Page 18 - Schroeder - Fuel Filtration

Bulk Diesel Coalescing Filtration Fundamentals

Application Introduction: Better Bulk Fuel Filtration is now a critical competence in achieving
cost effective engine performance
1
Coalescing filtration can be a highly effective method to remove water from diesel fuels. Water is typically
introduced into the fuel supply by condensation or water ingression during delivery or transfer. Water in a
vehicle’s fuel system can reduce lubricity causing seizure of close tolerance parts, increased TAN, reduced
lubricity at the injector, lower burn efficiency, reduced power or emissions violations and corrosion.. Water
in fuel storage tanks causes rust and promotes microbial growth. Microbial growth in fuel storage systems
begins in free water at the tank bottom and can quickly migrate through the fuel. In warm weather, microbial
“blooms” can quickly overwhelm and bypass fuel filters causing contamination to reach the fuel injectors.
+
Today's high pressure 36,000 psi (2,800bar) common-rail, Tier 4 fuel injection systems have tighter tolerances
and require water removal, less than 200 ppm to minimize wear related failures.
We test to SAE J1488 and ISO16332 - Fuel Standards. Below are examples of Schroeder tests and results of
third-party product testing.
SAE J1488 is a fuel/water separation test with continuous water injection of .25% of the fuel flow rate. The
test is performed with the water injected upstream (suction side) of the pump resulting in emulsified or finely
dispersed water droplets.

SAE J11839 is a fuel/water separation test with continuous water injection of .25% of the fuel flow rate.
The test is performed with the water injected downstream (pressure side) of the pump resulting in larger
water droplets.
ISO 16332 is a fuel/water separation test with continuous water injection of .15% of the fuel flow rate. The
test is performed with the water injected either downstream (pressure side) or upstream (suction side) of the
pump resulting in emulsified/finely dispersed or larger water droplets, respectively.

Third-party testing show the performance of the Schroeder ICF rated for 16 gpm and a competitor product
rated for 25 gpm at a test flow rate of 10 gpm. Schroeder product is fully synthetic where competitor’s is a
combination of systolic and cellulose. As the test goes on, the competitor’s element loses separation efficiency.
The result is a clear sump sample (Figure 3) versus a cloudy sump sample with fuel and water (Figure 2).

Figure 1
Test Circuit Sample of UNFILTERED Sump
Discharge:

(Tested without the coalescing element installed
at 16 gpm flow) 0% removal efficiency and the
unfiltered sump sample is milky and filled
with fuel.

Figure 2
Competitive Fuel Filter:

Sample of Drain Discharge after Coalescing
filtration at 16 gpm at an average efficiency of
61%. The sample is a mixture of fuel and water
due to poor separation efficiency.

Figure 3
Schroeder ICF Coalescing Element:

Water removal performance at 25 gpm is 97.7%
efficiency and as a result the sump drain output
sample is clean and free of visible fuel.
NOTE: for comparison, competitor's filter
efficiency at only 16 gpm is 61% and testing
of the competitors unit at 25 gpm provided
downstream results that were too saturated
to measure on a Karl Fischer, showing reduced
separation efficiency.

18 SCHROEDER INDUSTRIES | FUEL FILTRATION