Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES SAE 2002-01-1429
NCFP I02-10.6

Assessment of the Eaton (Vickers) V-104C Vane

Pump as an Antiwear Lubrication Tester
George E. Totten, Ben Ashraf and Roland J. Bishop, Jr.
The Dow Chemical Company

SAE International Off-Highway Congress

co-located with CONEXPO-CON/AGG
Las Vegas, Nevada
March 19-21, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

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 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 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.

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 © 2002 SAE International and NFPA

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
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

SA( 
NC)3 I

AVVHVVPHQW RI WKH (DWRQ 9LFNHUV 9C 9DQH 3XPS DV DQ
AQWLZHDU /XEULFDWLRQ THVWHU
*HRUJH ( TRWWHQ BHQ AVKUDI DQG RRODQG - BLVKRS -U
Copyright ¤ 2002 SA( International and 1FPA
ABSTRACT
For many years the ASTM D2882 test method, using the
V-104C Vane pump, served the industry well to evaluate the
lubricating properties of hydraulic fluids at low pressures (<
2000 psi). However, at higher pressures in different types of
pumps (i.e. piston pumps), this method may not be reliable
enough to predict satisfactory lubrication performance in
commercial applications. In this paper the V-104C pump will
be evaluated in terms of vane contact force and film thickness
parameters to assertain the possibility of using a modified
bench test to better predict hydraulic fluid performance at
higher pressures.
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, there have been various critical issues
regarding the proper assessment of hydraulic fluid
performance. For example, in the 1950’s and 1960’s there
were serious problems in correctly assessing antiwear additive
packages in mineral oil hydraulic fluids [1]. In the 1990’s until
the present time there continues to be various difficulties in
properly assessing fluid stability in conjunction with antiwear
pump performance for non-mineral oil-based hydraulic fluids,
particularly fluids identified as biodegradable or alternative
hydraulic fluids. One of the objectives of this paper is to put
the general problem of assessing lubrication performance of a
hydraulic fluid into historical perspective.
It would be preferable to evaluate hydraulic fluids under
“standardized” testing conditions, in the hydraulic pump and
motor of interest. However, this is typically impractical partly
due to the wide variety of hydraulic components available, the
prohibitive expense of the components when used for routine
testing, and the time required to conduct such tests. Therefore,
the first approach to assessing hydraulic fluid performance is
often to utilize standardized bench tests.
The Dow Chemical Company
Various workers have used, and continue to use,
standardized bench tests to evaluate the antiwear performance
of hydraulic oils [2-4]. Two of the most common tests that are
typically utilized are the 4-ball, Falex pin-on-V-block and the
Timken test. However, there has never been any successful
report showing any correlation of these bench tests, when
conducted under standardized testing conditions, with
antiwear performance of the hydraulic fluid in any hydraulic
pump [2-4]. Some of the reasons given for this apparent poor
correlation, particularly with the V-104C Vane Pump were
[4]:
1. There are significant metallurgical differences in material
pairs of the wear contact in the V-104C pump and the different
material pairs used for the bench tests. For example the vanes
used for the V-104C pump are manufactured from a 6%
tungsten-containing tool steel while the material pairs for the
bench tests are constructed from more conventional steels.
2. The geometry of the test parts for the V-104C pump remain
essentially unchanged whereas the geometry of the material
pairs for the 4-ball and Timken test may vary greatly from the
beginning to the end of the test.
3. The V-104C vane pump test is conducted from 100-250
hours, depending on the standardized test protocol used, but
the bench test is conducted from seconds to a few hours. Thus
the severity of the tests, and therefore lubrication regime, must
be very different.
4. Muzykin, et. Al. showed that it was necessary to consider
the high sliding speeds and small clearances of the material
pairs of the wear contact of the pump and the bench test [5].
Klaus, et. al., addressed one of the problems with the 4-
ball wear test to evaluate hydraulic fluid antiwear performance
in a hydraulic pump [6-8]. Figure 1 [7] shows three wear
zones (origin – A, A-B, and B-C). Point A is defined as the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018
scuffing point or point of incipient seizure. Most long-lasting
industrial equipment operate in the load range below point A.
Therefore the location of point A and wear rates below this
region are of great interest when modeling industrial
equipment wear. Most 4-ball testing work is conducted in the
region of origin – A since it typically exhibits the best
repeatability. The transition zone A-B typically exhibits the
poorest repeatability.
Figure 1 - Typical 4-ball wear scar load curve for an
antiwear oil.
Hydraulic pump wear typically involves a break-in period
followed by steady state wear as shown in Figure 2 [6]. Klaus,
et.al., devised a sequential 4-ball wear test that was reported to
successfully model the Vickers 35VQ25 hydraulic pump wear
using these fundament principles. However, there have been
no reports regarding the use of this testing methodology to
model any other hydraulic pumps, including the V-104C vane
pump.
Figure 2 - Typical hydraulic pump wear life behavior.
Mizuhara and Tsuya also evaluated the potential for
correlating vane, gear and piston hydraulic pump wear with
wear tests conducted using the 4-ball and Timken test
machines [3]. The conclusions from their work were:
1. It is necessary to test hydraulic fluids under a wide
range of testing conditions.
2. Load-carrying capacity has nothing to do with wear
characteristics.
3. Accelerated wear tests tend to produce incorrect
conclusions.
4. Materials used for the bench test must be the same as
those of the material pair being modeled in the
hydraulic pump.
5. To successfully evaluate wear characteristics of a
hydraulic fluid, a wear test must be conducted.
To successfully model hydraulic pump wear requires
various tests to be conducted with the bench testing
equipment, using the appropriate material pair by varying load
and rotational speed. This work was conducted with a wide
variety of hydraulic fluids and the results were compared with
actual wear obtained in various vane, gear and piston pumps.
While this is very promising, it may be easier to conduct
the “wear” test using a hydraulic pump under standardized
conditions. More recently, Feldmann and Kessler have been
developing a customized adaptable bench test for modeling
wear in various hydraulic pumps but with a focus on the V-
104C vane pump [9-11]. Although this work is not complete,
the results obtained to date are promising.
In this case, the standardized hydraulic pump test
becomes the “ultimate” bench test as it relates to assessing the
lubricating properties of a hydraulic fluid. In this paper, the V-
104C vane pump and test procedures will be discussed.
DISCUSSION
Standard Test Procedures
In 1959, Shrey [12] used a V-104C vane pump to evaluate
both aqueous and non-aqueous hydraulic fluids. Using a
hydraulic circuit similar to that shown in Figure 3. Most of his
tests were conducted for 1000 hours at 1000 psi and 1120 rpm
with a flow rate of 1.9 gal/min. The total weight loss of the
vanes and ring was determined and reported. A variation of
this test was also reported where the pressure was cycled for
20 seconds on and 20 seconds off, while the pressure relief
valve was set at 1000 psi to set us a “shock running load” from
0-1000 psi. No other comparisons or conclusions were drawn
other than to state that no damage to the moving parts was
observed.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

Table 1
Comparison of V-104C Pump Testing Procedures
Test ASTM DIN 51389 BS 2000
Parameter D-2882 IP281/80
Pressure 14 MPa 10 MPa 14 MPa(1)
(2000 psi) (1500 psi) (2000 psi)
10.5 MPa(2)
(1520 psi)
Speed (r/min) 1200 1440 1440
Time (h) 100 250 250
Fluid Vol.(L) 56.8 56.8 55-70
Fluid Temp. 150oF (3) (3)
(1) Mineral oil type fluids.
(2) HFA, HFB and HFC fluids.
(3) Temperature selected to give 46 cSt viscosity.

A survey was recently conducted to study various sources

Figure 3 - Illustration of the test circuit used by Shrey for the
V-104C vane pump.
Reiland used the same constant pressure test that was
reported by Shrey except that the V-104C vane pump was run
for 100 hours at 2000-psi [13]. This is significant because the
pump was only recommended for use at 1000 psi. These are
the test conditions currently cited in ASTM D 2882. The
conclusion was that: “the more severe the test, the better its
ability to discriminate between oils” [13]. However, running
the V-104C vane pump beyond its design limits results in
more frequent breakage of the rotor which still occurs today
[14, 16].
The test protocol based on the V-104C vane pump
continues to be the most common pump to evaluate hydraulic
fluid performance [14]. Although there are various national
standards based on the V-104C pump, the test protocol can be
considered to be one of two constant pressure variants as
shown in Table 1 [15]. One variant is 1500 psi and 1440 rpm
for 250 hours or 2000 psi at 1200 rpm for 100 hours. Total
weight loss of the vanes and the ring at the conclusion of the
test is a quantitative indicator of wear.
of error in the ASTM D 2882 test that are due to hardware
problems [17]. These include rotor and bushing failure, cam
ring cracking, and inconsistent wear. Also discussed were
vane, cam ring, bushing and rotor selection, inspection and
preparation and housing inspection and rebuilding. ASTM D
2882 has subsequently been rewritten to incorporate these and
other changes. In addition to hardware issues, there are also
potential sources of error in test procedure that will not permit
test repeatability. These are reviewed in detail in Reference
18.
The V-104C Vane Pump
Figure 4 is an illustration of the V-104C pump assembly
[17]. Figure 5 shows that the vanes are in contact with the
rotor and ring along three lines [17]. For the vane to be in
balance, the following three lines must be parallel: (A) the line
defined where the rotor slot trailing face meets with the vane
surface, (B) the line defined where the rotor slot leading face
meets the vane bottom edge, and (C) the line defined where
the vane chamfer meets the ring surface.

Figure 4 - V-104C Vane Pump Assembly.

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

Figure 7 shows the Hertzian pressures acting on the vane-

on-ring contact and Figure 8 shows the temperatures of the
inner and outer surface of the ring for a test under DIN 51,389
of a mineral oil [21]. Adhesive and abrasive wear was
observed for this test and measured vane tip wear throughout
the test is illustrated in Figure 9 [21].

Figure 5 - Lines of Contact for the Vane in the Rotor.

A summary of the V-104C vane pump metallurgy and

related ASTM D 2882 test conditions are provided in Table 2
[15,20,21]. Measured vane tip roughness is shown in Figure 6.
Interestingly, the complexity of the asperity heights and a
smoothing effect was observed on the vane tips at the
conclusion of the test [21].
Figure 7 - Profile of Hertzian pressures acting on a vane-on-
Table 2 ring contact under DIN 51,389 test conditions.
Summary of V-104C Vane Pump Metallurgy and ASTM D
2882 Test Conditions

Pump Material/Test Parameter Parameter Value

Pump Metallurgy
Vanes M-2 Tool Steel
Vickers Hardness (HV10) 778-816 [21]
Cam Ring AISI 52100 Bearing Steel
Vickers Hardness (HV10) 743-769 [21]
Bushing Bronze (Cast)
Pump Speed, rpm (rps) 1200 (20)
Vane Tip Sliding Velocity, ft/s (m/s) 14 (4.3)
Vane Load (lb/1000 psi) 47
Output Pressure, psi (MPa) 2000 (13.8)
Oil Temperature, ˚F (˚C) 150˚ F (65.5˚ C)
Duration, hours 1000

Figure 8 - Outer and inner cam ring surface temperatures

during a DIN 51,389 test of a mineral oil hydraulic fluid.

Figure 6 - Measured vane tip surface roughness on new vanes

and after a test under DIN 51,389 conditions were completed.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018
Figure 9 - Vane tip wear profile from a DIN 51,389 test of a
mineral oil hydraulic fluid.
Although the ASTM D 2882 and DIN 51,389 and similar
tests are considered to be equivalent because they utilize the
same pump – the V-104C vane pump, these tests are not
equivalent for a number of reasons. Some reasons for the non-
equivalency of these tests are: the effect of rotational speed on
cavitation potential and the line pressure acting on the shaft of
the pump. The effect of line pressure is important because of
its effect on shaft bearing fatigue limits. The main component
of the radial shaft is directed inward as illustrated in Figure 10
because of the exposure of the chambers to the line port [22].
A significant but smaller component of the pressure may act
either inward on the shaft or in the opposite direction
depending on whether compression or expansion is taking
place.
Figure 10 – The components of the radial shaft load.
Assessment of Wear
Thus far, a description of the different hydraulic fluid
lubrication tests based on the V-104C vane pump has been
provided. This has been followed by a summary of the design
of the V-104C pump, particularly as a test machine to evaluate
hydraulic fluid lubricity. In this section, an overview of
various methods of assessing pump wear will be provided.
Perhaps the most common method of assessing wear is to
simply measure the total weight loss of the vanes and cam ring
after the test is completed. This is the method used in every
national standard and by numerous research laboratories
[14,20,23]. In some cases, a break-in curve is established such
as that shown in Figure 11 where the total wear (vanes + cam
ring) is measured after each time increment of the test [23].
However, it is possible to obtain significantly different wear
profiles of the vanes and the ring, which is also shown in
Figure 11B and 11C. [23]. This data shows that it is possible
to obtain a significantly different order of wear after longer
test durations.
Although total wear is most often assessed by total weight
loss of the vanes and cam ring, a number of other methods
have been reported as well. One of these methods is the
determination of a term called “unit compressive pressure”
[13,24] which is the total pressure generated between the
vanes and the cam ring. This calculation was based on the fact
that the pump directs output pressure to the back of the vanes,
which forces them against the ring. The leading edge of the
vane forms a line contact with the cam ring at two points in its
rotation. The total unit compressive pressure being generated
between the vanes and the ring is determined by
photographing the leading edge of the vanes after the pump
test and measuring the wear scar. This data is then used with
the following equation:
Pe = PbAb/Ae (1)
Where: Pe = unit pressure on the leading edge of the vane,
Pb = unit pressure on the back of the vane,
Ab = area on the back of the vane,
Ae = area on the leading edge of the vane.
If the system pressure is 2000 psi, then:
Pe = 2000(Ab/Ae) (2)
Although the correlation between total weight loss and
unit compressive pressure was not good, Griffith et.al.,
reported a correlation coefficient of 0.64, but the ranking of
wear was the same.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018
A adherent films that will resist high unit pressures at all
B
C limited approach to hydraulic fluid assessment will be
Figure 11 - V-104C pump wear for different high-water base
hydraulic fluids: A: Total wear of vanes + cam ring, B: Total
cam-ring wear, C: Total wear of the vanes.
Zino reported that the inability of a hydraulic oil to form
operating temperatures and sliding speeds is usually observed
at three points between the leading edge of the vane and the
cam-ring for vane pumps [25]. It was proposed that wear be
observed microscopically by identifying variations in surface
finish, and geometrical changes (variations in surface
asperities). For example, fine surface finishes will become
rough and ridges will form if the two surfaces are allowed to
rub together with insufficient lubrication. Also, frictional heat
may lead to metallurgical transformations, which are
observable microscopically.
A radiotracer technique has also been reported that
permits the analysis of the antiwear properties of hydraulic
oils or to aid in hydraulic system design [26,27]. This method
is based on the measurement of radioactivity, using a
scintillation counter, of the metal particles trapped by the filter
and of the particles suspended in the fluid. Wear is calculated
from:
ǻG = N1ǻR1 + N2 (ǻR2 – kǻR1) (3)
Where: ǻG (mg) = Weight loss, radioactive component.
ǻR (cpm) = Activity change, recorded radioactivity.
N (mg/cpm) = Activity to mass conversion factor,
corrected for decay.
k = Instrument Constant
Subscript 1 = Fluid Monitor
Subscript 2 = Filter Monitor
Taken together, this equation means: weight loss = suspended
particles + trapped particles.
Reported Testing Deficiencies
To evaluate only wear on the vanes and cam ring is
inadequate to fully understand hydraulic fluid performance in
a hydraulic system. In this section, various critiques of this
provided.
Rainwater has stated that the assumption that hydraulic
fluid evaluation by ASTM D 2882 is the preferred approach
because this test simulates a hydraulic system is a false
assumption because [19]:
1. The ASTM D 2882 test is run at 2000 psi whereas the
industry is more interested in higher-pressure tests. (Rainwater
did not address the fact that the operating pressure of 2000 psi
is twice the design limit of the V-104C pump which would
suggest that this test does not model any properly operating
hydraulic pump. Instead, ASTM D 2882, and its analogous
tests, are really only hydraulic fluid lubrication assessment
tests.)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018
2. The nominal 25-micrometer filter is grossly under-
specified. With this filter size, the test is more a self-
generating contaminant sensitivity test than a test to evaluate
the antiwear capabilities of a hydraulic oil. It was
recommended that at least a 4-micrometer filter be used [21].
Rainwater suggested that more important test parameters
to monitor are [19]: fluid temperature, sliding speed, distance
traversed, frequency of traveling in one position, load, torque,
fluid contamination level, and fluid compatibility toward
different material pairs.
Horiuchi has expressed concern that too much emphasis
has been placed on antiwear behavior when other properties
may be as, or even more, important [28]. Examples include:
wear protection, water content (if it is a water containing fluid
or water contaminant if it is an anhydrous fluid), viscosity,
alkalinity, pH, copper plate corrosion, and “wetability” in
addition to sludge formation.
Langosch has also expressed the importance of fluid
analysis in order to treat it as a hydraulic system design
element. Some of the parameters that he has cited that must be
evaluated include: aging stability, seal compatibility, and air
release.
Langosch also reported that the relatively short duration
of the DIN 51,389 was also its weakness. He felt that still
shorter test durations were desirable to make it a more feasible
test for more routine use. He also showed that pump wear
increases approximately with the square of the rotational
speed as illustrated in Figure 12. Although the wear data
shown is for a different pump, it is still an interesting variable
that must be considered when comparing wear data from the
DIN 51,389 and ASTM D 2882 tests.
Figure 12 - Effect of sliding speed on vane wear of an ATE
pump (not the V-104C vane pump).
Hydraulic Fluid as a Design Component of the Hydraulic
Circuit
The hydraulic fluid is an important design component of
the hydraulic system [29-32]. The hydraulic fluid not only
transmits power but is also a lubricant for the system. To treat
the hydraulic fluid as a system component requires that the
hydraulic fluid be characterized with respect to lubrication
performance and failure modes in the hydraulic pump. The
classic representation of lubrication performance is the
Stribeck-Hersey Curve illustrated in Figure 13 [33]. This
curve shows that there are 4 modes of lubrication:
hydrodynamic, elastohydrodynamic (EHD), mixed film and
boundary lubrication.
Figure 13 - Coefficient of friction as a function of the speed-
velocity-load parameter (Stribeck-Hersey Curve).
Hydrodynamic lubrication is characterized by relatively
thick films, typically greater than 300 nm. Film thicknesses of
this magnitude are substantially greater than the height of
asperity contacts (see Figure 6).
EHD lubrication is characterized by thin film lubrication.
Film thicknesses are typically 30-3000 nm. Although these are
thin films, the thicknesses are greater than the height of the
asperity contacts.
Boundary lubrication is characterized by film thicknesses
(typically about 3 nm) which is less than the asperity contact
height. Mixed film lubrication occurs at the transition from
EHD to boundary lubrication.
Although hydraulic systems are designed to be operated
in the hydrodynamic regime, in reality they may be used under
EHD conditions. This was observed by Jung, et. al. who
examined the friction characteristics between the vane tip and
the cam ring in which the vane is held against the cam ring by
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

centrifugal force and discharge pressure [30]. The greater the

system pressure the more severe the lubrication condition in
the vane-on-ring wear contact. Using a Stribeck curve to
characterize the lubrication mechanisms, Jung, et.al., found
that in the vane pump that they analyzed, they found that the
vane-tip operated in the transition between EHD and mixed-
film lubrication. In this region, the coefficient of friction
increased slightly as the rotational speed was increased.
Although this analysis was not done on the V-104C pump, it
seems likely that since the required pressures of both the DIN
51,389 (1500 psi) and ASTM D-2882 (2000 psi) are well
beyond the 1000 psi design limit of the V-104C pump, that the
operating regime here is most likely mixed film as well.

EHD film thickness can be calculated using the Reynolds

equation [31]:

ho = [1.9(KoUe)0.67D0.53R0.397]/(E0.073w0.067) (4) Figure 14 - V-104C vane pump wear: measurement vs.

Where: h0 = Film thickness, center of the contact.
R = Combined radius of curvature.
Ș0 = Viscosity at atmospheric pressure.
Į = Pressure-viscosity coefficient.
Ue = Entraining velocity, U = ½ (U1 + U2).
E = Combined elastic modulus.
w = Load of a unit line contact.
Dalmaz [34] and Wedeven, et.al.[31] have described the
calculation of film thickness data for various hydraulic fluids
from basic lubrication data and the Reynolds equation.
Simulation of Wear in a V-104C Vane Pump
calculation.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the general failure of conventional bench
tests to adequately model a hydraulic pump antiwear test such
as the different variations of the V-104C vane pump tests has
been described. However, the V-104C vane pump is being
used so far beyond its original design limits, it really does not
model a typical normally operating vane pump. Instead, these
standard tests are actually hydraulic pump based antiwear tests
– or in other words, a hydraulic pump “bench test”.

Kunz, Broszeit and coworkers [35.36] have successfully
modeled the wear in the V-104C vane pump under DIN
51,389 conditions. The assumptions and models used to
develop this simulation are described in References 21,35 and
36 and will not be detailed here. However, Figure 14
illustrates the good correlation between measured and
predicted wear and furthermore suggests that such
methodologies, assuming that detailed information about the
vane-on-ring wear contact and the necessary film thickness
data under the conditions being modeled are available, may
provide important insights into the hydraulic fluid as a
component of the fluid power system in the future.
Details of the design of the V-104C vane pump were
reviewed here and the utilization of these data in developing
and interpreting wear tests was provided. The necessity of
considering these wear data along with the physical and
chemical properties of the fluid was discussed. Finally, the
successful results of a simulated wear test compared to
measured wear gave an adequate correlation sufficient to
suggest that this could become a powerful evaluation or
prescreening tool in the future.
REFERENCES
1. A.J. Macleod, “Developments in Hydraulic Oils”,
Industrial Lubrication, 1968, January, p. 11-19.

2. G.E. Totten, R.J. Bishop and G.H. Kling, “Evaluation

of Hydraulic Fluid Performance: Correlation of
Water-Glycol Fluid Performance by ASTM D2882
Vane Pump and Various Bench Tests”, SAE
Technical Paper Series, Paper Number 952156, 1995.

3. K. Mizuhara and Y. Tsuya, “Investigation of a

Method for Evaluating Fire-Resistant Hydraulic
Fluids by Means of an Oil Testing Machine”,
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018
Proceed. Of the JSLE Int. Tribology Conf., July 8-
10, 1985, Tokyo, Japan. P. 853-858.
4. R. Renard and A. Dalibert, “On the Evaluation of
Mechanical Properties of Hydraulic Oils”, Inst.
Petroleum J., 1962, Vol. 55, No. 542, p. 110-116.
5. D. Yu Muzykin, G.F. Livada, M.V. Mozharov and
A.T. Matsak, “Working of Coupled Friction Pairs in
Hydraulic Drives with a Nonflammable Pressure
Fluid”, Vestn. Mashinostr., 1978, Vol. 58, No. 12, p.
42-44.
6. E.E. Klaus and J.M. Perez, “ Comparative Evaluation
of Several Hydraulic Fluids Operational Equipment,
a Full-Scale Pump Test Stand, and the Four-Ball
Wear in Tester, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper
Number 831680, 1983.
7. J.M. Perez, R.C. Hansen and E.E. Klaus,“
Comparative Evaluation of Several Hydraulic Fluids
Operational Equipment, a Full-Scale Pump Test
Stand, and the Four-Ball Wear in Tester, Part II.
Phosphate Esters, Glycols and Mineral Oils”,
Lubrication Engineering, 1990,Vol. 46, No.4, p. 249-
255.
8. J.M. Perez, E.E. Klaus, and R.C. Hansen, E.E. Klaus
and J.M. Perez, “ Comparative Evaluation of Several
Hydraulic Fluids Operational Equipment, a Full-
Scale Pump Test Stand, and the Four-Ball Wear in
Tester”, Lubrication Engineering, 1996,Vol. 52,
No.5, p. 416-422.
9. D.G. Feldmann, J. Hinrichs, M. Kessler, and J.
Nottrodt, “Determination of the Application
Properties of Rapidly Biodegradable Hydraulic
Fluids by Laboratory Tests”, In Industrial and
Automotive Lubrication, 11th Int. Colloquium, Ed.
W.J. Bartz, January 13-15, 1998, Esslingen Technical
Academy, Vol. 1, p. 271-282.
10. D.G. Feldmann and M. Kessler, “Evaluation of
Application Related Properties of Hydraulic Fluids
by Laboratory Tests and Experiences with
Biodegradable Fluids in Laboratory and Field, SAE
Technical Paper Series, Paper Number 982002, 1998.
11. M. Kessler and D.G. Feldmann, “Mechanical Testing
of Hydraulic Fluids”, Dtsch. Wiss. Ges. Erdoel,
Erdgas Kohle, 1999, Vol. 514, I, p. 1-84.
12. W.M. Shrey, Lubrication Engineering, 1959, Vol. 15,
pg 54-67.
13. W.H. Reiland, “Predicting the Performance of a
Wear-Resistant Oil”, Hydraulics & Pneumatics,
1968, March, p. 96-98.
14. H.W. Thoenes, K. Bauer and P. Herman, “Testing
the Antiwear Characteristics of Hydraulic Fluids:
Experience with Test Rigs Using a Vickers Pump”,
IP. Int. Symposium, Performance Testing of
Hydraulic Fluids, Eds. R. Tourret and E.P. Wright,
1978, Heydon and Son Ltd., Oct. 1978, London,
England, p. 21-30.
15. G.E. Totten and R.J. Bishop, “ Evaluation of V-104C
and 20VQ5 Vane Pumps for ASTM D-2882 Wear
Tests Using Water Glycol Hydraulic Fluids”, in
Tribology of Hydraulic Pump Testing, STP 1310,
Eds. G.E. Totten, G.H. Kling and D.J. Smolenski,
1996, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, p. 118-128.
16. A. Kunz, B. Matthes, E. Broszeit, and K.-H. Kloos,
“Application of TiN-Coated Bushings in the Standard
Method for Indicating the Wear Characteristics of
Hydraulic Fluids in Vane Pumps”, Wear, 1993, Vol.
162-164, p. 966-970.
17. G.M. Gent, G.E. Totten and R.J. Bishop, “Review of
ASTM D-2882 Hardware Problems and Suggested
Solutions”, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper
Number 982021, 1998.
18. G.E. Totten, R.J. Bishop Jr., and G.M. Webster,
“Water-Glycol Hydraulic Fluid Evaluation by ASTM
D 2882: Significant Contributors to Erroneous
Results”, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper Number
961740, 1996.
19. R.L. Rainwater, “An Experimental Study of Wear
and Effects of Anti-Wear Fluids: Development of a
Wear Test Model”, Sixth Annual Fluid Power
Research Conference, Fluid Power Research Center,
Oklahona State University, Stillwater, OK, 1972., p.
37-71.
20. D.A. Chirachella, R.W. Jack and E.A. Baniak,
“Development of a High Pressure Vane Type
Hydraulic Pump Test”, SAE Technical Paper Series,
Paper Number 750854.
21. A. Kunz, R. Gellrich, G. Beckman and E. Broszeit,
“Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Wear of Vane
Pumps: Part B. Analysis of Wear Behavior in the
Vickers Vane Pump Test”, Wear, 1995, Vol. 181-
183, p. 868-875.
22. A.M. Karmel, “A Study of the Internal Forces in a
Variable-Displacement Vane Pump – Part I: A
Theoretical Analysis”, J. of Fluids Engineering,
1986, Vol. 108, p. 227-232.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Liverpool, Monday, August 13, 2018

23. E. Urata, Y. Iwaizumi, and K. Iwamoto, “Assessment
of Antiwear Properties of Jigh-Water Content Fluids
using a Vickers V104C Vane Pump”, Yuatsu to
Kuiatsu, 1986, Vol. 17, No. 7, p. 543-553.
24. J.Q. Griffith, W.H. Reiland and E.S. Williams,
“Laboratory and Field Performance of Wear
Resistant, Antileak Hydraulic Oils”, Paper Presented
at the National Fuels and Lubricants Meeting,
September 17-18, 1969, New York City, NY,
National Petroleum Refiners Association,
Washington, DC.
25. A.J. Zino, “What to Look for in Hydraulic Oils –
Lubricating Value”, American Machinist, 1948,
January 15, p.97-100.
Emulsion in Rolling-Sliding Contact”, Proc. 7th
Leeds-Lyon Symp. On Tribology, Friction and
Traction, September 1980, p. 231-242.
35. G. Gellrich, A. Kunz, G. Beckmann and E. Broszeit,
“Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the Wear of
Vane Pumps – Part A: Adaptation of a Model for
Predictive Wear Calculation”, Wear, 1995, Vol. 181-
183, p. 862-867.
36. A. Kunz and E. Broszeit, “Comparison of Vane
Pump Tests Using Different Vickers Vane Pumps”,
in Tribology of Hydraulic Pump Testing , STP 1310,
Eds. G.E. Totten, G.H. Kling and D.J. Smolenski,
1996, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, p. 140-155.

26. J.J. Weaver, “Hydraulic Pump-Wear Radiotracer

Technique”, Lubrication Engineering, 1965, Vol. 21.,
p. 12-15.

27. J. Weaver, “Hydraulic Pump-Wear Radiotracer

Technique”, Reprint Number 64AM, Paper presented
at the 1964 ASLE Annual Meeting, May 26-28,
Chicago, IL.

28. T. Horiuchi, “Hydraulic Fluids and Trends in Oil

Pumps and Motors”, Nisseki Review, 1079, Vol. 21,
No. 3, p. 151-158.

29. O. Langosch, “Calculating and Testing the Design

Element Hydraulic Oil:, ėlhydraulik und Pneumatik,
1972, Vol. 16, No. 12, p. 498-501.

30. S-H. Jung, U-S. Bak, S-H. Oh, H-C. Chae and J-J.
Jung, “Experimental Study on the Friction
Characteristics of an Oil Hydraulic Vane Pump”,
Proceed. Of the International Tribology Conference –
Vol. III, Yokohama 1995, Japanese Society of
Tribologists, Tokyo, Japan, p. 1621-1625.
31. L.D. Wedeven, G.E. Totten, and R.J. Bishop Jr.,
“Performance Map and Film Thickness
Characterization of Hydraulic Fluids”, SAE
Technical Paper Series, Paper Number 952091, 1995.

32. Runhua Tan and Yan Caiyun, “The Application of

elastohydrodynamic Lubrication to the Design of
Variable Displacement Vane Pump”, J. of Hebei
Institute of Technology, 1991, Vol. 20, No.3, p. 43-
50.

33. L.D. Wedeven, G.E. Totten and R.J. Bishop Jr.,

“Performance Map Characterization of Hydraulic
Fluids”, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper Number
941752, 1994.

34. G. Dalmaz, “Traction and film Thickness

Measurements of a Water Glycol and a water in oil