Filter specs.........and Micron ratings.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,460
Location
Texas
Well I wanted to start a thread on some basics of filtration. As i've read a few threads and seen some interesting questions and replies by some.

For my background go to the thread on the new design of the Super Tech filter.

Automotive car manufacuters do have specifications for the design of the filter. I think it would be stupid to think that they want any old piece of toilet roll put on their engines.

The primary specifications for spin on filter construction are for burst and collapse pressure minimums. The element needs to be of a minimum "weighted average" efficiency and a minimum dirt holding capacity which equates to filter life. The more dirt holding capacity, the longer the life.

The engine manufacturer also determines the oil filter relief valve or by-pass valve settings. NOT the filter manufacturer. So it is critical when some of you motor heads go trying to find larger or other filters to fit your particular vehicle, you stay with the same valve settings.

One of the fun bits of information that consumers try to latch onto and compare filters with is "micron" ratings.

For those who are not familiar with what a micron is....one micron is 39 millionths of an inch. .000039. Or one millionth of a meter.

The lower limit of visibility of the human eye at 20/20 vision is 40 microns. So if you have some powder somewhere and look for one granual, the smallest piece you can see is 40 microns.

Keeping that in mind, All filters remove 1-100 micron pieces of contaminant in the oil. Any filter company who tells you their filter is a certain micron size needs to also tell you how effective they are at removing that size partical. So when someone says their filter is a 5 micron or 8 micron or 15 or 20 or 25 or whatever..unless you know how good a filter is..go back to my original statement..ALL filters remove any size particle.

So how do you know how a good a filter is at removing a certain size particle? Ask the manufacturer on their toll free telephone number. They "should" give you the nominal micron rating.

The nominal rating is equal to 50% efficiency of that particle size and larger that the filter element will remove.

I'll give you an example of what a nominal rating is...
The filter companies use an SAE test whereby they flow fluid through the element and count the particle sizes of contaminant going into the filter via electron microscope from an industry standard test dust ( AC fine test dust). They then count the same size particles downstream after the fluid had gone through the filter media.

So if there are 1000 particles of 20 micron and larger going into the element and 500 come out down stream...you get 50% efficiency. 500 pieces got caught by the element, 500 got through.

Or if you ever see it expressed in written form it will look like this: B20=2.
The test is a Beta test..hence the "B".
20 and larger being the micron size tested.
2 being the answer when you divide 500 into 1000.

Engine manufacturers, as has been stated in some of these threads, worry about certain size particles. Generally those 5 micron to 25. The better a filter is at removing these size particles, the longer the engine life. The sizes 5-25 are chosen because of where the oil flows and the tolerances of the metal parts. For instance the piston versus the cylinder sleeve, around the bearings, etc.

If the tolerance is , as an example 10 microns, then any 5 micron particle will not create wear. It flows through like a BB between the gutters on a bowling alley lane. Neither will a 20 micron particle be able to cause damage. But a 10 micron sized one will.

For those who are into the smaller micron ranges and get hung up on micron sizes under 5 for a motor, your basically wasting your time. And those filter companies who claim a sub-micron element..just laugh at them. Then your getting into the molecular level of the oil additive package ( or so i've been told).

Now that you know how the filter company tests the filter, what does it all mean? As I mentioned earlier typically what you will get is a "Weighted" average efficiency. This is because the filter company tests all particle sizes and expresses how good their element is for all size particles. The higher the weighted average efficiency, the better the media is at removing all particle sizes out of the oil.

btw..you'll never get 100% efficiency. The only way to achieve that is no flow. If oil goes through the element and 1 particle gets through the element,.....it can't be 100% efficient then can it?

For those who want to run with no filter and think there's no harm. Please do oil analysis. I think you'll surprise yourself as to the level of particles floating around in your used oil. So if you'll admit to yourself that there are contaminant particles in your oil, won't you also admit that they must be creating wear in the engine?

You don't have to run a filter on your motor unless you want to void engine warranty if the vehicle is new or you like rebuilding motors..
wink.gif


Not running a filter also shortens oil life because the oil can only hold so many pieces of contaminant in suspension. It also effects the ability of the oil to help disappate heat from the engine. So have at it..don't run a filter..
grin.gif


Now when I said you are basically wasting your time with looking at filter with respect to a certain size particle, i'll explain.

Suppose one filter company says their filter is nominally rated at 20 microns. And another says theirs is nominally rated at 5 microns. Obviously the 5 micron filter is better than the 20. But...when you look at the entire filter construction between the two filters...the can size is the same, so if you have a 5 micron nominal element you would also have shorter filter life versus the 20 micron one. There's only so much filter paper they can pack in the filter canister. So there is a trade off.

The trade off is better filter efficiency versus shorter life. The question you would have is, as the better filter plugs up with contaminant the life shortens quicker. Because as the paper media loads with contaminant, it becomes even more efficient and at the same time more restrictive. This can lead to the restriction opening the relief or by-pass valve and then you are allowing more unfiltered oil downstream of the element. So you have effectively negated what you were trying to achieve.

It's never as simple as it seems...lol.
 
quote:

For those who are into the smaller micron ranges and get hung up on micron sizes under 5 for a motor, your basically wasting your time. And those filter companies who claim a sub-micron element..just laugh at them. Then your getting into the molecular level of the oil additive package ( or so i've been told).

What about soot in a diesel engine? What size is the soot that loads the oil? Manufacturers seem really concerned about that in relation to ring wear and cylinder polishing.


quote:

Now that you know how the filter company tests the filter, what does it all mean? As I mentioned earlier typically what you will get is a "Weighted" average efficiency . This is because the filter company tests all particle sizes and expresses how good their element is for all size particles. The higher the weighted average efficiency, the better the media is at removing all particle sizes out of the oil.

What is the terminology used by the filter manufacturers for this weighted average?? nominal, absolute, bata ratio or something else??
 
JDP,
Dispersants in diesel engine oil hold the soot particles in suspension in sub-micron particles than are too small to filter out. If the soot agglomerates into larger particles abrasive wear is a problem. Very high soot levels in modern engines with EGR can turn the oil into something resembling black snot.

Filter guy,
1) Clearances are the gap between parts that allows oil to flow. Tolerances are the allowable error in the clearances.
2) Engine makers usually do not publish the filter specs for their engines. Aftermarket filter makers reverse-engineer the OEM filters.
3) As you say, nominal filter ratings are removal of 50% of the stated size particle. Absolute filter ratings are removal of 98.5% (or similar) of the stated size particle. For example, a filter might have a nominal (50%) removal rating of 20u particles and absolute (98+%) removal of 30u particles. Beta ratio is a different way to express the same thing...B2 is 50% & B50 is 98+%.
http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=564&relatedbookgroup=OilAnalysis

4) You need to remove abrasive particles larger than the oil film between load-bearing parts of the bearing. The clearance dimension isn't meaningful in this regard because that isn't where wear occurs.


Ken
 
Ken2

Exactly what my point was in regard to his comment on the < 5micron and sub micron particles not causing damage in an engine. Sorry I wasn’t able to connect it better.

My understanding is that soot plays a significant part in cylinder wear/glazing and ring wear in a diesel engine and that is one reason why the “lubrifiners” and other bypass filtration setups were designed

I still don’t understand or know where he is coming from with the “weighted” average efficiency reference.

Beta ratio, absolute and nominal I am familiar with but that’s a new one for me.
dunno.gif


JDP
 
Ken..

1) absolutely correct..my mistake when typing early this morning.

2)..which engine companies manufacture their own filters? Reverse determination of specs does happen for a number of aftermarket filter companies but not all. It is more prevalent with foreign engine filters than domestic for US filter manufacturers. But as globalization happens this is becoming less of a problem for some of the top filter manufacturers.


3) A filter with an absolute rating is indeed rated at 98.7% efficiency. In print it would appear as B20=75 for the example used.

In hydraulics, we use elements with a beta of B20=200 , which equates to 99.9 % efficiency.
I sell some that are B1=200. One micron, 99.9% efficient.

4) correct.

JDP:
Champion Laboratories, of whom I worked for bought Luberfiner in the late 1970's. I sold them from 1982 on.

By-pass filtration is more effective at removing the soot from diesel engine's oil. There are the canister types that big rigs use which are still sold today but not as evident as they were in the past when they used to hang outside the engine compartment of conventional trucks. With Aerodynamics and fuel mileage now more critical for over the road trucks they are mounted on the frame rail by the fuel tanks ( usually).

There are also spin-on versions available for direct mount to big rigs. You can retrofit the spin-on to any vehicle you want.

How a by-pass filtration system works is that it should be orificed to remove less than 10% of the oil flow from the lubrication system. More than that and you could run into problems with the primary lube system.

Once you mount a by-pass, it slows the flow of oil which allows the media to remove contaminant from the oil more efficiently, allows for finer filtration media to be used, adds total contaminant capacity, and the return of the oil filtered by the by-pass filter element is then sent back to the sump.

It also adds oil capacity, the extra additive package by having more oil in the total system means one can go longer between oil changes. But only with oil analysis if the engine is under warranty. I'd recommend oil analyisis as a rule of thumb even if your engine isn't under warranty if you're extending your oil change interval. One oil company with their synthetic oil and the use of a Luberfiner 750 model on heavy duty diesel engines is now saying that you can run 75-80,000 miles between oil changes. As long as you take an oil sample every 20,000 miles. They are looking to push it to 100,000 miles between oil changes. You verify your following their rules and they will warranty the engine for failures because of extending drain intervals.

There are also "combination" full flow- bypass filter elements, primarily used on Cummins engines. Again, the by-pass portion is returned to the sump in this design as well, due to being part of the engine design.
-------------------------------------------------

I explained weighted average efficiency. If you want to know what it is by manufacturer, ask them. Some print it on the box the filter is in. Some print it in their brochures.

Now for the bad news...it may be neigh impossible to compare one brand to another.

Each filter company will know what the other is doing. But they're not exactly going to share proprietary information.

One of the problems with filter tests is that the filter manufacturer will quote an SAE test result. Consumers take this information as gospel. As they should. It's an industry standard test after all.

What consumers don't know is that an SAE test just gives filter companies the peramaters to run the test. How to set up the equipment, what test dust to use, what the termination pressure should be, etc.

Note..some engine companies will specify what the test parameters should be and at what minimums the element should perform to. And for Ken, they share this because they don't want engine failures. They would get the blame. The last thing Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, VW, etc want is multiple engines failing and car sales plummeting because of poorly designed filters. Even aftermarket ones.

The filter company when running an SAE test for aftermarket filters has leeway to determine how often to add the test dirt, what flow rate to run the test under, and when to sample for test results.

So one company can add , say 10 grams of contaminant every 30 minutes. Another company may add 10 grams every hour. The second company would show more life before their filter plugged.

If you want to increase efficiencies, slow the flow.

So unless you know the peramaters of the test itself, just stating it was an SAE test isn't enough.

That's what marketing departments are for....
wink.gif

-----------------------------------------------

Now for a little humor and marketing.

There are probably some people old enough to remember when Andy Granatelli used to tout STP oil treatment on tv, especially during the Indy 500. He would say every car that starts the Indianapolis 500 uses STP oil treatment in their engines. Then hold up the can of oil treatment.

Well every car did, he had the contract with the Hulmans to make sure they did.

No problems, he wasn't lying.

HOW the various competitors used STP in order to fulfill the contract though was not exactly to pour it in the crankcase. They used it to lubricate the gasket of the filter.

He wasn't lying, honest judge, every car did use it..

Marketing..
grin.gif
 
quote:

Weighted" average efficiency

Many of us have cracked the Beta code with help from some here.

Now an older Greshen hydraulic filter I have actually has the TWA specs on it as well ..and the capacity ..flow specs @ gpm @ CST viscosity. etc. Cram packed with specs.


This type of info is apparently determined to be 'unwise" for marketing automobile spin on filters.

btw- if someone hasn't said it yet:
welcome.gif
 
Thanx to all those who have said welcome.

Gresen was at one time owned by Wix/Dana.

Champion Laboratories was once owned by Rockwell..
shocked.gif
grin.gif



Hydraulics are more specific with their specs than automotive. Some hydraulic elements do print their Beta ratios on them and sometimes other information ( especially if it is a spin-on).
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
The engine manufacturer also determines the oil filter relief valve or by-pass valve settings. NOT the filter manufacturer. So it is critical when some of you motor heads go trying to find larger or other filters to fit your particular vehicle, you stay with the same valve settings.

I find this interesting. Explain something to me. When I look for a filter for a particular application from 5 different filter manufacturers, how come at times I can get 5 different bypass valve specifications for that particular application? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think one has to be careful when one talks in terms of absolutes in the physical world.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
The engine manufacturer also determines the oil filter relief valve or by-pass valve settings. NOT the filter manufacturer. So it is critical when some of you motor heads go trying to find larger or other filters to fit your particular vehicle, you stay with the same valve settings.

I find this interesting. Explain something to me. When I look for a filter for a particular application from 5 different filter manufacturers, how come at times I can get 5 different bypass valve specifications for that particular application? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I think one has to be careful when one talks in terms of absolutes in the physical world.


This one is fairly simple to answer.

Each filter Company has their own laboratory for testing. What they document as their testing information is what they are able to "prove" in their lab.

Because there is not a "standard" test piece of equipment that all filter manufacturers use, the test results, and therefore published specs, vary from filter manufacturer to manufacturer.

In testing by-pass valve opening setting, each company has their own machine to verify. Or if the filter company purchases their by-pass valve they rely on the company they purchase from to meet their specs. This can account for the variance.

Some companies list a single number, others list a range for by-pass valve openings. Even if it is a single number printed in a catalog, I bet if you inquired, the filter company would tell you that number is plus/minus X in their specifications for the valve.

btw..In some cases, if not most, the test equipment used is not "off the shelf" stuff. The company purchases a machine and modifies it for their own needs.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:

Each filter Company has their own laboratory for testing. What they document as their testing information is what they are able to "prove" in their lab.

Because there is not a "standard" test piece of equipment that all filter manufacturers use, the test results, and therefore published specs, vary from filter manufacturer to manufacturer.

In testing by-pass valve opening setting, each company has their own machine to verify. Or if the filter company purchases their by-pass valve they rely on the company they purchase from to meet their specs. This can account for the variance.

Some companies list a single number, others list a range for by-pass valve openings. Even if it is a single number printed in a catalog, I bet if you inquired, the filter company would tell you that number is plus/minus X in their specifications for the valve.

btw..In some cases, if not most, the test equipment used is not "off the shelf" stuff. The company purchases a machine and modifies it for their own needs.


Testing simple valve operating pressures under semi steady state conditions isn't rocket science and doen't require specialized equipment beyond what any decent hydraulics lab would have.

There would be no problem with reasonably competent test engineers getting the same results in different labs with different test equipment given a basic set of test parameters.
 
I'd have to concur with XS650. We have hundreds of pieces of test equipment that is calibrated every year by an contracted calibration lab. Some equipment is calibrated several times a year. We have to build things to a specification that measures the same value no matter what part of the world you're in while you're measuring it.
 
You can build a piece of test equiment to do the job required.

But that still doesn't mean that each piece of test equiment will give you the same results.

Besides the relief valve testing equiment ,I was talking in general terms for all the various tests that a lab would perform.

So when Conpmany A says their filter does this per a certain SAE spec, Company B does the same test and comes up with slightly different results due to the variance from the different testing equipment.

What filter companies do, is test Brand X and their own filters on the same equipment, under the same test condiditons to know what the performance differences are. Because of the lab testing equipment not being uniform from filter company to filter company.

I know of a specific situation where Brand X wanted to take the business away from Champion Labs for a particular brand of filter. Their testing on their own filter in their own lab could not match the SAE test results provided to Company A. So Brand X bought the Champ branded filters, cut them open, put the elements into their filters, reran the SAE tests..and were able to prove their filters the equivalent. They then provide a long drawn out test report to Company A showing on various part numbers how their filters were equal to Champs for the various perameters of the SAE tests. Towards the very end in their report there was this caveat..these test results may not be representative of production product. ( or some such as i'm going from memory and this was mid 1990's).

So getting back to my point, each lab may end up with slightly different results on whatever they list as a "spec" for their filter.
 
quote:

In testing by-pass valve opening setting, each company has their own machine to verify. Or if the filter company purchases their by-pass valve they rely on the company they purchase from to meet their specs. This can account for the variance.

Some companies list a single number, others list a range for by-pass valve openings. Even if it is a single number printed in a catalog, I bet if you inquired, the filter company would tell you that number is plus/minus X in their specifications for the valve.

Maybe I am wrong here but. Sounds to me like you are saying that a guy is rolling the dice as to what the actual oil filter pressure relief setting is. That 10 pound pressure relief spring could be 6 pounds for all we know right ~ wrong?

I understand spring tolerances of +/- a given number at XXXX installed height. And I don't see why a different calibrated instrument verified with standards would show different numbers from one filter manufacture to another. It no different than checking a mike with a standard and miking a dimension on a part.

As far as believing what a vendor says is good on part without actually testing the spring on a calibrated instrument. That cannot be very consistent. The aerospace industry rejects springs every day from vendors made to aerospace quality with aerospace price tags to match.

Perhaps this is why some auto manufactures Engineers chose to use block mounted oil filter pressure relief spring. To avoid the variable numbers as to what the aftermarket filter manufactures come up with.
 
quote:

Suppose one filter company says their filter is nominally rated at 20 microns. And another says theirs is nominally rated at 5 microns. Obviously the 5 micron filter is better than the 20. But...when you look at the entire filter construction between the two filters...the can size is the same, so if you have a 5 micron nominal element you would also have shorter filter life versus the 20 micron one. There's only so much filter paper they can pack in the filter canister. So there is a trade off.

I would have to say go back to the saying that you can't judge a book by its cover. Every dissected automotive filter I've seen could easily fit 2-4 times the amount of filter media in the can provided. The pleats are wide open and often don't span the length of the can. Also some like Motorcraft use small pleat heights. All that I've seen could easily increase the pleat height by 25-100%.
With that said a filter of half the micron rating could easily be designed to last as long as a stock filter of twice the micron rating.

quote:

The filter company when running an SAE test for aftermarket filters has leeway to determine how often to add the test dirt, what flow rate to run the test under, and when to sample for test results.

So one company can add , say 10 grams of contaminant every 30 minutes. Another company may add 10 grams every hour. The second company would show more life before their filter plugged.

If you want to increase efficiencies, slow the flow.

Yes, these numbers can be very questionable. Another point about testing with AC fines: Testing with AC fines can be very unrepeatable because the flow rate though a system would have to be unreasonably fast in order to keep all of the surfaces of the pipes turbulent enough to keep all of the fines in suspension. AC fines are relatively heavy and therefore likes to fall out of solution, so the more you slow the flow the more fines you have sitting in the pipes and the filter looks great with slow flow because your challenge is much lower than you really think it is.
Latex beads are much more repeatable since they are about the same density as the liquid, but they are considerably more expensive.
 
Hirev..

There's a huge difference betwen the aircraft industry and their specs and automotive filter design.

The filter companies have a very wide range of +/-tolerances within the total filter design. The relief valve only being one part of the equation.

Some of the production is still stone age compared to what indutries use nowadays. I think you might be surprised at the number of hand operations during the production from start to finish when a filter is made.

Some of the manufacturing processes of component parts are also "ancient". Why buy new equipment for something you've been using for 30-40 years just because there's something new out there?

What will drive modernization is newer filter designs ( like the Ecore ) or mandated government change for filtration in general (ie..environmental concerns) that might lead to US automotive engine manufaturers going to cartridge elements instead of spin-ons.

But the tried and true will be around a long time in the aftermarket.
 
Whom to believe ? Each company shows its filters outperform other brands. I'm completely lost with all these ratings and tests. That's why I liked Purolator explanation in respect of micron rating and its reference to the concrete SAE test.

http://www.noelsautoparts.com.au/cooper.htm

I also found at SHOtimes.com that not each car enthusiast prefers the filter with better micron rating. Very interesting article where the author is considering other aspects of filter performance:

http://www.shotimes.com/SHO3oilfilter.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top