Pore Blockage PC description

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
531
Location
Columbus, Ohio
I have been asked for a description of the Pore Blockage method used in my used engine oil analysis: it is as follows:
Particle Counting (BS3406)
"The pore blockage method is a widely used method of obtaining an automatic particle count. In this method, a volume of fluid is passed through a mesh screen with a clearly defined pore size, commonly 10 microns. There are two instrument-types that use this method. One instrument measures the flow decay across the membrane as it becomes plugged while pressure is held constant, first with particles greater than 10 microns, and later by smaller particles as the larger particles plug the screen. The second measures the rise in differential pressure across the screen while the flow rate is held constant as it becomes plugged with particles. Both instruments are tied to a software algorithm, which turns the time-dependent flow decay or pressure rise into an ISO cleanliness rating according to ISO 4406:99.
While pore block particle counters do not suffer the same problems as optical particle counters with respect to false positive caused by air, water, dark fluid, etc., they do not have the same dynamic range as an optical particle counter, and because the particle size distribution is roughly estimated, are dependent on the accuracy of the algorithm to accurately report ISO fluid cleanliness codes according to ISO 4406:99. Nevertheless, they accurately report the aggregate concentration of particulates in the oil, and in certain situations, particularly dark fluids such as diesel engine oils and other heavily contaminated oils, pore block particle counting does offer advantages."
 
Quote:


I have been asked for a description of the Pore Blockage method used in my used engine oil analysis: it is as follows:
Particle Counting (BS3406)
"The pore blockage method is a widely used method of obtaining an automatic particle count. In this method, a volume of fluid is passed through a mesh screen with a clearly defined pore size, commonly 10 microns. There are two instrument-types that use this method. One instrument measures the flow decay across the membrane as it becomes plugged while pressure is held constant, first with particles greater than 10 microns, and later by smaller particles as the larger particles plug the screen. The second measures the rise in differential pressure across the screen while the flow rate is held constant as it becomes plugged with particles. Both instruments are tied to a software algorithm, which turns the time-dependent flow decay or pressure rise into an ISO cleanliness rating according to ISO 4406:99.
While pore block particle counters do not suffer the same problems as optical particle counters with respect to false positive caused by air, water, dark fluid, etc., they do not have the same dynamic range as an optical particle counter, and because the particle size distribution is roughly estimated, are dependent on the accuracy of the algorithm to accurately report ISO fluid cleanliness codes according to ISO 4406:99. Nevertheless, they accurately report the aggregate concentration of particulates in the oil, and in certain situations, particularly dark fluids such as diesel engine oils and other heavily contaminated oils, pore block particle counting does offer advantages."




Thanks George,

Now I know why all the levels of particle size were mathematically the same ratio between your OEM filter and the Eao filter in your "partticle count" thread.

Realistically, then, we have no way of knowing if the Eao really filters down to 2 microns, because a 15 or 10 micron screen is used, and values are obtained by a formula, presumably based on prior filter experiences. A truly exceptional filter will not follow these guidelines, so the test is basically worthless for any particle size other than the size screened, IMHO.

You did say that you also used a laser test, as the pore blockage method revealed the oil to be extremely clean. Could you explain that method? I read the articles, but didn't see the size range it could detect.

Thanks again
-Bob
 
The laser method is very, very accurate IF all conditions are excellent: i.e. good clear oil, no water present, etc. The difference is that it actually measures all of the various size spectrum from 4 microns on up. As I shared, we were able to run the laser as backup confirmation on my original EaO sample as the oil was 'near new' and had not yet darkened to the point where the laser was unusable. As I indicated, the laser did closely follow the pour blockage methodology results. The grid used in pour blockage is a 10 micron which is right on target where I feel we need to be with engine oil filtration. And from my findings, the Amsoil EaO is basically a 10 micron filter, with performance falling off below 10 microns, which is fine with me.

From my experience, capturing the >10 micron size component is key in component life maximization, which the EaO does very, very well... And little or no concern with George Morrison, STLE CLS
 
I just had the lab "try" and run a laser on the used Mobil 1R as the pour blockage numbers seemed "too good"... So, it was just as a confirmation of the pour blockage ISO cleanliness rather than a direct compare compare. So, no, did not retain the actual laser counts and was not charged for the run. They just did it as an informal confirmation of "yes, whatever filter you used IS that good" type thing and that the very low pour blockage ISO reported was correct... Sorry...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
 
Thanks George. I'll see if I can arrange for actual laser counts myself in addition to the pore blockage method so that we can see how they compare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top