Moisture Sensor Assessments

A simple, low-relative-cost, water in oil monitor is not a practical reality as of yet. Low cost sensor installations must meet particular criteria that may not be
suitable for our application. An approximate cost for a practical sensor configuration would be about $15,000-$22,000. Due to the higher than anticipated cost
of commissioning a properly functioning system, no moisture sensors are monitoring the oil quench at this time. It is obvious that greater discussion is needed
regarding this risk.

Historical records of our oil sample testing (from CLC Lubricants) show our water content to have been below 0.1% for as long as records have been kept, with
the only exception being associated with the recent incident where we significantly altered the heat exchanger.

It should be decided if water monitoring must be done to reduce the future risk of losses. If so, it should be understood that monitoring alone will do nothing to
address a moisture problem, should one arise. At a cost of $20k for monitoring with direct sensors, perhaps we should also consider a moisture removal system
coupled with a low cost ($1,200) capacitive sensor.
Sensor Types

In our quench application moisture sensors, water cut meters, or oil analyzers may be used to detect the water content within the oil. However, it is very
important to understand how these sensors function, or they simply will not work to satisfy the design purpose.

Moisture content may be measured either directly or indirectly. Indirect measurement of water content is usually indicated by sensors that indicate %RH as their
output. Direct measurement provides an output in terms of ppm, or a volumetric percentage. Conversion from one measurement to the other can be done if the
saturation limit of water in oil is known for that particular oil. However, this is a temperature dependant physical property of the oil and changes over time as
the oil ages (oxidizes).

“Capacitive” - Typically involve capacitance, or conductivity, measurements Scattered Light Probe - Reliability is questionable.
of a thin film styrene configuration to measure %RH of the oil. Sensors can Output; ppm (direct)
saturate (max out at 100%). Cannot provide a measure of water content Cost; ≈$11,000
above 100% RH. Some capacitive sensors can be permanently damaged if Low Range; 0 ppm
100% saturation occurs. High Range; 500 ppm
Output; %RH (Indirect)
Cost; $10,000 - $1,000 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscope - Costly & only single function.
Low Range; 0% RH / 0 ppm Output; ppm (direct)
High Range; 100% RH … ppm must be calculated. Cost; ≈$20,000 - $30,000
Low Range; 0 ppm
Infrared Multi Analyzer (IMA) - Can ALSO be configured to detect/measure High Range; 500 ppm
particulate matter. The particulate matter may also appear, to the sensor,
as water. As contaminants accumulate an increasing background signal will Microwave Probe - Costly & only single function.
build as well. Output; ppm (direct)
Output; ppm (direct) Cost; ≈$20,000
Cost; ≈$20,000 Low Range; 0 ppm
Low Range; 0 ppm High Range; 500 ppm
High Range; 2,000 ppm

Acoustic Probe - Might also be able to be configured to simultaneously

measure particulate matter. Same as IMA.
Output; ppm (direct)
Cost; ≈$15,000
Low Range; 0 ppm
High Range; 10,000 ppm
 Moisture sensing via direct %RH measurements

This figure illustrates two examples of quench oil that contains a fixed quantity of water while a change in temperature occurs.
 In the first case, a decrease of temperature results in a direct decrease in the saturation point. A %RH sensor would then detect an increase in RH.
Though no real change in water content (in ppm) has occurred, the %RH can increase with a temperature change.
 In the second case, the same direct relation between temperature & saturation point can be seen, but sensor output in %RH would saturate at 100%
and give no further readings. Such sensing would not be able to determine how much free water is in the system.
The second case scenario would result in sensor output that gave a false positive to stop production for high water content when in actuality the content in
terms of direct ppm by volume might still be low enough for production to continue safely.
The real, quantifiable, conditions of our system must be known more accurately or moisture sensing will not work.
0.1% water in the oil is bad … How much water is that???

We will take this to mean 0.1% by volume. This is equivalent to 1000ppm.

0.1% volume of a 17,000 gal mixture is 17 gallons.
0.1% volume of a 14,000 gal mixture is 14 gallons.

What are our solubility limits? How much free water might we have?
𝑚
𝝆=
𝑉

𝝆𝑠 = 𝑆 ∙ 𝝆𝐻2 𝑂

𝑉 ∙ 𝝆𝑠 = 𝑚𝑠
𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∙ (𝑆 ∙ 𝝆𝐻2 𝑂 ) = 𝑚𝑠

1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑥 0.00275 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻2 𝑂 𝑀𝑤 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝐻2 𝑂 (𝑉𝑜𝑙. 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠) 𝐻2 𝑂

𝑚𝑠 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
𝑀𝑤 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑥 1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑥 1 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻2 𝑂 𝝆 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝐻2 𝑂
= 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐻2 𝑂

1 0.00275 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻2 𝑂 𝑀𝑤 𝐻2 𝑂 1
𝑚𝑠 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐻2 𝑂
𝑀𝑤 𝑚𝑖𝑥 1 1 𝝆𝐻2 𝑂

1 0.00275 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐻2 𝑂 𝑀𝑤 𝐻2 𝑂 1
𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∙ (𝑆 ∙ 𝝆𝐻2 𝑂 ) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝐻2 𝑂
𝑀𝑤 𝑚𝑖𝑥 1 1 𝝆𝐻2 𝑂

𝑀𝑤 𝐻2 𝑂
𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝑚𝑜𝑙 % 𝐻2 𝑂 ∙ ∙= 𝑉𝐻2 𝑂
𝑀𝑤 𝑚𝑖𝑥

Specific Gravity, mol %, and Mw ratio are all unitless quantities, so VH2O in solution with the oil converts by simply multiplying by these coefficients. The
temperature dependence of the mol % 𝐻2 𝑂 conversion factor must be applied.

Calculations based on these principles tell us that the solubility limits for our quench are a half gallon (37ppm) at 80°F to two gallons (115ppm)
at 130°F.
Solubility Temperature Dependence Reference …
Molecular Weight of Quench Oil Reference …