Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)

9 November 2016
Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution
SAEEC 2016
Copyright © Raventech CC, 2016

OVERVIEW
2
• Introduction
• Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution
• Testing
• A stationary diesel engine dynamometer at the (NWU)
• Implementation
• Operational tests performed on
• Commercial trucking fleets
• Diesel generator applications
• Mining equipment
• Conclusion

INTRODUCTION
3
• Energy efficiency projects, historically,
have been associated with electricity
• A significant portion of energy use in
South African industries, especially
mining and quarrying, is derived from
liquid fuels
• Over the past decade the price of
hydrocarbon based fuel has increased
significantly
• Awareness in the potential of Fuel
Energy Efficiency Solutions are rising
• This lead to a multi-year test program
on a number of hydrocarbon based
fuel applications in collaboration with
the North-West University (NWU)

FUEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SOLUTION (FEES)
• A Fuel Energy Efficiency Solution (FEES)
• Developed in collaboration with the NWU
• Refined through a testing and implementation program with NWU
4

• Establish Key Performance Indicator (KPI)
• Establish Baseline in terms of KPI
• Usage Monitoring
• Fuel Management System
• Monitor and control bulk fuel storage system (Deliveries and Dispensing)
• Fuel pumping solution with tags/cards to increase the accuracy and control of fuel
dispensed to engines
• Also evaluate installation of tamper proof devices etc. to prevent theft and other
relevant equipment for preventing contamination of fuel
• Fuel Reporting System
• Using current information system and fuel management information for customized
reports
• Prepare customized reports for
• Fuel Consumption with relevant Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to track and verify fuel
consumption and savings i.e. litre/km, litre/ton etc.
FUEL CONSUMPTION BASELINE
AND USAGE MONITORING
5

• Fuel quality monitoring system
• Compliance to SANS342 for diesel fuel
• Sampling of fuel loads delivered
• Random Testing of 30% of fuel loads delivered through
• NWU Biofuels Laboratory and/or
• Commercial Laboratories
• Common deviations from SANS 342
• Water contamination
• Particulate contamination
• Paraffin adulteration
• Excessive Sulphur content
FUEL QUALITY MONITORING,
CONTROL & ENHANCEMENT
6

• Fuel quality control system
• Implementing on-site spot checking of fuel before offloading
• Paraffin
• Water content
• Reporting and exception management
• Fuel quality enhancement
• Filtration and dosing system on bulk storage tanks to address:
• Water contamination
• Particulate contamination
• Additive dosing system/process
• Manual to fully automated dosing
• Implement governance structures
• Project management and Technical oversight
• Training of personnel (operator / driver etc.)
FUEL QUALITY MONITORING,
CONTROL & ENHANCEMENT
7

• Consider a modern diesel engine from a mechanical perspective:
• Trade-offs are constantly made between:
• Injection timing
• Fuel droplet/micelle size
• Injected fuel volume
• Furthermore the trade-offs are made to:
• Improve power output or
• Lower emissions
• Optimization of its components are beyond the scope of this project
• Injection system
• Induction system
• Valvetrain
• Engine block components
COMBUSTION ENHANCER
8

• Consider diesel fuel from a chemical perspective:
• Complex mixture of hydrocarbon chemicals
• Has inherently high surface tension
• Resists vaporization during injection
• Tends to re-agglomerate inside the combustion chamber
• However, optimization is attainable
• A locally developed and produced combustion enhancer additive
was identified, that:
• Acts as a surfactant
• Provides targeted breakdown of the fuel surface tension upon injection
• Prevents re-agglomeration of the fuel micelles
• Increases the surface area available for diffusion burn to take place
• Increases the burn velocity of the fuel
COMBUSTION ENHANCER
9

NWU TEST PROGRAM
STATIONARY DIESEL ENGINE AND
DYNAMOMETER
• An engine test facility was established at NWU for testing in a
controlled environment
• Test Description
• NWU conducted tests on a light commercial vehicle engine (GWM 2,5
TCI) coupled to a water brake dynamometer (Fraude Type X)
• The engine was tested with baseline fuel and fuel mixed with the
additive for:
• Energy efficiency changes in terms of l/h KPI for maximum load per rpm
interval tested
• Changes in emissions (NOx, COx and SOx)
• Test Control and Execution
• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test protocols
and procedures, specifying
• Repeatability tests and acceptable limits
• Establishment of Baseline tests
• Test for fuel with added additive
• Test fuel was sampled ex-nozzle and tested for conformance to
SANS 342 at NWU Biofuels laboratory
• Fuel tests were repeated for both:
• Baseline test fuel
• Fuel with added additive
10

NWU TEST PROGRAM
STATIONARY DIESEL ENGINE AND
DYNAMOMETER
• Test Results
• Fuel efficiency in terms of KPI
• Average efficiency gains of 12% was realized
• Reductions in emissions were observed for
• CO and CO2
• NO and NO2
• CO2 reductions varied between 10 and 20% depending on the rpm value
• Testing at the dynamometer is ongoing with final year and post graduate students
11

NWU TEST PROGRAM
COMMERCIAL TRUCKING
OPERATIONAL TESTING
• Description
• FEES was implemented on a sample of four representative trucks of an operational
trucking fleet transporting ore
• The specific company was chosen because the high consistency of their operational
parameters:
• Route
• Loads
• Driver monitoring
• Excellent documented and developed baseline usage figures
• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test protocols and procedures
• The vehicles operated between two fixed positions
• The return route distance was 1200km
• The loads transported was constant
• KPI used was km/l
• After auditing and accepting the baseline the test was ran over two weeks with the FEES
combustion enhancer added to the base fuel
12

NWU TEST PROGRAM
COMMERCIAL TRUCKING
OPERATIONAL TESTING
• Test Results
• Excellent increases in fuel efficiency were obtained
• The table shows the average increases in fuel efficiency
over the test period for each test vehicle
• The figures shows how the KPI (km/l)
• Increases when the FEES solution is implemented and
• How it recovers back to the original baseline when the
FEES is removed
13
Test
Km
Test
Litres
Test
km/l
Baseline
km/l
Saving
%
Truck 1 4989 2333 2.14 1.898 12.67
Truck 2 3354 1573 2.13 1.898 12.34
Truck 3 4054 1905 2.13 1.898 12.12
Truck 4 5045 2215 2.28 1.898 20.00

NWU TEST PROGRAM
SMALL GENERATORS FOR PRIMARY
POWER APPLICATIONS
• Description
• FEES was implemented on a 10,5kVA diesel
generator
• The generator was coupled to a purely resistive load
bank
• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved
test protocols and procedures
• An externally powered fan continuously cooled the
resisters within the load bank
• This ensured constant resistance load to the primary
driver (Engine)
• Power factor remained at 1 for the duration
• Load percentages and test intervals were kept
constant
• The change in fuel usage was measured for
purposes of the KPI of litre of fuel per kilowatt-hour
(l/kWhr)
• Test Results
• An average fuel efficiency increase of 14.39 % ± 2 %
was achieved
14
Load kW kVA
Fuel
added
l/kWh
Efficiency
gain
Base
load 1
25% 1.88 2.63 1925 1.027
17.92%
FEES 1 25% 1.88 2.63 1580 0.843
Base
load 2
50% 3.75 5.25 2130 0.568
10.80%
FEES 2 50% 3.75 5.25 1750 0.507
Base
load 3
75% 5.63 7.88 3000 0.533
15.33%
FEES 3 75% 5.63 7.88 2540 0.452
Base
load 4
90% 6.75 9.45 1400 0.429
9.55%
FEES 4 90% 6.75 9.45 1310 0.388
Average over test range
14.39%

NWU TEST PROGRAM
MEDIUM SIZED GENERATORS FOR
CONTINUOUS OPERATING POWER IN
THE TELECOMS INDUSTRY
15
• Description
• FEES was implemented on a 110kVA, 3-phase diesel
driven generator
• The generator was coupled to a resistive load bank
• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test
protocols and procedures
• An externally powered fan continuously cooled the
resisters within the load bank
• This ensured constant resistance load to the primary
driver (Engine)
• Power factor was set at 0,8 for the duration
• Load percentages and test intervals were kept
constant
• The change in fuel usage was measured for purposes
of the KPI of litre of fuel per kilowatt-hour (l/kWhr)
• Test Results
• An average fuel efficiency increase of 21,43 % ± 2 %
was achieved
Load: 25% Amps: 33.2
Duration: 60
min
Engine Temp:
80oC
Oil press:
3.6kpa
Liters at
Start
Liters at
Finish
Liters used Saving
Diesel only 30 22 8
21.88%Combustion
enhancer
30 23.75 6.25
Duration: 60
min
Engine Temp:
80oC
Oil press:
3.4kpa
Liters at
Start
Liters at
Finish
Liters used Saving
Diesel only 30 14.5 15.5
21.61%Combustion
enhancer
30 17.85 12.15
Duration: 60
min
Engine Temp:
80oC
Oil press:
3.3kpa
Liters at
Start
Liters at
Finish
Liters used Saving
Diesel only 30 13.25 16.75
21.79%Combustion
enhancer
30 16.9 13.1
Duration: 60
min
Engine Temp:
80oC
Oil press:
3.3kpa
Liters at
Start
Litres at
Finish
Litres used Saving
Diesel only 30 11.75 18.25
19.18%Combustion
enhancer
30 15.25 14.75
Load: 100%
Amps:
121.9
Duration: 60
min
Engine
Temp:*82oC
Oil press:
3.3kpa
Litres at
Start
Litres at
Finish
Litres used Saving
Diesel only 30 4 26
22.69%Combustion
enhancer
30 9.9 20.1

NWU TEST PROGRAM
LARGE SIZED GENERATORS FOR
CONTINUOUS OPERATING POWER
16
• Description
• FEES was implemented on two large generator systems for Continuous Operating
Power (COP) generation
• The generator was coupled to a purely resistive load bank in both cases
• Test Control and Execution – Test 1
• A 1,250kVA diesel generator with the primary driver being a Cummins KTA50 G3
engine; driving a Newage Stamford HCI734F2 alternator with a MX321 Automatic
Voltage Regulator was used for the test
• The resisters within the load bank was cooled to ensure constant resistance load
to the primary driver (Engine)
• Baseline and combustion enhancer fuel efficiency were evaluated for fixed time
intervals at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the generator’s COP rating
• The change in fuel usage was measured for purposes of the KPI of litre of fuel per
kilowatt-hour (l/kWhr)

NWU TEST PROGRAM
17
• Test Results – Test 1
• A maximum increase of 5.6% at 75%
of COP load was obtained
• THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED!
• Availability of the 1,250kVA generator
required the completion of the fuel
efficiency tests before fuel quality tests
of the sampled fuel could be completed
• Subsequent fuel quality test results had
the test fuel fail on visible water content
• ALL WAS NOT LOST
• This validated the fuel quality
monitoring and control components of
FEES
Load kW l/kWh
Efficiency
gain %
Base
load 1
100% 800 0.254
3.54%
FEES 1 100% 800 0.245
Base
load 2
75% 600 0.267
5.62%
FEES 2 75% 600 0.252
Base
load 3
50% 400 0.271
2.21%
FEES 3 50% 400 0.265
Base
load 4
25% 200 0.338
0.89%
FEES 4 25% 200 0.335
Average over test
range
2.92%

NWU TEST PROGRAM
18
• Test Control and Execution – Test 2
• A 800kVA diesel generator with the primary driver being a Cummins QST30 G2 engine;
driving a Cummins Generator Technologies HCI634H2 alternator with a MX321
Automatic Voltage Regulator was used for the test
• Repeatability tests were conducted prior to the baseline and combustion enhancer tests
to determine the accuracy of the test procedure, i.e. the start, stop and refuelling of the
generator, an error of less than 2% was made by using the test procedure
• The resisters within the load bank was cooled to ensure constant resistance load to the
primary driver (Engine)
• Baseline and combustion enhancer fuel efficiency were evaluated for fixed time
intervals at 50%, 75% and 100% of the generator’s COP rating
• The change in fuel usage was measured for purposes of the KPI of litre of fuel per
kilowatt-hour (l/kWhr)
• Fuel quality risk was mitigated by means of external fuel filtration systems; providing
both water and particulate filtration
• Onsite fuel testing was done on filtrated diesel before commencement of the test
• Offsite laboratory fuel quality testing was done as a final check

NWU TEST PROGRAM
19
• Test Results – Test 2
• A maximum of 9.3% increase in fuel efficiency
at 75% of COP load was obtained
• Levego, an independent third party emission
monitoring company was contracted to
measure engine emissions during the test
• The use of the combustion enhancer to obtain
increases in efficiency had no significant effect
on the emissions of the engine in terms of
measured NOx, COx and SOx
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions
were reduced by 79.2% with the use of the
combustion enhancer

NWU TEST PROGRAM
MINING EQUIPMENT TESTING:
OPEN PIT COAL MINE
20
• Description
• FEES was implemented at an open pit coal mine on a 1983 Euclid R170
154ton rigid dump truck - using a Cummins KTA50-C power-plant
• The tests were performed subject to pre-approved test protocols and
procedures
• The rigid dump truck ran continuously on a fixed circuit of 6.4km
including being loaded inside the pit and offloading at the processing
facilities
• KPI for the test was chosen as litres per kilometre
• The fuel consumption comparison was in terms of the test KPI
• Testing was done in three phases:
• Baseline data acquisition
• Testing with the combustion enhancer
• Testing without the combustion enhancer to prove a return to baseline KPI
• Test Results
• A baseline average fuel consumption of 9.49 l/km was established in
phase 1
• A marked decrease in consumption to 7,16 l/km was observed for
phase 2
• This equates to a percentile saving of 24.5% over the baseline
consumption
• A second order polynomial trend line fitted on the calculated
consumption data indicates an increase in the consumption trend
towards the baseline figures for Phase 3
Phase I Phase II Phase III

NWU TEST PROGRAM
MINING EQUIPMENT TESTING:
OPEN PIT LIMESTONE QUARRY
21
• Description
• FEES was implemented on four CAT 740 Articulated Dump Trucks (ADT) at a limestone quarry
• The quarry was about 75 m deep and mining occurred at three different faces
• Data was collected from fuel level probes and smart GPS positioning devices
• Measured data included:
• Distance travelled,
• Tonnage hauled and
• Fuel consumption per cycle for every elevation (different faces)
• Similar cycles were grouped together and analysed
• In each case between 190 and 630 cycles were measured to ensure statistical significance
• Test KPI used for comparison was km/l
• Test Results
• FEES realised a 10% overall saving with a net cost saving of approximately 7%
Daily Data (km/l) Cycles l/100t l/km
Average Test Result 0,3214 431,00 34,50 3,14
Average Baseline 0,2915 36,67 3,43
Difference 0,0299
% Difference 10,3 %
Cost saving 7,2 %

ECONOMIC COMPARISON
• The proposed FEES provides a net efficiency (cost saving) gain of
approximately 5 to 15 percent depending on the application
• For the various industries or applications under consideration,
assuming:
• A gross saving of 10 percent and
• A FEES implementation cost of ~4 percent of the fuel price,
• The net fuel saving can be expressed in monetary value per selected KPI:
• ~R0.60/km for transport
• ~R0.25/kWh for generators
• ~R15.40/km for mining and quarrying
• Two high level business cases are presented next to show the
potential savings that can be achieved by implementation of the
FEES solution for
• A transport company and
• A remote mine

ECONOMIC COMPARISON:
TRANSPORT BUSINESS CASE
• Assumptions:
• A transport company
with 300 long haul
trucks
• Each truck traveling
15,000 km per month
• Each truck running of a
baseline fuel
consumption of 1.9km/l
• With the
implementation of
FEES:
Description Value
Ave. monthly fuel consumption (Litres) 2,368,421
Ave. Fuel price (Assumed) R11.00
Ave. cost of fuel per month ~R26,052,631
Ave. gross monthly saving due to FEES
assuming 10%
R2,605,263
FEES cost as % of Fuel price (~4%) (R1,042,105)
Monthly Saving R1,563,157
Potential Saving per Year ~R18,757,894

ECONOMIC COMPARISON:
DIESEL GENERATOR BUSINESS CASE
• Assumptions:
• A remote mine uses
10MWe of diesel
generators to supply
continuous power to their
site
• The generators run at 75
percent load during the
month and
• The generators use
0.280 litres of fuel per
kWh generated
• With the implementation
of FEES:
Description Value
Ave. monthly fuel consumption (Litres) 1,512,000
Ave. Fuel price (Assumed) R11.00
Ave. cost of fuel per month R16,632,000
Ave. gross monthly saving due to FEES
assuming 10%
R1,663,200
FEES cost as % of Fuel price (~4%) (R665,280)
Monthly Saving R997,920
Potential Saving per Year R11,975,040

CONCLUSION
• The results of the multi-year test program in collaboration with the
NWU shows good promise
• Significant fuel savings can be achieved when implementing the Fuel
Energy Efficiency Solution
25

Q&A
QUESTIONS?
26

Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)

Ähnlich wie Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1) (20)

Mehr von John M Riggs

Mehr von John M Riggs (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Raventech & University of North West presentation - emperors - 9 nov 2016-saeec 2016 fees r3 ntc (1)