What is the most destructive particle size?
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
probably the biggest one that doesnt easily get filtered out.
JMH
JMH
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
probably the biggest one that doesnt easily get filtered out.
JMH
Indeed - if the filter is not catching 10s and above, or 20s and above....yikes! I mean we are thinking in the dream realm.....how many 20+um particles are in your oil system???
probably the biggest one that doesnt easily get filtered out.
JMH
Indeed - if the filter is not catching 10s and above, or 20s and above....yikes! I mean we are thinking in the dream realm.....how many 20+um particles are in your oil system???
Hi,
in testing done by Glacier "Cleaning of lubricating oil - The needs of the future" (using a 15w-40 lubricant, 3x 2.5ltr Turbo intercooled diesel engines)in 1995 it was found that a centrifuge captured the
The engines filters were
1 - FF filter
2 - FF filter, plus centrifuge
3 - 45 micron FF SS screen, plus centrifuge
In the trapped contaminant "mix" the following % of particles were found;
>10m = 1%
5-10m = 1%
3-5m = 2%
2-3m = 4%
1-2m = 20%
0.5-1m = 29%
0.25-0.5m = 25%
Roughly 91% of contaminants were less than 2m
IMHO this is but one reason why HTHS viscosities have become increasingly important. Most long term wear is likely to be caused by particles below 15m - a significant amount is below 2m
It was found that engine 3 had a 300% increase in Iron particles over engine 2 indicating that a normal good quality FF filter will trap contaminants down to 15m
Heavy diesel engines using a centrifuge certainly appear to show much less wear in valve trains, bearings and piston/cylinder areas than those without. This has been my experience
in testing done by Glacier "Cleaning of lubricating oil - The needs of the future" (using a 15w-40 lubricant, 3x 2.5ltr Turbo intercooled diesel engines)in 1995 it was found that a centrifuge captured the
The engines filters were
1 - FF filter
2 - FF filter, plus centrifuge
3 - 45 micron FF SS screen, plus centrifuge
In the trapped contaminant "mix" the following % of particles were found;
>10m = 1%
5-10m = 1%
3-5m = 2%
2-3m = 4%
1-2m = 20%
0.5-1m = 29%
0.25-0.5m = 25%
Roughly 91% of contaminants were less than 2m
IMHO this is but one reason why HTHS viscosities have become increasingly important. Most long term wear is likely to be caused by particles below 15m - a significant amount is below 2m
It was found that engine 3 had a 300% increase in Iron particles over engine 2 indicating that a normal good quality FF filter will trap contaminants down to 15m
Heavy diesel engines using a centrifuge certainly appear to show much less wear in valve trains, bearings and piston/cylinder areas than those without. This has been my experience
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
What is the most destructive particle size 5,10,20 microns?
Depends on how many over how long they're in there as well as their composition. Eventually you're glass beading stuff.
As Doug (hello!) sorta says, there can be reductions in wear if you can get lower. The rate of return in investment into achieving it is tough on anything other than a commercial rig. You've got to be committed to getting the most out of it and it mostly translates to reduced downtime by keeping the oil clean enough to stay in service ..which, if you think about it, is sorta saying the same thing from another end view.
What is the most destructive particle size 5,10,20 microns?
Depends on how many over how long they're in there as well as their composition. Eventually you're glass beading stuff.
As Doug (hello!) sorta says, there can be reductions in wear if you can get lower. The rate of return in investment into achieving it is tough on anything other than a commercial rig. You've got to be committed to getting the most out of it and it mostly translates to reduced downtime by keeping the oil clean enough to stay in service ..which, if you think about it, is sorta saying the same thing from another end view.
Hi,
Gary - As I have said before on here, the condemnation points for extended OCIs on heavy high speed diesels IME is either that the ppm limit is reached for Iron or that the Soot % level is!
Keeping the circulated particle size low at these levels (and for extended OCIs) is very important for extending component life in consort. This enables less internal cam component adjustments and extends seal life etc
For most people it is not worthwhile as a cost benefit study will usually only show a return when vehicles have high utilisation (250kkms per annum) and are retained for around four years or so without major repairs
Good quality synthetic media FF filters allow very good particle uptake to their limits and allow good lubricant flow rates at the same time
Gary - As I have said before on here, the condemnation points for extended OCIs on heavy high speed diesels IME is either that the ppm limit is reached for Iron or that the Soot % level is!
Keeping the circulated particle size low at these levels (and for extended OCIs) is very important for extending component life in consort. This enables less internal cam component adjustments and extends seal life etc
For most people it is not worthwhile as a cost benefit study will usually only show a return when vehicles have high utilisation (250kkms per annum) and are retained for around four years or so without major repairs
Good quality synthetic media FF filters allow very good particle uptake to their limits and allow good lubricant flow rates at the same time
Last edited:
- Status
