3333 N.

Mayfair Road Milwaukee, WI 53222-3219 +1 414-778-3344

Technical Paper Series

I00-9.10

Group II Base Stocks and Additive Response in a Hydraulic Fluid

Dave Oesterle, The Lubrizol Corporation Paul Nai, The Lubrizol Corporation

Presented at the International Exposition for Power Transmission and Technical Conference 4-6 April 2000

LEGEND Sample Identification Number: I00-3.2 I 00 3 2 = = = = Volume number (only one volume) 2000, year of the conference Conference Session Number Second paper in the Sessions presentation order

All papers presented at the 2000 International Exposition for Power Transmission and Technical Conference are available in one volume, Proceedings of the 48th National Conference on Fluid Power.

No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author(s). Statements and opinions advanced in this paper are that of the author(s) and are his/her responsibility, not those of the National Fluid Power Association. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the author(s) directly.

I00-9.10

G R O U P II B A S E S T O C K S A N D A D D I T I V E R E S P O N S E IN A H Y D R A U L I C FLUID David Oesterle and Paul Nai The Lubrizol Corporation, 29400 Lakeland Boulevard, Wickliffe, OH 44092-2298

ABSTRACT
Since it's introduction in 1984, Group II base stocks have grown in popularity and supply. Today, there are about 10 refiners across North America, Europe and Asia with many planning future group II capacity. Oils are categorized as Group I1 by the American Petroleum Institute according to their sulfur levels, saturates levels and viscosity index. Most Group II stocks are produced by some form of a Hydrocracking and Isodewaxing process. Hydrocracking improves the viscosity index (VI) and removes structures like aromatics and sulfur compounds. Isodewaxing coverts the wax into lube oil while maintaining VI. It is widely recognized that high levels of saturates lead to better oxidation stability and better soot dispersancy. Branched paraffins can lead to better cold flow performance. However, the industry's experience and understanding of additive response in other areas is very limited. In addition, the processes and feed stock employed by the various manufacturers are different and may not have equal additive response. As Group II stocks are likely to become tomorrow's base stocks, it is important to have a better understanding of their performance and additive response in a hydraulic fluid. This paper discusses the response of commercially available hydraulic additive packages in various Group II base stocks. In addition, a developmental additive package for Group II stocks was also used in the study. Areas under investigation include blend stability, demulsibility, foam, rust, air release and filterability.

BIO-DATA
David Oesterle has been employed by Lubrizol for 28 years. He has held positions in Blend Test Services, Purchasing, Corporate Logistics, and International Sales. He is currently a Hydraulics Product Manager located at the Lubrizol Corporate Headquarters in Wickliffe, Ohio. Mr. Oesterle has a Marketing Degree as well as an MBA from Lake Erie College in Painesville, Ohio. Paul Nai has been employed in the oil industry since 1990. Since that time, his career has been focused on the marketing and sales of fuels, lubricants and chemicals. His current position with The Lubrizol Corporation is that of Program Manager, providing technical support for Lubrizol's Industrial Products to customers in the Asia Pacific. Mr. Nai holds a degree in mechanical engineering from the National University of Singapore.

INTRODUCTION
Since their introduction in 1984, Group II base stocks have grown in popularity. In the past, solvent extraction has been a cost effective means of base stock production. In this production mode, lubricant depended upon additive systems to provide the desired performance. However, today's more stringent performance requirements are being driven by emission control and fuel economy, which are highly dependent on the neat base oil quality
(1)

In addition to market demands, the advent of hydroprocessing technology (defined in this paper as severe hydrotreating or hydrocracking) has enabled refiners to selectively rearrange the structure of the base stock, especially from lower cost crude oils, thereby creating a significant advantage.

301

As a result, today there are about 10 refiners across North America, Europe and Asia with many planning future Group II capacity. In North America alone, the ratio of solvent refined base oils to hydroprocess base oils is expected to narrow by the year 2000 ('.
Solvent Refined Hvdroprocessed

Besides oxidation performance, experience and understanding of additive response in other areas is limited. This paper will discuss the response of hydraulic additive packages in these other areas.
TEST DESIGN

The preconceived pros and cons of Group II vs. Group I stocks are as follows: Group II vs. Group I +

I
Present 1997 Potential Scenario 2000

Oxidation Resistance Additive Solubility Demulsibility Filtration Antifoam Air Release Antirust

+ +

Figure I - North American Base Oil C a p a c i t y - Current a n d P r o j e c t e d

Most Group II stocks are produced by some form of Hydrocracking and Isodewaxing process. Hydrocracking improves the viscosity index (VI) and removes impurities and undesirable compounds like aromatics, sulfur and nitrogen. Isodewaxing coverts the wax into lube oil while maintaining VI. It is widely recognized that the low impurity, highlysaturated nature of Group II base stocks and their synergistic effect with oxidation inhibitors provides strong resistance to oxidation and thermal degradation (2.3~ Examples of this superior performance are demonstrated (Figure 2) in several different Hydroprocess stocks with a commercially available Rust and Oxidation (R&O) package in the ASTM D943 Turbine Oil Oxidation Test (TOST).
Solvent Refined European Hydroprocess North American Far East Hydroprocess 0 2000 4000

In addition, when trying to enhance performance through additives, it is important to balance the components in the additive package. For example, the amount of antifoam used must be optimized to provide good antifoaming characteristic without hurting air release performance. Since much work has been done to investigate the Oxidation Resistance of Group II stocks, it was decided that work be done to investigate additive solubility, demulsibility, filtration, antirust, antifoam and air release performance. Work was carried out on a matrix consisting of seven different Group II stocks and four commercially available additive packages. In addition, a developmental additive package was also used in the study to show the performance of an optimized package across the seven different base stocks.

/127o~
t081 0

1760 ~08 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 10000 12000 14000 16000

Figure 2 - ASTM D943 Oxidation Life Performance of Hydroprocess vs. Solvent Refined Base Stocks

302

GROUP

II B A S E S T O C K

API classify base oils into Group I and Group II as follows:

Base Oil Category Group I Group II

Sulfur (%) > 0.03 < or = 0.03

and/or and

Saturates (%) < 90 > or = 90

Viscosity Index 80 to 120 80 to 120

The seven Group II base stocks used in this paper are:

Base Base Base Base Base Base Base

Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil

# 1: #2: #3: #4: #5: #6: #7:

Asian Group II North America North America North America North America Asia Group II Asia Group II

Group Group Group Group

II II II II

All the above seven base oils are ISO 46 grades. Analyticals of some of the base oils used in these
seven blends are shown in Table 1.
Conventional 100N
API Gtouo

Base Oil 4A

Base Oil 4B

Base Oil 2A

Base Oil 6A

Base Oil 7A

vi8 @ 40C, oSI vi8 @ 100O,c, St ~p. gr. @ 1,~,6(~ Hy,'~'oc'~rb'~'~"~T ~,,'.~ T L C-.F!D %saturates /~,rf~2rloaromatics /4iarorna.,ti~ /~x)la,r~ Hy,'~,'o,"~'.'bonT ~,.~, t~'~,~s Spe,'c /~l;;,,~raffi ns %cvcloDaraffins %monoaromatics %diaromatics

30 5,11 0.874.6

50.79 7,Q7 0.8674

97 20.98 4.15 0.8521

lot 20.89 4.18 0.8489

103 20.75 4.18 0.8559

99 30.07 5.15 0.8624

76.1 21.2 ~.,5 Q.2

IO0 0

100 0

100 0

97.2 2.8

130 0

O 0
20,72 77,35 1.61 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.02

q 0

Q 0
50.84 48.28 0.49 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.06 Q.13

q.q O.g

0 0

/~darernati~
/~etraaromatics %oentaaromatics %Unidentified %aromatic sulfur /op01~r~
Percent Sulfur

24.60 54.95 13.21 2.95 0.26 0.5,3 1.36 0.80 1.02

O.O
0.47

0.3054

0.06

Table 1. Base Oil Analytical

303

Compared to the conventional 100N, the hydroprocessed oils have a higher content of paraffins and cycloparaffin s, lower percent aromatics, and lower sulfur. However, there are also differences among the different Group II stocks. For example, in the Mass Spectrometer, the % Paraffins for Base Oil 4A and 2A are 20.72 and 50.84 respectively. These subtle differences give each Group II base stock its unique characteristics and appetite for additives. As such, it is important to design and optimize additive packages for Group II base stocks. ADDITIVES PACKAGES

BLEND STABILITY
Blend stability is an important consideration since the various components of the additive have to be solubilized into the oil in order to perform their respective functions. Due to the low level of aromatics present in Group II stocks, there is a concern with additive solubility. Tables 2 to 4 show the solubility of the five additive packages in the seven different base stocks. In this test, blended samples of the test fluids are stored as follows: 1. 2. 3. At Room Temperature with Steel At 65C with steel At-18C

The five additive packages used in this paper can be identified as follows: Additive 1: Rust & Oxidation Package Additive 2: AWH Package Additive 3: AWH Package; containing filter fix Additive 4: Developmental AWH Package designed for Group II base stocks Additive 5: AWH Package

The samples at -18C are warmed to room temperature before being read. Ratings are as follows: C: Clear VSLZ: Very Slight Haze SLZ: Slight Haze T: Trace; visible sediment but not measurable L: Light; sedimentation is 1/16 of an inch

Table 2 - Storage Stability at Room Temperature

1 2 3 Base OI # 4 5 6

IniUal - After 4 Wael.~s L,.5~a,~,Lacd.~.ve.?. Initial - After 4 Weeks

I I I I I I I I I m I I 1
VSLZ VSLZ+T VSLZ+L VSLZ+L VSI_Z VSLZ VSLZ VSLZ+T VSLZ+T Si_Z VSLZ+L VSLZ VSLZ

~+TI
C+T C+T

Initial - After 4 Weeks

C+T C+T

C+T VSLZ+T

C+T Q+T

QtT
QtT

OtT Q+T

Inilial After 4 Weeks

VSLZ VSLZ

C Q+T

C C+T

VSLZ ~

C C

C C+T

Initial After 4 Weeks

C
C

C
VSLZ+T

C C+T

C C+T

VSI.Z VSLZ+T

~ C+T

C C+T

304

Table

3 - Storage

Stability

at 650

1
O " '

B a s e Oil # 4

- Initial - After 4 Weeks

O

Q+T C+T

C+T

C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T

C+T C+T

- Initial - After 4 W e e k s
O H

VSLZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ + L SLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ + T VSLZ + T

VSLC + T VSLZ + T

V$LZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ

- Initial - After 4 Weeks

O '

C+T C+T

C+T VSLZ + T

C C

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

Initial

After 4 Weeks
O "

VSLZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ + T

C
C+T

C C+T

VSLZ C+T

C C+T

C C+T

Initial

After 4 Weeks

VSLZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ + T

C C+T

C C

VSLZ VSLZ + T

ii

C+T

Table

4 - Storage

Stability

at -18C

B a s e Oil # 2
O ' '

Initial

After 4 Weeks

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

Initial

After 4 Weeks
O ' '

VSLZ VSLZ

VSLZ + L SLZ + L

VSLZ VSLZ

VSLZ VSLZ

VSLZ VSLZ

VSLZ SLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ

Initial

After 4 Weeks
O ' '

C C+T

C+T VSLZ + T

C
C+T

C+T C+T

O+T C+T

C+T C+T

C+T C+T

InitiAl

After 4 Weeks
O "

0 C +T

VSLZ VSLZ

0
C+T

(~ C +T

VSLZ VSLZ

C C

C+T

Initial

After 4 Weeks

C+T

VSLZ VSLZ

0
C C

VSLZ VSLZ + T

VSLZ VSLZ

C C+T

305

Additive 1 is a simple R&O package and as expected did not pose any solubility problems across the range of Group II stocks It is our opinion that the T (TRACE - visible lace, not measurable) and VSLZ (Very Slight Haze) ratings are acceptable performance. Examples of this rating are given in figure 3. In this respect, Additives 3, 4, and 5 would not be considered to have solubility problems across the seven different base stocks. However, Additive 2, which consistently shows at a VSLZ and SLZ rating across all base

stocks at the three different temperature, is a cause of concern. The additive package could probably be balanced to achieve better solubility. Though the ideal condition would be to have a C (Clear) rating across all base stocks and at all three temperatures, there is often a trade off in the formulation. For example, in engine oils, the 'natural' solvency is often replaced by using high treats of dispersant additives. However, for industrial oils like hydraulic fluid, care must be exercised because water separation requirements may be compromised if too much dispersant is used ~3~.

CLEAR

VSLZ + L

SZL + T

HAZE Figure 3 - Examples of blend rating

306

DEMULSIBILITY

PERFORMANCE

Demulsibility is the ability of a fluid to separate water. As mentioned in the previous section, this is an important consideration for a hydraulic fluid. Though small quantities of water can be tolerated in most systems, too much water in the oil will promote the collection of contaminants and can cause sticky valves and accelerate wear (`). Today's hydraulic systems are smaller and designed to do more work (i.e. higher operating speed and pressure). As a result, the fluid spends very little time in the reservoir; consequently, hydraulic fluids must have a high degree of demulsibility. In this work, demulsibility is measured by the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) D 1401; 'Standard Test Method for Water Separbility of Petroleum Oils and Synthetic Fluids c~.
In this procedure, a 40 ml sample of the test fluid and 40 ml of distilled water are stirred for 5 minutes at 54C in a graduated cylinder. The time required for the separation of the emulsion thus formed is recorded. If complete separation or emulsion reduction to 3 ml or less does not occur after standing for 30 min, the volumes of oil, water and emulsion remaining at the time are reported.

In contrast, Additive 3 performed poorly in Base Oils # 1,3, 4, and 7. We believe this is due to the use of dispersants in Additive 3 which promote good solubility and filterability characteristics. FILTERABILITY PERFORMANCE

In today's finely controlled hydraulic systems which use proportional servovalves and high pressure circuits, fluid cleanliness is critical. Today's high performance hydraulic equipment can "silt up" and perform erratically. Servovalves must operate smoothly and predictably to deliver a precise response to actuators. Dirty hydraulic fluid results in abrasion of valve edges and higher pump wear rates, leading to malfunction and downtime. To control contamination, finer filtration is important. In this work, AFNOR (Association Francaise de Normalisation) Procedures 48-690 (Dry) and 48-691 (Wet) from France are used to evaluate fluid filterability. These tests involve a 320 ml test sample, which is filtered through an 0.80 micron patch. Filtration times are recorded for different percentages of this sample (i.e. at 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml and 300 ml). These are use to compute the filterability index for comparing filterability performance. Filterability Index =
-- 9 0 m l T2ooml 2(Tloom,-T~om,)

Additive 1 (with the exception of Base Oil # 4) and 2 gave acceptable performance. Additive 4 and 5 demonstrated consistent good water separation characteristics across a the range of base oils.

Table 5 - Demulsibility Performance EbseOl# 4 40-,40.O(9 40-40.0(151

2 40..37-3(9 40.,40-0(I@ 39.,40..I('2

3 40.,,40-0(2

6 .40,40-0(5~ 42-38-0('151 4OA0..0('1@ 36,40-4(25) ,JAG,40..0 ('9

7 :38,41-1(10) zlO,40.O(19 37-.40..3(.30) 0.31-49('30~ 40.,40.,0(10) 40.a0-O(25)

Basedl I::lm::lcnlv Q80%~ AJd1%e 1 1.2~% ~ A:;t::itJ~2 Q ~ / o ~ ,~tiv~ 3 Q86%~ #dd1%e4 QS~/o~t/k:kitJw 5

40-40-0~ .40..,..~,-2(25) 40.39-I('I@

42-38.O('1@ 10-15-56('3@ 40400(I@ 37-40-3('20) 37..,40-3(1@ 10.35-35('3@ 42-38.O(1@ 39.,40-1 ('15) 40.~I0.0(3@ ('151 41-39.0(~)~ ,40-40.0(~))

0-34,46('33 39..,~0.1('~E)) 2-34.JA(30) 40400(15) 40404J(2~ ,:10.,10.0('9 40.40-0(10) 4O-400('29 40,4O0('30) 3O7

Table 6 - AFNOR Filterability Performance Base Oil # 3 Base Oil Blend Only 1.0 1.0 Filter Index: Dry 1.5 3.6 Filter Index: Wet 1.25% wt. Additive 2 1.1 1.2 Filter Index: Dry 1.5 2.3 Filter Index: Wet 0.85% wt. Additive 3 1.0 1.2 Filter Index: Dry 1.4 1.3 Filter Index: Wet 0.85% wt. Additive 4 1.0 1.0 Filter Index: Dry 1.9 2.0 Filter Index: Wet 0.85% wt. Additive 5 1.1 1.1 Filter Index: Dry 1.2 1.1 Filter Index: Wet Filterability Index > 2 is considered poor performance. 6

7 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2

1.0 1.2
1.1 1.3

1.1 1.0 5.2 Clogged

1.1 1.2 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.2

1.5 1.2 1.5

1.5 1.1

1.1

Group II stocks are believed to have good filterability characteristics. To confirm this, it was decided to run the test on selected base oils (base oils 1, 6 & 7). In addition, Additive 1, an R & O package was left out of the test matrix, as it does not contain components that will contribute to filter clogging. We have also included data points for base oils 3 and 4, which were from previous work. The results suggest good additive response for filterability in Group II stocks across different additive types and base oils. As such, additive packages for Group II stocks may not require a filter fix (i.e. a dispersant). As per the pervious section, this will lead to better demulsibility performance.
ANTIRUST PERFORMANCE

leakage past affected parts and may cause components to seize(4~. In this work, antirust performance is measured by the ASTM D 665; 'Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water ''{~ In this procedure, a 300 ml sample of the test fluid is stirred with 30 ml of distilled water or synthetic sea water (version A and B respectively) at a temperature of 60C (140F) with a cylindrical steel test rod completely immersed therein. The test is run for 24 hours after which the test rod is examined for signs and degree of rusting. Except for Additive 2 (a moderate and a light failures in Synthetic Sea Water in 2 base oils) and Additive 3 (a light failure in Synthetic Sea Water in 1 base oil), the additive response to rust performance is good across the range of the Group II stocks. Once again, Additive 4 (which was designed for Group II stocks) demonstrated good antirust performance in all the base oils tested.

Rust is the chemical union of iron (or steel) and oxygen. Because it is impossible to keep air and atmospheric moisture out of hydraulic systems, there will always be opportunities for rust. Rust contaminates the hydraulic system and promotes wear. It also leads to excessive

308

Table 7 - Antirust Performance

Ba~e Q i l # 2 n RNI~ ~ Adclltiv~ 1 Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean 3 4 5 6 7

- Distilled H 20
-

Syn Sea H 20

- Distilled H 20 ~-Syn Sea H 20 ~3R~/~ wt A d d i t i v ~ ~l i Distilled H 20 i Syn Sea H 20 13 eR/~ wt A r l d l t i ~ t Distilled H 20 Syn Sea H 20

Pass-Clean Fail-Moderate

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Fail-I.Jght

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Fail - Light

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

1 ARI~ wi" Additive Distilled H 20 Syn Sea H 20 Pass .-Clean Pass .-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean Pass-Clean

ANTIFOAM AND AIR RELEASE PERFORMANCE Foam is a layer of air bubbles that form on the surface of the hydraulic fluid. In a power unit under pressure, air is released into the system with the collapsing of each air bubble. The compression of trapped air generates heat, which is released directly into the oil. The high temperatures produced at the oil/air interface promote greater oxidation, leading to reduced fluid life. In addition, foam circulating in a hydraulic fluid can cause a condition similar to pump cavitation. Once again, the demand of today's smaller and 'harder working' systems calls for fluids that have good antifoaming

characteristics since the fluid will have less residence time in the reservoir to 'de-foam'. In this work, foaming characteristics are measured by the ASTM D 892; "Standard Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubrication Oils". In this procedure, the test sample, maintained at a temperature of 24C (Sequence I) is blown with air at a constant rate for 5 min, then allowed to settle for 10 min. The volume of foam is measured at the end of both periods. This test is repeated on a second sample at 93.5C (Sequence II), and then, after collapsing the foam at 24C (Sequence III) <s>. Table 8 shows the results of the antifoam test.

Table 8 - Antifoam Performance

1
R~ rill Inl~nrl n n l v

Ba~e Oil # 4

- S~au~nc.e I - S~nuAnnP. II - Seeuence III

n enot. ~ Adrtltiv~ 1

340-0 30-0 270-0

i

230-0 20.-0 80.,.0

320-0 30.0 160-0

250-0 20-0 70-0

260-0 :30-0 120-0

I I

280-0 30-0 200-0

400-0 30-0 150-0

- ~~u~ncA I - Seou~nne II - Seouence III

1.25% wt Additive 2

460-0 20-0 90.-0

230-0 20.0 350-0

430-0 20-0 140-0

41 0-0 30-0 350-0

280-0 20-0 150-0

400-0 30-0 480-0

41 0-0 30-0 280-0

- SecJuencP. I - Seauence II - Seauence III

N e~o/~ ~ t A~rlltlv~

300-0 40-0 440-0

260-0 30-0 31 0-0

350-0 20-0 70-0

280-0 30-0 330-0

280-0 20-0 170-0

420-0 50-0 380-0

470-0 40-0 330,-0

- Senu~neP. I - Seauence II - Seauence III N I~/. ~t Adttltiu~ - ~nupnP.l~ I - ~enu~nnm II - Seauence III n e~o/. wt Arlditlu= I - ~ n i J e n e ~ II - SeQuence III
- Seauence

20-0 20-0 0-0

10-(3 20-0 40-(3

20-0 20-0 1 0-0

170-0 10-0 0-0

1 0-0 20-0 10-0

0-0 30.0 0-0

20-0 30-0 10-0

0-0 20-0 0-(3

50-0 10-0 0-0

0-0 20-0 0-0

0-0 20-0 10-0

0-0 20-0 0-0

0.0 20-0 0.0

0-0 20-0 0-0

220-0 30-0 130-0

150-0 30-0 130-0

240-0 30-0 190-0

390-0 30-0 1oo-o

31 o-o 20-0 12o-o

220-0 20-0 180-0

300-0 20-0 280-0

309

All five additive packages return zero break after 10 minutes. However, with the exception of Additives #3 and # 4, all the other additive packages show no improvement over the base fluid with respect to the 5 minutes make. This is to be expected since these packages do not contain any foam inhibitor. Additive #4 contains an optimized level of foam inhibitor and thus demonstrates good antifoam characteristics. Air release is also an important consideration. Air is always present in mineral oil under normal conditions. Typically at room temperature and pressure, mineral oil contains approximately 7 to 9% by volume of air. Air is present in the fluid as 'entrained air'. Entrained air changes the properties of the hydraulic fluid. Air is compressible and causes the fluid to loss its stiffness and become spongy. Entrained air can also cause cavitation, and the compression of trapped air generates heat that will lead to oxidation and reduced fluid life. Unlike treatment for foam, air release properties of the fluid cannot be altered by the addition of antifoam additives. The base stock contributes very significantly to air release characteristics and in effect sets the minimum value for air release. The additive package either has no effect or increases the air release value. The indiscriminate use of antifoam agents can be detrimental to performance. By optimization of the antifoam levels, the impact of additive package on the air release characteristics of the hydraulic fluid can be minimized ~'~. In this work, air release characteristics are determined by the ASTM D 3427; "Standard Test Method for Air Release Properties of Petroleum Oils". In this procedure, compressed air is blown through the test oil, which has been heated to a temperature of 50C. After the air flow is stopped, the time required for the air entrained in the oil to reduce to 0.2% volume is recorded as the air

bubble separation time I'~. Table 9 shows the air release performance. These results show a wide range of air bubble separation time across the different base oils. They start from as low as 2.2 minutes to as high as 5.8 minutes. As such, care must be exercised to ensure that an optimal amount of defoamer is added to the additive package to give good foam performance and still maintain an acceptable air separation time. This is especially critical for the base oils that have inherently higher air release numbers. Additive 1 was left out of the matrix, as it is an R&O package and should not increase the air bubble separation time. As expected, Additive 2, which is not foam inhibited, did not increase significantly the air release values. Surprisingly, Additive 5, which is also not foam inhibited, had a significant increase to the air release values when comparing them to Additive 2. Though not a subject of this study, it may be possible for Additive 5 to contain some other component that may be detrimental to air release performance. Additive 3 and 4 are foam inhibited and impart good antifoaming characteristics as shown in Table 8. However, Additive 3 increases the air release number significantly in both base oils 6 and 7 (the base oils with inherently higher air release numbers). As expected, Additive 4 also increases the air release numbers. However, within the precision of the test, it still returns results that are considered acceptable performance (e.g. the 10 minutes maximum for the Deutsches Institut fur Normung, DIN 51524 Part 2). These results demonstrate that the level of antifoam in Additive 4 has been optimized to deliver good foam control and air release performance.

310

Table 9 - Air Release P e r f o r m a n c e Base Oil # 4 5 2.6 mins 2.4 mins 2.2 mins

Base Oil Blend Only 1.25%wt Additive 2 0.85% wt Additive 3 0.85% wt Additive 4 0.85% wt Additive 5

3.6 mins 2.2 mins 3.3 mins 6.7 rains

i

2 2.7 mins

6 I 7 5.8 mins 4.7 mins

2.2 mins 6.7 rains 2.7 mins 5.2 mins

3.7 mins 4.3 mins 5.7 rains 7.7 rains

2.8 mins 2.1 mins 5.0 mins 4.7 mins

2.7 mins 3.9 rains 3.5 mins 5.2 mins

6.1 mins 16.5 rains 10.7 mins 10.9 rains

5.1 mins 23.1 mins 7.9 mins 4.9 rains

7.0 mins

CONCLUSION The more stringent performance requirements for motor oils and the advent of hydroprocessing technology has made Group II stocks more prevalent in industry. While the good response of oxidation inhibitors in Group II stocks has been well documented, other

performance areas for industrial fluids need to be studied as well. Laboratory screen tests demonstrated differences in additive response across different additive packages and different Group II base stocks. The following are the conclusions based on the preconceived performance characteristics versus actual performance characteristics: Actual Performance +

Blend Stability

Preconceived Performance -

Demulsibility Performance

-/+

Filterability Performance

'-t.-

Antirust performance Antifoam performance

+ +

Comments Additive #2 a concern. Needs balancing to achieve better solubility. Additive #3 performed poorly due To a dispersant but is needed to give good filterability and demulsibility. Good additive response. May not need filter fix. No filter fix may mean improved demulsibility. All looked good. All return zero break after 10 minutes. Additives #3 and #4 contain antifoam. #4 was

optimized.
Air Release performance -/+ Wide variation in base oils. A balance in the componentry of the additive package is necessary in order to deliver the desired performance for all the above parameters. NOTE: Each bench test procedure is subject to variability and repeatability.

311

REFERENCES 1. Margaret Lemmon; Kirk Metzger; Impact of Base Oil Trends on Future Lubricant Formu/ations - The Additive Perspective; 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting. 2. Mark Sztenderowicz; Brent Lok; Base Oi/s to Meet Future Lubricant Requirements; 1997 NPRA Annual Meeting 3. D.E. Deckman; J.R. Lohuis; W.R. Murphy; HDP Base Stocks for/ndustria/ Lubricants; Hart's Lubricant World, September 1997 4. Vickers; Industria/ Hydrau/ic Manua/ 5. ASTM; Annua/ Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Petro/eum Products, Lubricants and Fossi/ Fue/s 6. A.R. Barber, R.J. Perrez; Air Re/ease Properties of Hydrau/ic F/uids; NFPA Technical Paper Series 196-2.10

312