Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Whitepaper Enhanced Oxidative Stability of Mpao Basestocks en
Whitepaper Enhanced Oxidative Stability of Mpao Basestocks en
FIGURE 3
Test method CEC L-60 CEC L-48 ASTM D2893 ASTM D5763 ASTM D4636
ASTM D445
121
was chosen because it offered many of
the same parameters found in accepted
industry tests (Figure 3), but allowed safe 76 79
72 72
modifications of the test.
Better
To determine if a performance difference
existed between the two base stocks,
the temperature, test duration and air
175°C 190°C 204°C
flow rate parameters were modified and Test temperature
examined. The spent samples for viscosity
change (oil thickening), total acid number
change, sludge content and metal catalyst
weight change were tested. The first set
of experiments focused on the impact of The results showed that a test tempera- The mPAO base oils demonstrated lower
test temperature on oil viscosity change ture of 204°C provided a clear perfor- oil thickening, better acid number control
(Figure 4). The test was limited to ISO VG mance break point, while minimizing and improved corrosion toward magnesium
320 base oil blend (no additives) to minimize test duration (72 hrs) and air flow rate metal. Although the test looks at five metals
effects associated with an additive system. (5 l/hr air). The neat base oils were then (Al, Ag, Cu, Steel and Mg), the only one
accessed to get a clear understanding impacted was the magnesium. The sludge
of the performance differences without control data was mixed, with mPAO 65
clouding the data with other issues, such providing an improvement over cPAO 40
as co-base oils or additive impact. while the mPAO 150 offered equivalent
The results are shown in Figure 5. performance to cPAO 100.
ASTM D445
SAE ARP5088
208 5.01
4.18 4.02
156
3.41
110
Better
Better
62
cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150 cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150
ASTM D445
Magnesium Loss, mg
SAE ARP5088
14 28.3
13
9.6
6.4
Better
Better
3.9
1.3 0.2
cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150 cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150
Evaluating blends Testing formulated lubricants As expected, the additives in fully formu-
Next, the performance of a combination After testing the neat and base oil blends, lated products negated the differences
of low and high viscosity PAO to make would mPAO offer any benefit to a fully seen in earlier tests. As shown in Figure 7,
a non-additized ISO VG 320 blend was formulated lubricant? ISO VG 320 industrial the formulated samples displayed no
evaluated. Again the results (Figure 6) oil samples were formulated and tested difference in performance because the
show that mPAO blends offer better in the modified method. cPAO 100 and additive package minimized oxidation and
viscosity and sludge control than cPAO- mPAO 150 were compared to keep the extended service life.
based samples. It is notable that the cPAO formulations consistent by maintaining An effort was then made to identify
100 and mPAO 150 are at the same treat the same concentration of the high conditions to offset the additive response.
rate, whereas the blend using cPAO 40 has viscosity component. Wanting to maintain the existing test
a slightly higher concentration compared temperature, test duration was extended.
to the mPAO 65 blend.
FIGURE 6 ISO VG 320 base oil blends: 204°C
Sludge, mg/100 ml
ASTM D4636
Component A B C D 13
Better
mPAO 65 83.20%
mPAO 150 63.40%
Viscosity, 40°C, cSt 316 321 319 321
cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150
SAE ARP5088
% Viscosity change
ASTM D445
9.6 9.6
9.6 9.6
148 145
93
78
Better
Better
cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150 cPAO 40 mPAO 65 cPAO 100 mPAO 150
Viscosity change, 40°C Total acid number change Sludge & varnish content
% Viscosity Change
ASTM D445
SAE ARP5088
ASTM D4636
9.6
9.5 953
420
278 756
Better
Better
Better
cPAO 100 mPAO 150 cPAO 100 mPAO 150 cPAO 100 mPAO 150
FIGURE 8 ISO VG 320 industrial gear oil (IGO): 204°C
By extending it from 72 hours to 144 hours,
Viscosity change vs Test duration the antioxidant additive was sufficiently
consumed, and the difference in perfor-
Solid mance between the base oils was seen.
In fact, when the test duration was
% Viscosity change, 40°C
1413
extended to 168 hours, the cPAO formu-
lation was solid at room temperature
while the mPAO-based sample flowed.
After identifying the new 144-hour test
444
condition, several experiments were run
Better
311 to assess performance of the formulated
183 154 cPAO 100
61 54
samples (Figure 8).The results indicated
mPAO 150
the mPAO-based formulation offered
72 120 144 168
enhanced viscosity and sludge control,
Test time, hour as well as lower total acid number change
compared to the cPAO-based product.
Conclusions
Through alternate test methods that conditions of temperature and stress. With this new awareness of enhanced
create more severe operating conditions, The mPAO also reduced sludge and oxidative performance under severe
mPAO was found to offer performance varnish generation. Before these tests, conditions, formulators can now make
advantages over cPAO base stocks it was known that mPAO provides higher a more informed decision when choos-
(Figure 9). viscosity index, improved low-temperature ing which PAO base stock is right for
The enhanced oxidative stability of performance and superior air release and the lubricant they want to blend.
mPAO lessens oil thickening, allowing foaming properties when compared to
a formulated lubricant to better retain its cPAO.
lubrication capabilities even in extreme
Neat base oils ISO 320 base oil blend ISO 320 IGO formulation
©2018 ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, the ExxonMobil logo, the interlocking “X” device and other product or service names used herein are trademarks of ExxonMobil, unless indicated otherwise. This document may
not be distributed, displayed, copied or altered without ExxonMobil’s prior written authorization. To the extent ExxonMobil authorizes distributing, displaying and/or copying of this document, the user may do
so only if the document is unaltered and complete, including all of its headers, footers, disclaimers and other information. You may not copy this document to or reproduce it in whole or in part on a website.
ExxonMobil does not guarantee the typical (or other) values. Any data included herein is based upon analysis of representative samples and not the actual product shipped. The information in this document
relates only to the named product or materials when not in combination with any other product or materials. We based the information on data believed to be reliable on the date compiled, but we do not
represent, warrant, or otherwise guarantee, expressly or impliedly, the merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, freedom from patent infringement, suitability, accuracy, reliability, or completeness of this
information or the products, materials or processes described. The user is solely responsible for all determinations regarding any use of material or product and any process in its territories of interest. We
expressly disclaim liability for any loss, damage or injury directly or indirectly suffered or incurred as a result of or related to anyone using or relying on any of the information in this document. This document is
not an endorsement of any non-ExxonMobil product or process, and we expressly disclaim any contrary implication. The terms “we,” “our,” “ExxonMobil Chemical” and “ExxonMobil” are each used for
convenience, and may include any one or more of ExxonMobil Chemical Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, or any affiliate either directly or indirectly stewarded.