© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

Cummins ISM Reference Data ReviewforCummins Surveillance Panel

August 26, 2009Jim Rutherford

2© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

Introduction

At the August 13 Cummins Surveillance Panel conference call several questions were raised about ISM severity. Here is an attempt to address the following questions.

1. Are the soot adjustments right?

2. Are the industry correction factors right?

3. Are the cross cylinder σ’s changing?

4. Should we update targets?

5. Should we use severity adjustments?

3© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right?

Background –According to the ISM Timeline March 22, 2005 marked “COMPLETION OF MINI-MATRIX ANALYSES AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF SOOT ADJUSTMENTS FOR WEAR PARAMETERS”

To the best of my memory, this mini-matrix consisted of 15 tests from four labs on three oils. Although I can’t find that analysis or notes from the meeting we had in Columbus and each time I have gone back to recreate what we did I get confused about which data are correct, the analyses looked something like this.

Dependent Variable: CWLo CWLo

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > FModel 6 45.30202508 7.55033751 8.32 0.0043Error 8 7.26387862 0.90798483

Corrected Total 14 52.5659037

R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE CWLo Mean0.861814 15.91527 0.952882 5.987222

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > FTGAAVG 1 4.6273643 4.6273643 5.1 0.0539IND 2 40.88039687 20.44019843 22.51 0.0005

LTMSLAB 3 6.69859074 2.23286358 2.46 0.1374

Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t|Intercept -4.8613822 B 4.17710725 -1.16 0.278TGAAVG 2.70861668 1.19983078 2.26 0.0539

IND 1004-3 2.48434686 B 0.84359056 2.94 0.0186IND 830-2 -1.4730673 B 0.9485038 -1.55 0.159IND ISMA 0 B . . .LTMSLAB A 0.11658596 B 0.71080618 0.16 0.8738LTMSLAB B -0.1115843 B 0.66455583 -0.17 0.8708LTMSLAB D 2.13251114 B 0.87433349 2.44 0.0406LTMSLAB G 0 B . . .

Dependent Variable: lnIASos

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > FModel 6 5.70972861 0.95162143 3.53 0.0517Error 8 2.15395961 0.26924495

Corrected Total 14 7.86368822

R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE lnIASos Mean0.726088 13.56769 0.518888 3.824441

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > FTGAAVG 1 1.89934549 1.89934549 7.05 0.029IND 2 3.60127239 1.8006362 6.69 0.0196

LTMSLAB 3 0.3848045 0.12826817 0.48 0.7074

Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t|Intercept -2.2725529 B 2.27462661 -1 0.347TGAAVG 1.73533245 0.65336293 2.66 0.029

IND 1004-3 0.24068735 B 0.45937378 0.52 0.6145IND 830-2 -0.9779662 B 0.51650385 -1.89 0.0949IND ISMA 0 B . . .LTMSLAB A -0.2738984 B 0.38706659 -0.71 0.4993LTMSLAB B 0.04724164 B 0.36188115 0.13 0.8994LTMSLAB D -0.4018547 B 0.47611471 -0.84 0.4232LTMSLAB G 0 B . . .

So although we couldn’t get exactly the same numbers to many decimal places, we rounded to 3 and 1.7 and used the TGA average from 830-2 of 3.9

4© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (CWL)For crossheads, there was clearly more slope for the other two oils (1004-3 and ISMA) than for 830-2.

5© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (CWL)Since the implementation of soot adjustments, slope has maybe increased for CWL on 830-2.

This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened CWL without soot adjustment versus soot for the original seven tests with 830-2 and all references since then.

The slope before is about 0.5 and for later a bit over 1.

6© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (CWL)This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened, soot adjusted CWL versus soot for the original seven tests with 830-2 and all references since then.

The negative slope over the soot range could be an indication that the soot adjustment is overcompensating for 830-2. This could make sense based on original data. But what is it doing for other oils?

7© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

2. Are the industry correction factors right? (CWL)This chart shows outlier screened, soot adjusted CWL versus date for all 36 chartable 830-2 results with and without industry correction.

On the average, the correction looks not bad; maybe a little too much for more recent tests.

Industry Correction

Before After

8© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (CWL)2. Are the industry correction factors right? (CWL)

This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened, soot adjusted CWL versus date for all 36 chartable 830-2 results.

Over the life of the test final results for 830-2 might have increased an average of 0.5 mg.

Soot Adjustment Calc

Before After

Industry Correction

Before After

9© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (IAS)For injector adjusting screws in the original mini-matrix data, 830-2 and 1004-3 had similar slope. ISMA had greater slope but only two results.

10© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (IAS)Since the implementation of soot adjustments, slope has apparently decreased for IAS on 830-2.

This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened ln(IAS) without soot adjustment versus soot for the original seven tests with 830-2 and all references since then.

The slope before is over 1 and for later under 0.

11© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (IAS)This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened, soot adjusted IAS versus soot for the original seven tests with 830-2 and all references since then.

The negative slope over the soot range could be an indication that the soot adjustment is overcompensating for 830-2. This overcompensation contradicts mini-matrix conclusions for 830-2. But what is it doing for other oils?

However, since later tests tend to have higher soot, it would be hard to say whether soot adjustment or industry correction or both contribute to the trend.

12© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

2. Are the industry correction factors right? (CWL)This chart shows outlier screened, soot adjusted IAS versus date for all 36 chartable 830-2 results with and without industry correction.

On the average, the correction looks not bad; maybe not enough for more recent tests.

Industry Correction

Before After

13© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

1. Are the soot adjustments right? (IAS)2. Are the industry correction factors right? (IAS)

This chart shows industry corrected, outlier screened, soot adjusted IAS versus date for all 36 chartable 830-2 results.

Over the life of the test final results for 830-2 might have decreased an average of 4 mg.

Soot Adjustment Calc

Before After

Industry Correction

Before After

14© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

3. Are the cross cylinder σ’s changing?This chart shows original measurement and outlier screened CWL standard deviations across the six cylinders for exhaust and intake by date.

I don’t know what to say about it. No simple trends.

15© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

3. Are the cross cylinder σ’s changing?This chart shows original measurement and outlier screened IAS standard deviations across the six cylinders for exhaust and intake by date.

Maybe the trend is downward?

16© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

4. Should we update targets?

This chart shows previous three sets of targets.It seems that they were simple averages of all 830-2 tests available at each time.

A possible update with current tests is shown.

Variable Mean Std Dev NCWL 4.8 1.4 7

lnOFDPplus1 2.5430 0.3936 7OFDP 12 7ASR 9.04 0.13 7IAS 30.0 7.0 7CWL 5.3 1.4 10

lnOFDPplus1 2.4342 0.3813 10OFDP 10 10ASR 8.99 0.15 10

SAIAS 24.5 10.7 10IAS 30.3 6.2 10CWL 5.2 1.5 21

lnOFDPplus1 2.5209 0.3274 21OFDP 11 21ASR 8.99 0.15 21IAS 29.5 5.7 21CWL 5.3 1.6 36

lnOFDPplus1 2.4421 0.3462 36OFDP 10 36ASR 8.99 0.14 36IAS 29.1 5.4 36

17© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

OFDP transformedback from ln(OFDP+1)

Actual target w/o industry

correction 24.5

4. Should we update targets?

18© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

Actual sd w/o industry

correction 10.7

Industrty didn’tbelieve this

number. Used0.20 instead.

4. Should we update targets?

19© 2009 Chevron Oronite Companies. All rights reserved.

4. Should we update targets?5. Should we use severity adjustments?

My opinion on these last two questions:

Yes, we should update targets. But not as shown above. They should be part of the revised LTMS for ISM.

Yes, we should allow severity adjustments.

As most of you know, we have an LTMS Task Force and an active LTMS TF Statistics Subgroup. Our next LTMS TF SS meeting is September 1. I hope to suggest a new LTMS for ISM for consideration at that meeting based on revised LTMS concepts and framework. The LTMS TF could eventually propose new LTMS to this Surveillance Panel.