18 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI

FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590

TRIBOLOGY

Paper present at

International Conference on
Diagnosis and Prediction in Mechanical
Engineering Systems (DIPRE’07)
26 - 27 October 2007, Galati, Romania

FLAMMABILITY TESTS ON HOT SURFACES

FOR INDUSTRIAL FLUIDS
Lorena DELEANU1, Dragoş BUZOIANU2, Minodora RÎPĂ1,
Ştefan CRĂCIUNOIU2, Adina DRUG1
1
University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, 2 ICTCM Bucharest, Romania
lorena.deleanu@ugal.ro

ABSTRACT
Industrial fluids have to be evaluated not only for their performances as load
capacity, durability, but also for their potential risk including ignition. Based on a
solid documentation the authors point out the significance of testing the fluid
flammability and present some tests related to fluid ignition on hot surfaces. The
paper also presents preliminary results on determining the flammability characte-
ristics of fluid when dropping it on a hot surface using an original tester capable of
fulfilling the requirements imposed by SR EN ISO 20823:2004 Petroleum and
related products. Determination of the flammability characteristics of fluids in
contact with hot surfaces.

KEYWORDS: flammability test, hot surface, tester, hydraulic fluid.

1. INTRODUCTION Table 1. Ignition sources in major fires [1, 21].

Ignition source Occurring
Selecting hydraulic fluids including as percentage
[%]
basic cri-teria of reducing fire risk becomes
of major interest in particular and general Electrical (engine connections) 23
industrial applications [1-10, 18, 28, 31]. Friction (bearings, broken parts etc.) 10
Every industrial activity implies the Overheated parts (abnormal temperatures) 8
existence of potential ignition sources that Hot surfaces (boilers, lightening sources etc.) 7
could quite numerous and hard to identify Flames of the burners (incorrect de-sign and 7
apriori [21]. The specialists consider that the exploitation of burners etc.)
identified sources could and have to be Sparks and hot subproducts from 5
reduced, even eliminate, but the progress technological process (metal processing etc.)
advance and new technologies do not reveal Metal cutting and welding (sparks, electrical 4
all of them immediately. Factory Mutual arches, heat etc.)
Engineering Corporation studied and Mechanically generated sparks (grinding, 2
intabulated the ignition sources from over polishing etc.)
25000 fires. The relevant sources related to Static sparks (accumulated electric energy) 1
explosions are presented in table 1 [1].
 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI 19
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY

2. FLAMMABILITY instance NFPA specifications define the boiling point

CHARACTERISTICS
The flammability characteristics of the substan-
ces are very important as concerning the safety in de-
positing, transporting, manufacturing and using them
[1-10]. These characteristics include flammability
point, flash point, autoignition temperature, upper and
lower limit of flammability but also the substance
response in imposed conditions related to worst
possible scenarios in practice [15, 27]. All are
important and have to be taken into account for
evaluating the risk probability related to fire and
exposure to fire or hot environments [18, 19, 23, 24].
The experimental values are always necessary but the
methods and the procedures for obtaining them are
seldom similar to real conditions and are expensive
and dangerous.
There have been developed standards and
specifications for classifying fluids related to their fire
hazard [25]. The characteristic involved in some of
these classifications include the fire point tempera-
ture, Tf, and the boiling temperature, Tb (see table 2).
In these specifications, Tb is differently defined. For
Tb as the temperature at which 20% of the initial fluid
is evaporated. DOT specifications define Tb as being
the initial boiling point (Tib) of the fluid. Tb and Tib
were also defined in ASTM D2887-06 Standard Test
Method for Boiling Range Distribution of Petroleum
Fractions by Gas Chromatography.
3. TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE
FLUID FLAMMABILITY ON HOT
SURFACES
3.1 Overview of Anterior Standard
and Non-Standard Tests
The development of fire-resistant hydraulic
fluids required the identification of test methods that
could reproducibly differentiate the fire-resistance of
the fluids in a manner that would relate to real
industrial conditions [1, 12, 14, 17, 28]. Zinc elabo-
rated a classification of types of fire tests [32]
according to four elements (fig. 1):

Table 2. NFPA and DOT specifications for fluid classification taking into account the fire hazard [25].
NFPA DOT
Fluid Hazard Criterion Class Criterion,
Classification class °C °C
IA 4 Tb  37.8 ; T f  22.8 I Tb  35
IB 3 Tb  37.8 ; T f  22.8 II Tb  35 ; T f  23
IC 3 22.8  T f  37.8 III Tb  35 ; 60.5  T f  23
II 2 37.8  T f  60
IIIA 2 60  T f  93.4
IIIB 1 T f  93.4
0 0 Tb  815.5 for 5 minutes
NFPA – National Fire Protection Association (SUA).
DOT – Department of Transportation (SUA)

Fig. 1. Groups of factors influencing the fire tests [32].

20 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY
- the fire resistant property that is being measured as
there are several different facets of fire resistance and
a test can measure one or more of them,
- the ignition source used in the test (almost all fire
resistance tests ignite or attempt to ignite the fluid
during the test),
- the state of the fluid during the test,
- whether the test simulates an accident condition or
measures an intrinsic property of the fluid.
Some tests are based on a simulated accident
(either explicitly or implicitly) while others measuring
an intrinsic property of the fluid are not based on the
conditions of any particular accident mode.
Both manufacturers and users ask for tests that
certify fluid flammability characteristics, preferring
especially ISO or ASTM standards. Many documents,
including EU Directives, give recommendations to
use standard tests for estimating flammability
characterisation of fluids [1-10].
The authors point out that the qualitative and
quantitative quantification of fire resistance of a
hydraulic fluid could not be done by one property only
and the different aspects of fire resistance have to be
point out by different tests, including tests simulating
on small scale the worst scenario that could happen in
real applications, when using hydraulic fluids [2-5, 16-
19]. A particularity of many of these tests is that the
test result is delivered as “pass” or “not pass”. The fluid
that passed the tests are included in recommendations
or approvals, but these ones are specific to regional
reglementations (in SUA: Approval Guide or List of
Qualified Fluids, in European Union [3, 4, 6, 7, 9] or in
national normatives).
Organizations such as Occupational Safety and
Health Association (OSHA) and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and some specialists
classify flammable liquids according to their
flashpoint [13, 23, 27]. A flashpoint within the
operating temperature range of the system obviously
is undesirable as any leak would create an immediate
fire hazard [18, 25].
The laboratories dealing with flammability and
fire-resistance properties have the advantage that
more tests implies more work, visibility and money
but it also requires disadvantages as: larger invest-
ment in equipment, a greater understanding of simi-
larities and differences among related tests (inclu-
ding well-trained specialists), agreements for cross-
border acceptance of the results [15, 19, 20, 26].
CETOP RP 65H 1994 [2] „ignition test on hot
plate for fire-resistant fluids” was considered
appropriate to estimate the fire risk of this hazard
“scenario”. During this test the fluid is dropped on a
heated tube at 704 C and the result has to be classified
as one of the three following situations:
- flames or burns on the tube, but not after
dripping from the tube;
- the fluid does not ignite and does not burn on
the tube but it does after dripping from the tube;
- the fluid does not ignite and does not burn
neither on the tube nor after dripping from the tube.
In 1999 the test was recommended by HSE
Approved specifications for fire resistance and
hygiene of the hydraulic fluids for use in machinery
and equipment in mine [2]. But all CETOP
recommendations (Recommendations, Provisional
Recommendations and Technical Reports) were
officially withdrawn from 21.06.2002. [2]. One may
notice the similarities between the CETOP test and
the actual standard ISO concerning the same
characteristics of a fluid.
Studies about fluid ignition on hot surfaces were
carried out without being the subject of a standard.
Toy [26] admitted that one major source of
machinery fires and accidents may be attributable to
the leakage of flammable fluids onto hot surfaces and
its subsequent ignition.
The leak of the flammable fluids on hot surfaces
has a great risk to produce fire, affecting the work
safety, so specialists strictly imposed temperature
limits for using particular fluids but accidentally fires
still have been occurring even if the surface
temperature was lower than these limits. In such cases
the ignition is governed by the convective heat
transfer towards the wetting zones and the process is
very complex, having many influencing factors as, for
instance, the fluid rate, the different evaporation
processes, the quality of the gas environment etc.
The main element of stand proposed by Toy
[26] is that of a single horizontal circular flat plate
that is constructed from a 20 cm diameter (316) stain-
less steel disk (fig 2). The plate is capable of being
heated to surface temperatures of 200°C…700°C by a
CALROD heating coil embedded within the plate
assembly. A series of 40 gauge K-type Chrome-
Alumel thermocouples are embedded into the side of
the plate to monitor the temperature throughout the
plate, where it was found that the variability of the
temperature at any radial position was less than 1%,
and that the temperature difference between the center
and the perimeter was approximately 5%. A simple
gutter arrangement was also constructed around the
circular plate to contain any excess fuel spillage.
Fig. 2 [12].
 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI 21
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY

bottom oil temperature was used as the bulk oil

temperature. No radiation correction was made for the
temperature measurements. Nozzles used for the
spray tests were impingement-type pressure nozzles
with different orifice diameters. These nozzles
generate a fine cone-shaped spray with a spray angle
of 90º. Eight non-fire-resistant hydraulic fluids and
four fire-resistant hydraulic fluids were tested in the
study. Diesel fuel was also tested for comparison.

Fig. 3. A schematic diagram of the tester used in [16].

Hamins, Borthwick and Preser [16] presented a

testing methodology on hot surface but using a fluid
jet oriented towards a metal disk having a controlled
temperature (fig. 3). Experiments were first conducted
to determine the amount of agent needed to suppress
the ignition of a JP8 spray flame. There were
difficulties, however, in obtaining repeatable results. Fig. 4. Tester for fluid spray on hot surface [29].
Thus, a gaseous propane flow replaced the liquid
spray. Use of a gaseous fuel represents a most Wright, Mowery and LePera [1, 28] presents an
dangerous case, when a liquid fuel has completely approach of the problems related to hydraulic fluids in
vaporized. The authors considered that the critical situations and pointed out that survivavility
temperature was enough uniform (±30°C) on the disk depends on fire resistance properties of those fluids.
but after repeated test they noticed that the disk Among other tests involving ignition of the fluid
temperature become less uniform and the plate is spray they discuss the test related to ignition on hot
damaged and has to be replaced too often. surfaces (Federal Test method 791, method 6053.1).
The ignition of hydraulic fluids with open flame As far as they investigated, the authors of this
on hot surfaces was studied by Yuan [29], at the paper consider that this test has the greatest similarity
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, to ISO 20823:2003 as concerning the method, the
SUA. An experimental system was developed to test procedure, the tester (see Table 2 and fig. 5).
the ignitability of hydraulic fluids using different
spray nozzles and heat sources (fig. 4). A 5-liter tank
was used to hold the hydraulic fluid, and the fluid was
heated using an electric heating and control system.
The oil tank was pressurized by nitrogen from a
cylinder. Different nozzles were connected to the
bottom of the tank by metal tubing to generate the
desired oil sprays or jets. An open flame or a hot
surface was used as the external heat sources. The
open flame was a 14-cm long, line methane diffusion
flame and was placed perpendicular to the centerline
of the oil spray. The heat release rate for the flame Fig. 5. Simulated manifold (Federal Test method 791,
was about 6 kW. The hot surface was built with method 6053.1) Dimensions in centimetres.
electric strip heaters connected to a heating control
unit. The hot surface was made of stainless steel with 3.2 The Standard SR EN ISO 20823:2004
a size of 50 cm ×  30 cm ×  0.1 cm. The hot surface
temperature was measured with a 0.5 mm diameter Specialists give information on tester and
wire K type, inconel shielded, grounded thermocouple methodologies that are related to flammability
fastened to the center of the surface. With the center characteristics of fluids on hot surfaces but the
temperature at 700ºC, the edge temperatures were methodologies and the procedures have a high degree
about 50ºC lower than the center temperature. In this of differentiation 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 28, 30.
study, the center temperature was used as the hot The standard “SR EN ISO 20823:2004 Ţiţei şi
surface temperature. The oil temperatures at the top produse înrudite. Determinarea caracteristicilor de
and bottom of the oil tank were also measured using inflamabilitate a fluidelor în contact cu suprafeţe
K type thermocouples. The oil temperature at the top calde. Încercarea de inflamabilitate pe metal cald” is
was slightly higher than that at the bottom, and the
22 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY

the national adoption by the endorsement method of
the standard EN ISO 20823:2003 Petroleum and
related products - Determination of the flammability
characteristics of fluids in contact with hot surfaces -
Manifold ignition test (ISO 20823:2003). This
standard gives a testing method for determining the
relative flammability of the fluids when the fluid
contacts a hot metallic surface having at fixed
temperature. The method also allows establishing the
ignition temperature of the studied fluid by increasing
the manifold temperature.
The standard ISO 20823 was the subject of a
debate in the ISO/TC 28 33. The method is simply
but it has not to be vague, so many comments were
done on expressing the principle, the method and the
procedure. Even if the test is, in principle, simple and
the results are quantified in only three possible results,
the procedure was well established in order to obtain
repeatability, a very desired characteristic of the test
results but hard to obtain for test involving fire or
flammability characteristics. The discussions at
ISO/TC 28 from 2000 also set the test parameters
accuracy, in order to give the possibility of ranking
fluids based on a well established procedure.
For instance, there was introduced three tempe-
rature sensors, with imposed position (two on its
opposite side – near the end of the rod and one at the
center of the rod), and not one as in the first version of
the standard, in order to have a better control of the
temperature uniformity that has to be at all these three
points within 700°C5°C (or other temperature but
with same accuracy).
Many specifications are related to the fluid
sample: the temperature, the volume and the state
(including the fact that “any air bubbles which may
have arise on mixing shall be allowed to escape from
the fluid before testing”). It is interesting to notice
that the majority of comments were done by countries
that are big manufacturers and users of hydraulic
fluids (United Kingdom, Canada).
This international test method and tester has the
highest degree of resemblance to the American Hot
Manifold Ignition Test (Federal Test Method 791,
Method 6053.1) 2, 28, the results of the test being
also quantifies in a similar way (table 3). Even the
tester dimensions are very close to those of the tester
describes in ISO standard.
The FM Standard 6930 [2] was intended to test
only hydraulic fluids. A sample of the hydraulic fluid
being tested was pressurized to 6.89 MPa and heated
to a fixed temperature starting from 60°C. There were
performed four tests: test for determining the
chemical heat release rate of the fluid, flame
propagation test, test for measuring critical heat flux
for ignition, hot surface ignition test. The latest was
designed to mimic hydraulic fluid leaking under high
pressure from a hose in an environment where hot
surfaces are common. Hydraulic fluid was sprayed
from a nozzle onto a steel surface heated to 700°C.
As far as the authors could have investigated,
the test included in SR EN ISO 20823:2004 has not
been not performed in Romania till nowadays. This
affirmation is based on the negative answers received
from 10 laboratories having RENAR (Romanian
Accreditation Association) accreditation for analy-
sing, testing and research on fuels, oils, lubricants.
These laboratories confirm that they can not perform
any one of the three tests under the requirements of
the European standards, as imposed by the Directive
92/104. These laboratories are: ICERP SA Ploieşti,
ICMET Craiova, INCERP - CERCETARE SA
Ploieşti, LAREX CNIEP - Centrul Naţional pentru
Încercarea si Expertizarea Produselor, ROMPETROL
QUALITY CONTROL SRL, PETROTEL LUKOIL
SA Ploieşti, RULMENTUL SA, PETROM SA
(ARPECHIM).

Table 3. Comparing two testing methods for testing fluid flammability on hot surfaces.
EN ISO 20823:2003 Petroleum and related products -
Determination of the flammability characteristics of Manifold Ignition Test (Federal Test
fluids in contact with hot surfaces - Manifold ignition Method 791, Method 6053.1)28
test
Test parameters
simulated manifold is heated at 700°C, temperature simulated manifold is heated at 704°C
measured in three points, fluid volume rate: 10 ml in (1300°F), temperature measured at one point
40...60 sec; fluid temperature 20...25°C, dispenser tip at in the central zone of the manifold, fluid
300 mm above the probably impact point on the manifold, volume rate: 10 ml in 40...60 sec.
sheet metal box 300 x 300 x 450 (mm) sheet metal box: 300 x 300 x 460 (mm)
Test evaluation
I(T), when the fluid flashes or burns on the tube but does a. flashes and burns on the manifold but not
not continue to burn when collected in the tray below. after dripping from the manifold
I(D), when the fluid flashes or burns on the tube and b. does not flash or burn on the manifold but
continues to do so when collected in the tray below does after dripping from the manifold
N when the fluid does not flash or burn at any time. c. the fluid does not flash or burn on manifold
or after dripping from the manifold
 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY
Some laboratories explain the reasons why they
could not do these tests, especially the absence of the
necessary equipment and some of them could do one
or two of these tests but in accordance to other
standards. For instance, Total Lubrifin SA can
perform two of the above-mentioned tests but
following the requirements of ASTM standards
3.3 Comments of ISO/TC 28 for ISO 20283
Before approval of the standard ISO 20283,
comments done by the ISO members have had
imposed the modification of the initial text, the voting
being achieved at 21.10.2002. Among the 15
members of TC 28 (Technical Committee 28) that
agreed to the final text were states known as having
representative mining and heavy industries as USA,
United Kingdom, France, Poland, Romania [33].
The discussions on the initial text were focused
on the following issues:
- maintaining the fluid drop rate at 40…60 sec
between drops; a solution could be to repeat the
dropping before testing the fluid on the hot manifold
in order to obtain the desired value; other option
would be the use of the controlled dispenser as in the
electronic assembling processes;
- the high between the dispenser tip and the
manifold; the UK member outlined that he did not
know papers that study the influence of this parameter
but recommends the distance of 300 mm as will be
required in the approved standard;
- the box design for mounting the tube: this
enclosure have to facilitate the taking out of the tube
for cleaning.
- the representant of India suggested to measure
the temperature with three sensors, two of them at the
ends of the active zone of the heated manifold and one
at its center, the accuracy being kept at de ±5°C for a
tested temperature of 700°C at all three points of
temperature measuring;
- if there are done more than one test without
cleaning, the standard establish the position of first
test and the height of the dispenser;
- to the initial text was added the following from
the representant of UK in order to extend the utilisation
“It may be used with other types of more flammable
fluids at lower surface temperatures, but this could
significantly increase the hazard of this procedure”;
- restrictive conditions for protecting the heating
element: the cleaning could be done without
extracting the heating element but with caution;
- the tested fluid can not contain air bubbles,
thus the dispenser has to allow the elimination of air
bubbles that could occur during the sampling of the
fluid.
Analysing the standard and the comments [33]
done by TC 28, one may notice that the principle is
quite simple but the test is complex due to the
23
requirements imposed to the tester and to the
procedure:
- the imposed requirements for temperature
measuring, its accuracy recommend that the sensors
could be withdrawn without manual intervention as
this could be dangerous due to high temperatures
involved;
- the fluid drop rate could be achieved only by using
an automatic dispenser taking into account even that
the fluid viscosity could vary a lot;
- it is necessary a positioning system allowing to
obtain the imposed accuracy for the dispenser tip
position and also allowing the movement parallel to
the manifold for having a new testing position;
- according one of the three qualifications may be
supported by photos or films taken during the test.
4. THE TESTER
The design meets the requirements imposed by
SR EN ISO 20823:2004. The tester comprises (fig. 2)
a robotic system 2 that ensures automatically the
positioning of the fluid dispenser 4 above the
simulated manifold, at a position desired by the
operator (high and position along the manifold),
within a high temperature enclosure 5. The manifold
is made of corrosion resistant steel and it could be
heated by an electric system up to 700°C. The
temperature control is done by the help of three digital
thermocouples mounted on a transversal guiding
system that allow them to be in contact with the
manifold and then withdrawn during the fluid
dropping. All the above mentioned subsystems are
enclosed in the ventilated enclosure 3. The tester may
be controlled by the help of its own specialized soft
that could run on a PC (6). The soft also allows the
operator to control the tester.
The tester may function in two different ways
1- manually controlled cycle
The oparator may command the robot arm and the
arm supporting the thermocouples’ system.
2– automatically conducted cycle
1. The doors of the ventilated enclosure are closed 3.
If during the functioning the doors are accidentally
open then the robotic arm and the thermocouples’
platform are withdrawn at their initial position.
2. Once the ventilated enclosure has the doors
closed, the ventilator is started.
3. The heating system is started. This will function
only if the doors of the ventilated enclosure are
closed.
4. The heating system is maintained till reaching the
temperature previously introduces in the
computer.
5. Reaching the imposed temperature is the start of
the engine acting the thermocouples’ platform.
The motion will continue till the thermocouples
reach the heated manifold. The data registered by
24 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY

temperature sensors will be display on the PC
screen.
6. When the temperature sensors give the desired
values, the sensors’ platform is automatically
withdrawn in the initial position.
7. By the help of the specialised soft, the engine is
commanded to move the robotic arm and the
dispenser in the position already established at the
beginning of the testing procedure.
8. The dispenser is commanded to drop the fluid as
established at the start of the automatised
procedure (including rate flow).
9. After dropping the fluid the soft gives the
command for withdrawing the robotic arm at the
initial position.
- hot surface ignition is affected both by
chemical reactivity and the volatility of the fluid.
Babrauskas in 29 assumed that the hot surface
ignition temperature is approximately 200°C above
the autoignition temperature, and future tests will try
to relate this characteristic to the temperature range
that passes one fluid from N category (when the fluid
does not flash or burn at any time) to I(T) or I(D)
categories.
Results from laboratory tests have the potential
to solve, often only partially the fire hazard in real
industrial activities but specialists (both laboratory
and risk assessment experts) do not offer clear
methods of how to use the laboratory results 18.

5. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Table 4 presents three tests done at elevated
temperature and in the last column there are presented
observations that could give supplementary
characteristics of the tested fluids.
For instance, a characteristic that is not
mentioned in the ISO standard, but was recorded
during these preliminary tests, was the time interval
till the fluid starts to burn, time measured from the
starting of the fluid dispensing process. From table 3, a) The first fluid drops reach the manifold.
on e may notice that the grade oil ACEA-2002 A2/B2
– API SL/CF had the largest time interval between
drop starting and burn starting on the manifold. This
larger time may be crucial in activating the fire
suppression systems. Another important aspect
noticed during these tests was the quality and quantity
of the residues left on the manifold, in the tray and on
the metal box walls.
The figure 7 presents images during the test
done for the fluid ACEA-2002 A2/B2 – API SL/CF.
Varying the manifold temperature, and repeating
the test methodology it is possible to establish a
temperature (or a very narrow range of temperature)
to ignite the fluid, under the test conditions. This b) The first flashes, after few second after starting the
temperature could be compared to the ignition point fluid dropping.
or flash point, this comparison being a criterion for
establishing the degree of hazardous probability for
the fluid.
A complex study 29 based on sample principle
as ISO 20823, gave a range of hot surface ignition
temperatures for different hydraulic fluids. The test
results are very different appreciated: the lower value
is the minimum hot surface temperature at which the
oil spray was not ignited at least once, while the
higher one is the maximum hot surface temperature at
which the same fluid spray was not ignited at least
once. The conclusions of this study reveal:
- the viscosity only seems to affect the oil atomi-
zation, not the combustion, c) the fluid burns on the manifold, during its drip and
- the flash point has little effect on the minimum it burns in the tray below.
hot surface ignition temperature. Fig. 7. Images during the test.
 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI 25
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY

1 2 3

Fig. 6. The tester for flammability characteristic of fluid on hot manifold. Original solution from ICTCM and
Galati University.

Table 3 Preliminary results in determining the flammability characteristics of fluids in contacts with hot surfaces
(methodology as required by EN ISO 20823:2003)
H Mani- Oil Drop-
Tested Num- (mm) fold vo- ping Permissible Comments
oil ber of Ave- tempe- lume time deviation of
test rage rature (ml) (sec) parameters
height oC

1 300 620 oC 10 ml 45 s 20 oC; - the fluid ignites after 5-7 s and- after
Oil dropping 1…1,5 ml of fluid;
0.5 ml;
grade 2 300 620 oC 10 ml 45 s - test result: I(T), when the fluid flashes
 10 s;
H.G. or burns on the tube but does not
46 300 mm continue to burn when collected in the
3 300 620 oC 10 ml 45 s  10 mm tray below.
1 300 700oC 10 ml 50-60 s - the fluid ignites on the manifold after
Oil
5…10 sec of start dropping and it burns in
grade 20 oC;
2 300 700oC 10 ml 50-60 s the tray below.
T 90 0.5 ml;
- test result: I(D), when the fluid flashes
API  10 s or burns on the tube and continues to do
GL-2
3 300 700oC 10 ml 50-60s so when collected in the tray below
1 300 700oC 10 ml 50-60s - the fluid ignites and burns after 22 sec
from drop starting< it burns on the
Oil
manifold, during its dripping but it does not
grade 2 300 700oC 10 50-60s burn in the tray,
ACEA- 20 oC;
ml - a lot of residue was noticed after burning
2002 0.5 ml;
on the tube but also in the high-temperature
A2/B2  10 s metal enclosure,
– API 3 300 700oC 10 50-60
- test result: I(D), when the fluid flashes
SL/CF ml s or burns on the tube and continues to do
so when collected in the tray below
26 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY
The evaluator has to do a detailed examination
of both technical system and its environment and to
perform a “full” inventory (many accidents are the
result of a forgotten aspect) of potential ignition
sources. This will include the location and
temperature of any hot surface, the presence of lagged
pipes or the existence of unsealed electrical
equipment etc. In normal functioning, if the surface
temperatures the fluid might contacts, were below the
hot manifold ignition temperature (that means for ISO
20823 the fluid is in N category), then the source may
be discounted in all but fault conditions.
Tribology could help specialists to evaluate
temperatures of different surfaces in relative motion,
in critical scenarios (leak of lubricant, plastic
deformations etc., total or partial removing of friction
coatings etc.). The evaluator may develop the
following scheme for ignition on hot surfaces:
- if normal functioning temperatures exceed the
test hot manifold temperature Tc, the ignition
probability is 1,
- for functioning temperatures below Tc, the
evaluator has to designate an ignition probability on a
scale that could be zero for some fraction from Tc
(some specialists give 0.5Tc or 0.75Tc 18),
- additional rising of ignition probability when
fault conditions are possible to happen.
In some cases the evaluator could apply risk
index methods, calculating a “risk value” or risk
index, based on the relationship:
n variation of some parameters as fluid, manifold
I risk   a j  rj (1)
j 1
where a j is the attribute j related to risk evaluation
(for instance, ignition temperature on hot surface,
smoke production, electrical ignition sources etc),
j=1,…,n, and r j is a value associated to likelihood of
occurrence and consequences. Both a j and r j has to
be introduced in a normalised scales. r j may have the
following values: 0 – the occurrence is not credible, 1
– unlikely, 2 – medium probability, 3 – highly likely.
For the attribute of ignition on hot surfaces, this could
be related to the ignition temperature of the fluid
involved, but in an indirect proportionality to this one.
For instance, if the engineer had to select an industrial
fluid among several with different hot surface ignition
temperatures, T1 T2 ...Tn , after tested under the pro-
cedure of ISO 20823, the fluid j has the normalised
attribute
a j  Tn / T j (2)
It is obviously that a lower value of this attribute
is desired for safety functioning and for a low
probability of hazardous events. The problem to be
solved is the compromise between initial costs and
performances of the fluid to be selected. Several
decades ago the ratio between high security fluids and
hazardous fluids was as great as 5...3 to 1. For
instance, a fluid-power system will be more expensive
when using water-based fluids due to the materials
involved in designing (especially corrosion resistant
steels, sealings etc.) as compared to a system with
similar performances but using mineral oils. Recently,
specialists give design solutions that overpass only
with 30...50% the classical ones, functioning with
more hazardous fluids 13, 31.
The fire resistance of some hydraulic fluids may
change with time or with operational service. Manz
fire-resistant fluids rely on their water content or their
chemical composition and physical properties to
provide fire resistance. Circumstances that could
result in the reduction of the water content below its
original value or chemical or physical changes in the
fluid could produce hard-to-estimate fire resistance.
Such situations could arise through persistent high
temperatures, fluid spillage where evaporation or
separation could occur or breakdown of fluid
chemical properties during use. No specific test has
been designated to cater for these situations, which
should be addressed through regular fluid monitor-
ring and good housekeeping procedures [15, 18, 23].
6. CONCLUSIONS
The original solution for the tester allows safe
and repeatability of the procedure and also the
temperature, height of the dispenser tip and position
along the manifold.
There is no test that ensures a high level of
safety for fire resistance but a particular set of tests,
selected after an actual risk assessment could give a
better solution for a system using hydraulic fluids in
high risk environments.
Determination of fluid flammability on hot
surfaces imposes particular solutions for improving
the security of the designed system.
The list of hydraulic fluids possible to be
selected and the tests that these fluids have to pass,
will have to be known and set even in the design stage
of the equipment in order to introduce necessary
solution for reducing fire risk. It is also important to
analyse similar accidents related to the real
applications in order to notice possible improvements
in equipment, process and environment control and
for workers’ training.
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by National Authority
for Scientific Research (ANCS), Minister of Education
and Research Romania, under the grant CEEX-M4-452
“Adoption and Implementation of Test Methods for
Lubricant Conformity Assessment.”
 THE ANNALS OF UNIVERSITY “DUNĂREA DE JOS “ OF GALAŢI
FASCICLE VIII, 2007 (XIII), ISSN 1221-4590
TRIBOLOGY
REFERENCES
1. ***Approval Standard for Flammability Classification of
Industrial Fluids (Class 6930), Factory Mutual Global, January
2002.
2. *** CETOP RP 65H 1994, Manifold Ignition test for Fire-
resistant Fluids.
3. *** Council Directive 92/104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the
minimum requirements for improving the safety and health
protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-
extracting industries (twelfth individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 404,
31/12/1992 P. 0010 – 0025.
4. *** Directive 94/9/EC of the European Parliament and the
Council of 23 March 1994, on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States concerning equipment and protective systems inten-
ded for use in potentially explosive atmospheres, (OJ L100,
19.4.1994, 1), amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, OJ
L284 1 31.10.2003, Corrected by Corrigendum, OJ L21, 26.1.2000,
42 (94/9/EC), Corrigendum, OJ L304, 5.12.2000, 19 (94/9/EC).
5. *** Fire Testing Services Offered by Southwest Research
Institute in Support of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) and Fire Test Procedures (FTP) Code, October (2004).
6. *** HSE Approved specifications for fire resistance and
hygiene of hydraulic fluids for use in machinery and equipment in
mines, (M) File L11.6/3, (1999).
7. *** Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for
improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at
risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 23,
28.1.2000
8. *** Regulations (the CHIP ACOP on Test Methods), on-line
(07.05.2007), at:
http://www.ueil.org/documents/hse/PrepDirectivePosition.doc
9. *** The 7th Luxembourg Report, March 3, 1994, Doc. No.
4746/10/91, Requirements and Test Applicable to Fire-Resistant
Hydraulic Fluids used for Power Transmission and Control; L-
2920m, Luxembourg, Commission of the European Economic
Communities DG\E\4.
10. *** US Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health
Administration, 30 CFR 35.20; Autogenous-ignition temperature
test, 30 CFR 35.21 Temperature - pressure spray-ignition tests, 30
CFR 35.22; Test to determine effect of evaporation on
flammability, 30 Code of Federal Regulations, SUA, on-line
(17.12.2006), at: http://www.msha.gov.
11. Brandao A.V., 1998, New hydraulic fluid flammability test by
Factory Mutua”, Iron and Steel Engineer, December, pp. 27.
12. Deleanu, L., Rîpă, M., Drug, A., 2007, Flammability Testing
in Risk assessment”, proc. of European Conference on Tribology,
ECOTRIB, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 449-462.
13. Gere, R., Hazelton, T., 1993, Rules for choosing a fire-
resistant hydraulic fluid”, Hydraulics & pneumatics, vol. 46, n 4 pp.
37-42.
14. Goode, M.J., Phillips, D.W., Winkeljohn, R.D., 2000, Fire-
Resistant hydraulic Fluids and the Potential Impact of New
Standards for general Industrial Applications”, Proc. of the 48th
National Conf. on Fluid Power, paper 100-1.12.
27
15. Grosshandler, W. (editor), 2001, Work on Fire Testing
Measurement Needs”, Proceedings.
16. Hamins, A., Borthwick, P., Presser, C., 1990, Supression of
ignition over a heated metal surface, Int. Conf. on Fire research and
Engineering, Sept. 10-15, Orlando, SUA.
17. High, M.S., Danner, R.P., 1987, Prediction of upper
flammability limit” by a group contribution method. Industrial and
Engineering Chemical Research, 26, pp. 1395–1399.
18. Jagger, S.F. Nicol, A., Sawyer, J., Thyer, A.M., 2004, The
incorporation of fire test data in a risk-based assessment of
hydraulic fluid fire resistance, INTERFLAME, pp. 569-576.
19. Khan, M., 1991, Spray Flammability of Hydraulic Fluids and
Development of a Test Method “, Technical Report FMRC J.1
0T0W3.RC, Factory Mutual Corporation, Norwood, MA.
20. Korb, T., 2006, The effect of metal-oxide scale son hot surface
ignition of hydrogen-air mixtures”, PhD Thesis.
21. Krishna, K. et al., 2003, The use of aerosol formation,
flammability, and explosion information for heat-transfer fluid
selection”, J. of Hazardous Materials, 104, pp. 215–226.
22. Phillips, W.D., 2004, The Development of a Spray Ignition
Test for European Hydraulic Fluid Specifications”, Symposium of
Fire-Resistant Test Methods, ASTM D02 N. 06 Meeting, Tampa,
Florida.
23. Satyanarayana, K., Kakati, M.C., 1991, Correlation of flash
points, Fire and Materials, 15, pp. 97–100.
24. Shermann, J.V., 2005, Current Standards for Certification of
Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids Used in General Industrial
Applications, Fluid Power J., pp. 2-9.
25. Tewarson, A., 2005, Thermophysical and fire properties of
automobile plastic parts and engine compartment fluids, Technical
Report, FM Global, Project ID 0003018009-3.
26. Toy, N. Nenmeni, V.l., Bai, X., Disimile, P.J., 2004, Surface
ignition on a heated horizontal flat plat”, 4th Intern. Aircraft &
Cabin Safety Research Conf..
27. Wierzbicki V., 2006, Flash Point testing: A User Guide,
Petrotest, on-line (15.04.2007):
www.petrotest.com/media/en/FlashpointGuide.pdf
28. Wright, B.R., Mowery, R.B., LePera, M.E., 2000,
Survivability? It Could Be a Matter of Hydraulic Fluid!, Proc. 11th
Annual US Army Ground Vehicle Survivability Symposium, 27-30
March (2000).
29. Yuan, L., 2006, Ignition of hydraulic fluid sprays by open
flame and hot surfaces”, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process
Industry, 19 (4), pp. 353-361.
30. Yule, A.J., Moodie, K., 1992, A method for testing the
flammability of sprays of hydraulic fluid”, Fire Safety Journal, 18,
pp. 273-302.
31. Zink, M.D., 2006, New Fluid Technologies for Water-Free,
Fire-resistant Hydraulic Fluids, Iron & Steel Technology 3 (4), pp.
98-101.
32. Zinc M.D., 2000, Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluids: Shifting
Definitions and Standards”, Proc. of the 48th National Conf. on
Fluid Power, paper 105-8.3.
33. *** ISO/TC 28 Petroleum products and lubricants, ISO/TC
28N 2139, Results of voting ISO/CD 20823 Petroleum and related
products – Determination of the flammability characteristics of
fluids in contact with hot surfaces / Manifold ignition test,
24.10.2001.