ISO 4548 & ISO 16889 Side by Side Comparison

[ISO55000]

The other thread piqued my interest and see what (if any) significant difference(s) exist between ISO 4548 1 thru 12 and ISO 16889 since a lot of people seem to use that as a baseline for comparing filters. I don’t do any automotive so I never had need to review the standard but I figured it best to read it so I can speak factually when referencing it.(That one wasn’t cheap)

I just got my registered copy of 4548 and am reading through it and comparing it to my copy of 16889.

I was just going to post for those interested exactly what the standard does (in detail) and how accurate it is when testing across brands and what those numbers actually mean.

So if anyone has anything specific they want to know while I am reading through this standard and making notes- post it and I’ll hunt for it for you or let you know if the standard even addresses it.

 

[Oil Changer]

It will be over the heads of most people. Post what you got and we will run with it.

 

[fredfactory]

Thanks for doing that. The 4548-12 is more popular than the SAE J1858 >>> "This standard establishes a multipass filtration performance test with continuous contaminant injection for lubricating oil filter elements. It also includes a procedure for determining the contaminant capacity, particulate removal characteristics, and pressure loss. It also includes a test currently applicable to lubricating oil filter elements which exhibit a 10 µm filtration ratio of less than 75 and a rated flow between 4 and 600 L/min. This standard provides a test procedure which yields reproducible test data for evaluating the filtration performance of a lubricating oil filter element."

In 4548-12, which is what Fram and most other oil filter makers use for a standardized test (i.e., Ultra does 99.5% at 20 microns 4548-12), what do the specify for the size distribution of particles? Is it a linear distribution of sizes from 1 micron to 100 microns? Or are the particle sizes in groups of 5 or something like that?

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Thanks for doing that. The 4548-12 is more popular than the SAE J1858 >>> "This standard establishes a multipass filtration performance test with continuous contaminant injection for lubricating oil filter elements. It also includes a procedure for determining the contaminant capacity, particulate removal characteristics, and pressure loss. It also includes a test currently applicable to lubricating oil filter elements which exhibit a 10 µm filtration ratio of less than 75 and a rated flow between 4 and 600 L/min. This standard provides a test procedure which yields reproducible test data for evaluating the filtration performance of a lubricating oil filter element."

In 4548-12, which is what Fram and most other oil filter makers use for a standardized test (i.e., Ultra does 99.5% at 20 microns 4548-12), what do the specify for the size distribution of particles? Is it a linear distribution of sizes from 1 micron to 100 microns? Or are the particle sizes in groups of 5 or something like that?


Well, YOU got me into this because your question got in my head and burned until I ordered the standard just to satisfy my own curiosity.

So if this thread blows up I am going to hold you personally accountable for it. LOL ( I hope you don't think I am going to take the blame do you?)

For ease of read I'm going to post this in increments titled by the subject for ease of search if anyone ever wants to go back for reference.

 

[fredfactory]

Much appreciated! Its what oil filters use to brag about their product. Older tests were sometimes single-pass, and we know thats not applicable fully. Then these multi-pass tests appeared because obviously the oil just keeps going round and around in there.

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).

---- Size distribution makeup of the particles?
---- Viscosity & temperature?
---- Pressure drops allowed? Maybe thats when they know to stop the test, when pressure drop gets to 100% (clogged).

 

[ISO55000]

We need to establish some baselines here in order to remove any possibility of any bias.

1) This is only about comparing 2 standards and how they relate specifically against the question of ranking individual filter performance in field service.

2) As an authorized agent of ISO utilizing a registered copy, I cannot scan/post any of it.

3) As this is an international standard and with me being in the business, this commentary and usage is fully allowed under all copyright laws as fair use and for training, reference.

4) I do use 16889 somewhat frequently in industrial applications and have never even thought about the IC counterpart until that other thread. (And FF burning a question in my head)

5) I get my oil (Ultra chem- specifically chem lube) because of a business arrangement I have had for almost 30 years so I have no oil preference and I sample with an industrial lab under contract. I change at approximately 3000 miles not because of any oil related issue but because we abuse our vehicles idling and such so this is not a concern for me. I sample for engine condition- not oil characteristics. Most of you in the US may not have ever heard of chem lube because they have almost no civilian vehicle market here but they are in the same class as other top line synthetics. Thus I have no brand preference or bias.

6) Because of #5 above my filter “preference” is whatever the guys go buy on sale at whatever parts house they go to when we cut the work order for the change. That’s about as unbiased as it gets- I couldn’t tell you a filter history with a gun to my head.

7) You may see me deviate from my posting here on other threads but that’s because it will be a different mix of data and industrial requirements are radically different from automotive.

8) What I post will be relative to the standard versus actual field conditions and totally objective. Actual results can only be defined against individual test specific parameters which is beyond the scope of this thread.

Just gotta keep it honest and transparent

 

[Oil Changer]

That will be a refreshing change around here. I can't wait to read.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Just gotta keep it honest and transparent

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Much appreciated! Its what oil filters use to brag about their product. Older tests were sometimes single-pass, and we know thats not applicable fully. Then these multi-pass tests appeared because obviously the oil just keeps going round and around in there.

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).

---- Size distribution makeup of the particles?
---- Viscosity & temperature?
---- Pressure drops allowed? Maybe thats when they know to stop the test, when pressure drop gets to 100% (clogged).



Requestor= FF

Q= ---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)

and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).


Standard= neither standard defines this. In 4548 specifically it states in 1. Scope that (paraphrased) this test would require “several test loops built into one test rig or several test rigs would be required to cover the complete flow range of 4l/min to600l/min. The test does define times for sampling. It also says in 10.1.1 that the flow rate is what is defined by the purchaser. It also says later in section 10 to record times and sampling frequency.

It also clearly points out in the definitions that filtration efficiency is determined by filter retention and overall is determined by the delta of upstream and downstream counts.

Commentary= The way this test is constructed is clearly to rate all filters to a defined standard. Any attempt to use this element of the test to rank filters would be valueless and meaningless unless the subject filters were on the same exact rig.


Q=---- Size distribution makeup of the particles?

Standard= The test media is Arizona dust made IAW to ISO12103-A3 which is a defined standard and not considering and dimensional bias, mass, construction or anything else
Commentary= this is a lab test and the physical characteristics of the particles in an engine will not directly correlate. I will get back to you on the size/distribution because that’s its own section with all kinds of qualifiers. This is a base 10 type test and a little complicated.

Q= ---- Viscosity & temperature?

Standard= 4548 does not define a test temperature and in annex A.3 it defines viscosity of the test fluid as 13.2mm/2/s/4 @ 40C and at 500mm2/s @-40C minimum for both. It does mandate a stabilized temp in the test and in table 7.1 is specifies an accuracy of +/-1C and a variation of +/- 2C.

Commentary= Because of the test standards for the fluid and he fact that media characteristics are not measured in this test- any claim using this standard based on real world conditions unless and until the temps match and the oils are identical is factually meaningless.


Q= ---- Pressure drops allowed? Maybe thats when they know to stop the test, when pressure drop gets to 100% (clogged).

Standard= 4548 specifically does not give a pressure or allowable drop. It specifically states that this test does not measure saturation. All it says in section 9 is to not exceed any bypass during the test.

Commentary= this parameter alone renders any usage based comparison not only useless but intellectually dishonest on the part of the claimant unless he adjusted his test bench to test 2 filters under identical conditions with the exact same oil. In no way can this test evaluate ANY filters service longevity individually or against another.

 

[ISO55000]

Now I have facts and data regarding the IC filter testing criteria to combine with experience and I am used to this type of comparison.

Bring the claims, “area 53 tests” and anything else and we will subject them to the acid test of empirical science and see where they stand. This will be done in complete accordance with the scientific method and references cited where applicable.

There will be no secret laboratories or “tales of the untold”- it will be validated or falsified on the basis of the claim against actual data.( real science doesn't hide behind a cloak)

I look forward to addressing those claims and questions to resolve this issue for the benefit of the forum members.

 

[Oil Changer]

I think Z06 is going to go on vacation and 'Memphis will put you on ignore so you don't confuse him with facts.

I see a changing of the guard in the oil filter forum.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I think Z06 is going to go on vacation and 'Memphis will put you on ignore so you don't confuse him with facts.

I see a changing of the guard in the oil filter forum.


That may be and if so that is fine. I am not challenging any individual but claims in general.

I believe what facts and data show and I promote that which I can substantiate. I don’t fear rebuttal, I welcome it because if I am in error I really need someone to point it out to me.

I use Proverbs 28:1 as my standard. (KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.


I have seen claims and welcome them should they contribute (if they don’t, that speaks for itself) and any claim they might make will be subjected to a very rigorous examination against verifiable science just as much as anything I say must be to maintain my credibility. (The rules apply equally or they don’t apply at all)

My understanding of “mercy” is that it is a French term for “thank you” and I’m not aware of any other definition. I ask and expect no quarter and give none.

The hall is rented, the band playing so let’s see who walks onto the dance floor.

 

[OVERKILL]

My question in light of this wonderful presentation of information is that, despite the rather open nature of some of these parameters, I am curious as to what the filter manufacturer's test against?

IE, does Purolator use a standard oil temperature and test duration for all of their filters, and if so, is this the same as what FRAM uses?

Obviously using the same test, as you've established, doesn't make the results directly comparable due to these variables, among others.

If I can think of some more questions, I'll post them up.

Thanks!!!

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
My question in light of this wonderful presentation of information is that, despite the rather open nature of some of these parameters, I am curious as to what the filter manufacturer's test against?

IE, does Purolator use a standard oil temperature and test duration for all of their filters, and if so, is this the same as what FRAM uses?

Obviously using the same test, as you've established, doesn't make the results directly comparable due to these variables, among others.

If I can think of some more questions, I'll post them up.

Thanks!!!

Sir

That was the whole point of this thread. To clear up incongruities.

The standard is what it is- I didn’t create it or have any opinion on it. It is not open to any company’s individual interpretation. (This is why it is a standard)
As to what a specific company does, there is built in leeway both in testing parameters as well as the publishing of the results. If they don’t publish the test parameters then I would call their claims suspect.

To claim ISO 4548 as a basis of actual comparison under field conditions is totally false on its face regardless of who makes the claim unless they use the same control variables. They would then need to publish those modified test parameters for objective scrutiny.

Anyone who attempts to promote actual field performance against this standard to claim any product superiority in the field arena is either deliberately lying with knowledge or totally incompetent to the point that the statement is invalid.
For the reasons you state- if the parameters are not identical- any direct comparison is invalid on its face.

I do this for real and am very familiar with attempts to skirt standards.

I zero in on details and am unmerciful when they are discovered. I will not deliberately mislead any member of this forum and exercise all due diligence to maintain accuracy in everything I say. I will equally subject any counterclaim to those same standards for error

 

[OVERKILL]

Wonderful!

So, it would seem the next logical step would be to attempt to get the test parameters used by the filter manufacturers of interest and see how they differ.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Wonderful!

So, it would seem the next logical step would be to attempt to get the test parameters used by the filter manufacturers of interest and see how they differ.


Sir

There is no possibility of that ever happening because of parts 1-11 of the standard and the fact it is an aggregate standard.

Specifically because of: (all apply but the majors are listed)

Part 1 differential pressure/flow characteristics

Part 2 Element bypass characteristics

Part 4 Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency

Part 5 Cold start simulation and hydraulic pulse durability test

Those who hold steadfast to part 12 don’t want you to know how they fare when all parameters are in play. They don’t stack up well.

 

[OVERKILL]

So basically the results from part 12 in a vacuum are what we are meant to take away from the advertising material but the information presented is:

A) Not comparable to data from other manufacturers directly due to variances allowed in the protocol

B) Not telling of the actual efficiency of the filter due to parts 1-11

C) Considering A in light of B, it further obscures any semblance of a comparison that one might attempt to draw

Am I following you here?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I think Z06 is going to go on vacation and 'Memphis will put you on ignore so you don't confuse him with facts.

I see a changing of the guard in the oil filter forum.


Don't worry ... I'm reading this. I don't sit on this computer all day "debating" with you guys while you surf and post on this board all day long. I have a real job that I can't be goofing off all day at.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here's one for you ... migrated from the other thread. There will be others.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000

This will take a day or 2 to digest and compare but one thing is clearly stated for the world to see ( just short of 100 pages for both with a lot of detailed testing parameters to review line by line)

9.1.1 "ensure the test fluid CANNOT by-pass the filter element being evaluated.....

9.1.2 "subject the test filter to a fabrication integrity test....... using MIL-H-5606 fluid.......

9.1.3 Basically if it fails 1 or 2 the test is disqualified.

That alone eliminates any claim of any "defect" or "design flaw" or accidental bypass affecting the result in any filter tested to that standard.

So, on the basis of factual information cited to the source ( which is the governing authority) all claims of a manufacturers defect and/or other factors being present affecting the test result that are not there by design are false on their face.


Doesn't mean the maker of the filter necessarily did testing correctly to totally ensure it meet the internal leakage test of 9.1.1. Does the spec say exactly how a test to verify that - or is it left up to the "testers" to figure out, which means no real solid test procedure. As the secret lab found, you have to get pretty inventive to prove there is not internal leakage ... I explained how that was done already.

9.1.3 is obviously paraphrased by you ... what are the exact words?

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I think Z06 is going to go on vacation and 'Memphis will put you on ignore so you don't confuse him with facts.

I see a changing of the guard in the oil filter forum.


Don't worry ... I'm reading this. I don't sit on this computer all day "debating" with you guys while you surf and post on this board all day long. I have a real job that I can't be goofing off all day at.

Neither do I but I own the company- stop stalling and get in the ring slick. I look forward to it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Here is a basic synopsis of ISO 4548-12 for those who don't know exactly what it addresses. There are 12 parts in ISO 4548 ... this is -12 (the 12th test part).


ISO 4548-12:2000
----------------
Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines -- Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.

This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.

The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.

This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 microns.

ISO 4548-12:2000 uses "muti-pass" filtering methods, versus a "single-pass" test method.


OIL FILTER TESTS PER ISO 4548
-----------------------------
Part 1: Differential pressure/flow characteristics.
Part 2: Element by-pass valve characteristics.
Part 3: Resistance to high differential pressure and to elevated temperature.
Part 4: Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency (gravimetric method).
Part 5: Cold start simulation and hydraulic pulse durability test.
Part 6: Static burst pressure test.
Part 7: Vibration fatigue test.
No ISO 4548 Part 8 found.
Part 9: Inlet and outlet anti-drain valve tests.
No ISO 4548 Part 10 found.
Part 11: Self-cleaning filters.
Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.