductivity down to 39.5 %. In the case of JP8 fuel decreasing moisture content increases the heat of combustion by 187 J/g, decreases the conductivity by 60 %, and establishes the moisture level within accepted values, from 68 to lower than 50 mg/kg.

show abstract

“…Increased use of surface active fuel additives and fuel components such as biodiesel have rendered conventional separating media less effective and filter manufacturers have needed to develop new approaches such as composite media and ultra-high surface area coalescing media (Stanfel, 2009), (Pangestu & Stanfel, 2009), (Bessee & Hutzler, 2009). Methods of quantifying fuel/water separation performance have also been affected (Stone et al, 2009).…”

Section: Picture 9 -Fuel Filtration Treatment Locations From Refinerimentioning

confidence: 99%

Diesel fuel filtration problems with modern common rail injection systems

Jocanović¹,

Karanović²,

Knežević³

et al. 2017

Vojnotehni?ki glasnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fuel filtration: Protecting the diesel engine

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Analysis of Biodiesel Blends Samples Collected in the United States in 2008 (Revised)

Analysis of Biodiesel Blends Samples Collected in the United States in 2008 (Revised)

Water removal from biodiesel/diesel blends and jet fuel using natural resin as dehydration agent

Diesel fuel filtration problems with modern common rail injection systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About