2016-01-2287

Published 10/17/2016
Copyright © 2016 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2016-01-2287
saefuel.saejournals.org

Effect of Lubricant Oil Properties on the Performance of

Gasoline Particulate Filter (GPF)
Huifang Shao, William Lam, Joseph Remias, and Joseph Roos
Afton Chemical Corporation

Seungmok Choi and HeeJe Seong

Argonne National Laboratory

ABSTRACT
Mobile source emissions standards are becoming more stringent and particulate emissions from gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines
represent a particular challenge. Gasoline particulate filter (GPF) is deemed as one possible technical solution for particulate emissions
reduction. In this work, a study was conducted on eight formulations of lubricants to determine their effect on GDI engine particulate
emissions and GPF performance. Accelerated ash loading tests were conducted on a 2.4L GDI engine with engine oil injection in
gasoline fuel by 2%. The matrix of eight formulations was designed with changing levels of sulfated ash (SASH) level, Zinc
dialkyldithiophosphates (ZDDP) level and detergent type. Comprehensive evaluations of particulates included mass, number, size
distribution, composition, morphology and soot oxidation properties. GPF performance was assessed through filtration efficiency, back
pressure and morphology. It was determined that oil formulation affects the particulate emission characteristics and subsequent GPF
performance.

CITATION: Shao, H., Lam, W., Remias, J., Roos, J. et al., "Effect of Lubricant Oil Properties on the Performance of Gasoline Particulate
Filter (GPF)," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 9(3):2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-2287.

BACKGROUND GDI engines, gasoline particulate filter (GPF) is considered as an

enabling and cost-effective technology to meet those stringent
Gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, which achieve better fuel
regulations.[3]-[6]
economy with high power outputs, have significantly gained in
popularity as a propulsion system for light-duty passenger vehicles,
Unlike diesel particulate filter (DPF), limited work has been done to
and this trend is expected to continue. However, as they emit
develop fundamental understanding on GPF and its operation within
significantly increased particulate matter (PM) mass and number
the vehicle system.[7] Further, the impact of fluid properties (fuel,
(PN), compared to conventional spark ignition engines, vehicles with
lubricant and additives) on GPF performance is not well known.
GDI engines are required to meet stringent PM emissions standards.
Therefore, many insights on DPF and three way catalyst (GPF) have
Starting from Euro 6, particulate emission regulation has been
been adopted for GPF work.[8] However, the differences in operating
implemented for GDI vehicles. As it moves to Euro 6c, equivalent
conditions between GPF and DPF dictate that additional
requirement is put upon GDI vehicles as diesel passenger car
considerations need to be taken into account for successful GPF
equipped with DPF, that is 4.5 g/km for mass and 6*1011 #/km for PN
application. Those differences are manifested in that GPF is generally
under the new European Driving Cycle (NEDC) following the
exposed to higher exhaust temperature with stoichiometric air fuel
Particle Measurement Programme (PMP) procedures.[1] Future use
ratio rather than lean environment. Unlike diesel engines, increased
of real world driving emissions (RDE) could increase the challenges
exhaust temperatures from GDI engines necessitate the development
to meet these regulations even more. In the US, although there is no
of high porosity filters to minimize back pressure for fuel savings.
PN regulation yet, a more stringent mass requirement has been set for
Furthermore, it is not expected to have active regeneration for GPF
both CARB LEVIII and US EPA Tier 3. In details, the PM mass limit
service life, which leaves passive regeneration as the only choice to
is set as 3 mg/mile starting in 2017 and 1 mg/mile starting 2025.[2]
remove soot.
In order to meet the stringent requirements on particulate emissions,
It was known that ash alters DPF performance in terms of
many potential technologies have been proposed and evaluated, both
backpressure, pressure drop response, soot storage capacity, soot
in-cylinder control and after-treatment. While fuel injection
distribution, catalyst activity.[9] Because GDI engines produce much
technologies have been advanced to decrease PM emissions from
lower levels of PM than diesel engines, ash has been considered as an
even more important factor that can affect GPF system performance
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)

during the vehicle service life.[10], [11], [12] Ash can be derived The effects of the experimental oil formulation compositions on the
from various sources, including lubricant oil, engine wear particles GPF performance, chemistry, and composition of particulates
and other secondary sources.[9], [13] Lambert et al. found out that produced are addressed.
approximately 50 wt% of the collected ash was non-lubricant derived
in their work to understand ash accumulation in GPFs over significant
mileage.[14] The results indicate that the exhaust gas backpressure EXPERIMENTAL
did increase with mileage accumulation and ash loading, but did not
lead to significant decrease in fuel economy. In the meanwhile, as the
1. Experimental Setup
significant contributor of ash, lubricant additive has been investigated Engine Setup
for its impact on ash formation and according influence on DPF/GPF A 2.4 L 4-cylinder, naturally aspirated, production GDI spark-ignition
performance. It was found that ash, taken from filters of 100,000 mile engine was used in this work. The engine geometry and specifications
run vehicle, enhanced soot oxidation reactivity at simulated tight are given in Table 1. This engine is basically operated at homogenous
contact and loose contact conditions.[15] The impact of ash on and stoichiometric charge conditions. The engine was mounted on a
backpressure has been studied by many researchers on GPF/DPF.[16] 112 kW blower-cooled AC dynamometer for speed control and torque
Researchers also found that an ash membrane can effectively prevent measurements. In this work, the certified Tier 2 EEE fuel and
soot from entering into the porous network of the filter wall. This can experimental style additive formulation in conventional motor oil
contribute to the reduction of the overall pressure drop compare to with an SAE grade of 5W-20 were used.
the no-ash case.[17]
Table 1. Engine geometry and specification
It has been a logical development to apply catalyzed GPF (c-GPF) for
GDI engines since the optimized design and robust formulation can
simultaneously reduce gaseous emissions while PM emissions are
well controlled.[18] In order to ensure the satisfactory performance of
c-GPF over full useful life (FUL), the interaction between lubricant-
derived ash and c-GPF (both the catalyst washcoat and substrate)
needs to be understood. This fundamental understanding will help for
the c-GPF system development and lubricant formulation
optimization. Early investigations show that the ratio of Ca to ZDDP
is critical in the degree of deactivation: when the ratio is low,
amorphous zinc-phosphate glasses and other zinc and/or phosphorus
compounds deposited on the surface of catalyst washcoat reduce
GPF Test Setup and Procedure
porosity of the coating.[19] Another study indicates that phosphorus,
A partial flow exhaust system was built to test prototype bench-scale
which has higher diffusion coefficients than zinc, calcium and
GPFs (2” in diameter and 6” in length) at a wide range of flow rates
magnesium, can penetrate deep into the washcoat, facilitating
(0 - 40 kg/hr) at the same steady state engine condition. Figure 1 (a)
deactivation process.[20] As the deactivation of three-way catalyst
shows the schematics of the partial flow GPF setup. The flow rate to
(TWC) is obvious with the inclusion of P derived from engine oil,
the GPF is controlled by two flow control valves at the main exhaust
low volatility engine oils have been developed to reduce P impacts on
pipe and the partial flow exhaust pipe. The pressure drop and
catalysts.[21]-[22] The main concern for the impact of ash level is
temperatures across the filter were measured, and the particulate
that the non-combustible ash deposits trapped in the channels of the
number and mass filtration efficiencies were calculated by measuring
filter may potentially increase backpressure over the filter and further
the particulate number and mass of upstream and downstream of the
affect its performance.[23] Earlier experience from DPF work
filter. The compressed air and air heater (6 kW) were connected to the
indicates that detergents have significant contribution to the ash
partial flow exhaust pipe at the GPF inlet, which allows cold air and
accumulation in the channel.[24] But the effect largely depends on
hot air (max. 600˚C @ filter inlet) test for pressure drop measurement
the system design, detailed oil formulation and operating condition.
and complete soot oxidation. Reproducibility of this technique has
Ito et al. reported that there is no interaction or phase change of ash
been checked and gives representative results. For accelerated ash
components and cordierite material was observed during an extensive
loading, lube oil was sprayed into the fuel supply line at a controlled
c-GPF field test up to 160,000 km. [18]
rate by using a solenoid valve in connection with a pulse generator to
the lube oil in gasoline fuel by 2 wt. %, which allows about 1 g/L of
Generally, there is a trade-off relationship between backpressure, PN
ash loading in 1 hour at 1250 rpm - 25% load with 1 % sulfated ash
filtration efficiency, soot/ash loading.[25] Therefore, oil formulation
lube oil.
as a whole shall be investigated in order to be compatible with GPF/
DPF application while delivering desired performance to engine
system operation. Here, an accelerated ash loading condition is
achieved by direct engine oil injection into the combustion chamber.
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)
The GPF test procedure was designed for efficient and fair
comparison of GPF performance after ash loading, as shown in
Figure 1 (b). Every new filter was pre-treated in hot air (550˚C)
before the test. Clean filter pressure drop (without soot) was first
measured cold (room temperature) air, and the clean filtration
efficiency was measured under steady state engine condition of 1250
rpm - 25% and flow rate of 15 kg/hr. Accelerated ash loading was
conducted to target lube oil consumption, followed by complete soot
oxidation with hot air (550˚C). In the complete soot oxidation
process, the hot air kept flowing at 20 kg/hr until the measured
pressure drop change gets smaller than 0.05 kPa/10 min. The engine
condition was maintained at 1250 rpm - 25% and fuel was doped by
2 wt. % in the accelerated ash loading. After ash loading, soot was
completely oxidized with hot air (550˚C) to measure clean filter
pressure drop and filtration efficiency after ash loading. In this study
this procedure was repeated twice for each lube oil sample, at target
lube oil consumptions of 61 g and 122 g, and the pressure drop and
filtration efficiency changes at earlier ash loading were compared for
different lube oil additive formulation.
(a). schematics of GPF test setup
(b). test procedure
Figure 1. GPF test setup and procedure
2. Exhaust Emissions Measurements
Soot mass concentration was measured using a high-sensitivity
photo-acoustic sensor (AVL 483 micro soot sensor). For partial flow
measurements of particulate number and size distribution, a scanning
mobility particle sizer (SMPS, TSI Model 3936) with a condensed
particle counter (CPC, TSI Model 3022A) was used after exhaust
emissions were diluted by a fine particle sampler (Dekati FPS-4000).
The raw emissions were sampled from the exhaust pipe through the
heated stainless steel probe and subsequently diluted in two stages, a
perforated tube for the primary dilution and an ejector pump for the
secondary dilution. The temperatures of the sampling probe, primary
dilution air were controlled at 350°C in this study. The actual dilution
ratio was calculated based on measuring the CO2 concentrations
before and after dilution using an infrared CO2 analyzer (California
Analytical Instruments, Inc., Model 200).
3. Characterization Tools
Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)
A TGA instrument (TA Instruments Q50) was used to evaluate
volatile organic fraction (VOF) and oxidation reactivity of GDI PM
collected on Teflon® filters. Each PM sample scraped from a filter
was loaded in a platinum pan of 9.85 mm diameter and 1.68 mm
height. Each sample of 1 - 1.5 mg was thermally treated under N2 at
600°C for 100 minutes and then, isothermal oxidation was performed
at the same temperature with 8% O2 in N2.
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
TEM analysis was performed to visually examine morphology and
nanostructures of GDI particles. A TEM grid was exposed to an
exhaust stream, so that hot particles in the exhaust transported onto
the TEM grid by the temperature difference. Carbon-coated TEM
grids were used for the morphological examination, while lacey
carbon-coated TEM grids were for detailed nanostructures at
relatively high magnifications. Each TEM grid was loaded in a single
tilt holder and the TEM images were taken at an acceleration voltage
of 200kV by a JEOL JEM-2200F electron microscope. The energy
dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectra were investigated by an INCA X-ray
microanalysis system equipped on the microscope. Particles were
investigated in a magnification range of 20,000 to 600,000X.
4. Oil Matrix
Eight (8) fully formulated experimental engine oils of SAE 5W-20
viscosity grade were prepared according to the 3-factor, 2-level
matrix design shown in Figure 2. The three factors are chemical
properties of the engine oil: SASH, phosphorus level from ZDDP,
and alkaline earth metal type from detergents. Treating levels of
ZDDP and detergent for each matrix oil were varied accordingly in
order to meet target SASH and P values. Other essential components,
such as dispersant, antioxidant, friction modifier and viscosity
modifier, were treated at constant levels for all oils. The base oils
used in this work are of Group III base stock as categorized by API in
API 1509 EOLCS Appendix E publication.
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)
Some physical and chemical properties of the eight oils are shown in
Table 2. Actual measured SASH and P results, which are slightly
deviated from targeted low and high levels of the matrix design, are
deemed within acceptable ranges for this study.
Figure 2. Oil matrix design
Table 2. ICP/SASH analysis of oil samples
RESULTS
TGA Results
TGA was used to determine the composition of PM and its oxidation
trends with different oil formulations. Figure 3 is the PM TGA
production profile, in which three distinctive stages are shown for all
the test oils. Time starts when the pan is still at room temperature,
and it takes 1 hour for the temperature of the pan ramp to reach
600°C. Volatile organic fraction (VOF) removal takes place in N2
environment at 600°C for about 100 minutes. Afterwards, 8% O2 is
introduced to the system (balanced with N2) for oxidation while the
temperature is kept at 600°C. The remaining unburned part is
attributed to ash. Since our energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
(XEDS) analysis coupled with TEM and scanning electron
microscope (SEM) did not indicate the presence of engine wear
metals (data was not included), ash contributions were ascribed to
solely additive elements in engine oils. Obviously, the weight loss,
both the relative amount and the rates, is largely affected by lubricant
formulation.
According to the profile, calculated compositions of VOF, soot and
ash were summarized in Table 3. It is noted that the N2 pretreatment
for 100 minutes was not enough to remove all the volatile parts for
the Oil B and Oil E cases, which have high Ca and Mg contents with
low ZDDP contents. Therefore, these samples would expect to
contain higher VOFs than those in the table when the pretreatment
time is longer, which was avoided for fair comparisons in this work.
Apparently, the composition of PM is largely affected by oil
formulation. For the same ZDDP level, high SASH oil produces
relatively less soot compared to the low SASH one, regardless of the
metal type. For example, using Oil B (low ZDDP, high Ca) has very
low normalized soot percentage (18.6%), while Oil A (low ZDDP,
low Ca) has much higher normalized soot percentage (43.2%).
Similar difference is seen between Oil C (29.4%) and Oil D (63.0%),
Oil E (33.3%) and Oil F (66.6%), Oil H (51.8%) and Oil G (54.7%).
For the same ZDDP and SASH level, calcium-based oils (A, B and
C) produce relatively less soot than magnesium-based oils (F, E and
H accordingly). This is largely due to calcium being a better soot
oxidation catalyst than magnesium. The difference between Oil D and
Oil G is unexpected, which requires further examination. The
difference in PM composition from this work is primarily due to the
oil chemistry and its participation in the combustion process. As
being a conventional anti-oxidant additive, ZDDP hinders the
oxidation process, which can increase the normalized soot percentage
in total PM emissions. For detergent, metal type and concentration
can affect the combustion and oxidation of PM. In details, Ca
improves the combustion better than Mg. For the same metal type,
higher concentration of detergent leads to lower normalized soot
production rate, while leaving high total ash level.
Figure 3. PM TGA production profile
Table 3. PM samples composition from TGA measurement (weight percent %)
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)

Figure 4 presents the soot oxidation only profile and the normalized
remaining soot mass indicates the soot oxidation rate with using
different lubricant oil in ash loading. Similar to PM examination, oil
formulation has significant influence on the soot oxidation rate.
Figure 5 is based on calculating soot oxidation rate from TGA
analysis. Overall, high SASH oils give faster soot oxidation rate, for
both ZDDP level. However, the effect of calcium-based oils is much
greater than that of magnesium-based ones. Therefore, soot control,
from generation to passive regeneration, is desired for the efficient
operation of GPF.
oil case as indicated in Figure 6 (c), primary particles were found to
be less spherical with rough surface due to attached nanoparticles for
oil additions as shown in Figure 7 (b) and Figure 8(f). Soot
aggregation degree is relatively lower than the case when no oil is
injected, and mostly fragmented and amorphous as shown in Figure
8(c). It is postulated that the presence of oil combustion products can
assist the suppression of soot formation and oxidation of soot
aggregates, as presented in.[26] The effects will be manifested at
lower soot emission rates and reduced size. Previous TGA results
already provided the information of PM composition. Some
crystalized or amorphous metal components (Ca, P or Mg) are
present in the aggregate or as single particles.

Figure 6. TEM of PM collected at 1250 rpm, 25% load (no oil case as a
baseline)

Figure 4. Soot oxidation profile for the oxidation portion of TGA experiment

Figure 7. TEM of PM collected at 1250 rpm, 25% load (Oil B)

Figure 5. Soot oxidation rate (%/minute) based on TGA analysis

TEM Results
TEM was performed for the PM collected through the gravimetric
sampling system. While TEM images of no oil case were shown in
Figure 6 as a baseline, the results for Oil B and Oil E were shown in
Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively. Images (a) through (c) were
observed on carbon-coated grid, while (d) through (f) was observed
on lacey carbon-coated grid with larger magnification for
nanostructure examination. For carbon-coated grid, the whole particle Figure 8. TEM of PM collected at 1250 rpm, 25% load (Oil E)
distribution can be collected on the TEM grid for morphological
examination. Compared to no oil case, the most particles for oil
additions are observed to be nanoparticles, about 5-25 nm. While
primary particles appeared to be spherical with smooth surface for no
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)

Ash Loading and Backpressure
Figure 9 is the result of ash loading rate after two stages, with oil
consumption amount at 61g and 122 g respectively. High SASH oils
(B, C, E and H) have about twice amount of ash loading as of those
low SASH oils (A, D, F and G) for the same amount of aging time. It
has to be noted that the ash loading is solely calculated based on oil
consumption rate, which means the loss in cylinder and exhaust
system is not taken into consideration in this work. The primary
reason to use this calculation method is because early stage of ash
loading, up to 4 g/L, was mainly focused in this study, while the real
ash loading in the GPF vehicle was reported to be 20 - 30 g/L after
about 100,000 miles run, and the actual weighing of such low ash
loading incurred measurement errors. Undoubtedly, actual collection
rate is certainly much lower than presented, but this calculation still
allows reasonable and noticeable comparison among different
lubricant oils as intended in the scope of work here.
Among four high SASH oils, Ca-based detergent oils (oil B and oil
C) experience an earlier transition from bed filtration to cake filtration
than Mg-based detergent oils (oil E and oil H). This can be related to
the composition or particle size of PM altered by doping with
different lubricant oil formulations. Although further work needs to
be done to characterize the composition of combustion products with
different oil formulation, the results imply that filtration mode
transition can be controlled by changing oil formulation, which in
turn determines the backpressure rising rate. This chemistry impact
on filtration mode transition can potentially affect GPF application
and its performance under real-world operating conditions.

Figure 10. Pressure drop changes with ash loading for eight different oil
samples (air @ SV=46,600 hr-1)

Figure 9. Ash loading by sulfated ash

Figure 10 presents the corresponding back pressure increase of GPF

at different stages, including baseline and two ash loading points. All
the back pressures were measured under the same space velocity, i.e.
46,000 hr-1. The impact of ash loading on backpressure is negligible
for low SASH oil, while comparatively greater for high SASH oil.
The change of back pressure with lubricant oil formulation indicates
that the chemistry not only affects the ash loading rate, but also its
distribution within the GPF.

In general, the filtration starts from bed filtration to surface, and then
to cake filtration.[27][28] As the porous structure of bed and surface
are filled with soot and ash, a sharp increase in backpressure is
observed. After the surface pores are filled, it experiences the
transition from bed to cake filtration, where the pressure rise becomes
mild. The duration of each stage and transition timing can be affected
by both the properties of GPF, the characteristics of PM that enter
into GPF, as well as the operating condition of GPF. The properties of
the GPF include the geometry, porosity and pore size. The
composition, amount, size and mobility of PM certainly affect how
soot and ash are trapped and transported. In addition, temperature,
flow rate and oxygen concentration, which are determined by engine
operation, shall play an important role in actual operations.
Figure 11. Pressure drop changes with Ca(Mg)/ZDDP ratio for eight different
oil samples (air@SV=46,600 hr-1)
Besides the ash loading amount, it is observed that the ratio between
detergent metal and ZDDP plays important role in backpressure rise
(Figure 11). When this ratio is in the low range (area 1), the pressure
drop increase is negligible. As the ratio moves to the middle range
(area 2 and area 3), the pressure drop increase depends on the total
SASH of the oil, i.e. higher SASH level leads to elevated
backpressure increase. For high ratio range (area 4), moderately high
pressure drop increase is observed regardless of the total SASH of the
oil. Through the comparison of four different areas, it indicates that
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)

not only SASH level in the oil, but also the ratio between detergent
metal and ZDDP affects the pressure drop increase. Some explanation
could be that the oil chemistry will determine the ash formation, and
its interaction with soot as well as the substrate. However, this
requires further examination of the chemistry composition and
morphology on the deposited substrate.

GPF Filtration Efficiency

In order to meet the stringent regulation on particle emissions,
filtration efficiency of GPF is an important metric to evaluate its
performance. In this part, particulate emission rate (mass and PN)
before and after GPF are measured to characterize its filtration
efficiency.

Figure 12 shows the results of size-based particulate emissions before
and after GPF at equal ash loading i.e., 122 g oil consumption for low
SASH oil and 61 g oil consumption for high SASH oil. Apparently, in
the presence of an efficient GPF, particulate emission rates are largely
reduced after the exhaust passes through GPF although there is
significant difference in engine-out particulate emission with using
different oils.
Figure 13. Size-based PN filtration efficiency for Oil H (different ash loading)
The relationship between filtration efficiency and ash loading rate
was presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15 for PN and soot
respectively. At zero ash loading point, PN filtration efficiency ranges
from 82 to 88%, and soot filtration efficiency starts even lower (70 to
88%) and more spread. This filtration efficiency quickly increases to
above 95% soon after mild amount of ash is loaded. This significant
improvement in filtration efficiency is attributed to the build-up of
ash layer. For the real-world application, the vehicle equipped with
GPF will have different levels of filtration efficiency with mileage
accumulation and oil consumption. In specifics, only moderate
filtration efficiency can be achieved in the break-in period where not
enough cake has been built. This can be improved soon after the cake
is built, and the filtration efficiency can be maintained at satisfactory
level until the severe plugging occurs.

Figure 12. Particle size distribution (same ash loading)

Figure 13 presents the size-dependent filtration efficiency at different

ash loading levels. The plot not only confirms that filtration efficiency
is significantly lower at zero ash loading level, but also indicates the
size-dependent effect. This trend is consistent for all the other oils. As
the filtration efficiency is relatively low, it is even lower for the
accumulation mode. For small particles, they are in the diffusion
regime, and are in constant contact with filter material driven by the
Figure 14. PN Filtration efficiency with eight oils (different ash loading)
Brownian motion. For fairly large particles, they are in the regime of
inertial impaction and interception, where particles are too large to
follow the exhaust stream, and therefore collected by the filter. In
comparison, mid-size particles (in accumulation mode) is the most
difficult to be collected. The filtration mechanism for this range of
particles is a mixture of diffusion and interception, but the overall
efficiency will still be relatively low when the clean filter is used.
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)
Figure 15. Soot Filtration efficiency with eight oils (different ash loading)
Besides the common trend of filtration efficiency vs. ash loading,
differentiation among eight oil samples are also noted. Figure 16
summarized the filtration efficiency and pressure drop response
(backpressure drop change per ash loading) with eight oils. For low
SASH oils, those of higher metal/ZDDP ratio (oil A and oil F) have
elevated filtration efficiency than the ones with lower ratio (oil D and
oil G). Additional difference is reflected in pressure drop response; oil
A and oil F have slightly higher responses than oil D and oil G. This
impact is not well perceived when the total SASH is at higher range
(oil B, oil E, oil C and oil H). However, pressure drop response is
generally lower for low SASH oils. This is likely due to the fact that
the ash concentration in the flow dictates the deposition rate and
distribution of soot and ash in the filter, both in the pore and on the
surface.
Figure 16. Summary of filtration efficiency and backpressure with eight oils
CONCLUSIONS
A well-designed oil matrix was applied in this work to investigate the
effect of lubricant oil properties on the performance of GPF. Using an
oil doping method, ash was loaded on GPF in an accelerated mode.
Through the extensive evaluation of particulate emissions, both
before and after GPF, the performance of GPF was determined. The
work highlights the complexity of engine oil formulation in effecting
the total vehicle performance system. As GPF becomes an
implemented solution for reducing particulate emissions in GDI
engines, it will be critical to consider the oil formulation impact on
GPF performance while still maintaining the critical performance
attributes (e.g. detergency, anti-oxidant, anti-wear) of a modern
engine oil package. The key achievements and findings of this work
are summarized as below:
• Engine oil injected into the fuel supply line can differentiate
the impact of various lubricant oil formulations on GPF
performance.
• Particulate composition, morphology and emission rates are
highly dependent on lubricant oil formulation.
• Calcium-based detergent promotes higher soot oxidation rate.
• Higher SASH oil level increases the ash loading and GPF back
pressure.
• Oil formulation chemistry determines the transition from
bed filtration to cake filtration. Oil formulated with Ca-based
detergent experienced an earlier transition compared to Mg-
based one for higher SASH oil.
• Ash loading increase the backpressure, but filtration efficiency
is a more complex phenomenon. Filtration efficiency is more
effective with a small amount of ash accumulation.
It is learned from this work that oil formulation plays an important
role in GPF performance through the effect on combustion and
interaction of those combusted products with GPF. The oil matrix is
simple but well-defined, and the preliminary results certainly will
guide our future work on further in-depth understanding on the
impact of engine oil formulation on the performance of GPF and even
the whole vehicle system.
REFERENCES
1. European commission. ”COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No
459/2012 of 29 May 2012 Amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of
European Parliament and of the Council and Commission regulation No
692/2008 as Regards Emissions from Light Passenger and Commercial
Vehicles (Euro 6).” 29 May 2012.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Sets Tier
3Tailpipe and Evaporative Emission and Vehicle Fuel Standards.” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2014 March
3. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, “Ultrafine Particulate Matter and the
Benefits of Reducing Particle Numbers in the United States”, July 2013
4. Transport & Environment, “Briefing: Particle Emissions from Petrol
Cars”, November 2013
5. Guan B., Zhan R., Lin H., Huang Z., “Review of the State-of-the-Art of
Exhaust Particulate Filter Technology in Internal Combustion Engines”,
Journal of Environment Management, 154 (2015): 225-258
6. Kattouah, P., Kato K., Their D., Ohara E., et al., “Advanced Gasoline
Particulate Filter for Effective Gasoline Emission Control Beyond Euro
6”,
7. Jorgensen J., Murray T. Sappok A., Wong V., et al., “The Effect of Ash
Accumulation on Gasoline Particulate Filters: A Comparison between
Laboratory and Field Aged Samples”, Proceedings of the ASME 2014
Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference, ICEF
2014-5473
8. Lee, K., Choi, S., Seong, H., Kameya, Y., Lee, H., “Particulate
Emissions Control by Advanced Filtration Systems for GDI Engines”,
DOE Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation Meeting, May 2013
9. Sappok A., Govani I, Kamp C., Wong V., “A Revealing Look Inside
Passive and Active DPF Regeneraton: In-Situ Optical Analysis of Ash
Formation and Transport”, DEER 2012
10. Maricq, M., Podsiadlik, D., Brehob, D., and Haghgooie, M., "Particulate
Emissions from a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignition (DISI) Engine," SAE
Technical Paper 1999-01-1530, 1999, doi:10.4271/1999-01-1530.
 Shao et al / SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. / Volume 9, Issue 3 (November 2016)

11. Andrews, G. and Ahamed, F., "The Composition of Spark Ignition

Engine Steady State Particulate Emissions," SAE Technical Paper 1999-
CONTACT INFORMATION
01-1143, 1999, doi:10.4271/1999-01-1143. Huifang Shao: Afton Chemical Corporation
12. Mohr, M., Lehmann, U., and Margaria, G., "ACEA Programme on the Huifang.Shao@aftonchemical.com
Emissions of Fine Particulates from Passenger Cars(2) Part1: Particle
Characterisation of a Wide Range of Engine Technologies," SAE
Technical Paper 2003-01-1889, 2003, doi:10.4271/2003-01-1889. Hee Je Seong: Argonne National Laboratory
13. Custer, N., Kamp, C., Sappok, A., Pakko, J. et al., "Lubricant-Derived hseong@anl.gov
Ash Impact on Gasoline Particulate Filter Performance," SAE Int. J.
Engines 9(3):2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-0942.
14. Lambert, C., Bumbaroska, M., Dobson, D., Hangas, J. et al., "Analysis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of High Mileage Gasoline Exhaust Particle Filters," SAE Int. J. Engines
9(2):1296-1304, 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-0941. This work was partially supported by the facilities at Argonne
15. Seong H.J., Choi S., “Particulate Emissions Control by Advanced National Laboratory operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC. under
Filtration Systems for GDI Engines”, DOE Annual Merit Review & Peer
Evaluation Meeting, June 2015 Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357 for the Department of Energy.
16. Zhu, H., Li, W., Tao, H., Li, J. et al., "Effect of Sulfated Ash in Lubricant The use of the TEM at the Center for Nanoscale Materials facility
on the Performance and Durability of Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF)," was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science,
SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2796, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2796.
Office of Basic Energy Sciences. The authors also appreciate Dr.
17. Sappok, A., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Kamp, C. et al., “Theoretical
and Experimental Analysis of Ash Accumulation and Mobility in Ronald Heck for his kind and insightful technical review.
Ceramic Exhaust Particulate Filters and Potential for Improved Ash
Management”, SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 7(2):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-
1517.
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
18. Ito, Y., Shimoda, T., Aoki, T., Yuuki, K. et al., "Next Generation
of Ceramic Wall Flow Gasoline Particulate Filter with Integrated GDI - Gasoline Direct Injection
Three Way Catalyst," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1073, 2015,
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1073. GPF - Gasoline Particulate Filter
19. Joy, G., Molinaro, F., and Homeier, E., "Influence of Phosphorus DPF - Diesel Particulate Filter
on Three-Component Control Catalysts: Catalyst Durability and
Characterization Studies," SAE Technical Paper 852099, 1985, TWC - Three-way Catalyst
doi:10.4271/852099.
20. Brett, P., Neville, A., Preston, W., and Williamson, J., "An Investigation FUL - Full Useful Life
into Lubricant Related Poisoning of Automotive Three-Way PM - Particulate Matter
Catalysts and Lambda Sensors," SAE Technical Paper 890490, 1989,
doi:10.4271/890490. PN - Particle Number
21. Bardasz, E., Schiferl, E., Curtis, T., Lockwood, F. et al., "Controlling
Lubricant Derived Phosphorous Deactivation of the Three Way Catalysts RDE - Real world Driving Emissions
Part 1: Assessments of Various Testing Methodologies," SAE Int. J.
Fuels Lubr. 3(2):369-377, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-1544.
PMP - Particle Measurement Programme
22. Bardasz, E., Schiferl, E., Vilardo, J., Curtis, T. et al., "Controlling SMPS - Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer
Lubricant-Derived Phosphorous Deactivation of the Three-
Way Catalysts Part 2: Positive Environmental Impact of Novel TGA - Thermo-gravimetric Analysis
ZDP Technology," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 3(2):925-937, 2010,
doi:10.4271/2010-01-2257. TEM - Transmission electron microscopy
23. Wilkins T., “Effects of Oil Additives on Autocatalysts”, Platinum Metals EDX - energy dispersive X-ray
Rev., 2004, 48(1), 44
24. Watson S. and Wong V., “Reducing Lubricant Ash Impact on Exhaust SV - Space Velocity
Aftertreatment with a Oil Conditioning Filter”, 2009 Directions in SASH - Sulfated Ash
Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research Conference, August 6th,
2009 ZDDP - Zinc Dialkyldithiophosphates
25. Ogyu, K., Ogasawara, T., Nagatsu, Y., Yamamoto, Y. et al., "Feasibility
Study on the Filter Design of Re-Crystallized SiC-GPF for TWC VOF - Volatile organic fraction
Coating Application," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1011, 2015,
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1011.
26. Choi, S., Seong, H., "Particulate emissions and soot oxidation reactivity
impacted by lube oil addition in a gasoline direct injection engine.
Combustion, and Flame, under review.
27. Sanui, R. and Hanamura, K., "Scanning Electron Microscopic
Visualization of Transition from Surface Pore Filtration to Cake
Filtration Inside Diesel Particulate Filter Walls," SAE Technical Paper
2015-01-1018, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-1018.
28. Choi, S., Oh, K. C., Lee, C. B., “The effects of filter porosity and flow
conditions on soot deposition/oxidation and pressure drop in particulate
filters.”, Energy, 77, 327-337, 2014.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
Copyright of SAE International Journal of Fuels & Lubricants is the property of SAE
International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.