SAE 1999-01-3584 An Analysis of 1996-98 Gasoline Quality in the United States.docx

《SAE 1999-01-3584 An Analysis of 1996-98 Gasoline Quality in the United States.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SAE 1999-01-3584 An Analysis of 1996-98 Gasoline Quality in the United States.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、SAE TECHNICALPAPER SERIES1999-01-3584An Analysis of 1996-98 Gasoline Quality in the United StatesJoseph M. ColucciAutomotive Fuels Consulting, Inc.Thomas L. Darlington and Dennis F.KahlbaumAir Improvement Resource, Inc.Reprinted From: Gasoline and Diesel Fuel: Performance and Additives(SP-1479)The E

2、ngineering Society For Advancing Mobility Land Sea Air and Space0 INTERNATIONALInternational Fall Fuels & Lubricants Meeting & Exposition Toronto, Ontario, Canada October 25-28,1999400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-57600000000000 S5O5O55O& 44

3、33221150005000500003 2 2 115o o o0 5 05 4z:ceoqd .uo-S0 pH X。sesue-z 5 I M.=28S .Xi sqsvla-ffsNq8P 足 qa 3-n 曲 nbjenbnf HO pu用者9 hL -n-2N sf ilnEd-XI ouauoo50go 4433221150qodx-cuffLL.UPS ;N s,3 zv.xwi:d - x1o5sesuc- .N .2。1 -2Z .enbjenbnf sC050SJE-uets m .至金SI.工o咨d-olsnoH boUEeq .XI .seleao-acolBUzse

4、M .5 -SU20IJO m更 5.S6u_=m o-2s_ns-s _1二 oeeolq。Figure 17 1998 Annual Average Sulfur Results by City口 All Grades 口 Mid Grade Regular 口 Premium5 ?言；*-19971Gasoline Type and Survey Yearrigure 141996-98 Sulfur Results By Gasoline Type and GradeFigure 18 provides results for major” brands. Figure 19 show

5、s how majors* and minors compare regarding sulfur. The same criterion was used for the results shown on Figure 13. For each of the three years, there seems to be little difference in average sulfur content between the majors and the minors.DISCUSSIONThis paper has focused on evaluating gasoline qual

6、ity in the United States. It is a foregone conclusion that as vehicle performance is improved and emissions are decreased that there has to be improvements in fuel quality so that the overall performance of the vehicle/fuel system meets the expectations of the customers and the demands of the regula

7、tors. The 1996 to 1998 trends show that gasoline quality is improving in many respects, but that there is considerable improvement yet to be made before all gasoline in the United States meets both the performance and emissions characteristics of California RFG. The trends can be followed in subsequ

8、ent years to show the effects of additional regulations (proposed sulfur limits, Phase II Fed RFG, CARBs proposed Phase 3 RFG, etc.) on gasoline quality.Several of the criticisms of an earlier paper have been answered in this paper. The effects of fuel composition on evaporative emissions have been

9、included. The representativeness of the AAMAs gasoline surveys, which provide the data utilized, have been confirmed by comparing results from the AAMAs and NIPERs surveys.450rwdd) JinsFigure 18Annual Average 49-State Sulfur Levels by Brand, 1996-98500 i -II! 1996eoLW&m wrrLgpufrr ccows CCLUEA 三 puu

10、cr a 二 wrr youwwrr Ropu&m o-uwrr Egww NULEA ROE居 gopu&m RWEd g3opu&mMajor Minor Major Minor Ma|or I Minor Ma|or I Minor Low RVPCONVFed RFGCA RFGSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe vehicle performance and emissions characteristics of United States service station gasolines obtained in 1996, 1997 and 1998 have

11、 been evaluated using a proprietary methodology. Results of that evaluation lead to the following conclusions.1. Overall United States gasoline quality has improved from 1996 to 1998. The largest improvements have occurred with Federal RFG and low RVP gasolines. For each year evaluated the ranking w

12、as: California RFG Federal RFGconventional low RVP.2. Large differences remain in overall gasoline quality among cities. In general, those cities with California and Federal RFG had the highest quality, and those with conventional and low RVP had the lowest quality.3. Differences remain in the overa

13、ll quality by brand. The differences appear to be gradually narrowing with time. The differences for Federal RFG greatly decreased from 1997 to 1998, when the EPAs Complex Models requirements went into effect.4. No appreciable differences in overall quality were found between regular and premium gra

14、des, and between major and minor marketers for the four types of gasolines evaluated.5. Gasoline sulfur content is decreasing. CaRFG had the lowest average content, followed by FedRFG, which had a large decrease from 1997 to 1998, conventional and low RVP gasolines. Large differences remain in sulfu

15、r content among cities and brands. There is no appreciable difference in sulfur content between major and minor brands.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors wish to thank: the AAMA for supplying the gasoline survey data for 1996, 1997 and 1998; and Mr. Fred Potter, of Information Resources, Inc., for his suppo

16、rt and encouragement.REFERENCESProgram Final Report, Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program, January 1997 (available from Coordinating Research Council, Atlanta, GA).1. Unzelman, G. H., Transportation Fuel Composition: A 21st Century Insight, National Petroleum Refiners Association Paper

17、AM-98-52, March 15-17,1998.2. Colucci, J. M., Darlington, T. L., and Kahlbaum, D. F., An Analysis of 1996 Gasoline Quality in the United States, SAE Paper 982723.3. Colucci, J. M., Darlington, T. L., and Kahlbaum, D. F., An Analysis of 1996 Gasoline Quality in the United States and Japan, presented

18、to 5th Annual Fuels and Lubes Asia Conference, Singapore, January 27- 29, 1999.4. AAMA National Fuel Surveys, 1996, 1997 & 1998, issued semi-annually by the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Ml.5. EPA Reformulated Gasoline Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, December 1993.6. Pers

19、onal communications with Dr. Michael C. Ingham, Chevron Research & Technology Company, June 16,1998 through March 30, 1999.7. Petition to Regulate Gasoline Distillation Properties, submitted to the EPA by DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors and the AIAM, January 27,1999.8. Petition to Regulate Sul

20、fur in Gasoline under Section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act, Submitted to the EPA by AAMA and AIAM, March 19,1998.9. Comments from the American Petroleum Institute on EPA Tier 2 Report to Congress, submitted to the EPA by API, June 12,1998.10. Initiative on the Potential Impact of Sulphur in Gasoline

21、on Motor Vehicle Pollution Control and Monitoring Technologies, Prepared for Environment Canada by Sierra Research, Inc., July 30,1997.11. Sulfur 2000 - Beyond the Current Debate, Special Edition, Harts Fuel Technology & Management, Summer 1998.14. AAMA Gasoline Specification, American Automobile Ma

22、nufacturers Association, December 20,1996.15. Cheng, S. S., A Physical Mechanism for Deposit Formation in a Combustion Chamber, SAE Paper 941892.16. Rieck, J. S., Collins, N. R., and Moore, J. S., OBD-II performance of three-way catalysts, Automotive Engineering International, July 1998.17. Jorgense

23、n, S. W., and Benson, J. D., A Correlation Between Hydrocarbon Emissions and Driveability*, SAE P叩er 962023.18. 1995-97 CRC Study of Fuel Volatility Effects on Cold-Start and Warmup Driveability with Hydrocarbon, MTBE and Ethanol Gasolines: Phase 1, Intermediate Temperature, CRC Report No. 509, July

24、 1997; Phase 2, Warm Temperature, CRC Report No. 603, May 1998; Phase 3, Cold Temperature, CRC Report No. 605, March 1998.19. Dougher, R.S., and Hogarty, T.F., Octane Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Fleet and Gasoline Grade Sales, Research Study #083, American Petroleum Institute, August 1996.20.

25、Californias Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250- 2272, 1996.APPENDIX - METHODOLOGYGASOLINE SAMPLES - The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) until its demise in late 1998 had carried out for many years surveys of gasolines obtai

26、ned semi-annually (January and July) from service stations in over 20 cities in the United States. It is expected that the semi-annual fuel surveys will be continued by the AIAM- Association of International Automobile Manufacturers starting in 1999. About 800 samples were obtained each year and ana

27、lyzed by an independent contractor for all of the chemical and physical properties found in the AAMA Gasoline Specification. 13 The analytical procedures used were identified in the semi-annual AAMA surveys. 5 The results were published and available from the AAMA. The AAMA surveys identify each sam

28、ple by the brand name found on the pump from which the sample was obtained.GASOLINE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA - The performance characteristics of the gasoline samples were obtained by comparing their properties to a set of performance evaluation criteria based largely on the AAMA Gasoline Specification.

29、 14 They are shown in Table A-1. The key performance parameters are: contaminants; deposit control; distillation properties, RVP and sulfur; octane quality; driveability index. The contaminants covered are lead, manganese, water and peroxides. When present in sufficient quantities, as indicated in T

30、able A-1, all can cause problems.A variety of propriety additive are used in gasoline to control engine and fuel injector deposits. There is no simple test for measuring the deposit control performance of a gasoline, and differences in their in-use performance cannot be evaluated in this paper. Ther

31、efore, surrogates, in the form of unwashed and washed gum, and T95, have been used. The washed and unwashed gum results indicate the presence of an additive. However, controversy remains regarding whether or not unwashed gum is an accurate predictor of deposit control additive performance. T95 acts

32、as a measure of the high boiling, primarily aromatic components of gasoline, which are the primary precursors in forming fuel injector and engine deposits. 15 High sulfur levels could inadvertently set off the check-engine light. 16 Octane quality is important in preventing engine knock. Driveabilit

33、y Index is a critical property for cold start and warm-up driveability performance, and for reducing HC emissions. 17 The traditional equation has been modified to account for the adverse effect of ethanol (due to its leaning effect and high heat of vaporization compared with gasoline). 18 The equat

34、ion used is given at the bottom of Table A-1.The maximum performance score was set at 100 points, and the points given to each of the criteria are shown in Table A-1. Since vehicle malfunction is annoying to drivers year round, the gasoline performance scores were equally weighted for summer and win

35、ter.GASOLINE EMISSIONS CRITERIA - Prior to the advent of reformulated gasolines, there was no way to evaluate the emissions performance of a gasoline. However, with the introduction of Federal and California RFGs, came the use of models for calculating vehicle emissions based on the gasolines chemic

36、al and physical properties. We have used the Federal Complex Model and the California Predictive Model to calculate the emissions of HC, CO, NOx and toxics. The California Model has been used only for gasolines obtained in California; the Complex Model has been used for all others. Although the Comp

37、lex Model was not in force until 1998, it has been used to analyze the non-California gasoline samples for all three years in this paper.Both models contain review criteria, as shown in Table A- 2. 6,20 These criteria place limits on critical fuel properties. The Complex Models criteria were applied

38、 to all the non-California1996 and 1997 samples even though they werent required until 1998.10The maximum emissions score for a sample was set at 100 points. Since air quality problems are somewhat different summer (ozone is the major problem) and winter (carbon monoxide is worse in the winter), the

39、 emission score was weighted appropriately. For summer samples, the 100 points possible points were divided as follows: HC - 35, NOx - 35 (both are involved in ozone production), CO - 0, toxics - 30.For winter, the division was: HC - 20, NOx - 20, CO - 30, toxics - 30. Because air pollution is gener

40、ally more of a problem in the United States in the summer than in the winter, the summer emissions scores were given 55 percent of the total annual score, and the winter emissions scores were given 45 percent.COMPUTER MODEL - The computer model was quite straightforward. It separately calculated the

41、 performance and emission scores for each gasoline sample, and then combined them to get a total score. The performance score was obtained by comparing the samples physical and chemical properties from the AAMA survey results with the performance criteria in Table A-1.The emission score was obtained

42、 using either the Complex or the Predictive Model equations, and the samples physical and chemical properties. For non-California samples, the emission score for each pollutant was based on the percentage change in emissions relative to the emissions from the Clean Air Act base gasoline. For these s

43、amples, the Complex Model was used for HC, CO, NOx and toxics.For the California fuels, the Predictive Model was used for HC, NOx and toxics. For CO, the Complex Model was used because the Predictive Model does not include CO.To compare the emission scores of California and nonCalifornia fuels, it i

44、s desirable to use the same baseline gasoline. However, the Predictive Model was designed to apply only to fuels similar in composition to California Phase 2 RFGs. Therefore, the emission score of a Phase 2 CaRFG which just met the fuel averaging requirements is determined using the Complex Model. T

45、he emission score relative to the typical Phase 2 CaRFG is then determined using the Predictive Model. The two performance estimates are then combined into a single overall score for each pollutant, and then a total emission score is calculated for the sample.OTHER COMMENTS - The AAMA surveys genera

46、lly sample proportionately to brand volume and grade distribution. Thus, major brands will have more samples in the surveys than the minor brands. For example, of the 797 samples in the 1996 survey, 460 or 58% were regular grade, 84 or 10% were mid-grade, and 253 or 32% were premium grade. Nationwid

47、e the grade distribution was: 68% regular, 12% mid, and 20% premium. 19 This later distribution was used for weighting the gasoline grades for all three years to develop a total score for a gasoline brand or type.Table A-1 Performance Evaluation CriteriaGroupParameterLimitsPointsContaminantsLead-g/g

48、alPb0.01 0.01Pb0.001 otherwise-10 0Peroxides-ppmp1.0 1.0p3.0 3.0p6.0p6.05 0 -5-10Waler-ppmw350 350w500 500w1000 W10005 0 -5-10Deposit ControlUnwashed Gum-mg，100mlUG70 mg/100ml otherwise5 0Washed Gum-mg/100mlWG5 mg/100ml otherwise50T95-deg F195345 345T9550010 50 -10Octane-(R+M)/2Regular088 87O88O8710

49、 5 0Midgrade090 893O90O89105 0Premium092 91SO92 0 +60NOTE: DI-1.5*T10+3.0*T50+1.0*T90+7.0*Vol%EthanolTable A-2 Emissions Evaluation CriteriaPredictive Model Review CriteriaIf any parameter exceeds the Predictive Model upper limit, fuel fails.ParameterUpper LimitUnitsCommentsRVP T50 T90 Aromatics Ole

50、fins Oxygen Sulfur Benzene7.3 225 335 32.7 12.52.8 105 1.41Applied to Summer Season OnlyFailed fuels do not have the Predictive Model run on them.Complex Model Review CriteriaIf any parameter lies outside the Complex Model limits, fuel fails. Failed fuels do not have the Complex Model run on them.Pa

51、rameterRFG LimitsConventional LimitsUnitsCommentsOxygen0-4.10-4.1wt%Sulfur0-5250-1025ppmRVP6.1 - 10.36.1 -10.3psiUpper Limit. Summer OnlyE20027.6 -72.527.6 - 72.5%E30068.9-10068.9-100%Aromatics7.3 - 57.70 - 57.7%Olefins0 - 27.50 - 32.5%Benzene0-2.210-5.11%11The appearance of this ISSN code at the bo

52、ttom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewo

53、od Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.S

54、AE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.To request permission to reprint a technical p

55、aper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASEAll SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility DatabaseNo part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an e

56、lectronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.ISSN 0148-7191Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible

57、 for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presenta

58、tion or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.Printed in USA1999-01-3584An Analysis of 1996-98 Gasoline Quality in the United StatesJoseph M. ColucciAutomotive Fuels Consulting, Inc.Thomas L.

59、Darlington and Dennis F. KahlbaumAir Improvement Resource, Inc.Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.ABSTRACTThe importance of the fuel in providing improved vehicle performance and reduced emissions has become widely recognized, especially in the past ten years. In 1998, an SAE paper

60、was presented providing a systematic analyses of 1996 United States gasoline quality. This paper extends the methodology of that paper to include the impact of fuel composition on evaporative emissions, and it provides analyses of gasoline quality for the years of 1996, 1997 and 1998.The vehicle per

61、formance and emissions characteristics of gasolines were determined using data from surveys of United States service station gasoline samples. Results are presented for: gasoline type (California RFG - reformulated gasoline, Federal RFG, low RVP - Reid Vapor Pressure, and conventional); gasoline gra

62、de (regular, intermediate and premium); individual cities; individual brands (coded); and for sulfur content. It is concluded that: differences exist among commercial gasolines for all of the items evaluated; the differences are narrowing; and overall gasoline quality is improving.INTRODUCTIONGasoline quality in recent years has become increasingly important and recognized regarding its role in the actual performance of vehicles and their emissions. 1 Automotive fuel composition will continue to gr