From:	Jeff Clark
Sent:	Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:31 PM
To:	Andrew Ritchie (E-mail); Andy Broff (E-mail); Bill Larch (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail); Brad Carter (E-mail); Cathy Devlin (E-mail); Greg Shank (E-mail); Jeff Clark (E-mail); Jim Gutzwiller (E-mail); Jim Matasic (E-mail); Jim Moritz (E-mail); Jim Rutherford (E-mail); Jim Wells (E-mail); John Haegelin (E-mail); Jose Gutierrez (E-mail); Keith Selby (E-mail); Ken Goshorn (E-mail); Mark Cooper (E-mail); Michael Minotti (E-mail); Pat Fetterman (E-mail); Riccardo Conti (E-mail); Ron Buck (E-mail); Scott Richards (E-mail); Steve Kennedy (E-mail); Tom Franklin (E-mail); Wim Van Dam (E-mail)
Subject:	T-12 Minutes of June 23 2005
Attendance - Scott Richards, Andy Broff, Mark Cooper, Jim Moritz, John Haegelin, Tom Franklin, Riccardo Conti, Pat Fetterman, Jim Rutherford, Bob Campbell, Steve Kennedy, Jim Matasic, Greg Shank, Ken Goshorn, Steve Trevitz, Ron Buck, Jeff Clark

EGR/AFR Control Strategies - Steve Trevitz was consulted about the EGR/AFR control strategies that we have been discussing over the last couple of weeks. The same intake & exhaust manifold CO2 conditions could exist at very different intake manifold pressures. Steve commented that he would like to see the data 'side by side' or to witness the phenomena on a running engine. Bob summarized his situation for Steve and the group and posed the question to see if we would be better off controlling intake manifold pressure and intake CO2. Steve indicated that CO2 measurements are a good way to measure what we want to measure. He also indicated that seeing a boost change under the same conditions should indicate either a measurement error or a leak somewhere in the system. After much further discussion, it was decided that a trial airflow measurement will be performed at the labs to see where things really sit.

A further discussion broke out about egr gas and cooler temps being different. Labs are to provide Jeff with six minute data before we discuss this again.

T-11 Update with T-12 Rings
XOM - their calibration test looks to be coming in around 5.83% soot as 12 cst increase, 26 g/h oil consumption. It looks like their previous good tests. The engine was a newly rebuilt engine.
LZ -  the first test showed real low oc (25 g/h) and ended up a 6.6% soot (way mild). The second test came in at 6.5% soot, with an once an oil being removed every hour starting at 50 hours to 'fake' out an oc of about 55 g/h, but there was no effect on severity.
SR - oil consumption 22.6 g/h and soot at 6.3%. They ran to 300 hours and the oil broke badly.

The labs commented that the vis curves are similar to the past but the breaks are shifted to later in the test. Labs may continue to reference. Once we have more data we will re-evaluate the calibration status of those tests if necessary.

After some discussion, Volvo was asked if they knew why the compression ring change would reduce oc so much. The only clear difference was that the original T-11 rings didn't have as much crown as the T-12 rings that have run.

Steve Kennedy suggested that a statistician (other than Jeff <insert laughter here>) review the data set to evaluate the trends of mrv, soot, and oc. Jim Rutherford was volunteered.

Next Meeting - will be set up by Greg and Wim van Dam, likely the 29th of June at 11:00 am.

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-365-1032
412-848-8843 (cell)
jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu