search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Lube-Tech


The best performing samples for the Group II base oils were samples 7 and 8 which both achieved greater than 10,000 hours of service time and remained clear without any precipitate. These two formulations both contained sulphur and nitrogen based chemistries in the form of DTC and TD as their AO system. The difference between the formulas was the addition of HP in sample 8 which contained less DTC and TD.


Group I Formulations


The objective of this study was to get a Group I oil to optimise the AO for the base oils and achieve the same performance as the Group II formulations. The difficulty in this is that Group I packages tend to breakdown quicker and therefore need higher loadings of AO to get comparable performance. Hence, similar AO types and rust/corrosion inhibitors were used but at slightly higher treat rates compared to Group II based formulations.


PUBLISHED BY LUBE: THE EUROPEAN LUBRICANTS INDUSTRY MAGAZINE


No.120 page 4


Details of these formulations are shown below in Table 4. Five of the ten (50%) formulations make it to the 5,000 hour mark and only three (30%) make it to the 10,000 hour mark (Table 5). The rate of failure (>2.0 mg/KOH of TAN) can be seen in Graph 3 below and its apparent that these Group I systems have a hard time making it to 5,000 hour mark.


The viscosity change before and after 5,000 hours of service time in plotted in Graph 4. All 10 formulations exhibited an increase in viscosity at the end of the test. This is definitely a contrast to the Group II systems where only the failed formulations (1 & 6) showed a viscosity increase. Breakdown of the oil because of oxidation leads to increase of viscosity and forming precipitate/sludge. The three best performing formulations (11, 14, 16) all contained at least 0.25% of the DPA AO. Some further improvement in AO protection was seen when the complimentary HP AO was used in samples 11 & 16.


LUBE MAGAZINE NO.149 FEBRUARY 2019


29


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