1 / 35

Analysis of the ISM Matrix

Analysis of the ISM Matrix. Draft 3 November 5, 2004. Executive Summary. Both Levels of Soot Data Used in Analysis Crosshead Wear, Sludge, Top Ring Weight Loss, Oil Filter Delta Pressure, Injector Screw, Valve Adjusting Screw, Rocker Hat, Cylinder Liner Wear and Scuffing

hume
Download Presentation

Analysis of the ISM Matrix

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Analysis of the ISM Matrix Draft 3 November 5, 2004

  2. Executive Summary • Both Levels of Soot Data Used in Analysis • Crosshead Wear, Sludge, Top Ring Weight Loss, Oil Filter Delta Pressure, Injector Screw, Valve Adjusting Screw, Rocker Hat, Cylinder Liner Wear and Scuffing • Soot Correction for CWL and IAS Possible • Oil Discrimination on Some Parameters • Lab A has Significantly Higher Oil Consumption and Lower Sludge Ratings • Lab D is Dropped from the Analysis • Outlier Criteria a Possibility

  3. ISM Matrix

  4. Cross Head Weight Loss • Model Fit: CWL=f(Lab, Oil, Average Soot) • No Lab Differences • Lab G 0.84 Mild if Fit Procedure Change Instead of Soot • All 3 Oils Statistically Significantly Different • CWL Increases 3.0332 per 1% Avg Soot

  5. What About Outlier Criteria • E178 • Assume Known Standard Deviation • With n=6 and Alpha=0.01, T=2.68 • Outlier Criteria Creates Outlier

  6. Oil Filter Delta Pressure • Model Fit: LN(FDP)=f(Lab, Oil) • No Lab Differences • Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004 • Use of Natural Log Transformation

  7. Average Sludge Rating • Model Fit: ASR=f(Lab, Oil) • Weak Evidence Lab A Statistically Significantly Different • No Oil Differences

  8. Top Ring Weight Loss • Model Fit: TRWL=f(Lab, Oil) • No Lab Differences • No Oil Differences

  9. Injector Adjusting Screw Weight Loss • Model Fit: AVGIAS=f(Lab, Oil, Average Soot) • No Lab Differences • Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different • AVGIAS Increases 114.72 per 1% Avg Soot

  10. Valve Adjusting Screw Weight Loss • Model Fit: VSWL=f(Lab, Oil) • No Lab Differences • Oil 830 Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004

  11. Rocker Hat Weight Loss • Model Fit: RHWL=f(Lab, Oil) • No Lab Differences • Some Evidence ISMA Statistically Significantly Different from Oil 1004

  12. Cylinder Liner Wear • Model Fit: ALW=f(Lab, Oil) • No Lab Differences • No Oil Differences

  13. Oil Consumption • Model Fit: OC=f(Lab, Oil) • Lab A Statistically Significantly Different • No Oil Differences

  14. Scuffing • Injector Adjusting Screw Scuffing • No Scuffing on Oil ISMA • Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot) • Scuffing on Oil 830 in Lab A, Lab B, but Not Lab G • Valve Adjusting Screw Scuffing • Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot) • Rocker Hat Scuffing • Scuffing on 1 of 6 Tests on Oil 1004 (Lab A, 4.3% Soot)

More Related