From:	Jeff Clark
Sent:	Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:38 AM
To:	Andrew Ritchie (E-mail); Bill Larch (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail); Charlie Passut (E-mail) (E-mail); Dan Pridemore (E-mail); Floyd Albert (E-mail); Greg Shank (E-mail); Jeff Clark; Jim Gutzwiller (E-mail); Jim Matasic (E-mail); Jim Moritz (E-mail); Jim Rutherford (E-mail); Joe Franklin (E-mail); John Haegelin (E-mail); John Knight (E-mail); Ken Goshorn (E-mail); Mark Cooper (E-mail); Mark Rees (E-mail); Michael Minotti (E-mail); Ms. Gita Krishnaswamy (E-mail); Pat Fetterman (E-mail); Riccardo Conti (E-mail); Ron Buck (E-mail); Scott Richards (E-mail); Stacy Bond (E-mail); Steve Gearhart (E-mail); Steve Kennedy (E-mail); Tom Franklin (E-mail); Wim Van Dam (E-mail)
Subject:	T-11 Minutes
These are the unconfirmed minutes of the July 14, 2003 meeting of the T-11 Task Force, held in Wickliffe, OH.

Summary of Action Items:
1. Jeff Clark to supply a template to labs to report oil consumption data <DONE>; Test labs are to supply the data as soon as possible (both reference and candidate) <IN PROGRESS>.
2. Labs are to report timing data for ALL TESTS <IN PROGRESS>.
3. The task force is to further examine soot/validity criteria <PENDING>.

Attendance: 
Present - Jim Rutherford, Chevron Oronite; Jeff Clark, TMC; Bob Campbell, Ethyl; Tom Franklin, Jim Moritz, PerkinElmer; Ron Buck, TEI; Ken Goshorn, Greg Shank, Mack; Steve Kennedy, Riccardo Conti, ExxonMobil; Gita Krishnaswamy, Jim Matasic, Lubrizol.

Phone In - Joe Franklin, PerkinElmer; Scott Richards, SwRI; Wim van Dam, Chevron Oronite; Jim Gutzwiller, Mike Minotti, Pat Fetterman, Infineum; Charlie Passut, Ethyl.

Oil Consumption as a Validity Criteria:
Greg expressed Mack’s concerns that if oil consumption is too high, strange things seem to happen in the test. Mack’s recommendation is that a validity requirement be implemented for oil consumption. After much discussion, it was decided that the labs would examine their oc data and try to determine an oc value by using all the data in one regression, excluding any anomalies, starting from hour 24 until the oil scale runs dry or end of test. Labs are to report the data to Jeff Clark. Jeff will distribute a template for reporting the data, which will include the originally calculated result, the average for each 12 hour period, the peak oil scale weight and the hour it occurs, and the 24 hour oil scale weight and the “whole-test” regression average, and the hour the oil scale went dry. Mack recommends a limit of 55 g/h. Once all this data is collected, we will be better positioned to make a decision. For the time being a “dual” limit of 55 g/hr max and no less than 156 hours before going dry will be used for an operational validity criteria.

Reference Intervals / Engine Life:
After discussion, it was decided to change the reference period to six tests or six months (similar to the t-8 system), whichever elapses first. Rebuilds will be at lab discretion. It was generally agreed to that the three engines that are on track to make it to the third reference test will continue on as originally planned. All other engines that have already run their second reference are eligible to run four candidates.

Cleaning of EGR System:
This will be left at lab discretion.

Review of Reference Oil Data:
Jim reviewed his analysis and took questions from the group. Gita shared some insights as well. After some further discussion, it was decided to investigate a cubic curve fit from 4.00 to 6.72 % soot. The meeting paused for Jim to quickly rework his analysis based on this; during this break the O&H group visited Lubrizol’s two test stands. Once the meeting reconvened, Jim presented the reworked results. The group agreed that these results were not pleasing. After further discussion and running out of options, the group decided to use linear interpolation to determine the test result.

T-11 vs T-10A MRV:
Jim distributed his analysis. The two tests produce significantly different results with vastly different precision as well. Greg indicated that for the Mack spec a T-11 MRV limit will be used at the same limit as the T-10A (i.e. a more difficult limit). If the API spec were to use the T-11 MRV to apply to its current limit in place of a T-10A, an offset (approximately 2000 cP) would be necessary due to the difference in severity between the two tests. This can be examined later. 

Soot Window: 
Jim Matasic has a test that was at 3.02% soot at 96 hours (just outside the window). Jim was looking for feedback regarding the validity of the test. Jim indicated that all other results (attached) were normal and the other two soot windows were met. The group decided to accept this test and also work forward towards revising the soot/validity criteria.

Lab Visit:
The O&H group examined two stands at Lubrizol. No significant issues arose.

Next Meeting:
Possible conference call in a few weeks.

Please contact me with any corrections.

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Ph: 412-365-1032
Fx: 412-365-1047
Email: jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu
or       jaclark@cmu.edu