Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to RTP Study Quantifies Sucker Rod Guide Material Performance Using ASTM Tests
Similar to RTP Study Quantifies Sucker Rod Guide Material Performance Using ASTM Tests (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
RTP Study Quantifies Sucker Rod Guide Material Performance Using ASTM Tests
- 1. rtpcompany.com rtp@rtpcompany.com Duncan Hogg Energy Market Manager Sucker Rod Material Performance using ASTM Test Methods North American Artificial Lift 2018 Copyright 2018 RTP Company
- 2. ROD GUIDE COMPOUNDS • RTP Company undertook a study to quantify sucker rod guide thermoplastic material wear and abrasion performance using ATSM test methods. • The goal was to understand the performance of existing rod guide materials to develop future thermoplastic rod guide compounds. • For the study RTP Company generated • ASTM D3702 – sliding wear data • ASTM G105 and ASTM G75 - abrasive wear data • PEEK, PPS, PPA, PK, PA and PE compounds • This presentation shares the results of the study.
- 3. • RTP Company • Plastics 101 • Materials Tested • Test Methods and Results • ASTM D3702 – Sliding Wear • ASTM G75 and G105 – Abrasive Wear • Conclusions ROD GUIDE COMPOUNDS
- 4. ABOUT RTP COMPANY RTP Company is an independent, privately owned thermoplastics compounder with global manufacturing, engineering support, and sales representation. • 2000+ employees • $650+ million annual sales • 21 RTP Global Locations
- 5. CUSTOM SOLUTIONS High-Tech Compounds to Unfilled Resins • 60+ resins • 100s of modifiers • Broadest range of competitive compounds (From talc polypropylene to nanotube PEEK) Annual Production • 6,000+ commercial products • 1,750+ new products per year
- 6. GLOBAL MANUFACTURING RTP Company has 100+ sales & support employees worldwide: Americas – Canada, United States, Mexico, Brazil Asia/Pacific Rim – China, Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, India Europe – Austria, Netherlands, France, Germany, Poland, United Kingdom
- 7. PRODUCT FAMILIES Strategic Businesses with dedicated investment in Formulations Engineers, Development Equipment, Manufacturing Expertise, and Commercial Support Color Conductive Flame Retardant Thermoplastic Elastomers Structural Wear Resistant Film - Wiman Sheet - ESP™
- 9. COMPOUNDS TESTED Compound Description Base Polymer RTP 799 X 133266 PE UHMW/Alloy PE RTP 205 TFE 15 PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA 6/6 RTP 2099 X 115497 C PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA6/6 RTP 299 X 134894 B PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PA 6/6 RTP 4500 SI 2 PK Silicone Oil PK RTP 4505 TFE 15 PK GF/TFE PK RTP 4099 X 132829 PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPA RTP 1399 X 138885 B Blk PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS RTP 1399 X 91160 PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PPS RTP 2205 PEEK GF PEEK RTP 2299 X 125404 A PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material PEEK
- 10. BASE RESIN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES COMPARISON HDT ◦F 264 PSI Max Use Temp ◦F Melt Temp ◦F Moisture Absorption Tensile Strength PSI PE 108 180 300 0.10% 2900 PK 215 185 432 0.50% 9,250 PA 66 221 284 515 3.10% 10,000 PPA 280 330 617 2.20% 9,800 PPS 275 392 536 0.05% 12,000 PEEK 320 500 649 0.50% 14,000
- 11. TEST MATRIX Compound ASTM Abrasive Wear ASTM Thrust Washer – Sliding Wear D3702 – Pressure (P) Velocity (V) Compounds G 105 G 75 2k PV 5k PV 10k PV 20k PV PE UHMW/Alloy X X X X X X PA66 GF/TFE X X X X X X PA66 PP/GF/Alloy X X X X X X PA66 UHMW PE Alloy X X X X X X PK Silicone Oil X X X X X PK GF/TFE X X X PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) X X X X X X PPS GF (sucker rod guides) X X X X X X PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH X X X X X X PEEK GF X X X X X X PEEK CF/ceramic X X X X X X
- 12. SLIDING WEAR Sliding (Adhesive) Wear Mechanism • The primary mechanism for thermoplastic wear • Characterized by transfer of material from one part to the other caused by frictional heat
- 13. SLIDING WEAR TESTING ASTM D-3702 “Thrust Washer” Wear Test Rotating Molded or machined sample Stationary Thrust washer (steel, aluminum, plastic, etc.) K = W/(F x V x T) K = Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr) ∙ 10-10 (mm3/N-m) ∙ 10-8 W = Volume Wear in3 mm3 F = Force lb N V = Velocity ft/min m/sec T = Elapsed Time hr sec • 100 Hour Test • Lower Value = Better Wear Resistance • A Wear Factor (K) of 100 or less is considered a good wear and friction material. • Materials able to perform at Pressure and Velocity (PV) greater than 20,000 PV are good bearing materials.
- 14. ASTM D3702 RESULTS 0 100 200 300 400 500 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 20,000 PV Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr)*E-10 Wear Factor against C1018 Steel @ 20,000 PV (250 psi – 80 ft/min)
- 15. ASTM D3702 RESULTS 0 100 200 300 400 500 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PK GF/TFE PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 10,000 PV Wear Factor against C1018 Steel @ 10,000 PV (50 psi – 200 ft/min) Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr)*E-10
- 16. ASTM D3702 RESULTS 0 100 200 300 400 500 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PK GF/TFE PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 5,000 PV Wear Factor against C1018 Steel @ 5,000 PV (50 psi – 100 ft/min) Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr)*E-10
- 17. ASTM D3702 RESULTS 0 100 200 300 400 500 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PK GF/TFE PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 2,000 PV Wear Factor against C1018 Steel @ 2,000 PV (40 psi – 50 ft/min) Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr)*E-10
- 18. 0 100 200 300 400 500 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PK GF/TFE PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 2,000 PV 20,000 PV ASTM D3702 RESULTS
- 19. ABRASION IS DIFFERENT THAN SLIDING WEAR ! Abrasive wear occurs when a hard material scrapes or abrades away at a softer material or a 3rd party abrader is introduced.
- 20. ASTM G 105 ABRASION TEST • Test Method: • Tested against 60 Shore D Neoprene Rubber wheel 1000 cycles • Exposed to sand slurry - 0.94 parts deionized water to 1.50 parts AFS 50-70 test sand slurry • Average Mass Loss is measured 20 lbs.
- 21. ASTM G105 SAND SLURRY ABRASION TEST 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material Mass Loss (mg)
- 22. Test Method: • Specimens Tested in 50:50 (by mass) deionized water, AFS 50-70 test sand slurry • Two 6 hour tests split into 2 hour increments run for each compound Test yields: • Mass loss rate in mg • SAR (Slurry Abrasivity Response) ASTM G75 ABRASION TEST Specimen Rubber Abrasive Slurry
- 23. ASTM G75 ABRASION TEST 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material Mass Loss (mg)
- 24. ABRASION VS SLIDING WEAR 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 PE UHMW/Alloy PA66 GF/TFE – Bearing Material PA66 PP/GF/Alloy PA66 UHMW PE Alloy PK Silicone Oil PPA GF/IM (sucker rod guides) PPS GF (sucker rod guides) PPS CF/PTFE/GRPH – Bearing Material PEEK GF PEEK CF/ceramic –Bearing Material 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 ASTM D3702 - 20,000 PV ASTM G 105 Wear Factor (in3-min/ft-lb-hr)*E-10 mg
- 25. CONCLUSION • None of the test methods duplicate downhole conditions; temperature, pressure, velocity, chemical exposure, etc. • The data suggests ASTM abrasive wear test methods are a better indicator of performance in rod guide applications than ASTM D 3702 sliding wear test method. • RTP has successfully formulated new rod guide compounds based on the data generated from the study.
- 26. rtpcompany.com rtp@rtpcompany.com Thank You! Copyright 2018 RTP Company
Editor's Notes
- Hope everyone is doing well this morning and want to thank you for coming to this presentation As the title states – I’m going to talk about rod guide materials and testing conducted by RTP.
- RTP has supplied rod guide compounds for years Over the years customers have asked for improved materials and we needed tools to develop new compounds
- Timeline to include: 1923 – Miller Waste Mills 1948 – Fiberite 1982 – RTP Company 2006 – Wiman Corporation 2015 – Engineered Sheet Products (ESP) & Alloy Polymers
- 21 one plants located close to our customers
- 8 product families This presentation will focus on wear and structural products
- Common depiction of the plastics hierarchy Base of pyramid is high volume low temperature products Top of pyramid is high temperature lower volume products Amorphous products typically have good transparency Semi-crystalline typically have better chemical resistance and mechanical properties All products in study are semi-crystalline
- 11 compounds in the study PPA and PPS grades are common rod guide compounds PE UHMW/Alloy used as replacement for machined rod guides - but not as common as PPA and PPS grades in study PA 6/6, PPS and PEEK are bearing grade compounds used successfully used in number of different applications - They include additives to reduce friction.
- Properties in table are based on unfilled material Higher tensile and HDT are improved with fillers. (heat distortion temperature a temperature at which material has 100,000 psi modulus) Study included materials ranging from lower temp commodity materials - such as PE to high performance PEEK grades. Moisture absorption is a indicator of chemical resistance PA and PPA have the highest moisture absorption and will have reduced performance in hot wet environments.
- Test matrix included two ASTM abrasive wear tests - One sliding wear test at 4 different pressure and velocity levels
- Typical wear mechanism for bearings Internal lubricant (PTFE, graphite) are used in sliding wear compounds to reduce friction
- How many people are familiar with this test RTP conducted 3702 testing in house The sample being tested is rotated – average of three samples used to generate results Stationary washer can be any material – for this study 1018 steel was used. Dry test – 24 hour break-in period prior to starting 100 hour test – long test Standard wear test for bearing materials used in automotive applications Provides coefficient of friction data is generated during test. The wear factor is calculated based on test conditions and volume of material removed during the test.
- 20,000 PV achieved with 250 psi and 80 ft./min High temp PEEK and bearing grade PPS only materials to pass at 20k PV. All other materials reached wear limit before the 100 hour test was completed. PEEK and PPS bearing grades have limiting PVs greater than 100k PV and work at temperatures greater than 300F. GF PEEK will reach wear limit at 25 -30 PV Rod guide materials performed very poorly at 20k – lack of internal lubricants increase frictional heat - promoting excessive wear Bearing grade PA66 also failed – high pressure causing frictional temperatures to increase wear and failure
- Pressure is reduced and velocity increased to achieve 10k PV All materials passed except PPS rod guide compound PPS bearing grade performed very well PE UHMW Alloy, PA66 Alloy and PK with silicone perform the best – UHMW is a great lubricate. Commodity plastics typically perform well in lower pressure sliding wear applications - part deformation less of a concern
- Velocity is reduced to achieve 5k PV Trend is similar to 10k PV – glass filled PEEK perfuming better PPS GF grade still reached wear limit
- Pressure and velocity reduced and all grades pass test. Similar trend to 5k and 10k PV
- Comparing 20k and 2k - only formulas to be considered as good sliding wear grades are the PEEK and bearing grade PPS High pressure at 20k PV is the biggest factor in limiting performance of PA wear grade
- Third – party (Sand) is more common in rod guide applications – sliding bearing applications typically don’t have abraders
- Short test – takes a couple of hours - RTP has equipment in house Good wet abrasion test
- Rod guide materials showing better results in wet sand testing Commodity and engineering grades also have good abrasion resistance - PE UHMW/Alloy the best PPS bearing grade poorest performer
- Longer more expensive test – similar motion to rod guide Results from third-party SAR does allow for testing of different slurry's
- Even though the test is longer results are similar to G105 test – higher mass loss than G105 – Longer test did not cause any of the materials to reach a breaking point – which can happen in sliding wear testing and applications
- Comparing sliding to abrasive wear – most of the materials failed at 20k PV which is considered a minimum for good sliding wear materials PPS was the best in sliding wear and worst in abrasive wear
- PA and PPA grades most effected by higher temperature wet environments Of course commodity PE and PE Alloys are limited by temperature because of lower temperature capability ASTM G75 largest data set but very expensive to run and time consuming
- Thank you for your time and consideration. Are there any questions about the information I’ve presented today?