With >60% of industrial oils being hydraulic – and of those 98% can be formulated with Group II base stocks – development is progressing on the basis of better filterability, air release and oxidative stability over that of Group I; however, the benefits of Group II are not always realised over Group I, for example rust inhibition according to ASTM D665B. Here the selection of Group II stocks according to supplier does show differences and necessitates the need for testing protocols to ensure the supply of product fit for purpose.
Ashless hydraulic Additive package
From the results obtained, the ashless additive response was found to be far superior over that of a typical ash containing hydraulic oil, particularly with respect to oxidation as per Rotating Pressure Vessel Oxidation Test (RPVOT).
As with all technologies, adoption into the market place will vary from simple introduction to formulations – based upon proprietary additives – to a full programme of development looking at individual additives response using a specific base stock/supplier. Whilst various discussions can be undertaken into the use of existing technologies, only by the adoption of targeted development can the true benefits of base stock selection be realised.
Hydraulic formulations come in a variety of guises from ash to ashless and therefore their response will no doubt differ in Group I and Group II stocks, the question however is of course by how much? If we look at a typical ash and ashless additive package commonly available in the market place we can see how again the performance changes simply by changing out the base stocks from Group I to Group II.
Ash containing hydraulic Additive package
To conclude, it is possible using existing technology to provide enhanced products to the market by simply switching base oils, no doubt a route which will be taken where investment in time and resources is critical. The downside of such actions are obvious and, indeed, have been highlighted here particularly in the case of corrosion protection, sludge which may or may not be exacerbated by a lack of QA controls on the formulated fluids. There is nothing new with regards to optimised formulations and products in the market place but with the ease at which Group II can be substituted within existing formulations with the pretence of increased stability, it is the duty of all suppliers of product to the market place to ensure claims and approvals are being met.
by Simon Matthews, Technical Services Manager at Morris Lubricants
LINK
www.morrislubricants.co.uk
LUBE MAGAZINE NO.127 JUNE 2015
7
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
