We live in a time where established approaches and schedules for lubrication are being disrupted. Supply chain issues are hitting at the heart of machinery lubrication. When its "time" to re-grease or change oil, and the lubricant we need is not available, what can we do? Rich Wurzbach will talk about strategies that utilize oil and grease analysis and lubricant compatibility studies that are becoming necessary to navigate these challenging times, and maintain critical machinery availability without compromising performance and machine life. Take a walk through MRG Labs and learn how test stand and advanced laboratory instrument testing is utilized to define grease compatibility. If you are not using oil or grease analysis fully today, it means that you have not been optimizing lubrication requirements for your equipment. And when you think you need a lubricant that is not available, you may find that you don't really need it after all. This live presentation will allow Q&A where you can share your current challenge, and discuss ways to overcome the broken lubricant supply chain.

1. Lubricating Machinery in
at time of Supply Chain
Chaos

2. Supply Chain Chaos
 Neil Canter, president of Chemical Solutions and technical advisor to
the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE) told
Plant Engineering he expects manufacturers to be dealing with
supply chain issues for the balance of the decade—until more
regional supply chains are established and reliable sourcing of raw
materials is achieved.
 “The reality is, we don’t know exactly when the pressure on supply
chains will ease. However, companies and governments are
increasingly realizing that supply chains need to be reimagined and
reconfigured to better adapt to ongoing uncertainty.”

3. Unavailable lubes: effects for my machines
 Deferring oil changes
 Regreasing with different greases
 Who says I really need some new lubricant?
 Can I filter instead?
 Can I buy time with “sweetening”?
 Can I re-additize?
 Might my oil or grease actually be able to last longer?

4. The Answers are in LUBE ANALYSIS
 Testing oil for current condition before executing oil change
PMs
– Remaining life may be present
– Life extension possible with filtering/replenishment
– Some companies have eliminated time-based oil changes
 Testing grease to OPTIMIZE useage in specific machine
applications
– Eliminate the “estimates” that are present in current re-greasing
frequencies

5. Field Sampling Workshop
5
 Custom kit created for sampling
swashplates, hanger bearings and splines
 Kit design followed ASTM Standard D7718
“Standard Practice for Obtaining In-
Service Samples of Lubricating Grease”
 Kit modified to maximize transfer of grease
for small splines
 Training session held using the kit during a
scheduled maintenance activity

6. – Elemental iron (Fe) an indication of small rubbing wear, fretting wear, and corrosion or
rust
– Elemental silver (Ag), present as an anti-fretting coating on splines and some bearing
cages
– Elemental silicon (Si), as an indication of external contaminant particles
– Ferrous debris level, for bearing and spline tooth wear
– Moisture, as an external contaminant
– Die Extrusion Index (consistency), measures the breakdown of the grease thickener
over time or loss of base oil
– Oxidation Index: greases in study had one or two anti-oxidants. Index is a weighted
total of 300.
6
7 Parameters to Influence Grease Life

7.  Oxidation Rating is based on
Index of 300 for all of a
remaining anti-oxidant, with 2x
weighting for the Phenolic
 Curve fit used to extrapolate
against equipment hours for
remaining Index of 75 (25% of
new grease)
 Grease is considered
“depleted” of oxidation
resistance; used to set optimal
relubrication interval
Oxidation Rating Graph

8. – Most lubrication intervals were doubled
– Final service interval determinations can be aligned with
maintenance optimization effort completed by Boeing
– Reduction of lubrication tasks from 98 to 56 per 1000 flight hours
– Reduction from 20 service interruptions per 1000 flight hours to 10
– Savings of ~$100 million annually on elimination of greasing tasks
8
Results of Study

9. Why run a Compatibility Testing?
 Evaluating lubricant mixtures can prevent issues when supply or
formulation changes have happened
 Even if greases are made with the same base oil and thickener type
they may be incompatible
 If the greases are incompatible, mixing them during use could lead to
significant changes in grease flow characteristics and shear behavior
which would result in inadequate lubrication
 If the oils are incompatible, mixing them during use could lead to
foaming issues, seal swelling, demulsibility issues, additive interaction

10. Prep for Compatibility Study
Grease Mixture pre-mixed Grease Mixture mixed

11. Grease Compatibility Study– per D6185
 Primary testing using three standards to evaluate grease
mixtures (10:90, 50:50 and 90:10)
– Dropping point by D566/D2265
– Shear stability by D217
– Storage stability by D217
 If all mixtures pass primary testing or if an application requires
specific evaluation secondary compatibility tests can be used
for further evaluation

12. MRG Compatibility Study– added steps
 The baselines and 10:90, 50:50
and 90:10 mixtures and mixed
and verified using FTIR and
RDE
 The baselines and mixtures and
packed and worked on our test
stand for 72 hours
 Using D7718 samples are
pulled, and rheological
properties are evaluated for
changes

13. Interpreting Results
 To pass the mixtures need to have responses that are
between the two baseline greases
 Changes outside of this can cause the grease mixture to
perform differently than expected

14. Interpreting Results- Passed

15. Interpreting Results- Failed
Baseline 1
Baseline 1
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Baseline 2
Baseline 2

16. Oil Compatibility Study
 Step 1: Test two different oil baselines are evaluated using RDE per
D6595, particle count reported per ISO 4406, Viscosity per D445,
Foaming per D1401, Demulsibility per D1401, and Filterability per ISO
13357
 Step 2: Baselines are mixed in ratios of 98:2, 50:50, and 2:98. These
mixture ratios allowed MRG to gain insight into what the properties of the
oil would be when the new oil is first added, when the ratio of the two oils
is equal, and when the system contains mainly new oil and only a small
amount of the first oil remains.
 Step 3: The mixtures are tested and compared to the baseline samples

17. Viscosity
Description Viscosity (cSt)
Baseline 1 60.9
Baseline 2 60.5
50:50 Mix 60.4
98:2 Mix 61
2:98 Mix 59.5
Viscosity testing indicated that the baseline oils had very similar
viscosities, and that mixing the two had a negligible effect on
the mixtures viscosity results.

18. Foaming
Foam (mL)
Description Blowing Settling
Baseline 1 0 0
Baseline 2 20 0
50:50 Mix 0 0
98:2 Mix 0 0
2:98 Mix 10 0
Foam testing indicated that Baseline 1 oil has negligible foaming tendency,
while Baseline 2 oil has a small foaming tendency. The foam did not have
stability and settles back down within the allowed settling period.

19. Demulsibility
Description
Layer volumes (mL)
(Oil – Water - Emulsion)
Time to separation
(min)
Baseline 1 2 – 27 - 51 30
Baseline 2 2 – 38 - 40 30
50:50 Mix 2 – 30 - 48 30
98:2 Mix 2 – 34 - 44 30
2:98 Mix 2 – 38 - 40 30
Water separability testing indicated that neither oil was able to fully
separate from the water mixture within the 30-minute time limit.

20. Filterability
Baseline 1 Baseline 2

21. Interpreting Results
 When evaluating we look for poor performance that will
indicate an issue that would have a negative impact on the
asset
 During the study shared no negative results were noted from
mixing the two oil baselines and completing the analytical
tests

22.  For Compatibility Studies, Grease Analysis, Oil Analysis, and
Sampling Supplies contact:
 MRG Labs
 410 Kings Mill Rd
 York, PA 17401
 www.mrgcorp.com
 +1 717 843 8884