You are on page 1of 16

UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND, JOHANNESBURG SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL, INDUSTRIAL AND AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING VACATION WORK II Tittle : Research into the Causes of Fuel Dilution Specific to Transnet Locomotives. Name Student Number Due Date : Mbalekelwa Mpembe : 326835 : 08 April 2013

DECLARATION SHEET

VACATION WORK CERTIFICATE

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current document reports on vacation work that was carried out at Transnets Germiston Diesel Depot to investigate the causes and effects of Fuel Dilution specific to the companys locomotives. A representative sample of 30 diesel injectors from different locomotives with fuel dilution problem was tested. Of the 30 tested injectors, only 18 functioned at the required pressure of 4200 kPa (See Section 4) and only 11 were able to produce the required diesel volumetric flow rate of 45 ml/s. With these results, it was concluded (See Section 6) that partially clogged and leaking fuel injectors are the most common cause of oil contamination since all tested injectors had carbon deposits on them. Secondly, uncalibrated engine governors and diesel pumps (due to lack of equipment) were also noted as the possible causes of oil contamination. And lastly, it was discovered that excessive idle time (a common practice at Transnet) promoted fuel dilution more than it promoted efficient engine operation. It is, therefore, recommended in Section 7 that Transnet should invest in equipment to setup injector spray pattern tests such as the Schlieren System or to invest in any other automated machinery for better injector testing and maintenance. In the case of uncalibrated engine components, it is also recommended that the company should invest in calibration equipment as necessary. In addition, the retrofitting of real-time oil analysis systems on all locomotives is recommended - waiting extended periods of time for a contractor to analyse contaminated oil allows for greater engine damage.

iii

CONTENTS

DECLARATION SHEET ........................................................................................................... i VACATION WORK CERTIFICATE .......................................................................................ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... iii CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLE ...................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Background to the Company ....................................................................................... 1 Background to the Project ........................................................................................... 1

OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3 OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 7 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................... 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 9

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Popping Pressure [kPa] Results for 30 Tested Injectors. ........................................... 4 Figure 2: Stripped Injector with Components Shown................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Volumetric Flow Rate [ml/s] Results for 30 Tested Injectors.................................... 5 Figure 4: Injector Tips with Carbon Deposits............................................................................ 6

LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: Results for Popping Pressure [kPa] and Volumetric Flow Rate [ml/s] for 30 Tested Injectors...................................................................................................................................... 9

vi

1
1.1

INTRODUCTION
Background to the Company

As described in the Executive Summary Section, the current document reports on vacation work that was carried out at Transnet SOC Ltd (Transnet). Transnet is a state-owned enterprise that was formed on the 1st of April 1990 to oversee all South Africas rail, port and pipeline operations. The parastatal is run by Chief Executive Officer Mr. Brian Molefe and has headquarters in Carlton Centre in Johannesburg. At the end of the 2012 financial year, Transnet achieved revenue of R45.9 billion and had 66 000 employees making it the largest logistics entity in the country [1,2]. The following are Transnets business units and a brief description on each: Transnet National Ports Authority and Transnet Port Terminals own and operate the country's main seaports, Transnet Pipelines principal operator of South Africa's fuel pipelines, Transnet Freight Rail freight service, and Transnet Rail Engineering rolling stock manufacturing and maintenance.

The subsidiary at which the vacation work was carried out is a member of Transnet Rail Engineering and is found in Germiston. It is formerly known as Transnets Germiston Diesel Depot (the depot). It has 126 employees and it is dedicated to in-service maintenance, repair, upgrade, conversion and manufacture of locomotives. 1.2 Background to the Project

Of the numerous daily maintenance tasks that had to be accomplished at the depot, locomotive engine oil changes were by far the most common and the most costly (due to their occurrence frequency). These oil changes where necessary due to an undesirable physical process known as fuel dilution.

Fuel dilution is a phenomenon of internal combustion engines in which unburned fuel during combustion (in this instance diesel) passes down between the piston rings and cylinder walls,

accumulates in the crankcase, dilutes the engine oil, and consequently impact the engine oil chemical properties (such as viscosity) negatively.

Literature suggests that fuel dilution may be a consequence of one (or more) of the following major factors [3,4,5,6,7]: Incomplete combustion, Improper injector timing, Cool engine operating conditions diesel spray condenses on the cylinder walls, Restricted air filter bad air to diesel ratio, Badly calibrated diesel pump over fuelling, Partially clogged or leaking fuel injectors (injectors) diesel drips rather than sprays, Incorrect choke settings settings should be such that air/diesel ratio is higher when the engine is started because cold diesel vapourizes slowly, Worn piston rings this allows easy diesel passage into the crankcase, and Excessive idle time excessive idling of diesel engines (especially huge locomotive engines) does not always warm the engine to its optimal operation temperature. Hence, excessive idling is similar to cool engine operation for extended periods of time.

Due to altered engine oil properties, resulting from fuel dilution, all of the following can occur if the problem is not resolved, minimized, or monitored to effect oil change [3,4,5,6,7]: Reduced oil viscosity and oil film strength this promotes engine wear (particularly in the cylinder/piston rings interface), Increases volatility in very extreme cases this can lead to a crankcase explosion, Weakened lubricant detergency inability of oil to prevent foreign particles that were not filtered by the oil filter from depositing onto engine parts, Low oil pressure this is because diesel is more compressible than oil due to density differences, Accelerated oil oxidation engine oil turns into sludge that accumulates at the bottom of the oil sump, and Varnish and acid formation these two form due to oil/diesel chemical interactions and cause metal parts corrosion.

Although literature indicates that fuel dilution is an inherent phenomenon of all internal combustion engines that cannot be eliminated entirely, it does however suggest that fuel dilution can be minimized by avoiding its root causes that are listed above [6,7]. Thus, the responsibility of the author was to investigate the root causes of fuel dilution specific to Transnets locomotives and recommend measures to minimize the contamination.

Note: Objective number 1 in Section 2 corresponds to Methodology number 1 in Section 3, which in turn corresponds to Observation 1 in Section 4. This is true for Objective X corresponding to Methodology X and Observation X, as well.

OBJECTIVES
1.1. Conduct injector popping pressure test. 1.2. Conduct injector volumetric flow rate test. 1.3. Examine injector tips for clogging. 1.4. Examine the cone angle and the penetration of the spray from the injectors.

1. Inspect and test injectors from locomotives with fuel dilution problem as follows:

2. Examine air filters from locomotives with fuel dilution problem for any restrictions. 3. Perform calibration test on engine governor and diesel pumps from locomotives with fuel dilution problem. 4. Examine cylinder bores and piston rings for any wear. 5. Gather information on how long each locomotive is idled before full operation.

METHODOLOGY
1.1. Connect each injector to the hand-operated air pump found in the workshop. Pump until the injector pops, read the pressure gauge and compare the actual popping pressure to the required one. 1.2. Connect each injector to the electronic air pump found in the workshop. Observe the flow-meter reading and compare the actual volumetric flow rate to the required one. 1.3. Examine injector tips clogging with the use of a magnifying glass. 1.4. Setup the Schlieren System to study the cone angle and the penetration of the spray from the injectors [8,9].

1. Methods for inspecting and testing injectors are as follows:

2. Be present during air filter system maintenances and interview artisans in charge about common faults found in these systems. 3. Be present during engine governor and diesel pump calibration tests and interview artisans in charge about common faults found in these systems. 4. All locomotive engine overhauling services are handled off-site by a contractor called MetaLock Engineering. Visit the contractor and inspect piston rings and cylinder bores with a magnifying glass for any wear. In addition, measure the piston rings and cylinder bores to see whether the clearance between the two components is acceptable. 5. Talk to drivers about locomotive idling.

OBSERVATIONS
inspected and tested (See Appendix A, Table 1, for tabulated result). The results were as follows: 1.1. Twelve of the injectors popped at the exact required pressure of 4200 kPa. Three injectors deviated from the required popping pressure by no more than three percent and this was deemed acceptable by the testing office. The remaining fifteen injectors had popping pressures that were far-off from the required value. As a result, these five had to be stripped and their internal load springs were changed to fix the problem (See Figures 1 and 2).

1. A total of thirty injectors from different locomotives with oil dilution problem were

4600

Popping Pressure [kPa]

4500 4400 4300 4200 4100 4000 3900 3800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Injector Number [-] Figure 1: Popping Pressure [kPa] Results for 30 Tested Injectors. 4

Figure 2: Stripped Injector with Components Shown.

1.2. Nineteen of the injectors were able to produce the required volumetric flow rate of 45.0 ml/s. The remaining eleven injectors had flow rates below or above the required value (See Figure 3). In either case, the injectors would be stripped and the necessary components would be replaced with new ones to fix the problems. Volumetric Flow Rate [ml/s]
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

10

15 20 Injector Number [-]

25

30

35

Figure 3: Volumetric Flow Rate [ml/s] Results for 30 Tested Injectors.

1.3. All injector tips had black soot deposits on them. This was carbon deposits from combustion. These tips, shown in Figure 4, were cleaned with a metal brush and compressed air. 1.4. The cone angle and the penetration of the spray from the injectors could not be examined using the Schlieren System as mentioned in Section 3 Point 1.4. This is

because the equipment required to set the experiment up was not readily available and all efforts to acquire it were futile due to financial reasons. Instead, the cone angle and penetration of the spray were examined with the naked eye the results were inconclusive.

Figure 4: Injector Tips with Carbon Deposits. 2. Interviews with artisans in charge of air filtering systems revealed that these systems hardly have any complications. 3. It was found that the Germiston Diesel Depot, as per Transnets wishes, did not perform any engine governor or diesel pump calibration tests. These were done at selected depots around the country. 4. At MetaLock Engineering, it was found that wear of cylinder bores and piston rings was a fairly common problem. The cylinder bores had to be honed to restore their smoothness. Whereas, the piston rings had to be replaced with slightly bigger ones to fit perfectly on the newly honed cylinder bores. 5. It was observed that on average each locomotive was idled for a period of five hours before full operation. At times, some locomotives were idled for the whole working day (only to be shut-off without operation at sunset).

ANALYSIS

This section of the report is intentionally omitted because the project presented in this document is purely theoretical in nature (i.e. no data processing, graphing and/or uncertainty analysis was necessary).

However, it is noted that this section of the report would be relevant had the Schlieren System test been conducted.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Partially clogged or leaking fuel injectors are likely the most common cause of oil contamination since all inspected injectors had carbon deposits on them. 2. Badly or uncalibrated engine governors and diesel pumps could be a source of over fuelling and consequently oil contamination. 3. The high number of worn piston rings and cylinders that were inspected at MetaLock Engineering allow easy diesel passage into the crankcase. 4. Excessive idle time promotes fuel dilution more than it promotes efficient engine operation.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Invest in equipment to setup the Schlieren System test or invest in any other automated machinery for better injector testing. 2. In future, suggest the Schlieren System test as a vacation work project. 3. Invest in calibration equipment for locomotive engine governor and fuel pumps. 4. Consider retrofitting real-time oil analysis systems on all locomotives. Waiting extended periods of time for a contractor to analyse the oil allows for greater engine damage. 5. Recommend a study into the optimum idle time required before full operation of a locomotive as a vacation work project.

REFERENCES
1. Transnet SOC Ltd vs SATAWU (J 2697/12) [2012] ZALCJ, http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZALCJHB/2012/107.html 2. Transnet impresses with revenue FMCG Supplier Ne, http://www.fastmoving.co.za/news/supplier-news-17/transnet-impresses-with-revue1870 3. ANSOIL. Technical Service Bulletin 7/14/2004. Fuel Dilution Causes and Effects. New York: Amsoil. 4. Crua, C. (2002). Combustion Processes in a Diesel Engine. Thesis, Brighton: University of Brighton. 5. DENSO International (2005). Diesel Fuel Injection. Internet. http://www.denso.com.au/products/aftermarket_automotive_components/diesel_fuel_ injection. Last Accessed: 18 February 2013. 6. Heisler, H. (1999). Vehicle and Engine Technology. Second Edition, London: Arnold. 7. Heywood, J.B. (1988). Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. New York: McGraw-Hill. 8. Eastman Kodak Company (1960). Schlieren Photography. Rochester, New York: Eastman Kodak Company. 9. Mudaly, K. (2008). Injector Spray Patterns in a Compression Ignition Engine. University of the Witwatersrand: South Africa.

APPENDIX A
Table 1: Results for Popping Pressure [kPa] and Volumetric Flow Rate [ml/s] for 30 Tested Injectors. Popping Pressure Volumetric Flow Rate Injector [kPa] [ml/s] 1 4293 45 2 4421 42.4 3 4200 45 4 4532 45 5 4352 45 6 4032 45 7 3987 45 8 4200 58.2 9 4200 45 10 3913 43.6 11 4121 45 12 4399 47.3 13 4200 45 14 4403 55.8 15 4506 45 16 4200 45 17 4084 39.8 18 4200 45 19 4200 52.4 20 4200 45 21 4200 45 22 4052 45 23 4200 45 24 4521 45 25 4463 41.7 26 3892 48.5 27 4200 45 28 3952 56.3 29 4070 40.6 30 4200 45

You might also like