Figure 2: Typical chromatogram of E85 fuel used in today’s INDYCAR Series (Courtesy of PerkinElmer Inc.)
leveling system is fastened to prevent adjustment of the tank to a steeper angle, which would accelerate the delivery of fuel (the time needed to refuel is part of the race time). Fuel is sampled from the central supply prior to pit tank fi lling, and a sample is taken from each car upon pre-race qualifi cation and race completion….as exemplifi ed in Figure 3.
The samples are then taken to a mobile lab on-site and analyzed by gas chromatography in under fi ve minutes. Chromatographic profi les from each car must match the team’s pit fuel tank profi le. Any discrepancies are further investigated, and may result in disciplinary action. The test monitors potential additives that could boost performance and give an advantage over teams using the offi cially- sanctioned E85 fuel. For example, the chromatogram shown in Figure 1 which is a plot of retention time (x-axis) and fuel component concentration (y-axis), shows the major ethanol peak in the middle, while the smaller peaks to the left and right are components of gasoline, often referred to as BTEX…. the aromatic hydrocarbons, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylene and Xylene. In addition, there is always a small percentage of water in any fuel that contains ethanol or methanol, which would show up as an additional peak. This chromatogram is considered a typical fi ngerprint of an E85 fuel, but if any contaminants or additives were in the fuel, they would also be seen in the chromatogram, which on further investigation, could be identifi ed if needed.
Race Testing Logistics
PerkinElmer is the offi cial instrument supplier and fuel certifi cation sponsor for the IndyCar Series. Fuel testing is a big responsibility—analyzing fuel samples from the race cars at all 16 IndyCar races to ensure no one is attempting to gain an advantage. This mobile lab has been used for fuel testing at every IndyCar race for the past fi ve years, and based on recent numbers from the trailer’s driver, it has traveled around 150,000 miles in that time.
So how is the fuel testing carried out throughout the year? The mobile lab is located in an IndyCar Series semi-trailer used by the race series’ Technical Inspection Group. Though the lab just occupies a small section in the trailer, it includes one PerkinElmer Clarus® GC system with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) and one analyst at each race (see Figure 4). Jesse Leonard, a PerkinElmer Senior GC Service Specialist, who attends many of the races, explains how it works,
”While we’re there at the track we take samples from the cars and analyze them on the instrument to ensure that the fuel is not being adulterated in any way. It is against race regulations to add or remove anything from the series provided fuel. The lab typically tests 12 to 20 cars at each race event, as the top six or seven cars per race and then the top six in the qualifying round are usually tested, meaning 30 injections on the GC per event. PerkinElmer is actually able to provide information
the same day to the league offi cials so that they can take action on it immediately, rather than after the race weekend is over”
Suspicious Results
For a lab that travels so often and does so many tests, they face surprisingly few challenges, with testing going smoothly and uneventful for the most of the time. However, there have been examples of teams trying to gain a competitive advantage on the track through modifying the fuel provided by the league.
“We have identifi ed cases in which this has happened,” explains Jeff Horton, the IndyCar Director of Engineering Safety, “Back in 2009 when the cars were using 98% ethanol fuel, we found that one race team had found a way to dry their pit fuel supply, which was giving them a slight performance edge over the other cars.”
Brett Boyer, a PerkinElmer GC Service Specialist, who was carrying out the analysis, had a better understanding of what was going on when he explained,
”I was suspicious when there was less water in the gas chromatogram than in the supplied fuel, which told me that the water had been removed. I took samples to our fuel supplier’s lab for additional testing and those results were confi rmed. Water is typically removed from ethanol using molecular sieve technology.”
This proved to be the case and needless to say, the guilty race team received a very hefty fi ne for their actions.
Figure 3: PerkinElmer’s Jesse Leonard is seen sampling the fuel from a car at the Indy Grand Prix of Alabama at Barber Motorsports Park (Courtesy of PerkinElmer Inc.)
Jeff Horton told us there have also been other examples of the GC system detecting compounds that should not be in the fuel, but not in an advantageous way. The 18.5-gallon gas tank in an IndyCar is known as a safety fuel cell, which is basically a very fl exible, extremely strong bladder or fuel bag that prevents spillage in the event of an accident. Made from high tensile strength elastomer (polymer) components and engineered to withstand the fuel’s chemical attack, the bladder is the fi rst line of defense in a crash. However, some of the early designs were not completely resistant to chemical attack by the fuel and as a result some of the compounds in the polymer were being dissolved by the fuel, specifi cally in samples taken from the fi lter system, where the contaminants were being concentrated. Jeff explained that the fi rst sign of this was that unknown peaks were seen in the gas chromatogram. But of course, the challenge was fi nding out what the peaks were. Tim Ruppel, a GC Applications Specialist from Chicago takes up the story,
“Using a GC TCD detector, we were only able to say that these peaks shouldn’t have been present, because they were not in the fuel tested from the main tank. So we took some of the contaminated fuel back to our Tech Center facility in Oakbrook (Illinois) and ran them on the GC fi tted with an MS (mass spectrometer) detector, which is a technique that can identify the unknown compounds in a sample. What it told us was that the peaks were actually phthalate esters, which are mainly used as plasticizers to increase the fl exibility, transparency, and durability of polymers.”
Mystery solved….the fuel was leaching out the plasticizers from the inside of the fuel bladder.
This level of support has proved invaluable to the IndyCar organization, because if it was allowed to go undetected, this kind of problem could have been disastrous, because it would have actually damaged the engines…and not given them any type of performance boost!
We’ll leave the fi nal words to Marvin Riley, whose job is to make sure that no team gets any unfair advantage by bending the rules regarding the performance of the engine,
“The Verizon IndyCar Series and the Indianapolis 500 are proud to be associated with PerkinElmer, who have been our partners for over 40 years. Their GC instrumentation, together with the knowledge and expertise of their technical specialists has made my job easier by ensuring that when it comes to fuel characterization, there is no question that all teams are on a level playing fi eld.”
Further Reading
Figure 4: PerkinElmer’s Clarus GC System used to test IndyCar fuel (Courtesy of PerkinElmer Inc.)
1. Verizon IndyCar Series Procedures and Rules: http://www.
INDYCAR.com/Fan-Info/INDYCAR-101/Rulebook/Chp14- TechSpecifi cations
Author Contact Details Robert Thomas • Perkin Elmer • Robert Thomas is a freelance science writer based in Gaithersburg, MD., and can be contacted via his website at
www.scientifi
cwritingsolutions.net
ANNUAL BUYERS GUIDE 2017 •
WWW.PETRO-ONLINE.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
