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
Materials and Methods


Results and Discussion A summary of the results is shown below in Table 2. The differences in the absolute TTT torque (Newton meter) and TCT average COF appear small, but the precision of each test method yields statistically distinct responses.


Table 1: Summary of TTT and TCT results


The additives selected for this study represent common chemical classifications of lubricity additives, including a vegetable oil (VO), a butyl ester of tall oil fatty acid (BE) and a phosphate ester (PE). Lubricity additives derived from VOs and BEs are made from renewable resources and provide supplemental environmental advantages. The base stock used consisted of a blend of Group l naphthenic oils with two different viscosities in order to maintain a constant viscosity1


. The TCT and TTT methods


were used on the same sample of each blend to minimise variation. A design of experiment (DOE) determined interactions between additives and lubricity optimisation. Each additive was varied from 0-16% with a total 20% additive in each blend. The average response for TTT and TCT was measured for each blend, then tested multiple times so a standard deviation of each measurement could be determined.


Figure 1: DOE response plots for TTT and TCT


Table 2: Lubricity test conditions and parameter conditions


The response plots for TTT and TCT are included in Figure 1 below. In both plots, the optimised additive blends are shown in blue and represent the lowest


1


Interactions with the base oil were not evaluated in this study and could also be a factor in the results. Future tests could be performed with Group II or paraffinic base oils which would have different solubility properties.


Continued on page 12 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.156 APRIL 2020 11


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