LE Papers Final.

qxp 4/16/2007 11:36 AM Page 560

Filtration Basics
By: Martin Williamson, KEW Engineering

Introduction
One of the areas in which many engineers struggle with the
concept of filtration is in regard to how a typical oil filter works.
The belief is that if a filter is rated at 10µm, then it will stop all
particles greater than this size. This is simply not the case.
Apart from this misconception that I have witnessed in many training
classes, there are also other fundamental issues to filtration such as
location and media quality. These will be addressed in this paper.
An Alternative View
In November 2001, in Practicing Oil Analysis magazine, Jim Fitch
(President of Noria Corp) wrote this article using some basic
analogies. It is worth reprinting within the text to highlight the basic
filtration concept of barrier separation.
Article Begins: Imagine the filter inside your machine is made of
fibers the size of telephone poles, stacked randomly in all directions,
many layers thick. Each juncture where poles touch is a drop of super
glue for support. To emulate actual operating conditions, the stack of
poles is placed on a large moving and vibrating table.
would adhere tightly to the sticky honey and only a few would
work their way through the poles.
Now consider the capture efficiency of our filter with powdery
sand. The grains of sand that don’t make it to the bottom would likely
rest on the top surface of horizontal poles. The dynamics would
change considerably if the honey were dropped on the filter before
the sand. Even though the average opening between the poles is
more than a thousand times the average diameter of sand particles,
there would still be very few grains of sand that make it to the
bottom because of the adhesiveness of the honey.
Let’s switch our contaminants once again. Imagine what
semisolids, like lumps of gelatin, would do compared to clumps of tar.
Most of the gelatin would probably bounce, wiggle and contort its
way through the poles. In contrast, the tar’s natural adherent
properties give it little chance to bounce off anything. Once it
contacts the pole’s surface, it stays. Neither the gelatin nor the tar is
influenced by the filter’s pore size (spacing between the poles),
however the gelatin squirms through to the bottom undeterred, unlike
the tar.

How effective is the filter at capturing beanbags and wet rags?

Now, imagine that the contaminants inside your oil are lumps
These interesting contaminants tend to conform to the shape of
of gelatin, clumps of tar, ping-pong balls, marbles, tree branches,
solid objects they come in contact with. It is unlikely that many
powdery sand, beanbags, strips of sheet metal, streams of
would travel the distance through our telephone pole filter. However,
honey, wet rags and beach balls. To begin our example, suppose
if we engaged our rocking and vibrating table again, it is likely that
that you had large containers of these different contaminants
the beanbags would work to the bottom, unlike the rags that are
beside you as you perch on top of scaffolding hovering above the
more likely to stay draped over poles.
stack of telephone poles.

This leaves the last set of contaminants: tree branches and strips
This is where the fun begins. It’s time to start dumping our
of sheet metal. Can they make it through our filter? Even though the
contaminants onto the telephone poles, beginning with the ping-
more narrow dimensions of these contaminants (branch diameter for
pong balls and marbles. As you could imagine, they don’t have
instance) are much smaller than the openings between the poles,
much trouble navigating the maze through the openings between
they cannot make it through the tortuous path that weaves through
the poles on their way to the bottom. There would be the
the poles. This is still true if we rock and vibrate the table. In fact, the
occasional marble or ping-pong ball that might hang up in tight
tree branches and sheet metal become an integral part of the
spaces where poles touch or run close together. That is, until the
structure of our makeshift filter and affects the progressive capture
table starts to vibrate, rock and tilt. The capture efficiency of our
efficiency of the filter.
filter is not good for contaminants the size of marbles and ping-pong
balls. In contrast, if we dropped the beach balls over the poles, we
So what does all of this have to do with lubrication and oil
would find all of them restricted from entry. They don’t pass through
analysis? Well, many people have misconceptions about how filters
the pores in our telephone pole filter.
work in their native environment. The false image is that particles are
Next, consider what would happen if we changed the order of
thought of as being like ping-pong balls and that filters are like screen
delivery. Suppose we pour a drum of honey over the filter and give
doors, and naturally, ping-pong balls don’t fit through the mesh of a
it time to coat and occlude to the poles’ surfaces. Once again, drop
screen door.
the ping-pong balls and the marbles. What happens to the marbles
and ping-pong balls now? The high density of the marbles would
While this is true in many cases, the dynamics of the filter in relation
carry most of them to the ground. However, the ping-pong balls
to real-world field contaminants and the fluid are much more complex.

560 2007 Conference Proceedings

LE Papers Final.qxp 4/16/2007 11:36 AM Page 561
Let’s go back to our analogy and do some quick conversions.
The Filter:
• Telephone poles are the fibers in filter media (cellulose, glass,
synthetics, etc.).
• Super glue is the binding element (binders) used to stick the
fibers together.
• The rocking and vibrating table simulates the pulsating
environment a filter experiences: flow cycles, pressure cycles,
temperature changes, and mechanical shock and vibration.
The Contaminants:
• Ping-pong balls = finely dispersed soot and carbon insolubles.
• Marbles = submicron hard dust and wear particles pulverized in
the machine’s frictional surfaces.
• Powdery sand = polar insolubles such as oxides, compounds
and additive floc.
• Honey = either an electrostatic charge that many filters acquire
over time that attracts particles of opposite charge, or the
influence of water as it preferentially coats filter fibers and
causes premature blockage, particularly cellulose filters.
• Beach balls = large particles from wear and the environment
that are quickly removed by size exclusion.
Figure 1 – Differences in Media Type.
/ Lubrication Basics
• Lumps of gelatin = amorphous polymeric globules produced
from the oil caught between highly loaded frictional surfaces or
from thermal degradation.
• Beanbags = common dust and lint that floats around in the air,
enters the machine and remains on a filter.
• Wet rags = foam inhibitors of methyl silicon or acrylate that
coat filter fibers.
• Clumps of tar = sludge, an adherent mixture of polar
degradation products, water, glycol, soot and/or environmental
contaminants.
• Tree branches = hose fibers, seal materials, etc.
• Strips of sheet metal = cutting wear, delamination wear, paint
chips, etc.
Most filters encounter all of these contaminants plus a host of
others in varying concentrations during the filter’s life. Consider the
unpredictable impact these natural contaminants have on the filter’s
performance, especially when surge flow, shock and vibration are
added to the environmental equation.
Finally, think about the quality of filter selected for your machine.
With rare exception, any contaminant trapped in the filter is much
better in the filter than in the oil.
2007 Conference Proceedings 561
LE Papers Final.qxp 4/16/2007 11:36 AM Page 562
Article ends.
It is hoped that the above reprint highlights the fact that filters are
not a 2 dimensional screen of equally sized pores, yet rather a
complex structure of 3-dimensional fibres, subject to performance
parameters such as vibration and flow surging, and other forms of
system contamination.
Filter Media
As stated, the media is a key area and this is where price is an
issue. As with oil there is a temptation to believe all filters are
created equally and therefore the cheapest will suffice. This is not
the case. A low cost unit will employ a wood-pulp fibre media,
whereas a high cost unit will utilize a synthetic structure. Figure 1
illustrates the problem of the size of the thicker wood pulp and
cellulose media, which in turn adversely affects the pressure drop
across the filter unit by restricting flow, and the reduced potential dirt
holding capacity. Furthermore, issues such as temperature, moisture
and acids will reduce the service life of the cheaper elements, along
with the fact that the stated performance will not always be so owing
to the inconsistent nature of the media structure during manufacture.
Filter Location
The next issue is filter location. There are two basic forms of fluid
filtration which will determine the best filter location on the system.
Contamination Control
• Maintains Target Cleanliness level in the system
• Located to provide optimum fluid filtration
• Return Line
• Off-line
• Pressure Line
• Portable filtration unit
• Normally fitted with a by-pass valve
Protection
• Located to protect contaminant sensitive components
• Always located upstream of the component
• Normally fitted in a pressure line with no by-pass option
• High strength element normally with 6.9bar indicator
Figure 2 illustrates the various potential points of fitment.
However, whilst the “engineer” in us desires to fit the filter on the
protection side of the machine, it should be remembered that these
are expensive units and are often specialized in so far as being able
to withstand higher pressures, particularly on fluid power systems.
The smart approach is to minimize dirt entry at the weak points such
as the seals, breathers and in the lubrication tasks. So too, one
should look at reducing dirt entry into the tank rather than fitting a
suction filter or strainer which often gets clogged with varnish, thus
causing a cavitation issue within the machine.
562 2007 Conference Proceedings
Modern trends are toward off-line filtration and there is a reason for
this, apart form the lower overall costs of filter replacement. In the
reprinted article above, comment was made on vibration and flow
surge. Cyclic flow conditions are now being addressed within the filter
rating – see later in this paper – which will go some way to indicating
the susceptibility of the element under review. However, vibration and
flow surge are detrimental to the performance. Offline units overcome
this by having constant flow on a non-vibratory mounting. Thus, lower
cost, less specialized filters can be employed. A further benefit is non-
interruption of the machine’s operation when it comes to filter element
changes as the circuit is off-line. That said, system main flow filters
are available with either a service by-pass valve, or in a duplex switch-
able form. However, particular attention is needed to ensure all other
ingress points are well protected to minimize dirt generation, and using
only off-line filtration works well for larger reservoirs, where wear
debris metals are more likely to settle out.
Off-line Filters and Portable Filter Carts
(Can be supplemental to the main location)
• Provide effective control over system fluid cleanliness levels
when permanently mounted with no concern on pressure drop
• Filtration is still possible when system is in shut-down mode
• Filter not subjected to system’s conditions of flow/pressure
peaks or vibration
• Filter can be positioned for ease of access.
• Does not require system interruption for element replacement
• Off-line circuit can be utilized for system re-fills or top-ups
• Introduces a higher cost of set-up owing to extra pump, piping
and valves
• Not suitable for in-line protection of sensitive components
• Does not alone filter 100% of the fluid in the system
Pressure Line Options
• Provide effective control over system fluid cleanliness levels
• Protect systems from pump failure
• Enable protection to be provided to wear-sensitive components
• Filter must be able to withstand full system pressure
• Pressure drop across filter is less of an issue than on return or
off-line filters
• Potential harm from vibration or transient pressure and flow
peaks
• System must be stopped for element change unless duplex
filters or service by-pass valves are fitted
• Filter must withstand any cyclic pulses produced by variations
in pump or system pressure
• Has a perceived high unit cost
Return Line Filters
• Provide effective control over system fluid cleanliness levels
• Prevent ingested or generated debris reaching the reservoir
LE Papers Final.qxp 4/16/2007 11:36 AM Page 563
• Filter may be subjected to high flow surges when system is
operating
• System must be interrupted for maintenance unless duplex
switch-over filters or service by-pass valves are employed
• Return line filters may be mounted on the reservoir or fitted in-
line
• Generally less expensive, less complex design
• No direct protection of sensitive components
• Care should be taken to avoid excessive back pressure against
upstream components
Suction Line Filters
• Not generally recommended except as a strainer device to avoid
large debris that may have accidentally entered the tank
• Generally an inexpensive option
• Poses a risk of cavitation to the pump if too fine a filter is fitted
• No downstream protection of sensitive components
• Filter must be large to avoid excessive pressure drop, avoid
compromising on coarse rather than using a bigger element
• Access can prove difficult for replacement or monitoring inside
the tank
• Always consult the pump manufacturer before fitting any device
upstream of the pump
Protection Filters
(Normally on High Pressure Hydraulics)
• Provide effective and specific protection to components to avoid
catastrophic failure, or at least valve stiction
Figure 2 – Filter Location Options
/ Lubrication Basics
• Not normally fitted with bypass option
• Normally requires a strength element with minimum collapse
rating of 210 bar
• If the element blocks, a pressure relief valve has to open to
divert fluid back to the tank
Filter Ratings
Typically many people refer to the size of filter in one of two ways,
although this is not an industry supported rating.
Nominal Rating
A nominal rating is an arbitrary micrometer value indicated by the
filter manufacturer.
Absolute Rating
An absolute rating is the diameter of the largest solid spherical
particle that will pass through a filter under specified conditions. This
is an indication of the largest opening in the filter element.
For an industry approved method, an understanding of the Beta
rating is required.
As with a number of other tests, the Hydraulic and Fluid Power
working group have established a performance standard for filter
performance known as the Multi-pass test. (ISO 16889:1999,
formerly ISO 4572:1981) The idea of this test is that fluid with a
known level of ISO Medium Test Dust is circulated through the
candidate filter on a multi-pass (rather than single-pass) basis, whilst
automatic particle counters sample the fluid upstream and
downstream.
2007 Conference Proceedings 563
LE Papers Final.qxp 4/16/2007 11:36 AM Page 564

Obviously, particles of a large size are easily removed from the There is also a condition known as caking whereby as build-up of
fluid, whilst particles of a smaller size are more likely to slip through, solids takes place, the performance actually improves. This is not
with more circuits required to capture these. Therefore the capture always the case, but it does suggest that early field Beta
rate performance will vary with the size of the particle. measurements may not be as good as in later service.

To determine the capture performance the following equation is Channelling is another condition that may occur when the filter is
applied. in service and this will again depend on the operating environment;
however, the fluid will force flow paths through the weaker structures
Beta Rating is measured by the amount of contamination taken out allowing larger solids to pass.
at each pass:
Filter dumping and media degradation can also lead to previously
βx = Number of particles upstream >Xµm trapped dirt being released back into the fluid flow along with fibres.
Number of particles downstream >Xµm
Conclusion
Where X is a given particle size, and Whilst this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the technology
relating to filters, it is advised that a good relationship is maintained
Capture Efficiency % = (βx -1)/ βx or established with the filter supplier so that technical support can be
obtained. However, it is still in the interests of the engineer to be
However, Capture Efficiency can be misleading as: fully au fait with the basic concepts and to be aware of the pitfalls
90.0% is a βx = 10 when selecting filters. Unfortunately filters will restrict fluid flow, and
99.5% is a βx = 200 will not necessarily hold endless amounts of solid matter, nor will
99.9% is a βx = 1000 they entirely remove all harmful contaminants. Furthermore, filters do
follow the basic tenant that “you get what you pay for.”
Whilst a difference of 90% to 99.9% seems small, the reality is the
99.9% filter will take out 100 times more particulate at the stated size Reference Material
than the 90% filter in that single pass. In terms of the clean-up rate, Jim Fitch, Noria Corp, “How Telegraph Poles are Like Filters,”
this is quite a significant difference in performance. Practicing Oil Analysis Magazine, November 2001.
Ivan Sheffield, Schroeder Industries, "Changes in Filtration and
As a result of the changes to ISO Medium Test Dust, a filter Beta Contamination – Switching Directions for the Filtration Industry."
rating should show a (c) or βx (c) > 200 to indicate testing to the Machinery Lubrication Magazine. January 2005
new standard.

Typically, the size that equates to βx (c) > 200 is then the quoted
filter size, eg. a 10µm filter would be one where the βx (c) > 200 was
at 10µm, although some manufacturers may quote their size based
on the size that equates to βx (c) > 1000.

However, this on its own does not necessarily mean that two
filters of equal βx (c) > 200 are necessarily of equal performance
across a number of particle sizes. Therefore, whilst the element may
only show this value, the manufacturer should show the performance
in their technical data sheet for the size capture at a number of Beta
value points, typically 10, 75, 200, 1000 thus indicating how well it
performs and making a comparison between brands more valid.

A proposed modification to the test is to incorporate a valve on the

test stand allowing zero to full flow cycling conditions, most likely on a
basis once every 10 seconds. The current status is ISO/WD 23369.2.

Whilst all the above holds true in the laboratory where the test is
undertaken, consideration has to be given to the fact that in service
this performance may not be achieved. The main reasons are
generally the flow surge and vibration conditions. However, the type
of oil and the nature of the contaminant type may also affect the
performance.

564 2007 Conference Proceedings