Auto-Oil Advisory Panel Voice Vote Form 10-DEC-2015 1 Motion 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
auto oil advisory panel voice vote form
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Auto-Oil Advisory Panel Voice Vote Form 10-DEC-2015 1 Motion 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 29, 2023 179 likes •520 views

Auto-Oil Advisory Panel Voice Vote Form 10-DEC-2015 1 Motion 1 The Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit test is accepted into GF-6 for evaluating the performance of engine oils for pVis and WPD contingent upon ASTM PCEOCP accepting the test

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Auto-Oil Advisory Panel Voice Vote Form

10-DEC-2015

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Motion 1

The Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit test is accepted into GF-6 for evaluating the performance of engine oils for pVis and WPD contingent upon ASTM PCEOCP accepting the test procedure.

Motion by: Saad Abouzahr Second: Thom Smith

7

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Voice Vote Results

Motion 1 Yes No Abstain Not Present = Auto 11 11 Oil 13 1 4 8 26

11

  • Voting is balanced or weighted to ensure ratios of 50 percent Auto

and 50 percent Oil.

  • Two-thirds of Auto and two-thirds of Oil votes cast, less waives, are

affirmative.

  • Fifty percent of all possible votes are affirmative on each side.
slide-4
SLIDE 4

AOAP meeting

Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit Engine Test Development for GF-6

December 10, 2015

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2 12/10/2015

  • All matrix tests have been completed and reported to the TMC in November 2015

Chrysler OD Matrix Test Status

Outlier

slide-6
SLIDE 6

3 12/10/2015

LnPVIS

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data - PVIS

slide-7
SLIDE 7

LnPVIS Precision

Model RMSE

  • s = 0.4764
  • IIIH Prove-out

s=0.61

  • IIIG Precision

Matrix s=0.2919

  • IIIG recent

data s=0.54- 0.63 Repeatability

  • s = 0.4764
  • r = 1.3205

Reproducibility

  • s = 0.6238
  • R = 1.7291

Model: Oil, Lab, Stand(Lab)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

5 12/10/2015

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data - WPD

WPD

slide-9
SLIDE 9

WPD Precision

Model RMSE

  • s = 0.48
  • IIIH Prove-out

s=0.40

  • IIIG Precision

Matrix s=0.60

  • IIIG recent

data s=0.39- 0.43 Repeatability

  • s = 0.48
  • r = 1.33

Reproducibility

  • s = 0.49
  • R = 1.36

Model: Oil, Lab, Stand(Lab)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data – LnMRV

12/10/2015

7

slide-11
SLIDE 11

LnMRV Precision

12/10/2015

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data – PHOS

12/10/2015

9

slide-13
SLIDE 13

PHOS Precision

12/10/2015

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Slide 11

Stats Group Analysis A HUGE thank you to Jo Martinez, Kevin O’Malley and the entire stats group for an expedited analysis of the matrix data.

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • The Chrysler test results show repeatability, reproducibility, and discrimination
  • n PVIS, WPD, MRV, and Phosphorus Retention. The precision matrix

performed similarly to the prove-out matrix as expected.

  • The Chrysler test meets the test development objectives

Summary

Status Criteria Remark Yes Stand to stand repeatability Demonstrated Yes Discrimination Demonstrated Yes 0W-16 viable Demonstrated Yes Field Correlation REO 2/3 Yes Procedure and final hardware available and released 90 hours, 6 oz oil addition every 20 hours Yes Long term engine supply and readiness 3800 engines to last through 2022, other parts through CPD Yes Lab to lab reproducibility and prove-out and precision matrix 2 independent labs and 3 dependent labs

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • There are ongoing efforts by the Task Force to continue to

minimize potential variables between labs in areas of honing, engine build and understand any remaining lab differences.

  • These efforts are expected to continue throughout the test

acceptance process, and beyond through the Sequence III Surveillance Panel.

Slide 13

Continual Improvement

slide-17
SLIDE 17

14

TMC438-1 for Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit Test

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Following the Oil Thickening Process

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 20 40 60 80 100 Viscosity Increase (%) Test Time (hrs)

IIIG Viscosity Increase Process

1 ~220 % ~120 % 2

Oil Thickening process has 2 stages: 1. Linear increase due to volatility 2. Exponential increase due to oxidation

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Differences between the IIIG and IIIH

  • Linear period is extended in the IIIH with a smaller initial slope due to

less volatility.

  • IIIG and IIIH tests on same oil with similar final result (162 and 167 %)
  • 10

40 90 140 190 20 40 60 80 100

434-2

IIIG IIIH

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • 10

40 90 140 190 240 290 340 20 40 60 80 100

IIIH

15 % 152 %

Differences between the IIIG and IIIH

  • 10

40 90 140 190 240 290 340 20 40 60 80 100

IIIG

92 %

  • Exponential increase starts later with a steeper slope in the IIIH.

70 %

  • Separating these two tests to see the differences we get:

434-2

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • 10

40 90 140 190 240 290 340 20 40 60 80 100

IIIH 434-2

Additional Results From Both Tests

  • 10

40 90 140 190 240 290 340 20 40 60 80 100

IIIG 434-2

  • More results on each test shows the trends to be typical.
  • Decreased volatility with increased oxidation in the IIIH over the IIIG
  • Further supported by ROBO results showing 48% / 37% volatility in IIIG/IIIH
slide-22
SLIDE 22

TMC 438 Performance in IIIG and IIIH

50 100 150 200 250 20 40 60 80 100 Viscosity Increase (%) Test Time (hrs)

IIIG 438 438 has a different chemistry

  • strategy. The IIIG does not break

this oil due to its reduced ability to

  • xidize the oil.

50 100 150 200 250 20 40 60 80 100 Viscosity Increase (%) Test Time (hrs)

IIIH 438-1 438 is shifted borderline severe in the IIIH and breaks in 36% of precision matrix tests. Relative to the IIIG these would be false negatives.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Theoretical Limit Possibilities

Setting the limit anywhere between 50 to 100% preserves the intended separation of oils. ? ? Passing IIIH Borderline in IIIG Failing IIIH Passing IIIG Borderline IIIH

436 438-1 434-2 Overall IIIH 0.3138 0.9558 0.3943 0.4764 IIIG n/a 0.2106* 0.4402** 0.2919 * 438 **434 LnPVIS, RMSE

slide-24
SLIDE 24

On October 23, 2015 the IIIH Task Force voted on the following motion:

The Task Force as a technical group has vetted the precision matrix data reported to date, and determined the tests included are operationally valid. Based on the matrix data the test is capable of measuring PVis and WPD. We recommend to the Surveillance Panel that the matrix data be used to consider the test to be used as an ASTM standardized test.

The motion passed with 9 approves and 3 waives.

Slide 21

Task Force Recommendation

slide-25
SLIDE 25

On December 8, 2015 the PCEOP voted on the following motion:

Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit precision matrix results show repeatability, reproducibility, and discrimination on PVIS and

  • WPD. The test is suitable for measuring PVIS and WPD of

engine oils, and is ready to be fully developed as an ASTM method by the Sequence III Surveillance Panel.

The motion passed with broad consensus.

Slide 22

PCEOP Recommendation

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Motion

12/10/2015

23 The Chrysler Oxidation and Deposit test is accepted into GF-6 for evaluating the performance of engine oils for pVis; WPD; MRV; and Phosphorus

  • Retention. The surveillance panel will now monitor and control the test and

work on further precision improvements and aligning lab D results with the

  • ther precision matrix laboratories.
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Thank you!

24

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Back up slides

25

slide-29
SLIDE 29

26 12/10/2015

  • Influencing observation is pointed out by Stat Group in the Seq IIIH Precision Matrix

Stat analysis report

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data - PVIS

slide-30
SLIDE 30

27 12/10/2015

slide-31
SLIDE 31

28 12/10/2015

Chrysler OD Test Precision Matrix Data - WPD

slide-32
SLIDE 32

29 12/10/2015

slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • 10

40 90 140 190 240 290 340 20 40 60 80 100

IIIG 438

  • The IIIH is more severe on oxidative thickening with less volatility.
  • Bimodal response is due less to the magnitude of the more severe

results than to lower mild results than.

Comparison of 438 in IIIG/H