SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2001-01-1181

Standard Test Method for Cavitation and Erosion-

Corrosion Characteristics of Aluminum Pumps
with Engine Coolants
Edward R. Eaton and Scott McCracken
Amalgatech

Mary Ranger
Ford Motor Company

David Turcotte
The Valvoline Co.

Reprinted From: Engine Coolant Technology

(SP–1612)

SAE 2001 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 5-8, 2001

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Standard Test Method for Cavitation and Erosion-Corrosion
Characteristics of Aluminum Pumps with Engine Coolants
Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
The ASTM D 2809 test method, “Standard Test Method
For Cavitation Corrosion and Erosion-Corrosion
Characteristics of Aluminum Pumps With Engine
1
Coolants” was first published in 1969 . The method
involves a copper-pipe circuit through which coolant
solution, heated to 113°C, is pumped at 103 kPa for 100
hours. The method was modified to change the pump
used in the test in 1989. It was updated in 1994 to
accommodate a change in the cleaning procedure and
was subsequently reapproved by the ASTM D-15
2
Committee on Engine Coolants in 1999.
Tests recently conducted on several modern coolants
have produced “failing” results, but the coolants are
performing well in the field. Further, the repeatability and
reproducibility of the method have been questioned. A
round-robin series of tests sponsored by the Ford Motor
Company revealed significant variations and cause for
concern. The authors herein report research, performed
at Amalgatech, that offers insight into the strengths and
weakness of the method, and offers possible
modifications that will improve the value of the method,
offering better prediction of service experience.
This paper discusses the value of the test method, offers
an analysis of its strengths and shortcomings, and
suggests possible modifications to improve repeatability
and reproducibility. It reviews the development of a new
prototype instrument, possible future applications and
predictive capabilities of an updated method.
2001-01-1181
Edward R. Eaton and Scott McCracken
Amalgatech
Mary Ranger
Ford Motor Company
David Turcotte
The Valvoline Company
INTRODUCTION
The ASTM D 2809 test method was developed to
distinguish between coolants that do or don’t protect cast
aluminum water pumps against cavitation corrosion and
erosion-corrosion. A rating system was developed that
grades pumps on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high) after the
test is completed. The rating system involves the
measurement of damaged areas, permitting objective
and repeatable interpretations of the pumps used in
testing. Most specifications require a rating of “8”, or
higher, to pass. The rating system was originally
supposed to relate to a certain predicted pump durability
measured in miles-to-failure, but current pump
technologies do not seem to correlate to the rating
system.
New coolant technologies introduced in the last decade
of the twentieth century offered consumers the promise
of dramatically lower cost-of-operation through less
frequent and simplified maintenance. Consumer
experiences usually lived up to expectations; but the
coolants performed inconsistently on the ASTM D2809
test, resulting in what later proved to be contoversy that
the technologies may damage water pumps. A review of
the test equipment used at several laboratories resulted
in some modifications to standardize the laboratories’
equipment. In the second quarter of the year 2000, Ford
Motor Company sponsored a round-robin test involving
3
six facilities, testing GM 6038 ‘low silicate’ antifreeze
from a single batch, provided to each laboratory from the
blender.
Results of the round robin testing (Appendix “A”) laboratories, the manufacturer visited and audited the
suggested problems in the repeatability and D2809 test stands that were in use and did find, most
reproducibility of the method. This information, presented interestingly, that significant hardware variations existed.
to the ASTM D15 Committee on Engine Coolants, The laboratories each addressed variations identified, in
prompted support for research to better understand the some cases scrapping existing machines and replacing
effects of various parameters on results, and to offer them with new ones. (Figure 1) It was further revealed at
ideas that will improve the method. a subsequent meeting of the ASTM D15 Committee that
some laboratories were not measuring damaged areas
DISCUSSION to pumps but were visually evaluating and assigning
ratings. The authors point out that the criteria for
BACKGROUND - Today’s laboratory research and “passing” the D2809 as published in the D3306 Coolant
testing methods have been changed to accommodate standard, is damage not exceeding 0.4 mm. It was
contemporary discoveries regarding the effects of long- suggested that visual determination of 0.4 to 0.5 mm is
term exposure to chemicals and other health hazards. exceeding difficult without the use of appropriate
4
Some of the groups of tests so affected have been measurement instrumentation.
engine coolant performance test methods. Early in the
history of coolant testing, and in particular the subject
method of this paper, a thorough and complete cleaning
of the test apparatus was routinely accomplished using
chromic acid solutions. These solutions provided the test
facility with consistently clean and predicable surfaces
upon which the coolant would act. As chromic acid
proved to present a liability from both health and financial
points-of-view, it was replaced in these methods with a
significantly more expensive, and perhaps less efficient,
cleaning method. The new method employs oxalic and
citric acids to clean the test apparatus. These changes
were written into the 1994 revision of the D2809 test
method and remain current through 2000.

At about the same time as the change was made to the

cleaning procedure, some manufacturers began to
experience unexpected and unexplained changes in the Figure 1 - D 2809 Test Rig Compliant With The Drawing
performance of their coolants on the D2809 test,
beginning a discussion and investigation into the
method’s repeatability and reproducibility. The discussion
intensified when European-style carboxylate-inhibited
coolants experienced difficulty in consistently passing the
test, in spite of the positive “real world” experiences
reported by the main OEM customer. Later testing of
advanced hybrid coolant formulations and non-
phosphated formulations also produced variation in
results from lab-to-lab that hadn’t been observed before
1994.

Industry suppliers and manufacturers strongly felt that

the new engine coolant formulations offered attractive
benefits to consumers. Therefore, there existed a desire
to understand the causes of the inconsistent test data,
and to determine if the test was providing useful
information that, in fact, was helping to predict the ability
of the new coolant technologies to perform in the field. Figure 2 - New Stainless Steel Research 2809
To this end, the investigation was broadened and
laboratories opened their doors to address the issue.
In addition to the investigation into the construction of the
One major supplier of engine coolant to the vehicle test rigs, Ford Motor Company, Valvoline and
manufacturers felt that variations in the construction of Amalgatech developed and built a research rig with
the test rig may account for some or all of the capabilities to better measure and control the test
inconsistent results. With the permission of the process. (Figure 2) Development engineers added
electronic data acquisition, improved visual monitoring
capabilities, high precision fluid flow, pressure and value to the test method. Tests performed with the sand
temperature measuring capabilities, and better draining cast or chrome plated pumps cannot be considered valid
to prevent accidental contamination from sample-to- D2809 tests.
sample. The prototype instrument also replaced the
copper pipe with less reactive stainless steel,
concentrating the reactions between coolant and metal
onto the water pump surfaces. It is hereafter referred to
as the “improved test rig”.

DISCOVERIES - Research

Manufacture of the Pumps – One discovery that may

explain part of the variation from laboratory to laboratory
is the existence of at least three different qualities of the
specimen water pumps, all sold through GM dealers
under the exact same GM part number. The intent is to
purchase and use GM part number 25527536, a pump
consisting of a die cast aluminum pump and back plate.
As illustrated in Figure 3, a testing facility may order the
specified part number from an authorized GM dealer, but
could receive either die cast or a sand cast version of the
pump. The sand cast version is not labeled “Genuine Figure 3: Different Water Pump Versions
GM”, but “AC Delco” and the Delco part number is
12307821. Although the parts are considered In addition to the variations in the casting, Amalgatech
interchangeable, they may not perform the same in the suspected that flow rates might vary significantly from
D2809 test. They also have different impeller designs. pump-to-pump. Technicians observed that the placement
Amalgatech has evaluated both pumps in the past, of the impeller on the pump shaft varied. Using the flow-
observing a probable difference of one or two ratings measuring capability of the improved test rig, every
between them. Use of the sand cast pump usually pump purchased by Amalgatech since March, 2000 has
results in poorer ratings. As a result, Amalgatech is very been flow-checked. The data have been recorded and
careful to inspect the pumps provided by its suppliers, are reflected in figure 4, a histogram of the pump flow
insuring that only the “Genuine GM” die-cast pump is rates. All of these pumps are “genuine GM” cast
used in testing, per the D2809 specification. The authors aluminum parts. Amalgatech rejects sand cast pumps, if
were not able to obtain an example for the picture in they are delivered by the dealer. The histogram
Figure 3, but there also exists a chrome-plated version of illustrates that pumps have been measured to provide
the pump. This pump is remarkably robust, and offers no from 93 to 209 liters/minute of flow (24 to 54 gallons per
 o o
minute) at the initial set point conditions of 49 C (120 F)
and ( –2 inches Hg). Amalgamated has yet to determine
the effect, if any, of pump flow rate upon final pump
ratings. Nevertheless, the laboratory chooses to reject
pumps outside the range 112 to 128 liters per minute (29
to 33 gallons per minute), as a precaution, until the D15
committee can review additional data and provide
direction in the use of low or high flow rate water pumps.
The Ford Round-Robin Data – In 1999 Ford Motor
Company, as part of its continuous improvement
research, evaluated a number of coolant technologies.
Ford employed the traditional and proven tools of the
trade; the ASTM D3306 engine coolant specification
performance evaluation methods, including the D2809.
As the evaluations proceeded, the data provided
evidence of repeatability problems from lab-to-lab, a
situation that could affect the decision-making process in
selecting new coolant technologies.
In order to determine the value of the D 2809 method for
its new coolant selection criteria, Ford conducted a round
robin of the test method involving seven laboratories
each conducting two tests. All of the tests were
conducted on GM 6038 antifreeze distributed from a
single batch to each of the participating laboratories. In
addition, all of the pumps were procured at one time, flow
tested to eliminate those that varied obviously from the
mean, and uniformly deburred and prepared for the
testing. As much as possible. The test stands had been
made uniform, the pumps had been made uniform, and
the coolant to be tested was uniform. The data, however,
were not uniform as illustrated in the histogram (Figure 5)
and data spreadsheet (Appendix “A”).
Figure 5 – Ford Round-Robin Test Results
Uses of the Improved Test Rig to Explore Effects of
Certain Variables in the Method - Several relationships
have been investigated using the experimental
instrument (improved test rig). Understanding the effects
of the controllable variables may result in changes to the
method that will improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of the method, further enhancing its value.
The research instrument is currently capable of
monitoring and/or controlling:
! Temperature in the reservoir
! Pump Inlet Pressure (PIP)
! System Pressure downstream of the pump
! Main Flow Rate
! Deaeration Loop (Bypass) Flow Rate
All of the data may be continuously collected through
data acquisition electronics either over the course of the
test or for a finite period, if the research so dictates. The
Main Flow Rate and Bypass Flow Rate can be
independently controlled.
Temperature effects – Temperature changes can be
directly related to changes of the pump inlet pressure
(PIP). As the temperature increases, the PIP increases
exponentially, approaching the asymptote defined by the
vapor pressure curve (Figure 6). It is accepted that the
PIP is a very important and influential parameter of the
test conditions. High PIP should decrease the severity of
the test, so careful and accurate control of temperature,
so as to permit a stable PIP as prescribed by the test
method, is critical. The curve in Figure 6 is generated
from the electronically sampled data input into the
improved test rig’s computer using data acquisition
hardware and software. The data has been plotted
directly by the program and annotated by the authors.
PIP vs. Temperature
12
10
Gauge Pressure PS
-2
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Temp., °F Vapor Pressure
Curve
Figure 6 – Response of PIP to Temperature
Pump inlet pressure and Fluid Flow Rates - An important
relationship that affects the outcome of the test is the
pump inlet pressure (PIP). It has been possible to plot
the PIP vs. Flow Rate for both low and high flow pumps
(Figure 7). PIP does not appear to be affected by flow
rate. The relationship of PIP and Main Flow Rate is
illustrated.
Figure 7: PIP is not affected by Pump Flow Rate
In addition to the effect on PIP, temperature effects on
the main flow can be plotted. The main flow rate
decreases as temperature increases. It is possible to
represent both the main flow rate and PIP as functions of
temperature in one graph, illustrating the inverse effect
that temperature has on these. (Figure 8)
The Difficulty of Cleaning the D 2809 Test Apparatus –
The authors have noticed that the safety-mandated
change in the cleaning procedure compromised the
effectiveness thereof. In fact, the abandonment of the
chromic acid cleaning procedure resulted in poorer
cleaning of the copper and cast iron parts in the D 2809,
Main Flow Rate and PIP vs Temperature
12
10
Main Flow
8
Pump Inlet Pressure - PSI
6
4
Pump Inlet Pressure Curve
2
0
0 50 100
-2
Tem perature, Degrees F
Figure 8
and the existence of residual oxidation in unknown and
unquantified concentrations might affect test results. One
ASTM member has suggested that their laboratory
periodically disassembles the rig to physically clean it
with abrasive brushes. If the ability of the rig to repeat
results degrades with, say, ten tests, then should the
tenth test be judged inadmissible? The ninth? The
authors interpret the intent of the cleaning procedure to
be that each test is conducted on absolutely clean,
unoxidized, consistent surfaces. It is the authors’
experience that only uniform and consistently prepared
test environments will offer acceptable repeatability and
reproducibility.
After more than ten evaluations the improved test rig was
subjected to repeated attempts at cleaning. The first
attempt was consistent with the D 2809 cleaning
procedure. The procedure, upon inspection, failed to
clean the apparatus. Next, a cleaner specifically
designed for use in EG systems, and recommended in
some earlier ASTM standard test procedures, was tried
with modest improvement. Finally, a solution of sulfuric
acid was introduced. The sulfuric acid quickly and easily
cleaned all of the visible deposits, restoring a fresh, clean
surface after each test. The experiment was repeated on
the standard D 2809. The results were exactly the same;
sulfuric acid cheaply and thoroughly cleaned the system.
Additional Experiments:
Several companies have contributed funds to permit the
execution of a test matrix on the improved test rig that
includes 5 repetitions of a hybrid coolant at standard
40
35
30
Main Flow in GPM
25
20
15
10
5
150 200 250 300
0
settings (as currently specified) and five more at a
recommended standard flow rate. The authors
hypothesize that the holding of the flow steady for the
duration of the test will result in improved repeatability
and reproducibility.
CONCLUSION
A significant effort to understand the causes of recently
observed variation in data generated by the ASTM D
2809 standard test method has been made. Many
possible factors have been investigated using an
updated, computerized test rig. The data have suggested
a significant modification of the existing procedure may
be justified to improve the repeatability and
reproducibility of the test. The modifications are also
justified in the attempt to more correctly predict the ability
of coolants to perform and protect coolant systems in the
field.
The authors have suggested that the following
modifications are worthy of further research for possible
adoption in the method:
1. Replace the copper pipe, manually adjusted
method with a computerized instrument made
with stainless steel pipe.
2. Use advanced electronic data gathering devices
to document the behavior of pump inlet
pressure, temperature, main flow and bypass
flow for the duration of the test.
3. Improving the repeatability of the test method by:
a. Clarifying the exact Genuine GM cast
aluminum pump that is to be used.
b. Maintaining constant main flow for the
duration of the test.
c. Requiring three repetitions of the test
with the data to be reported and the
average of the three results to be at
least 8 to pass.
d. Changing the cleaning procedure to
include a sulfuric acid wash to insure
clean, unoxidized surfaces on the
plumbing for each test.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the contributions of Amalgatech,
Ford Motor Company and The Valvoline Company in
making this research possible.
REFERENCES
1. Clark, John SAE Technical Paper 680498, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA 1968
2. Engine Coolants, Halogenated Organic Solvents and
Fire Extinguishing Agents; Industrial and Specialty
Chemicals, ISBN 0-2037-2833-9, American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
vol 15.05, 2000 Specification D-2809
3. General Motors Antifreeze/Coolant Specification
6038 for low-silicate antifreeze requiring a pre-
charge of supplemental coolant additive, General
Motors Corp, Detroit, MI
4. Minutes, ASTM D-15 Committee on Engine
Coolants, October 2000. American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA
5. Engine Coolants, Halogenated Organic Solvents and
Fire Extinguishing Agents; Industrial and Specialty
Chemicals, ISBN 0-2037-2833-9, American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
vol 15.05, 2000 Specification D-3306
CONTACT
rd
Edward R. Eaton, Amalgatech, 13901 N. 73 Street,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: 480-556-0888, Fax:
480-991-2903; e-mail: ereaton@amalgatech.com
rd
Scott McCracken, Amalgatech, 13901 N. 73 Street,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: 480-556-0888, Fax:
480-991-2903; e-mail: smccracken@amalgatech.com
Mary Ranger, Ford Motor Company, Thermal Aero
System Engineering, MD 68 / Cube 47120, P.O. Box
2053, Dearborn, MI 48121-2053; e-mail:
mranger@ford.com
Dave Turcotte, The Valvoline Company, 3499 Blazer
Parkway, Lexington, KY 40512; e-mail:
deturcotte@ashland.com
Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
EG – Ethylene glycol (1,2 Ethanediol)
GM – General Motors Corporation
OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer (s)
PG – Propylene Glycol (1,2 Propanediol)
PIP –Pump Inlet Pressure
 APPENDIX A

ASTM D2809 Water Pump Testing - Round Robin Testing with Eight Laboratories
GM6038 Engine Coolant
May 15, 2000

Test Parameters Pump Rating

Laboratory Coolant Lot Number Coolant Type Test # Water pump id pH before pH after Glycol (EG), Pump Cover Impeller Overall
test test %
Comments
B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 032300-1/30.0GPM 10 9.5 16.5 5 Pit depth > 2.4mm
A B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 040600-2/30.5 GPM 9.79 9.29 16.7 5 Producer rating for this pump was 3

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 032200-1/33.0 GPM 10 9.7 16.0 3 2

B B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 032200-2/31.5 GPM 10 9.8 16.0 1 7 Leak through the body of the pump

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 041100-1/31.0 GPM 10.01 9.63 19.6** 6

C B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 041100-2/32.0 GPM 10.01 9.36 19.8** 5

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 040500-1/29.25 GPM 9.72 9.19 16.7 2 Pit all the way through the impeller
D B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 040500-2/29.5 GPM 9.8 9.15 16.7 2 Pit all the way through the impeller

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 0412200-1/29.0GPM 10 9.2 n/a 9 10 9 Slight attack of pump
E B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 0412200-2/29.5GPM 10.2 9.3 n/a 7 10 7 0.7mm depth of attack of pump

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 * 9.93 8.67 n/a 2

F B2615-054 GM-6038 2 * 9.94 8.85 n/a 2

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 032300-3/31.5GPM 9.63 9.58 16.7 8

G B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 032300-2/32.5GPM 9.66 9.59 16.7 8

B2615-054 GM-6038 1 ATI PFT 040300-1/31.0GPM 9.17 8.9 n/a 4

H B2615-054 GM-6038 2 ATI PFT 040300-2/29.5GPM 9.32 8.76 n/a 9

* Pump was either ATI PFT 041200-3/28.75 GPM or ATI PFT 041200-4/32.25 GPM.
** By Karl Fisher method.
Notes:
. Amalgamated test stand was built and ran a couple of times with conventional and GM6038 coolants prior to use in this series of tests.

. GM6038 was formulated by Amalgamated. (GM6038 run suggested by Prestone; seen as a negative control.)

. Flow rate in the pumps shipped ranged from 29-33 gallons/minute.

. Pumps were die cast; from the same supplier.

. Pumps were cleaned and reassembled by Amalgamated prior to flow testing.

Originator: mary ranger/mranger Page 1 of 1 Date Issued: 05/15/2000

d2809 round robin of gm6038.rev1.06.02.2000.xls Date Revised: 5/18/00