JIS K2234 - circulating corrosion property test

In a previous blog we discussed the Japanese Industrial Standards JIS K 2234. In this post the circulating corrosion property test, item 8.7 in JIS K 2234:2006 will be further explored.

JIS K 2234:2006 is very similar in its methodology to the ASTM D3306 and indeed other international specifications. As such the test method for the Circulating Corrosion property itself is very similar to the ASTM D 2570 Simulated Service test. Still there are some important differences that make the JIS test method different enough to result in sometimes very different corrosion data compared to the ASTM equivalent. The most important differences include:

Difference with ASTM D2570

Impact

Comments

JIS Coupons set

Minor

Only minor difference in alloys

Engine parts

Unknown

More freedom in JIS to select the test materials and engine parts

    Waterpump

 

    Market defined

    Radiator

 

    Market defined from 1.6L engine

    Hoses

 

    JIS reference

Test conditions

High

 

    Dilution

 

Only 30%

    Test duration

 

 

    Class 1: 336h
    Class 2: 1000h

The required test dilution is likely the most impactful difference from the ASTM D 2570 test. As a result of the low treat rate the test seems to favor more traditional technologies where high dosing is more prevalent and the fact that the actual test conditions are relatively mild also disadvantages the technologies that are kinetically less favoured or that are more effective under severe conditions (such as OAT technologies). The JIS test also allows for more flexibility in the actual design of the test. This has resulted in very different test set-ups around the industry. The impact of these changes is not always well understood but will further contribute to the uncertainty of the outcome.

The test conditions and possibly the test set-up, although very similar to the ASTM D 2570, do have a significant impact. Depending the lab running the JIS K2234 different results have been obtained when looking to the identical coolant formulation. Consequently, correlation to field data is not always given and products have an immaculate field record of proven performance, will not guarantee passing results in this test. In addition, the opposite is sometimes observed where products giving passing results in this test are showing significant weaknesses when introduced in the market. Clearly the test should not be used in isolation when evaluating the performance of a coolant formulation.