PARTICLE ANALYSIS |
| Particle analysis is the second phase of oil analysis. This test evaluates the
particulate from 5 - 100+ microns. A partical count is a totally separate test from a
spectroanalysis. In many cases there are no correlation's between a particle count and the
spectroanalysis. Particle Analysis is one of the most misunderstood procedures in oil
analysis. It is the purpose of this section to give a clear understanding of what type of particle tests are available, different formats of information and how to interpret the data. Two of the most common methods of particle counting are: |
|
| AUTOMATED MECHANICAL METHOD The most common method is the automated mechanical method. This method employs a particle counting machine that uses some form of laser beam or light source to count the particulate. |
| ADVANTAGES |
| * Easy to perform * Requires limited technician training time * Provides automatic graphing capabilities * Fast |
| DISADVANTAGES |
| * Cannot count samples with high water content * Some use high dilution factors that decrease accuracy * No identification of particulate composition (What type of particle is it?) * Photograph of contamination is not possible |
| MANUAL OPTICAL METHOD This method is a method that follows Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP 598. In this method 50 - 100 mls of fluid is filtered through a .8 micron grided milipore patch. The particulate are then counted and identified using a high powered microscope. |
| ADVANTAGES |
| * Can count samples with high water content * Uses little or no dilution factor to increase accuracy * Identifies the type of particulate * Photographs of contamination are possible |
| DISADVANTAGES |
| * Requires highly trained staff * No automated graphing system * Time consuming |
| DATA REPORTING FORMATS Three of the most common forms of data formats are: |
| * ISO - International Standard Organization * NAS - National Aerospace Standards * SAE - Society of Automated Engineers |
| These methods group the actual particulate levels into classes. The following is how each format groups particulate. |
ISO |
| Particle size in Microns 5 10 15 25 50 *Particles per milliliter |
SEE EXHIBIT C |
NAS |
| *Particle Size Range | Classes |
|||||||||||||
| (Microns) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 5 to 15 | 125 | 250 | 500 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 8,000 | 16,000 | 32,000 | 64,000 | 128,000 | 256,000 | 512,000 | 1,024,000 |
| 15 to 25 | 22 | 44 | 89 | 178 | 356 | 712 | 1,425 | 2,580 | 5,700 | 11,400 | 22,800 | 45,600 | 91,200 | 184,400 |
| 25 to 50 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 63 | 126 | 253 | 506 | 1,012 | 2,024 | 4,050 | 8,100 | 16,200 | 32,400 |
| 50 to 100 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 22 | 45 | 90 | 180 | 360 | 720 | 1,440 | 2,880 | 5,760 |
| Over 100 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | 1,024 |
| * Same as ARP 598 | ||||||||||||||
SAE |
| Size Range MICRONS | CONTAMINATION CLASS |
|||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7-10 | |
| 2.5-5 | P | E | N | D | I | N | G | P |
| 5-10 | 2,700 | 4,600 | 9,700 | 24,000 | 32,000 | 87,000 | 128,000 | E |
| 10-25 | 670 | 1,340 | 2,680 | 5,360 | 10,700 | 21,400 | 42,000 | N |
| 25-50 | 93 | 210 | 380 | 780 | 1,510 | 3,130 | 6,500 | D |
| 50-100 | 16 | 28 | 56 | 110 | 225 | 430 | 1,000 | I |
| Over 100 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 21 | 41 | 82 | N |
| G | ||||||||
| NOTE: The official recommendation of class tables by SAE is NAS 1638, not SAE 749D (Reference: SAE - ASC, Committee Meeting Minutes, Seattle 1971.) |
| OAL uses a combination of the laser and optical methods in our particle testing. The
laser method is run to give particle size and distribution and then a filter patch is made
and an optical correlation is performed to confirm or dispute the laser test. If the laser
is confirmed, a photograh is taken and the results reported. If there is a conflict
between the two methods, the tests are rerun. If there is still a difference the customer
is called and the conditions are reviewed to get a better understanding of the situation. It is important to understand that though there are correlation's between these two methods, the exact numbers should not be considered identical. Once a trend is developed using one type of test method, it is important not to cross methods, using one method one time and the other the next. It is important that the method of testing, optical or laser, is known when comparing test results. If there is a big discrepancy between two test results, call the laboratory and see if they can help you find out why. |