new viscosity modifier technology (controlled architecture ...klc.kstle.or.kr/upload/board/(3)...

© The Lubrizol Corporation 2007, all rights reserved

Presented to

KSTLE Lube SymposiumJeju Island Korea

September 2007

New Viscosity Modifier Technology(Controlled Architecture PMA) for High VIDriveline and Hydraulic Fluids


Controlled Architecture PMAPerformance in High VI Driveline Fluids

© The Lubrizol Corporation 2007, all rights reserved3

Viscosity modifiers are in fluidsacross transportation and industrial markets


ATF Trends Affecting VM

• Balance: Improve fuel economy andefficiency with durability

• Move to 5- to 8-step transmissions• Reduce number of clutches in

clutch-pack (higher torque capacity)• Longer service interval - fill for life• Incorporate more thermally stable

plate materials• Higher operating sump

temperatures• Lower viscosity fluids without loss of

film thickness capacity

• Better low-temperatureperformance

• Higher viscosity index• Greater shear stability

extended KRL 40 to 192 hrs.• Improved wear protection(thinner fluids increasedurability challenges)

• Better oxidation and thermalstability


Gear Oil Trends Affecting VM

• Greater energy efficiency• Reduced operating temperatures• Move to wide span multigrade fluids• Increased use of lower viscosity fluids

– SAE 75W-80; 75W-85; 70W-XX

• Increased use of Group III oils in place of PAO• Greater retention of fluid performance• Greater shear stability/resistance to viscosity loss• Improved thermal stability and cleanliness


Viscosity Modifiers for Driveline Fluids Affect TheseViscosity-related Performance Parameters

High-temperature viscosity forwear protection and performance

Low-temperature fluidityfor smoother cold weather start-ups

Rate of change in viscosityas fluid temperature changes (VI)

Viscosity loss during serviceMaintenance of shift feel and behavior

Mechanical efficiency


Balancing Viscosity Modifier Performance

Conventional VMs have fundamental performance trade-offs• Conventional PMA VMs allow control over average composition and

average molecular weight• Changing composition can increase thickening efficiency and viscosity

index at the expense of compatibility and low-temperature fluidity• Changing molecular weight can also increase thickening efficiency and

viscosity index but at the expense of shear stability

Thickening EfficiencyShear Stability

Low-temperature Fluidity

Viscosity Index Increase


Viscosity Modifier Trade-offs

Molecular wt.

Shear stability

Relationship holds within a chemical type

Molecular weight vs. shear stability vs. thickening

VI 2 7

Thickening efficiency

VI increase


Lubrizol Polymer Breakthrough

• Lubrizol has developed new polymertechnology for transmission fluids

• This new technology is a result of synergywith our Lubrizol Advanced Materialsbusiness unit (former Noveon) and usesleading-edge polymerization controllertechnology

• The new technology offers significantperformance benefits over conventional VMpolymers


Controlled Architecture Viscosity Modifiers

• Controlled polymerizations allow for new polymeric architectures• Different architectures fundamentally change the inherent trade-offs

(thickening, shear, low temperature, viscosity index)• Fundamentally expands the performance “space” available

Thickening EfficiencyShear Stability

Low-temperature Fluidity

Viscosity Index Increase


Controlled Architecture PolymersConventional (linear) PMAs

Controlled architecture PMAs

Shape under typical conditions Shape under high shear stress


Thickening and Viscosity Index Effect of ControlledArchitecture TechnologyConventional (linear) PMAs

Controlled architecture PMAs

Thickening and VI effect relates to molecular volume andhow occupied volume changes with temperature

The controlled architecture polymer has greater thickening efficiency and greaterviscosity index increase compared to conventional PMA with similar shear stability


Shear Stability of Controlled Architecture TechnologyConventional (linear) PMAs

Controlled architecture PMAsShear stability relates to aspect ratio under stress

Controlled architecture polymer has better shear stability compared to conventionalPMA with similar Mw or thickening efficiency


Controlled Architecture VMs Offer Advantages forDriveline Fluids• Greater thickening efficiency – require lower polymer levels to

achieve required viscosity

• Greater viscosity index boost – capable of significantly higherfinished fluid VI

• Better low-temperature fluidity – have better low-temperatureproperties and achieve lower Brookfield -40º C viscosity

• Greater formulating flexibility – allow higher base oil viscosity forsimilar performance - they can reduce the need for low-viscosity trimstocks and PAO to achieve required performance

Controlled architecture VMs break the relationship betweenthickening efficiency, shear stability, low-temperature fluidity andviscosity index that limits conventional VM technology


Comparison of Viscosity Modifying Polymers

Controlled architecture polymers have greater VI increase for equivalentSSI compared to other polymer chemistries

Viscosity Index as a Function of Shear Stability

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

125 150 175 200 225 250Viscosity Index (VI)

(Sh

ear

Sta

bili

tyIn

dex

(SS

I)

Poly(alpha-olefin) (PAO)

Polyisobutylene (PIB)Polymethacrylates (PMA)

ControlledArchitecture PMA

Poly(styrene-co-maleicanhydride), ester

Poly(ethylene-co-propylene)


Thickening Efficiency per SSI on a Solid VM Basis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Shear Stability Index (20 hr. KRL)

Th

icke

nin

gE

ffic

ien

cyat

100C

Conventional PMA Controlled Architecture PMA

• Conventional PMAs exhibit a nearly linear relationship between thickeningefficiency and shear stability

• Controlled architecture PMAs had much greater thickening efficiencycompared to conventional at all shear stabilities

Thickening Efficiency of PMAs


Controlled Architecture PMAs Enable the Formulationof Very High VI FluidsHigh VI fluids have inherent performance advantages for

power transmission fluids•Has lower viscosity at cold start and at moderate operating

temperatures for smoother operation, better shiftperformance and less running losses

•Maintains viscosity at high temperatures under severeoperating conditions to protect against wear and maintaingood shift performance

High VI fluids provide better fuel efficiency and low-temperature fluidity while maintaining high-temperatureviscosity and performance


02468

101214161820

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Temperature (C)

Vis

cosi

ty(c

St)

6.5, 193 VI

7.0, 250 VI

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Temperature (C)

Vis

cosi

ty(c

St)

6.5, 193 VI

7.0, 250 VI

Performance Advantage of High VI Fluids


Controlled Architecture PMA VM PerformanceAdvantage

• Gives the formulator flexibility to dial in the viscometricperformance

• PAO-like performance with very high VI and low Brookfieldviscosity is possible with Group III formulation

• Much reduced treat level is possible for conventionalperformance by increasing starting base oil viscosity


Comparison in North American OEM FormulationCurrent

FormulationGroup III 3 cSt 70 70Group III 4 cSt 30 30

DI 7.7 7.7PPD 0.15 0.15Conventional PMA 12.5ControlledArchitecture PMA 9.4

KV40 cSt 33.97 27.64KV 100 cSt 7.53 7.48VI 199 260D2983 (-40C) 9,920 7,090

AstericFormulation


Controlled Architecture VM Evaluation in an OEMAT Fluid

9.0%13%VM Treat Level

231>220≥ 207Viscosity Index

7.24≥7>7.0KV 100C

28.9≤29< 30 cStKV 40C

ControlledArchitecture

Current orTarget

Specification

Base oil blend + DI = 4.0 cSt


Blend Study on Controlled Architecture VM in anAT Formulation

9340804074207030BF at -40ºC (cP)

261249234230VI

36.9831.7828.1627.52Vis at 40º C(cSt)

9.658.177.136.94Vis at 100º C (cSt)

0.2%w0.2%w0.2%w0.2%wPPD

12.96%w10.56%w8.52%w8.16%wControlledArchitecture PMA

Oil blend + DI = 4.0 cSt


Controlled Architecture PMA VM Summary

• Lubrizol has developed and commercialized controlledarchitecture PMA VM technology for power transmissionfluids

• Controlled architecture VMs demonstrate a performanceadvantage compared to conventional PMAs– Greater thickening, higher VI, better low-temperature viscosity

• Controlled architecture VMs offer formulating flexibilityfor driveline fluids– Can achieve PAO-like performance in Group III formulations– Can be down treated for performance comparable to

conventional VMs


Controlled Architecture PMAPerformance in High Viscosity IndexHydraulic Fluids


• Better shear stability/resistance to viscosity loss:– <15% viscosity loss in 20-hr KRL test represents >2000 hours in field

service• Viscosity Index > 150

– High VI hydraulic fluids have greater energy efficiency and widertemperature operating range compared to standard fluids

• Better low-temperature fluidity• Improved cleanliness and filterability• Multigrade OEM approvals

– Parker Denison HF-0 600 hr.T6H20C hybrid pump test

– Eaton Vickers– Komatsu– Kawasaki

High VI Hydraulic Oil Trends Affecting VM


Controlled Architecture PMAs –Advantages for Formulating Multigrade Hydraulic Fluids

• Greater viscosity index boost per thickening and shear stabilityControlled architecture VMs give higher VI increase per unit treat rateand can more easily achieve very high finished fluid VI thanconventional VMs of similar shear stability

• Greater formulating flexibility Controlled architecture VMs allowhigher starting base oil viscosity in formulating a range of high VIfluids

• Excellent wear protection the controlled architecture VMdemonstrated significantly less pump wear in severe service testingin the Denison HF-0 test compared to fluids containing conventionalVM technology

• Excellent wet and dry filterability in the Denison and AFNORfiltration tests

• Good performance in the full range of hydraulic fluid tests, such asoxidation, thermal stability, rust and corrosion, etc.


Formulating Advantage of Controlled Architecture PMA

Controlled architecture PMA required a lower treat rate to formulate a range of ISO 46high VI fluids; had excellent low-temperature viscosity; and allowed heavier startingbase oil blends, which can help improve durability and volatility

Light Neutral (75N) 39.7Group I 100N 65.71 86.2 71.0 42.6Group I 150N 81.1 91.05Group I 600N 12.8 25.7 17.8Hydraulic DI 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85

Controlled Architecture PMA 5.3 7.74 10.4Conventional PMA 8.1 12.95 16.8

PPD 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2KV cSt @ 40C 46.0 48.1 43.5 44.13 46.4 46.2

KV cSt @ 100C 8.0 8.24 8.46 8.64 9.6 9.51Viscosity Index 147 146 175 178 198 196

Brkfld Vis. -30C (cP) 13,000 12,600Brkfld Vis. -40C (cP) 98,000 95,000 62,000 45,500 61,000 58,000

KRL Shear StabilityKV cSt @ 100C after shear 6.86 7.14 6.79 7.05 7.34 7.37

% Viscosity Loss 14.2% 13.4% 19.7% 18.1% 23.5% 22.5%

ISO 46150 VI 175 VI 200 VI


Hydraulic Pump Performance


Denison HF-0 Requirements

T6H20C Hybrid Pump Test– Vane and piston cartridges– 300-hr dry phase/300-hr wet

phase with 1% water– Pass criteria:

• Vane and push-out pin weightloss

• Cam ring inspection• Piston cartridge inspection• No filter blockage, especially

during wet phase

Hydraulic Bench Tests– Foaming tendency– Air release tendency– Filterability– Demulsibility– Thermal stability– Oxidative stability– Hydrolytic stability– Steel corrosion– Cu corrosion– Anti-scuffing– Shear stability


Comparison of Polymer Architectures via Bench Tests, Pt I

Testing completed for ISO-46 fluids using same performance additive, VI~150, in Group I Base Oil

50 minimum80.466.6stage 2, wet

60 minimum96.276.8stage 2, dry

70 minimum90.484stage 1, wet

80 minimum99.888.4stage 1, dry

Filterability, ISO 13357

40-37-3 (30)40-40-0 (15)40-40-0 (15)oil-water-emulsion, 54oC (min)

Demulsification, D1401

7 maximum2.22T @ 50oC, min

Air Release - ASTM D3427

none in 10 min140/0, 20/0, 150/040/0, 30/0, 30/0Seq I/ II/ III

Foaming - ASTM D892

Target ValueConventional PMAControlled

Architecture PMA


Comparison of Polymer Architectures via Bench Tests, Pt II

200 max151182.95Total Cu, mg

100 max4880.8Sludge, mg

1.0 max0.20.26Acid number, mg KOH/g

1000 Hour TOST- ASTM D4310

3A or better1A1BCu appearance

0.20 max0.150.01Cu weight loss, mg/cm2

4.0 max0.28nilWater layer acidity, mg KOH/g

Hydrolytic Stability - ASTM D2619

passpasspassCincinnati Machine rating

2 max11Fe appearance

4 max11Cu appearance

10 max0.40.1Cu weight loss, mg

100 max13.514.3Sludge, mg/100mL

5 max3.32.1Viscosity change %

Thermal Stability (Cincinnati Machine)


Architecture PMA

Performance is similar between the two PMA architectures


Comparison of Polymer Architectures via Bench Tests, Pt III

10 min1112Failure Load Stage

FZG Visual

3A or better1A1BRating – 3h/ 100oC

Copper Strip ASTM D130

passpasspassResult – 24 hours

Rust ASTM D665_B

passpasspassResult – 24hours

Rust ASTM D665_A


Architecture PMA

Bench test conclusion: The two architectures givesimilar, very good results


HFRR Experiments

• HFRR = High FrequencyReciprocating Rig

• Friction and Wear Test• Reciprocating Contact• Ball-on-Flat: Point Contact = Very

High Contact Stresses (~1 GPa)• Stroke: 1mm• Load: 500 grams• Duration: 75 min• Temperature: 15 minutes at 40° C

then ramp to 160° C at 2° C/min• Run on new oil and oil after 20-hr.

KRL shear test simulating used oil

Does polymer architecture affect friction and wear?


HFRR Results

0.1530.1660.3070.298Controlled Arch. PMA, repeat

0.1650.1640.3310.298Conventional PMA, repeat

0.137---0.256---Controlled Arch. PMA, run 2

0.1380.1510.2410.279Controlled Arch. PMA, run 1

0.1680.1520.3340.294Conventional PMA

After ShearBefore ShearAfter ShearBefore Shear

Average Coeff. FrictionAve. Wear Scar Diameter

(mm)

• Before shear both architectures give similar wear and friction results• After KRL shear controlled architecture wear results improve

seems to have unique properties


An

tiw

ear

Per

form

ance

Borderline

Excellent

• Historically, have seen a range of very good to marginal wear performancewith multigrade fluid PMAs (Polymers A-C)

• Controlled architecture PMA (Polymer D) has given a very good wear resultin Denison vane pump

Denison Vane Pump - Wear Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Polymer A Polymer A Polymer A Polymer B Polymer B Polymer B Polymer C Polymer D

polymer

Wea

r(v

anes

/pin

s/ri

ng

)(m

g)


• Wet phase of Denison hybrid pump – most severe.

• Controlled architecture looks very good under these conditions as well.

• Hydraulic fluid containing controlled architecture PMA recently acquired DenisonHF-0 approval in T6H20C hybrid pump.

Denison Hybrid Pump Wear -- Wet Phase

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Polymer A Polymer A Polymer A Polymer B Polymer B Polymer B Polymer C Polymer D

Polymer

Wea

r(v

anes

/pin

s/ri

ng

)


Comparison of Controlled Architecture vs. Conventional PMA

++++Polymer treat

+++++Hydraulic properties –pump/wear

++++++Hydraulic properties –bench

++++Base oil flexibility

++++Shear stability

++++Viscosity index

ControlledArchitecture PMAs

Conventional PMAs

Controlled architecture PMAs provide a multigrade hydraulicfluid with excellent viscometrics and hydraulic performance.


Questions & Answers

Thank you

new viscosity modifier technology (controlled architecture ...klc.kstle.or.kr/upload/board/(3)...

Documents