UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED ALTERNATIVE FUELS COMPATIBILITY WITH ARMY EQUIPMENT TESTING – EXISTENT GUM INTERIM REPORT TFLRF No. 425 by Scott A. Hutzler U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility Southwest Research Institute ® (SwRI ® ) San Antonio, TX for U.S. Army TARDEC Force Projection Technologies Warren, Michigan Contract No. W56HZV-09-C-0100 (WD15) UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release February 2012 ADA
36
Embed
ALTERNATIVE FUELS COMPATIBILITY WITH ARMY EQUIPMENT ... · ARMY EQUIPMENT TESTING – EXISTENT GUM INTERIM REPORT TFLRF No. 425 by Scott A. Hutzler U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ALTERNATIVE FUELS COMPATIBILITY WITH ARMY EQUIPMENT TESTING – EXISTENT GUM
INTERIM REPORT TFLRF No. 425
by Scott A. Hutzler
U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®)
San Antonio, TX
for U.S. Army TARDEC
Force Projection Technologies Warren, Michigan
Contract No. W56HZV-09-C-0100 (WD15)
UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release
February 2012
ADA
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Disclaimers Reference herein to any specific commercial company, product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the Department of the Army (DoA). The opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the DoA, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Contracted Author As the author(s) is(are) not a Government employee(s), this document was only reviewed for export controls, and improper Army association or emblem usage considerations. All other legal considerations are the responsibility of the author and his/her/their employer(s)
DTIC Availability Notice Qualified requestors may obtain copies of this report from the Defense Technical Information Center, Attn: DTIC-OCC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218.
Disposition Instructions Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ALTERNATIVE FUELS COMPATIBILITY WITH ARMY EQUIPMENT TESTING – EXISTENT GUM
INTERIM REPORT TFLRF No. 425
by Scott A. Hutzler
U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility
Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®) San Antonio, TX
UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Startement A. Approved for public release
February 2012 Approved by: Gary B. Bessee, Director U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants
Research Facility (SwRI®)
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED iv
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 21-02-2012
2. REPORT TYPE Interim Report
3. DATES COVERED (From - To) December 2010 – February 2012
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Alternative Fuels Compatibility with Army Equipment Testing – Existent Gums
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER W56HZV-09-C-0100
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) Hutzler, Scott
5d. PROJECT NUMBER SwRI 08.14734.15.400
5e. TASK NUMBER WD 15
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army TARDEC Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility (SwRI®) Southwest Research Institute® P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, TX 78228-0510
U.S. Army RDECOM U.S. Army TARDEC 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT Force Projection Technologies NUMBER(S) Warren, MI 48397-5000 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT Many of the materials used for tactical fuel handling equipment were designed for use with petroleum-derived fuels, such as diesel and JP-8, which typically contain 15-25% aromatics. However, emerging synthetic turbine fuels based on iso-paraffinic kerosene (IPK), synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK), and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) typically contain no aromatics. Many of these fuels have undergone extensive testing and gained approval for use by the Air Force. As these fuels become more widely available and their use extends to ground vehicles and support equipment, their impact on current Army equipment will need to be assessed. ASTM D381 is currently used in specifications for military fuel hoses (MIL-PRF-370J) and collapsible fuel tanks (MIL-PRF-32233). This test method is used to determine if any material in contact with aviation fuels or motor gasolines causes gum contamination. This study addresses various aspects of the ASTM D381 method as a means to determine gum contamination of fuel in contact elastomeric and rubber materials. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Material compatibility, HEFA, IPK, SPK, Fischer Tropsch, jet fuel, diesel, gums, collapsible tank, hose
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT Unclassified
b. ABSTRACT Unclassified
c. THIS PAGE Unclassified
Unclassified
36
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
UNCLASSIFIED
v UNCLASSIFIED
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many of the materials used for tactical fuel handling equipment were designed for use with
petroleum-derived fuels, such as diesel and JP-8, which typically contain 15-25% aromatics.
However, emerging synthetic turbine fuels based on iso-paraffinic kerosene (IPK), synthetic
paraffinic kerosene (SPK), and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) typically contain
no aromatics. Many of these fuels have undergone extensive testing and gained approval for use
by the Air Force. As these fuels become more widely available and their use extends to ground
vehicles and support equipment, their impact on current Army equipment will need to be
assessed. ASTM D381 is currently used in specifications for military fuel hoses (MIL-PRF-370J)
and collapsible fuel tanks (MIL-PRF-32233). This test method is used to determine if any
material in contact with aviation fuels or motor gasolines causes gum contamination. This study
addresses various aspects of the ASTM D381 method as a means to determine gum
contamination of fuel in contact elastomeric and rubber materials.
As a result of this effort, several required changes to both MIL-PRF-32233 (Collapsible Tanks)
and MIL-PRF-370J (Hoses) have been addressed. These changes are needed to bring the
terminology of the methods up-to-date with the current ASTM D381 method and clarify
specifically how the method should be applied. In addition, suggestions for recommended
changes have also been made. None of the proposed changes should invalidate the established
acceptance criteria.
UNCLASSIFIED
vi UNCLASSIFIED
FOREWORD/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. Army TARDEC Fuel and Lubricants Research Facility (TFLRF) located at Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI), San Antonio, Texas, performed this work during the period
December 2010 through February 2012 under Contract No. W56HZV-09-C-0100. The U.S.
Army Tank Automotive RD&E Center, Force Projection Technologies, Warren, Michigan
administered the project. Mr. Luis Villahermosa (AMSRD-TAR-D/MS110) served as the
TARDEC contracting officer’s technical representative. Ms. Pat Muzzell, Mr. David Green, and
Mr. Eric Sattler of TARDEC served as project technical monitors.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the TFLRF technical support staff
along with the administrative and report-processing support provided by Dianna Barrera,
5.0 TEST MATERIALS ................................................................................................. 5
5.1 COLLAPSIBLE TANK MATERIAL ..................................................................................... 5 5.2 HOSE MATERIAL ............................................................................................................ 6 5.3 TEST FLUIDS ................................................................................................................... 6
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................. 8
Table 1. MIL-PRF-32233 Table I Characteristics of Tank Material Interior/Exterior .................. 3Table 2. MIL-PRF-370J Table III Hose Physical and Chemical Properties .................................. 4Table 3. Test Fluids ........................................................................................................................ 7Table 4. Simulated Distillation (°C) – Neat Fuels ....................................................................... 12Table 5. Simulated Distillation (°C) – Clay-Treated Fuels ......................................................... 13Table 6. Simulated Distillation (°C) – JP-8 Blends ..................................................................... 14Table 7. Simulated Distillation (°C) – Jet A Blends .................................................................... 15Table 8. Simulated Distillation (°C) – Solvent Blends ................................................................ 16Table 9. High Temperature Simulated Distillation (°C) – Gum Extracts .................................... 17Table 10. Baseline Gum Measurements ...................................................................................... 18Table 11. Polyurethane Soak Tests – MIL-PRF-32233 ............................................................... 19Table 12. Hose Tests – MIL-PRF-370J ....................................................................................... 21Table 13. Hose Tests at Room Temperature – MIL-PRF-370J ................................................... 21Table 14. Specimen Size – MIL-PRF-32233 ............................................................................... 23
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
Page
Figure 1. Comparison of Test Fluid Boiling Ranges ................................................................... 10Figure 2. High Temperature Simulated Distillation of Gum Residues ........................................ 11Figure 3. Percent Change in Volume Swell - Polyurethane. ....................................................... 24Figure 4. Percent Change in Volume Swell - Nitrile. .................................................................. 24
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFRL Air Force Research Lab ASTM American Society for testing and Materials DIEGME diethylene glycol monomethyl ether g gram HEFA Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids IPK Iso-Paraffinic Kerosene mg milligram mL milliliter SPK Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene ULSD Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel WPAFB Wright Patterson Air Force Base
UNCLASSIFIED
1 UNCLASSIFIED
1.0 BACKGROUND
Many of the materials used for tactical fuel handling equipment were designed for use with
petroleum-derived fuels, such as diesel and JP-8, which typically contain 15-25% aromatics.
However, emerging synthetic turbine fuels based on iso-paraffinic kerosene (IPK), synthetic
paraffinic kerosene (SPK), and Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) typically contain
no aromatics. Many of these fuels have undergone extensive testing and gained approval for use
by the Air Force. As these fuels become more widely available and their use extends to ground
vehicles and support equipment, their impact on current Army equipment will need to be
assessed.
ASTM D381 is currently used in specifications for military fuel hoses (MIL-PRF-370J) and
collapsible fuel tanks (MIL-PRF-32233). This test method is used to determine if any material in
contact with aviation fuels or motor gasolines causes gum contamination. Research is needed to
determine if this test method is appropriate for this purpose given the variety of emerging fuels.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The specific objective for this effort was as follows:
• Determine if ASTM D381 is a suitable test method for determining gum contamination
of fuels in contact with current tank and hose material.
This effort can be approached from two angles:
• effect on the fuel (i.e. gum contamination)
• effect on the material (e.g. reduction in tensile strength)
This study will attempt to weigh-in on both issues and show that ASTM D381 is a valuable
method and should remain a part of the performance specifications.
UNCLASSIFIED
2 UNCLASSIFIED
3.0 APPROACH
1) Identify the elastomeric materials used in current fuel hoses and collapsible fuel tanks
associated with tactical fuel handling equipment.
2) Analyze the extractable content of the elastomeric material to verify that the appropriate
temperature at which the test should be performed.
3) Evaluate ASTM D381 as a means to determine the extractable content of the elastomeric
material. Consider various aspects of the procedure such as:
a. evaporation time
b. evaporation temperature
c. solvent choice for solvent washed gums
d. amount of material to extract
e. number of replicates
f. surface-area for the extraction step
4) Determine the appropriate testing medium by performing a comparison of extraction
efficiencies using ASTM reference fuels, current fuels (aviation, diesel, gasoline),
emerging fuels (SPK, IPK, HEFA), and petroleum/synthetic blends.
4.0 METHODS, SPECIFICATIONS, & PROCEDURES
Current versions of the primary performance specifications and test protocols were obtained:
REINFORCEMENT: Spiral-plied synthetic fabric with wire helix TEMPERATURE: -35°F to 200°F (-37°C to 93°C)
5.3 TEST FLUIDS
The test fluids used in this study are shown in Table 3. The goal was to incorporate as many of
the emerging alternative aviation fuels as possible for comparison to the petroleum-based fuels
and the solvent-based fuel surrogates commonly referenced in the military specifications. The
UNCLASSIFIED
7 UNCLASSIFIED
synthetic fuels in this study were provided by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base. (WPAFB). With the exception of the Rentech fuel, a detailed
discussion of the fuels used in this study has already been published[1]. A complete report of the
Rentech fuel is pending and should be released by AFRL in mid 2012.
Portions of the fuels were clay-treated to remove trace additives and water and to address the
possibility of removing inherent gums from the neat fuels which affect the final gum result. As
shown in the table, various 50/50 volumetric blends were prepared to study their impact on gum
extraction.
The solvent-based fuel surrogates were prepared according to ASTM D471 and are used in this
study in lieu of aviation or motor gasolines (which would be expected to behave in a similar
manner). A 90/10 isooctane/toluene blend was proposed as a surrogate to mimic the expected
low aromatic content of the 50/50 synthetic/petroleum blends.
Table 3. Test Fluids
SwRI Sample ID Description Comments Neat Fuels
CL09-0268 Sasol IPK (neat) as received from AFRL CL10-0326 R-8 HEFA SPK (neat) as received from AFRL CL12-3318 Jet A (neat) purchased from Valero CL11-3131 Rentech FT-SPK (neat) as received from AFRL CL11-3118 Camelina HEFA SPK (neat) as received from AFRL CL11-3117 Tallow HEFA SPK (neat) as received from AFRL CL11-3107 JP-8 prepared from CL11-3100* CL11-3108 ULSD local filling station
Soak tests on the polyurethane material were performed according to MIL-PRF-32233. The
prescribed conditions for the procedure are as follows:
• 0.2-ounce (5.67g) specimen
UNCLASSIFIED
19 UNCLASSIFIED
• ~0.0625-inch squares • 8.5 fluid ounces (251.4 mL) of Reference Fuel D • 48 hours at 73 ±5 °F • Filter through Whatman 41H filter paper • Air or steam as appropriate • 45 min evaporation time • Unwashed and/or washed content • Three replicates (A, B, C)
With few exceptions, the repeatability between runs of the same bottle and between replicates on
the same fuel are remarkably good (Table 11). This data appears to show an emerging trend
linking increasing gum content to an increase in aromatic content. Running three replicates is
preferred because occasionally an anomalous result will be obtained. In addition, running
duplicate samples from the same flask is also advisable to verify repeatability.
Table 11. Polyurethane Soak Tests – MIL-PRF-32233
SwRI Sample ID Description Existent / Unwashed Gums
mg/100mL Washed Gums
mg/100mL Run 1 Run 2 Average Run 1 Run 2 Average
CL11-3318A Jet A
2 2 2
CL11-3318B 3 3 3
CL11-3318C 2 2 2
Average 2.3
CL11-3107A
JP-8 7 7 7
CL11-3107B 7 7 7
CL11-3107C 5 6 6
Average 6.7
CL11-3108A ULSD (neat)
13 13 13
CL11-3108B 15 15 15
CL11-3108C 14 15 14
Average 14.0
CL09-0268A
Sasol IPK (neat) 1 1 1
CL09-0268B 1 2 1
CL09-0268C 1 1 1
Average 1.0
CL10-0326A R-8 (neat)
3 3 3
CL10-0326B 2 2 2
CL10-0326C 2 2 2
Average 2.3
CL11-2946A
CT Sasol IPK <1 <1 <1
CL11-2946B <1 1 <1
CL11-2946C 1 1 1
Average 0.3
CL11-2947A CT R-8
1 1 1
CL11-2947B 1 1 1
CL11-2947C 1 1 1
Average 1.0
CL11-3147A
CT Rentech >1 1 <1
CL11-3147B 1 1 1
CL11-3147C 1 1 1
Average 1.0
UNCLASSIFIED
20 UNCLASSIFIED
Table 11. Polyurethane Soak Tests – MIL-PRF-32233
SwRI Sample ID Description Existent / Unwashed Gums