Astm stp 1573 2014

A thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluiddemonstrated improved lubricity, load carrying capabilities, corrosion protection,and bacterial resistance in comparison to the standard HFA-E 95/5 high w

SELECTED TECHNICAL PAPERS

STP1573

Editor: John Sherman

Fire Resistant Fluids

ASTM Stock #STP1573

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19438-2959.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fire resistant fl uids / editor, John Sherman.

pages cm

“ASTM Stock #STP1573.”

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8031-7591-4 (alk paper)

1 Fire testing 2 Hydraulic fl uids Testing 3 Fire resistant materials I Sherman, John II American Society for Testing and Materials

TH9446.H9F575 2014

Copyright © 2014 ASTM INTERNATIONAL, West Conshohocken, PA All rights reserved This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, fi lm, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of the publisher.

Photocopy Rights

Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the internal, personal, or educational classroom use of specifi c clients, is granted by ASTM International provided that the appropriate fee is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,

MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http://www.copyright.com/

The Society is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this publication ASTM International does not endorse any products represented in this publication.

Peer Review Policy

Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor The authors addressed all of the reviewers’ comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications.

The quality of the papers in this publication refl ects not only the obvious eff orts of the authors and the technical editor(s), but also the work of the peer reviewers In keeping with long-standing publication practices, ASTM International maintains the anonymity of the peer reviewers The ASTM International Committee on Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution of time and eff ort on behalf of ASTM International.

Citation of Papers

When citing papers from this publication, the appropriate citation includes the paper authors, “paper title”, STP title, STP number, book editor(s), page range, Paper doi, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,

PA, year listed in the footnote of the paper A citation is provided on page one of each paper.

Printed in Bay Shore, NY

September, 2014

Th is Compilation of Selected Technical Papers, STP1573 on Fire Resistant Fluids,

contains nine papers presented at a symposium with the same name held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on June 24, 2013 and JAI102180, published June, 2009, Volume 6, Issue 6 and determined to be pertinent to the topic Th e symposium was sponsored

by the ASTM International Committee D02 on Petroleum Products, Liquid Fuels, and Lubricants and Subcommittee D02.N0.06 on Fire Resistant Fluids

Th e Symposium Co-Chairpersons and STP Editors are John Sherman, BASF Corporation, Canton, MI, USA and Betsy Butke, Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliff e,

OH, USA

Foreword

Overview vii Use of Thickened High Water Hydraulic Fluid in Flat Rolled Steel Production 1

J Sherman, J Maloy, E Martino, P Cusatis, and P Fasano

Fire Resistant Fuel for Military Compression Ignition Engines 24

S R Westbrook, B R Wright, S D Marty, and J Schmitigal

Ion Exchange and Mechanical Purifi cation of Fire-Resistant Phosphate Ester Fluids Used in Steam-Turbine Control Systems 38

W D Phillips, J W G Staniewski, and S Suryanarayan

Phosphate Ester-based Fluid Specifi c Resistance: Eff ects of Outside

Contamination and Improvement Using Novel Media 75

M G Hobbs and P T Dufresne Jr.

Thirty-Seven Years of Fleet Operating and Maintenance Experience Using

Phosphate Ester Fluids for Bearing Lubrication in Gas-Turbine/Turbo-Compressor

P T Dufresne

Property and Performance Evaluation of Water Glycol Hydraulic Fluids 109

P Cusatis, J Sherman, P Fasano, and R Bishop

Anhydrous Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids Using Polyalkylene Glycols 126

M R Greaves and A Larson

Polyalkylene Glycol Hydraulic Fluids, 20 Years of Fire Resistance 143

K P Kovanda and M Latunski

Performance Comparison of Non-Aqueous Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids 155

S Rea and D Barker

Assessing and Classifying the Fire-Resistance of Industrial Hydraulic Fluids:

W D Phillips

Contents

Fire-resistant fl uids are an integral component to the safe operation of key processes for many industries where fi re is a major hazard Industries using fi re-resistant fl uids today include steel manufacturing, aluminum die-casting, automobile manufac-turing, food processing and electrical and nuclear power utilities

Th e requirements for fi re-resistant fl uids are not static but dynamic as industries using these fl uids in turn move to more effi cient and greater performing equipment

Th ese improvements in equipment and systems come at a cost which may increase the risk for fi re For example, higher operating temperatures or pressures can directly change the range of conditions under which fi re can occur for that system, and so too the conditions under which fi re-resistant fl uids must perform in that system

Th e proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Resistant Fluids were held at the

Fairmont Q.E Montreal Hotel in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on June 24th, 2013 Th e topics of the papers were related to fi re-resistant hydraulic and compressor fl uids and liquid fuels Specifi c chemistries discussed in one or more of the papers included phosphate ester, polyol ester, polylalkylene glycol, water glycol, and thickened and un-thickened high water fl uids

Th e editors wish to express their thanks and appreciation to the authors and attendees of the symposium and to all the reviewers of these papers We also owe a debt of gratitude to the ASTM staff who were an essential part of both the successful symposium proceedings and the publication of this volume

John ShermanBetsy Butke

Overview

John Sherman,1Jonathon Maloy,3Emidio Martino,3

Patrice Cusatis,2and Paul Fasano2

Use of Thickened High Water

Hydraulic Fluid in Flat Rolled

Steel Production

Reference

Sherman, John, Maloy, Jonathon, Martino, Emidio, Cusatis, Patrice, and Fasano, Paul, “Use of Thickened High Water Hydraulic Fluid in Flat Rolled Steel Production,” Fire Resistant Fluids, STP 1573, John Sherman, Ed., pp 1–23, doi:10.1520/STP157320130179, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2014.4

ABSTRACT

Thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid is in the class of most fire-resistant hydraulicfluid as tested according to ISO 15029-2 A thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluiddemonstrated improved lubricity, load carrying capabilities, corrosion protection,and bacterial resistance in comparison to the standard HFA-E (95/5) high waterhydraulic fluid while in operation in the roughing and finishing mill hydraulicsystems at the ArcelorMittal Dofasco steel production complex Theimprovements in hydraulic fluid properties and hydraulic system operationresulted in increased system reliability, decreased maintenance costs, andextended equipment life for the roughing and finishing mill hydraulic systems

1 BASF Corporation, Fuel and Lubricant Solutions, 1609 Biddle Avenue, Wyandotte, Michigan 48192.

2 BASF Corporation, Fuel and Lubricant Solutions, 500 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, New York, 10591.

3 ArcelorMittal Dofasco, 1330 Burlington Street East, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3J5, Canada.

4 ASTM Symposium on Fire Resistant Fluids on June 24, 2013 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Copyright V C 2014 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

STP 1573, 2014 / available online at www.astm.org / doi: 10.1520/STP157320130179

Today the most widely recognized standards for evaluation of fire-resistanthydraulic fluids are ISO 12922: lubricants, industrial oils and related products (classL)–Family H (hydraulic systems)—specifications for categories HFAE, HFAS, HFB,HFC, HFDR, and HFDU [10], and the FM approval standard CN 6930 [11,12] The

FM approval standard evaluates only the fire-resistance of the hydraulic fluid whilethe ISO 12922 standard evaluates hydraulic fluid performance as well as fire-resistance FM Approvals Standard CN 6930 (April, 2009) [13] describes the flam-mability classification of industrial fluids using two different methods: one methodfor fluids having a fire point (non-water containing) by determining the spray flam-mability parameter of the fluid and the other method for fluids not having a firepoint (water containing) by determining the adiabatic, stoichiometric flame temper-ature of the fluid Fluids that pass their respective tests are designated as “FMapproved.” FM approvals states that hydraulic fluids that contain greater than 80 %water such as HFA-E and HFA-S types do not need to be tested to obtain the “FMapproved” designation The expected results for the standard types of fire-resistantTABLE 1 ISO 6743-4 classification of fire-resistant hydraulic fluids.

HFAE Oil-in-water emulsions, typically more than 80 % water content HFAS Chemical solutions in water, typically more than 80 % water content HFB Water-in-oil emulsions

HFC Water–polymer solutions, typically less than 80 % water

HFDR Water-free synthetic fluids consisting of phosphate esters

HFDU Water-free synthetic fluids of other compositions than HFD-R

hydraulic fluids as outlined in ISO 6743-4 when tested according to the appropriateprotocol in the FM Approvals CN 6930 standard are summarized inTable 2.

ISO 12922: lubricants, industrial oils and related products (class L)—Family H(hydraulic systems)—specifications for categories HFAE, HFAS, HFB, HFC, HFDR,and HFDU provides the technical requirements for all classes of fire resistanthydraulic fluids used in hydrostatic and hydrodynamic hydraulic systems forgeneral industrial applications The standard was based on the technical andfire-resistance requirements outlined in the seventh Luxembourg report [14] Theflammability test methods required in ISO 12922 include ISO 15029-2, a stabilizedflame heat release method [15], which may be the most important fire resistantspray ignition method within ISO 12922 because of its ability to reproducibly dis-criminate levels of fire-resistance among types of fire-resistant hydraulic fluidstested The method determines the ignitability factor, RI, of the fluid The rangesfor relative ignitability (RI) index grades in the ISO 15029-2 method are outlined inTable 3 The typical RI index grades for common fire-resistant hydraulic fluid typesaccording to the ISO 15029-2 method, described by Phillips et al [16], are shown inTable 4 The lower the letter index grade the greater the fire-resistance of the fluid.Another fire-resistance test required according to ISO 12922 is the Manifold

TABLE 2 Typical results for fire-resistant hydraulic fluid types evaluated according to FM approvals

standard CN 6930 (April 2009).

Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluid Types Typical Result of Evaluation

TABLE 3 Ranges for relative ignitability index grades according to ISO 15029-2.

Relative Ignitability Index Grades Range of Relative Ignitability Index

ignition test ISO 20823 [17] In this test method a 10 ml test sample of fluid isdropped from a predetermined height and at a specific rate, onto a tube heated to

700C, or another predetermined temperature (see Fig 1) The resulting spray isexamined for flash or burn, both on the tube and after dripping from the tube on

TABLE 4 Typical relative ignitability index grades according to ISO 15029-2 for fire-resistant

hydraulic fluid types.

Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluid Types Typical Relative Ignitability Index Grade

the pan below An optimum result designation of “N” is reported when thefluid does not flash or burn at any time Figure 2 demonstrates the result of amineral oil based hydraulic fluid tested according to ISO 20823 with the tube heated

to 700C

HFA Type Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids

HFA or high water content hydraulic fluids (HWCFs) have excellent fire resistanceproperties combined with good to excellent corrosion protection but limitedlubrication properties [18–20] Hydraulic equipment using this type of fluid must

be capable of operating with a low viscosity fluid HFA type fluids are preferredeven in water hydraulic equipment as the HFA fluid will inhibit corrosion incomponents and piping, control bacterial, and fungal growth and lubricate valves.HFA type fluids are used in steel mills, tunnel boring equipment, over-ground pipe-laying, and underground longwall mining equipment and other water hydraulicequipment based systems [21,22]

FIG 2 Result of a mineral oil based hydraulic fluid tested according to ISO 20823 with the tube heated to 700  C.

There are two sub classifications of the HFA category stipulated in ISO 6743-4.One type is HFA-E: a macroemulsion or microemulsion typically blended on site

by blending 1 %–5 % of the HFA-E concentrate with water Typically, HFA-Emicroemulsions exhibit improved stability and anti-wear properties compared tomacroemulsions The other HFA sub classification is HFA-S, an aqueous polymersolution also blended from a concentrate on site Both types have a minimum of

80 % water in the final operating fluids The HFA-S type fluids are used with lowworking pressures, where there is a possible ingression to sources of water andwhere bacterial and fungal growth should be minimized Applications with higherworking pressures require the significantly better lubricant properties of HFA-Etype hydraulic fluids The HFA-E fluids typically have biocides added to the formu-lation to control bacterial and fungal activity

Reported vane and piston pump testing on HFA type fluids indicated a cantly better wear resistance in an HFA-E microemulsion fluid in comparison with

signifi-an HFA-S solution fluid [23] In fluid evaluations according to DIN 59389 Part 3,only the HFA-E microemulsion fluid operated in the vane pump at 783 psi (54bars) could complete the test duration of 250 h [23] The HFA-E microemulsionfluid vane pump tests operated at 1015 psi (70 bars) and 1378 psi (95 bars) wereaborted at approximately 180 h and 40 h, respectively, due to the development ofexcessive noise and wear [23] Testing of the fluid types on piston pumps for 1250 h

at a constant pressure of 2030 psi (140 bars) and alternating pressures of1015/2030 psi (70/140 bars) indicated significantly less component wear (bearingplate, reversing plate, and ball joint) with the HFA-E microemulsion fluid versusthe HFA-S solution fluid [23]

Thickened versions of The HFA-E fluids contain a percentage of syntheticpolymer thickener and are typically blended with 90 % water to form macro-emulsions [24] The polymeric thickeners used typically demonstrate an associativethickening mechanism resulting from the interaction between hydrophobiccomponents of the polymer with other polymer and surfactant molecules Thisthickener/thickener and thickener/surfactant interaction results in associative com-plexes with increased thickening ability

A thickened HFA-E macro-emulsion fluid blended from a concentrate nated as BL-8022 was developed and evaluated at a concentration of 88.6 %water In Fig 3, the fire-resistance of a HFA-E hydraulic fluid, which is com-prised of 5 % fluid concentrate and 95 % water and is demonstrated during atest according to ISO 20823 with the tube heated to 700C Figure 4 was takenduring the testing of the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid and, according to ISO

desig-20823, comprised of 11.4 % BL-8022 concentrate and 88.6 % water with the tubeheated to 700C Both the HFA-E hydraulic fluid and the thickened HFA-Ehydraulic fluid shown in Figs 3 and 4, respectively, achieved the optimum testrating designation of “N.” The properties of the BL-8022 based HFA-E hydraulicfluid are listed in Table 5 Typical HFA-E hydraulic fluids do not protect againstvapor phase corrosion inhibition; however, the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid

FIG 3 HFA-E hydraulic fluid; comprised of 5 % fluid concentrate and 95 % water, shown during a test according to ISO 20823 with the tube heated to 700  C.

FIG 4 Testing of the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid; comprised of 11.4 % BL-8022

concentrate and 88.6 % water, according to ISO 20823 with the tube heated to

700  C.

based on the BL-8022 concentrate does provide vapor phase corrosionprotection.

The BL-8022 based, thickened HFA-E fluid was vane pump tested according toASTMD2882-00 [25] but with revised temperature and pressure settings Operat-ing conditions according to ASTMD2882[25] are for the fluid to be tested on aVickers 104C or 105C vane pump for 100 h at a temperature of 150C, a speed of

1200 rpm, and a pressure of 2000 psi The pressure was decreased to 1500 psi andthe operating temperature to 120F for the vane pump test run on the BL-8022based thickened HFA-E fluid The result of the test on a Vickers 104C vane pumpwas a total wear of ring and vanes combined of 9 mg Evaluation of HFA-E andHFA-S fire-resistant hydraulic fluid lubrication by vane and piston pump testingwas thoroughly described in Ref [23] The author of the article graphically reportedthat the wear rate was approximately 20 mg per h for a 95/5 microemulsion hydrau-lic fluid run in a vane pump at 1378 psi for approximately 40 h before the test wasaborted due to excessive noise

HFA-E (95/5) Fluid Usage at ArcelorMittal

Dofasco

ArcelorMittal Dofasco is a supplier of high quality flat rolled steels, located in thecity of Hamilton at the western end of Lake Ontario on the St Lawrence Seaway.The company’s 750-acre steelmaking complex features state of the art facilitiesthat are among the most efficient, flexible and technologically advanced in NorthAmerica These include three coke plants, two operating blast furnaces, a basicoxygen steelmaking furnace, an electric arc furnace, two slab casters, a hot strip

TABLE 5 Typical properties for thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid BL-8022.

Property Method Thickened HFA-E Hydraulic Fluid from BL-8022 Concentrate

Viscosity cSt at 40  C ASTM 46.9

Viscosity cSt at 10  C ASTM 351

Falex pin and vee block

-seizure load in lbs.

Vapor phase corrosion BASF FF0002 Pass

rolling mill, pickling lines, cold rolling mills, annealing and tempering facilities,galvanizing lines, an electrolytic tinning line, and two tube mills HFA-E (95/5)hydraulic fluids had been used in the roughing mill and finishing mill hydraulicsystems since approximately 2000 The # 2 hot mill finishing and roughing millscomprise the largest hydraulic system at the ArcelorMittal Dofasco complex Abulk reservoir containing 10 000 gal of hydraulic fluid feeds the finishing androughing mill reservoirs The 7000 gal finishing mill reservoir supports the rollbalance, quick roll change, moving floors, crop shear, and coiler bank hydraulicsystems The 2000 gal roughing mill reservoir supports the roll and spindle bal-ance hydraulic systems.

Overview of Roughing Mill (RM) Finishing Mill

(FM) Hydraulic Systems

The finishing mill/roughing mill HFA-E hydraulic system used a blend of 95/5 citywater and HFA-E concentrate The lubrication shop houses a 10 000 gal bulkstorage tank and proper mixing controls/transfer pumps to meet 90/10 require-ments of both the FM and RM equipment The main HFA-E bulk tank suppliesHFA-E fluid to the rougher and finisher reservoirs via a remotely controlled trans-fer pump located in the lubrication shop The fluid being transferred to the FM/RMreservoirs must first pass through a flow meter, which monitors the amount of fluidbeing added

Located at the RM is a 1200 gal steel reservoir that supplies fluid for the

RM spindle and balance circuits Make-up hydraulic fluid is provided manuallyvia a remote transfer pump, fill line, and a flow meter device that allows forfluid management The actual fluid level in the system reservoir is 1000 galduring normal rolling and is monitored by level gauge Three Triplex pumps(one as a spare) supply the required flow to two on line weight loadedaccumulators

The roughing mill (see Fig 5) uses three hydraulic systems to operate thefollowing functions:

• Rougher chock clamps—1500 psig

• Rougher roll balance—1500 psig

• Rougher spindle balance—top and bottom, 760 psig and 1500 psig

• Rougher spindle thrust link balance—1500 psig

• Work roll change—2000 psig (mineral oil hydraulic fluid used here)

The Rougher functions are supplied by two of the three hydraulic systems.The systems provide a hydraulic pressure of 760 and 1500 psig, respectively Thetop and bottom rougher spindle balance functions are designed to operate pri-marily from the 760 psig system during rolling and from the 1500 psig systemwhile on roll change All work roll change functions (roll extract, top work rolloff-setting W/R side shift and clevis hook lift) operate off the remaining 2000psig system

The low pressure hydraulic system services the spindle balance It consists of 1accumulator, 1 Triplex pump, and 1 standby pump that are shared with themedium pressure system Only one pump is in operation at a time If an operatingpump fails, the standby pump can be selected to service the low pressure accumula-tor by manually operating a valve to direct fluid flow to that accumulator Thepump is started and stopped based on the accumulator level If the pump was run-ning and the stop button is pressed, it will be disabled until it has been reset bymanually pressing the start button for that pump Five directional control valves areused to control the circuits.

The medium pressure hydraulic system (1500 psig) services the roll balance Itconsists of 1 accumulator, 1 Triplex pump, and 1 standby pump that are sharedwith the low pressure system Only one pump is in operation at a time If an operat-ing pump fails, the standby pump can be selected to service the medium pressureaccumulator by manually operating a valve to direct fluid flow to that accumulator.The pump is started and stopped based on the accumulator level If the pump wasrunning and the stop button is pressed, it will be disabled until it has been reset bymanually pressing the start button for that pump Three directional control valvesare used to control the circuits

Located at the FM is a 3000 gal reservoir that supplies fluid for the FM QRCequipment, seven stands having ten circuits per stand are each controlled by direc-tional control valves (seeFig 6) Crop shear and nineteen spray banks are controlled

by seven directional control valves Make-up hydraulic fluid is provided manuallyvia a remote transfer pump, fill line, and a flow meter device that allows for fluidFIG 5 Single stand reversing rougher in roughing mill.

management The actual fluid level in the system reservoir is 2550 gal during mal rolling and is monitored by one magnetic flag level gauge.

nor-The reservoir serves several functions; the primary function is to contain allthe fluid used in the QRC and strip cooling hydraulic systems A second func-tion is to allow the fluid to be reconditioned on line This is accomplished withthe use of a local kidney loop with filtration and cooling, a magnetic filter basketand several air breathers (40 lm profile filters are used in the kidney loop filterhousing)

Centrifugal preload pumps supply hydraulic fluid from #1 tank at a chargedpressure of 40 psi to the suction side of the main pumps (#1-#4 Triplex pumps).Pumps #5 and #6 (in line axial pumps) suction ports rely on #1 reservoir head pres-sure to maintain a positive inlet pressure Therefore, #5 and #6 pumps can be oper-ated without the preload pumps System working pressure is 1750 psig Since theaccumulator weight is not precise nor is the mechanics of each accumulator exactlysimilar, it would be impossible to control loading of both accumulators simultane-ously Therefore an accumulator blocking circuit is incorporated in to each ballastaccumulator, as logic control circuit

Original design of the blocking circuit used hard limits and a timing circuit tocontrol switch over of the primary accumulator to secondary and back The hardlimits have now been replaced with an ultrasonic level control (soft limits), whichprovides greater flexibility in settings and also improves reliability The ultrasoniclimit stages the QRC pumps to load or unload the pumps based on accumulatorheight

FIG 6 Seven stands in finishing mill.

Operation of RM and FM Hydraulic Systems Using HFA-E (95/5) Hydraulic Fluid

The roughing and finishing mill hydraulic systems using the HFA-E hydraulicfluid had a history of unreliability, high maintenance costs, and poor hydraulicfluid quality In 2007, there were 17 h production delays attributable to the rough-ing and finishing mills operation resulting in $884 340 Canadian dollars (CD) oflost production opportunity and $187 000 CD of wasted energy costs while themill was idle Premature pump failures and corroded valves in addition to highhydraulic fluid leakage rates resulted in extraordinarily high maintenance costs.The reliability and maintenance costs for the two mill hydraulic systems in 2008

is summarized in Table 6 The condition of the HFA-E hydraulic fluid was fied as one of the main reasons for reliability and maintenance problems TheHFA-E hydraulic fluid continued to have high bacteria levels putting plant per-sonnel at risk despite the continued treatment of the systems with toxic bacteri-cides in an effort to control the fluid bacteria levels Fluid bacteria levels in thesystems were routinely above the 10 000 count alarm level despite weekly moni-toring and treatment The bacteria (Fig 7), by ingesting hydraulic fluid additives,compromised the fluid corrosion protection and in excreting acidic compoundsmade it impossible for the pH of the fluids to be maintained above a pH of 8.5,resulting in the systems always being in a potential corrosive state Fluid cleanli-ness was poor due to an inability to filter out the high levels of bacteria andresulting gels causing high contaminant levels including metal particulates Thelow viscosity of the fluid—less than 1 cSt at 40C—increased the internal leakageand provided minimal lubrication to the pumps Purchase of low viscosity valvescosting of 2 to 6 times as much as the current valves being used in the systemswere being considered as a last resort measure to lower the maintenance costs

identi-An investigation was initiated by ArcelorMittal Dofasco to identify alternative draulic fluids having the following properties:

hy-• Low cost

• Good corrosion and wear properties

TABLE 6 Reliability and maintenance for roughing and finishing mill hydraulic systems in 2008.

2008 Reliability and Maintenance for Roughing Mill

Reliability—24 hours of delays $1 200 000 CD of lost production opportunity

$260 000 CD wasted energy cost of idle mill Maintenance-valve and pump failures, high leakage

rates of bleed and directional valves resulting in

longer charging times and wasted energy

$600 000 CD

• Compatible with current HFA-E fluid

Thickened HFA-E Fluid Introduction

at ArcelorMittal Dofasco

In July 2009, the initial volumes of thickened HFA-E BL-8022 concentrate weretransported to ArcelorMittal Dofasco to start the process of replacing the HFA-E95/5 hydraulic fluid in the roughing mill and finishing mill hydraulic systems Acomparison of the properties of the HFA-E (95/5) hydraulic fluid used in theroughing mill and finishing mill hydraulic systems up to July 2009 and the thick-ened HFA-E hydraulic fluid based on BL-8022 concentrate are summarized inTable 7 The appearances of the two hydraulic fluids are shown inFig 8 It was esti-mated it would take approximately a year to fully change out the HFA-E 95/5 fluidFIG 7 Bacterial growth on ceiling of finishing mill reservoir.

in the roughing mill and finishing mill systems in the course of normal operation tothe thickened HFA-E BL-8022 hydraulic fluid It was determined the initial concen-tration of the BL-8022 finished fluid would be 9 % of the BL-8022 concentrate in

91 % water during the replacement process In July 2010, the concentration of the

FIG 8 Rusted housing and swashplate from # 5 and # 6 pumps.

TABLE 7 Property comparison of thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid based on BL-8022 concentrate

and original HFA-E (95/5) hydraulic fluids used in roughing and finishing mill hydraulic systems at ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

Thickened HFA-E Hydraulic Fluid from BL-8022 Concentrate

Original HFA-E (95/5) Hydraulic Fluids used at ArcelorMittal Dofasco

Falex Pin and Vee Block

- seizure load in lbs.

Vapor Phase Corrosion BASF FF0002 Pass Fail

BL-8022 concentrate in the finished hydraulic fluid was increased to 11.4 %; the geted percentage to obtain the results required by ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

tar-Bacterial Count, pH and Viscosity Results from

RM FM Hydraulic Systems Using Thickened

HFA-E Hydraulic Fluid

In the finishing mill, hydraulic system introduction of the thickened HFA-Ehydraulic fluid resulted in a significant decrease in bacterial activity The non-waterportion of HFA-E hydraulic fluids is typically comprised predominantly of mineraloil, which serves as a ready food source for bacteria The BL-8022 thickened HFA-Ehydraulic fluid contains no mineral oil, but its non-water portion is composed ofpredominantly polyalkylene glycol thickener, which is bio-resistant and does notserve as a food source for bacteria The bacterial counts recorded from samplestaken from the finishing mill reservoir from 2000 to 2013 are summarized inFig 9.The roughing mill hydraulic system demonstrated a similar decrease in bacterialactivity after replacement with the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid The bacterialcounts recorded from samples taken from the roughing mill reservoir from 2000 to

2013 are summarized in Fig 10 When the roughing and finishing mill hydraulicsystems were using the HFA-E (95/5) hydraulic fluid, the high bacterial activityFIG 9 Bacterial count of samples taken from finishing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal

Dofasco for the years from 2000 to 2013.

made it impossible to maintain the fluid at a pH above 8.5 consistently This iswhere the potential for corrosion was minimal Use of the thickened HFA-Ehydraulic fluid blended from BL-8022 concentrate in the finishing mill hydraulicsystem resulted in the average fluid pH increasing from an average of less than 8.5

to an average of approximately 9.5 in samples taken from the finishing mill voir as illustrated inFig 11

reser-A similar improvement in pH was observed in the roughing mill hydraulic tem as demonstrated inFig 12 The initial thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid replac-ing the HFA-E (95/5) hydraulic fluid in the roughing and finishing mill systemshad a blend ratio of 9 % BL-8022 concentrate to 91 % water This fluid increasedthe fluid viscosity of the finishing mill hydraulic system to approximately 15 cSt at

sys-40C In June 2010, the blend ratio of the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid used toreplenish the fluid in the system was revised to 11.4 % BL-8022 concentrate to88.6 % water This blend ratio, targeted to obtain optimum results, increased thefluid viscosity of the finishing mill hydraulic system to approximately 40 cSt at

40C The viscosity increase over the time period of June 2009 to June 2013 forsamples taken from the finishing mill reservoir are demonstrated in Fig 13 A vis-cosity increase from approximately 1 cSt at 40C to approximately 8 cSt at 40C byNovember 2010 was observed in the roughing mill hydraulic system This system,FIG 10 Bacterial count of samples taken from roughing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal Dofasco for the years from 2000 to 2012.

much smaller than the finishing mill system, was also replenishing less frequently;therefore viscosity changes due to the use of the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluidtook longer going by the calendar year The sharp increase in viscosity due toreplenishment by the higher viscosity thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid (11.4 %

FIG 12 pH of samples taken from roughing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal Dofasco for

the years from 2001 to 2012.

FIG 11 pH of samples taken from finishing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal Dofasco for the years from 2001 to 2012.

BL-8022 concentrate to 88.6 % water) was not observed until 2011 The averageroughing mill system viscosity as observed from samples taken from the roughingmill reservoir was approximately 22 cSt from 2011 to 2013 The reason the viscosity

in the roughing mill reservoir had not reached a similar viscosity to the finishing

FIG 14 Viscosity of samples taken from roughing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal Dofasco for the years from 2009 to 2013.

FIG 13 Viscosity of samples taken from finishing mill reservoir at ArcelorMittal Dofasco for the years from 2009 to 2013.

mill reservoir is not known at this time The recorded viscosities over the timeperiod from June 2009 to June 2013 for samples taken from the roughing mill reser-voir are shown inFig 14.

System Performance, Reliability and

Maintenance Cost Results from RM and FM

Using Thickened HFA-E Hydraulic Fluid

Immediately after the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid was charged to the roughingmill and finishing mill systems, the leakage rates decreased due to the fluid viscosityincrease Reduced wear rates in pumps and valves further reduced the leakage rates

As of June 2013, the overall leakage rate has decreased by 80 % from the leakagerates experienced prior to June 2009 when the systems were operating using theHFA-E (95/5) hydraulic fluid

Pumps #5 and #6 are in line tandem piston pumps that were installed as part ofthe finishing mill system to add 2  106dollars’ worth of capacity by reducing rollchange times The life of the piston pumps which fail due to corrosion (see Figs 8and15) was increased significantly with use of the thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid

as summarized inTable 7

The operational life of the 12 spray bank valves increased by 250 % resulting in

a savings of $30 000 CD The valve upgrade project to purchase “raw “water valveswas now no longer necessary resulting in a savings of $100 000 CD Maintenancecosts in 2012 were 55 % lower than that in 2008, a reduction of more than $300 000

CD as outlined inFig 16 Maintenance costs for 2013 are projected to be less than

FIG 15 Rusted and worm shoes and pistons from # 5 and # 6 pumps.

2012 System delays in 2012 were 45 % lower than the delays reported in 2008,resulting in an additional $600 000 CD of production time potentially added in

2012 This information is summarized inFig 18 The systems’ delays are projected

to decrease further in 2013 as presented inFig 17

FIG 17 Summary of maintenance costs of finishing mill and roughing mill hydraulic systems from 2008 to 2013.

FIG 16 Summary of system delays of finishing mill and roughing mill hydraulic systems and the resultant lost opportunity costs from 2008 to 2013.

Thickened HFA-E hydraulic fluid has equivalent fire-resistance to HFA-E (95/5)hydraulic fluids but has significantly improved performance in viscosity, lubricity,corrosion protection, and bacterial resistivity

At Arcelor Mittal Dofasco, the high water hydraulic fluid systems were lized with improvements in the fluid properties to include:

[5] Davis, R., “Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids,” Q J NFPA, Vol 52, 1959, pp 44–49.

[6] Myers, M B., “Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids—Their Application in British Mines,” liery Guardian, Oct 1977.

Col-[7] Harrison, A J., “Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids—Their Development and Use in the ing Industry,” Potash Technology: Mining Processing, Maintenance, Transportation, Occu- pational Health and Safety, Environment, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1983, pp 459–465.

Min-[8] Commission of the European Communities, Safety and Health Commission for the ing and Extractive Industries, Working Party Rescue Arrangements, Fires and Under-

Min-Specifications and Testing Conditions Relation to Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids Used for Power Transmission (Hydrostatic and Hydrokinetic) in Mines,” Doc 2786/8/81 E, Lux- embourg, 1983.

[9] ISO 6734/4: Lubricants, Industrial Oils, and Related Products, Class LJ—Classification— Part 4: Family H–Hydraulic Systems, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.

[10] ISO 12922: Lubricants, Industrial Oils and Related Products (class L)—Family H (hydraulic Systems), Specifications for Categories HFAE, HFAS, HFB, HFC, HFDR and HFDU, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.

[11] Factory Mutual Research Corporation, Approval Standard: Less Hazardous Hydraulic Fluid, Factory Mutual Research Corp., Nonvood, MA, 1975.

[12] FM Approvals: Approval Standard: Flammability Classification of Industrial Fluids (Class 6930), Factory Mutual Global, Johnston, RI, 2002.

[13] FM Approvals: Approval Standard: Flammability Classification of Industrial Fluids (Class 6930), Factory Mutual Global, Johnston, RI, 2009.

[14] Luxembourg Commission of the European Economic Communities, “Requirements and Tests Applicable to Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluids used for Power Transmission and Control,” L-2920m, DG\E\4, The 7th Luxembourg Report, Doc No 4746/10/91, Luxembourg, 1994.

[15] ISO 15029-2: Petroleum and Related Products—Determination of Spray Ignition teristics of Fire-Resistant Fluids- Part 2—Spray Test-Stabilized Flame Heat Release Method, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.

Charac-[16] Phillips, W D., Goode, M J., and Winkeljohn, R., “Fire-Resistant Hydraulic Fluids and the Potential Impact of New Standards for General Industrial Applications,” 100-1.12, National Fluid Power Association, Milwaukee, WI, 2000.

[17] ISO 20823: Petroleum and Related Products—Determinations of the Flammability acteristics of Fluids in Contact With Hot Surfaces – Manifold Ignition Test, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.

Char-[18] Coker, C T and Francis, C E., “The Place for Emulsions as Fire-Resistant Power mission Fluids,” Lubr Eng., Vol 12, No 5, 1956, pp 323–326.

Trans-[19] Deakin, P., “Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluids,” Mining Technol., November/December,

1990, pp 300–303.

[20] Garti, N., Felkenkrietz, R., Aserin, A., Ezrahi, E., and Shapira, D., “Hydraulic Fluids Based on Water-in-Oil Microemulsions,” Lubr Eng., Vol 49, No 5, 1993, pp 404–411.

[21] Brooke, B., “Development of a High-Water-Based Fluid System for a Universal Beam Rolling Mill,” Conference Proceedings: Hydraulics, Electrics and Electronics in Steel Works and Rolling Mills, Mannesmann Rexroth GmbH, Lohr-am-Main, Germany, 1994.

[22] Young, K J and Kennedy, A., “Development of an Advanced Oil-in Water Emulsion draulic Fluid, and it’s Application as an Alternative Mineral Oil Hydraulic Oil in a High Risk Environment,” Lubr Eng., Vol 49, No 11, 1993, pp 873–879.

Hy-[23] Janko, K., “A Practical Investigation of Wear in Piston Pumps Operated with HFA Fluids with Different Additives,” J Synth Lubr , Vol 4, 1987, pp 99–114.

[24] Rasp, R C., “Water-Based Hydraulic Fluids Containing Synthetic Components,” J Synth Lubr , Vol 6, 1989, pp 233–252.

[25] ASTM D2882 -00: Standard Test Method for Indicating the Wear Characteristics of Petroleum and Non-Petroleum Hydraulic Fluids in Constant Volume Vane Pump (Withdrawn 2003), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken,

PA, 2000.

Steven R Westbrook,1Bernard R Wright,1

Steven D Marty,1and Joel Schmitigal2

Fire Resistant Fuel for Military

Compression Ignition Engines

Reference

Westbrook, Steven R., Wright, Bernard R., Marty, Steven D., and Schmitigal, Joel, “Fire Resistant Fuel for Military Compression Ignition Engines,” Fire Resistant Fluids, STP 1573, John Sherman, Ed., pp 24–37, doi:10.1520/STP157320130177, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2014 3

ABSTRACT

During an Army research program in the mid-1980s, fire-resistant diesel fuel thatself extinguished when ignited by an explosive projectile was developed.Chemically, this fire resistant fuel (FRF) was a stable mixture of diesel fuel, 10 %water, and an emulsifier The Army FRF program ended in 1987 without fieldingthis fire resistant fuel formulation There were both technical and logisticalreasons for this Unconventional warfare experienced in Iraq and Afghanistaninvolving use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) has led the Army to restartthe FRF program in an attempt to counter the increasing threat of fuel fires.Efforts are now underway to develop new FRF to reduce and/or eliminate boththe initial mist fireball and any residual pool burning Vehicle operation andenvironmental conditions commonly cause the temperature of the fuel in thevehicles to rise above its flash point, thus making it more susceptible to beingignited This elevated fuel temperature, when combined with an ignition source such

as a ballistic penetration near the fuel tank or fuel line, significantly increases thepotential for a catastrophic fuel fire This paper will discuss some of the aspects andlimitations of developing a fire resistant fuel water emulsion and how the use of JP-

8, as intended by the single fuel forward concept, affects this development

Keywords

diesel fuel, fire resistant fuel, water-emulsified fuel

Manuscript received November 27, 2013; accepted for publication May 8, 2014; published online July 22,

2014.

1 TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility at SwRI, San Antonio, TX, 78238.

2 US Army RDECOM TARDEC, Warren, MI 48397.

3 ASTM Symposium on Fire Resistant Fluids on June 24, 2013 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Copyright V C 2014 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

STP 1573, 2014 / available online at www.astm.org / doi: 10.1520/STP157320130177

During an Army research program in the mid-1980s, fire-resistant diesel fuel thatself extinguished when ignited by an explosive projectile was developed This fireresistant fuel (FRF) was a stable mixture of diesel fuel, 10 % purified water contain-ing less than 50 ppm dissolved solids, 6 % emulsifier, and 6 % aromatic hydrocar-bon concentrate to aid in the solubility of the emulsifier [1]

Previous research, including the program headed by the Army in the 1980s,involved using a variety of approaches to reduce the flammability of fuel Theseapproaches evaluated emulsified fuel, halogenated additives, mist control addi-tives, and water-in-fuel emulsions, the latter showing the most promise, forground vehicle applications [1,2] In a water-in-fuel emulsion, water moleculesare suspended in fuel by the hydrophilic end of a surfactant which has its hydro-phobic end dissolved in the base fuel This fire resistant fuel was a clear to hazyemulsion consisting of water, emulsifier premix (equal amounts of the emulsifierand an aromatic concentrate), and diesel fuel This emulsion performed satisfacto-rily both in diesel and turbine engine systems and could be prepared in the fieldfor availability as needed Although this earlier version of FRF did not eliminatethe initial mist fireball that occurs when a projectile impacts the vehicle, it signifi-cantly reduced the fuel fire threat by retarding the flame-spread rate and wouldself extinguish spilled fuel eliminating residual pool burning The self-extinguishing characteristic resulted from the heat sink provided by the water,emulsified water on the surface of the fuel preventing fuel vaporization, and thereleased water vapor that concentrating at the surface of the fuel eliminating oxy-gen from the fuel

By 1987, the urgency for the development of a fire resistant fuel had diminishedwhich resulted in the reallocation of funding Additionally, there were both techni-cal and logistical reasons for this Filter plugging caused by the fuel at low tempera-tures and the need for high purity water (beyond the purity obtained by typicalArmy water purification systems) to ensure a stable emulsion were a few of themajor technical hurdles that the FRF program was unable to clear The logisticalburden requiring the 12 % additive solution to create the FRF was also an obstacle.Because of a combination of these problems associated with FRF, further efforts topursue this fuel were discontinued

FRF Development Project

With the start of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, attention once againreturned to the fuel fire threat that was taking its toll on both vehicles and person-nel The Army uses JP-8 aviation fuel in ground vehicle operations during combatsituations as intended by the single fuel in the battlefield policy, as directed by theDoD Directive 4140.43 entitled “Fuel Standardization,” which mandates the use ofJP-8 for air and ground forces The shift to JP-8 enabled the Air Force and the

Army to standardize on one single fuel for all operations While the Air Force madethis move, among other reasons, to increase safety by moving away from JP-4, theArmy’s move to utilize JP-8 was a move toward a more volatile fuel, with a lowerflashpoint than Diesel 2 fuel that was used previously.

JP-8 is a kerosene-based fuel containing a distribution of hydrocarbons withbetween 8 and 16 carbon numbers and having a minimum flashpoint of 38C(100F) [3] Diesel by comparison is a distillate fuel composed of a mixture ofhydrocarbons with between 12 and 21 carbon atoms per molecule giving it a mini-mum flashpoint temperature of 52C (125F) [4] The flashpoint and light endcomponents difference between diesel and JP-8 has become a large obstacle to over-come in the development of a fire resistant JP-8 formulation that will self extinguishwhen the fuel temperature is elevated to desert conditions, 65C (149F) Thehigher volatility of the JP-8 fuel when ignited at desert conditions allows for ahigher proportion of the fuel to be ignited, and this prevents the water emulsionfrom extinguishing the fire

The U.S Army uses compression ignition (diesel) engines to power a largemajority of the ground vehicles in both its tactical wheeled and combat vehiclesfleets Most of these engines utilize fuel as a cooling agent for the engines fuel injec-tor system and have a fuel delivery system that returns a portion of the fuelfrom the injectors back to the fuel tank This recirculation heats the fuel, commonlyraising the temperature of the fuel in the tank above its flash point, the lowest tem-perature that the vapor above the fuel will ignite when exposed to an ignitionsource, making the fuel more susceptible to being ignited

The heating of the fuel used in compression ignition engines, when combinedwith any direct or indirect ballistic penetration near the fuel tank or fuel line, signif-icantly increases the potential for a catastrophic fuel fire Having a fuel that wouldnot ignite under these conditions would have obvious benefits in terms of bothincreased personnel and vehicle survivability

In April 2007, a more comprehensive effort was initiated that involved thefollowing tasks:

• developing new emulsified fuel formulations,

• investigating mist control additives to diminish the fuel mist fireball,

• determining the effect of FRF on vehicle and equipment systems,

• designing a blending system for producing the FRF in the field,

• determining overall effectiveness of the FRF based on JP-8

Initially, a new baseline had to be established (for blending and flammability)using JP-8, as the previous work only evaluated diesel fuel The development of

an emulsified fuel formulation that yields a stable emulsion (i.e., one that does notseparate) using JP-8 (or diesel fuel) has been the most difficult of all theabove tasks Variables such as fuel composition, aromatic content, water quality,emulsifier/surfactant chemistry, additive interactions, etc., need to be understoodand optimized Adding to the complexity of this task is the addition of mist controladditives (long chained, high molecular weight polymers) to the emulsified fuel

formulation The long chain polymers act to control fuel mist droplet size and thusreduce the size of the initial fireball that occurs [5 7].

This paper is meant to give an overview of the main development areasassociated with formulating an optimal FRF The areas include fuel fire resistance,equipment performance impacts, and also fuel stability and applications Differen-ces between a JP-8 and a Diesel 2 fuel will also be discussed A more detailed report

of the results is also available [8]

Results

FIRE RESISTANCE

The vehicle fuel fires experienced in combat situations occur in two distinct phases.The first phase is commonly termed a fireball and seen as a fuel explosion Thefireball phase is caused by the explosive or ordnance rupturing the fuel tankand performing a rapid mechanical mixture of fuel spray and air mixture, whichcombined with the head from the explosive or ordnance manifests itself as anexplosion The second phase is the ignition and flame spread over the pool of fuelspilt on from the vehicles fuel tank The pool fire is caused by the pool of fuelhaving a sufficient enough temperature to emit enough fuel vapors into the airabove the pool surface to sustain a fire

Due to the increased volatility of the JP-8 fuel when compared to diesel fuel, it

is imperative to suppress both phases of these fires as water alone has shown it isnot capable of providing sufficient extinguishment at acceptable concentrations ofwater, as was seen in the precursor work centered around diesel fuel Therefore thegoal of the development of a fire resistant JP-8 is to minimize both phases of thesefuel fires

Ballistic testing of different mist control additives incorporated into the fied fuel formulations was conducted.Figure 1shows a side-by-side photo sequence

emulsi-of a regular JP8 and a diesel based FRF fuel In order to simulate battlefield fueltank conditions in a worst case/hot environment, the ballistic tests are being con-ducted with the FRF pre-heated to 150 deg F A 55 gallon steel barrel filled with

30 gallons of FRF test fuel is used as the test article The pre-heating and 25 gallons

of vapor space simulate worst-case threat evaluation

In the photo sequence in the left column, an untreated fuel displays typical fuelfire behavior exhibiting the initial fireball caused by the fuel mist explosion, the pro-ceeds though the flame propagation stage of the pool fire to conflagration Within asimilar time frame, an FRF (containing water and mist control additive) in the rightcolumn demonstrates a fire ball that is reduced in size by over 20 %, and self sup-presses preventing the flame propagation as seen in the untreated fuel

While the pictures in Fig 1 show testing in a blast bunker, present testing isconducted in the open, where there are no “bunker effects” with respect to oxygenstarvation or wind

In order to quantify the “fire resistance” effectiveness of a particular FRFformulation during ballistics testing, a data acquisition system is used to recordtemperature versus time measurements The system consists of 10 thermocouples(2 feet apart) spread out linearly across the testing area (just above the 30 gallonsteel barrel) Thermocouple 1 is directly above the fuel container and the remainingthermocouples are increasingly farther away toward the front of the facility Tem-perature response during testing is recorded at a logging rate of 5 kHz for a total of

30 s This information allows for the determination of the flame propagation rateand severity of the initial fireball and resulting burn where applicable.Figure 2belowFIG 1 Conventional JP8 compared to diesel FRF.

shows a representative plot of an uncontrolled burn Using this temperature andtime data, work was conducted to evaluate optimal FRF formulations exposed tovarious threat types Examination ofFig 2shows that the initial fireball was directlybeneath thermocouple 1 (at the fuel drum) but tended to shift as the fire progressed.The shifting pattern of highest temperature can be attributed to the effects of windand fuel pooling, among others The most important conclusion from these data isthe documented size and temperature of the fire/pool.

In contrast toFigs 2,3is a representation of FRF, in this case a base fuel of sel No 2 was utilized Results from FRF made with diesel fuel were shown here inorder to demonstrate the dramatic difference that can be possible The plots inFig.

Die-3 show that diesel-FRF can produce a significantly smaller initial fireball and willrapidly self-extinguish Similar tests with FRF made with JP-8 tended to produce aless-dramatic difference in fireball and self-extinguishment

To combat the fireball phase, fuel formulation work tests were conducted toevaluate the mitigation properties of several mist control additives The long chainpolymers act to control fluid droplet size by imparting non-Newtonian propertiesinto the fuel which decrease the surface to volume ratio and thus reduce the size ofthe initial fireball that occurs [5 7] Testing showed that these additives were able

to reduce fireball effects by reducing temperatures over 100C, reducing fireballduration from over 2.5 to 1.5 s, and an average 16 % reduction in fireball size Theselong chain, high molecular weight additives can reduce the initial fireball The largeFIG 2 JP-8 ballistic test—uncontrolled burn.

molecules will shear down when exposed to the high pressure injection systems ofmodern diesel engines that re-circulates a portion of the fuel back to the vehiclesfuel tank, reducing effectiveness as the vehicle completes its mission Engine testingdemonstrated that mist control additive will degrade with successive passes throughthe engine fuel system While the degraded polymer is still 1–3 orders of magnitudehigher in average molecular weight than fuel molecules, its efficacy as a mist controladditive is certainly reduced Research is underway to develop polymer mist controladditives that will be resistant to shear.

After the initial fireball, the water emulsion works to extinguish the fuel poolfire by means of the heat sink, prevention of fuel vaporization, and elimination ofoxygen as described earlier The mist control additives do not provide any firesuppression properties in the fire pool phase Because JP-8 is already at a power dis-advantage, in terms of vehicle performance, when compared to Diesel 2, formulat-ing in only “just enough” water is a critical design criteria

The JP-8 base fuel used in the formation of the FRF has a significant impact

on the ability of the fuel to self extinguish The JP-8 fuel specification 83133F) calls for a minimum flashpoint from 38C, but can range up to the high

(MIL-DTL-60 s Depending upon the refining process used to make the fuel, the flash pointwill vary within this range Because of the wide range of acceptable JP-8 flash-point temperatures, the FRF formulation must be designed to perform on thelowest flashpoint fuels encountered Utilization of a base fuel with as high of aflashpoint as possible allows for greater extinguishment characteristics to beimparted

FIG 3 Diesel 2 FRF ballistic test—controlled burn.

EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE IMPACTS

Engine dynamometer testing was done using multiple engine families commonlyused in Army vehicles Shown below is data derived from the GEP 6.5 L(T) engine.This is the engine used in the HMMWV (Hummer) and is the highest-densityengine in the Army fleet Testing was conducted to look at engine horsepower, tor-que and fuel consumption The following three charts (Figs.4–6) show the engineperformance effects experienced by utilizing JP-8 FRF based fuels In summary, itcan be seen that the addition of water to the JP-8 fuel lowers the maximum torqueand horsepower while increasing fuel consumption This is not unexpected as anyaddition of water to the fuel lowers the overall energy content of the fuel The mistcontrol additive (AMA) does add a very small amount of energy back into the fuel,but it is nearly negligible See Figs.4–6

From the above charts, an FRF based fuel with 10 % water, 250 ppm mist trol additive would be expected to provide roughly 8 %–9 % less power, torque, andfuel economy than neat JP-8

con-Engine data was used in existing vehicle models to provide a prediction of theeffects of the FRF impacts on overall vehicle performance The models showed thevehicle response to the new fuel to be minimal, it would be expected that individualvehicle operators may not notice the difference in fuel energies.Table 1details theloss in acceleration and vehicle to speed on a flat surface, whileTable 2details theloss in speed on a slope

FRF FUEL STABILITY AND PER USE MIXING

After a comprehensive initial evaluation of available fuel emulsifiers (includingpolyalkoxylated phenols, polyalkoxylated alkyl phenols, polyethoxylated esters,sorbitan esters, quarternary ammonium salts of fatty acids, cocoamidobetaine, and

FIG 4 6.5 L turbo diesel maximum power output.