

(https://ww

(/) (https://tw

(https://ww
corporatio
Published (http://www.noria.com/?

by  __hstc=108323549.eaef65eaa02366ed9c622c5ecfc04779.1514886209775.1514886209775.1514886209775.1&__hssc=108323549.1.1514886209777&_

Like 0 Share Tweet  Print

(/Articles/Print/192)

Water In Oil Contamination

Noria Corporation
Tags: water in oil (/Meta/Tags/water in oil),

contamination control (/Meta/Tags/contamination control)

Much has been said about particle contamination and its effect on component longevity. It is well known that an
improvement in particle contamination by one ISO Cleanliness Code can result in a 10 to 30 percent increase in the life
of contamination-sensitive components such as hydraulic valves, pumps, and journal and rolling element bearings.
Industry spends millions of dollars each year on improved filtration technology in an attempt to reduce particle
contamination, with some of the more advanced companies reducing failure rates by up to 90 percent simply by
controlling fluid cleanliness. However, in some industries and environments, water is a far more insidious contaminant
than solid particles, and is often overlooked as the primary cause of component failure.

States of Coexistence
Water can exist in oil in three states or phases. The first state, known as dissolved water, is characterized by individual
water molecules dispersed throughout the oil. Dissolved water in a lubricating oil is comparable to moisture in the air
on a humid day - we know the water is there, but because it is dispersed molecule-by-molecule, it is too small to see.
For this reason, an oil can contain a significant concentration of dissolved water with no visible indication of its
presence. Most industrial oils such as hydraulic fluids, turbine oils, etc., can hold as much as 200 to 600 ppm of water
(0.02 to 0.06 percent) in the dissolved state depending on the temperature and age of the oil, with aged oils capable of
holding three to four times more water in the dissolved state than new oil.

Once the amount of water has exceeded the maximum level for it to remain dissolved, the oil is saturated. At this
point, the water is suspended in the oil in microscopic droplets known as an emulsion. This is similar to the formation
of fog on a cool, spring day. In this case, the amount of moisture in the air exceeds the saturation point, resulting in a
suspension of small droplets of moisture or fog. In a lubricating oil, this “fog” is often referred to as haze with the oil
said to be cloudy or hazy.

The addition of more water to an emulsified oil/water mixture will lead to a separation of the two phases producing a
layer of free water as well as free and/or emulsified oil. This is like rain falling when the amount of moisture in the air
becomes excessive. For mineral oils and PAO synthetics whose specific gravity is less than 1.0, this free water layer is
found on the bottom of tanks and sumps.

The Effects of Water Contamination

In a lubricating system, the two most harmful phases are free and
emulsified water. In journal bearings for example, the
incompressibility of water relative to oil can result in a loss of the
hydrodynamic oil film that in turn leads to excessive wear. As little
as one percent water in oil can reduce the life expectancy of a
journal bearing by as much as 90 percent. For rolling element
bearings, the situation is even worse. Not only will water destroy
the oil film strength, but both free and emulsified water under the
extreme temperatures and pressures generated in the load zone
of a rolling element bearing can result in instantaneous flash-
vaporization causing erosive wear to occur.

Under certain conditions, water molecules can be ripped up into

their constituent oxygen and hydrogen atoms as a result of the
high pressures generated in the load zone of a rolling element
bearing. Due to their relatively small size, the hydrogen ions
produced by this process can absorb onto the surface of the
bearing raceway resulting in a phenomenon known as hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen embrittlement is caused by
a change in subsurface bearing metallurgy. This change causes the bearing material to become weak or brittle and
prone to cracking beneath the surface of the raceway. When these subsurface cracks spread to the surface, the result
can lead to pitting and spalls.

Because the effects of free and emulsified water are more harmful compared to dissolved water, a general rule of
thumb is to ensure that moisture levels remain well below the saturation point. For most in-service oils this means 100
to 300 ppm or less depending on the oil type and temperature. However, even at these levels, a significant amount of
damage can still occur. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as too little water and every reasonable effort
should be made to keep water contamination as low as possible.

The Effects of Water on a Lubricant

Not only does water have a direct harmful affect on machine components,
but it also plays a direct role in the aging rate of lubricating oils. The
presence of water in a lubricating oil can cause the progress of oxidation to
increase tenfold, resulting in premature aging of the oil, particularly in the
presence of catalytic metals such as copper, lead and tin. In addition, certain
types of synthetic oils such as phosphate esters and dibasic esters are
known to react with water, resulting in the destruction of the base stock and
the formation of acids.

It is not just the base oil that can be affected by moisture contamination.
Water-Related Bearing Damage
Certain additives such as sulfurous AW and EP type additives and phenolic
antioxidants are readily hydrolyzed by water, resulting in both additive mortality and the formation of acidic by-
products. These acidic by-products can then cause corrosive wear, particularly in components containing soft metals
such as Babbitt used with journal bearings and bronze and brass components. Other additives such as demulsifying
agents, dispersants, detergents and rust inhibitors can be washed away by excessive moisture. This results in sludge
and sediment buildup, filter plugging and poor oil/water demulsibility.

Measuring Water
In order to control moisture levels, one must be able to detect its presence. There are five basic test methods used to
determine the moisture content of a lubricating oil. These methods range from a simple apparatus to a more complex
chemical test or slightly more expensive percent saturation probe test ideal for on-site screening purposes. It may
also include more advanced technology typically used in laboratories for precise determination of the water level in
ppm.

The most basic is the Crackle Test. In this test, a hot plate is held at 320°F (130°C) and a small drop of oil placed in the
center. Any moisture present in the oil is reflected in the number of bubbles observed as the water vaporizes.
Depending on the lubricant, relatively few small bubbles indicate approximately 500 to 1,000 ppm (0.05 to 0.1 percent)
water. Significantly more bubbles of a larger size may indicate around 1,000 to 2,000 ppm water, while an audible
crackling sound indicates moisture levels in excess of 2,000 ppm. The Crackle Test is sensitive only to free and
emulsified water.

Another simple on-site test is the use of a pressure cell where the sample is prepared with a chemical reagent
(calcium hydride) and placed in a container and shaken vigorously. A change of pressure within the cell is monitored
to determine if free water is present. The cost of this type of product is relatively low, although the running costs must
be considered with regard to the reagents, as well as the health and safety issues of these reagents. Suppliers include
Kittiwake, Koehler and Dexsil.

A third type of on-site screening test for water is the use of a relative humidity sensor. The sensor uses a thin film
capacitance grid that can determine the amount of moisture permeating through the film. Whether used in air or oil,
the technology is the same and the output of data is normally in a percent RH value. As discussed earlier, the percent
RH is an indication of whether the oil has yet reached the saturation point, although as in the atmosphere, the lower
the temperature, the lower the saturation point in terms of water concentration. While it is mathematically possible to
derive a ppm value from the percent RH against the saturation curve for the oil at a known temperature, the thinking
behind this type of sensor is to provide a proactive early warning of imminent problems as well as providing a
screening capability prior to sending a sample to a commercial laboratory. The water saturation article on page 82
 gives a clear description of the performance and applicability of this tool. The advantage of this method is its
relatively low running costs and that it can be permanently mounted on critical plant equipment to provide real-time
monitoring. Suppliers include Pall Corporation and Rockwell Automation - Entek.

Aside from the on-site screening methods, another commonly used method to screen for water is Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). This test is sensitive to free, emulsified and dissolved water, however it is limited in
precision to a lower detection limit of about 1,000 ppm.

This is adequate for some applications, but insufficient for typical industrial applications. Commercial laboratories
that use this method often report that less than 0.1 percent volume of water is present in the sample. Suppliers
include Bio-Rad, MIDAC, Nicolet and Thermolube.

The most precise method for determining the amount of free, emulsified and dissolved water in a lubricating oil is the
Karl Fischer moisture test. When used correctly, the Karl Fischer test is capable of quantifying water levels as low as
10 ppm or 0.001 percent and should be the method of choice when more exact water concentrations need to be
known. Care should be exercised when using the Karl Fischer moisture test to avoid interference effects caused by
sulfurous EP and AW additives. Suppliers include Mettler and Metrohm.

Whichever method is used to determine water levels, one thing is certain: Water is a major cause of lubricant failure,
component failure and poor machine reliability. Like all contaminants, it is important not only to recognize its
presence, but also to take steps to control or eliminate the source of water ingression. If possible, water levels in all
equipment should be kept below the saturation limit, with every effort made to keep moisture levels as low as
possible. Whether you choose to install desiccant style breathers, improve seals, or to use a centrifugal filter or a large
vacuum dehydration unit, reducing the level of water in all types of equipment can dramatically extend the life of the
lubricant and the machine.

Practicing Oil Analysis (7/2001) (/Magazine/Issue/Practicing%20Oil%20Analysis/7/2001)

Related Articles

Best Ways to Test for Water in Oil

(/Read/30902/water-in-oil)

Strategies for Removing Water from Oil

(/Read/30854/removing-water-strategies)

Understanding Oil's Saturation Point

(/Read/30848/oil-saturation-point)

Effects of Water Contamination on Oil

(/Read/30762/water-contamination-effects)

Featured Whitepapers
(/whitepaper)

Moving from Reactive to Predictive Fluid Maintenance

(/Whitepaper/RequestPaper/421)

Predict Breakdowns Months in Advance with Low-Touch Machine Learning

(/Whitepaper/RequestPaper/423)

Contamination Control in the Hydraulic Industry

(/Whitepaper/RequestPaper/422)

How to Test Industrial and Engine Oils

(/Whitepaper/RequestPaper/408)

Buyer's Guide
(/BuyersGuide)

Oil Filtration
 (/BuyersGuide/Category/Info/4)

Oil Reclamation
(/BuyersGuide/Category/Info/24)

Hydraulics
(/BuyersGuide/Category/Info/28)

Has misalignment caused any

machines to fail at your plant?

Yes

No

Vote

ttps://www.surveymonkey.com/user/sign-up/?
powered by

Create your own user feedback survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com)

Like 0 Share Tweet  Print

(/Articles/Print/29764)

Advantages of a Uni ed Condition

Monitoring Approach
Jim Fitch (/Authors/Detail/1), Noria Corporation
Tags: maintenance and reliability (/Meta/Tags/maintenance and reliability)

For most plants, condition monitoring consists of multiple technologies that are cobbled together in
an attempt to enhance machine reliability. Clearly, these efforts are founded in good intentions, and
many such programs enjoy considerable success. Still others languish due to a lack of symmetry and
central focus. Money is spent and efforts expended, but results are too often disappointing.

Condition monitoring requires a proper foundation from understanding and aligning criticality and
failure mode analysis. Alignment greatly helps to optimize deployment of activities and spending to
minimize waste and redundancy. Alignment also keeps the maintenance and reliability professionals
on the same page by providing a clear understanding of what’s being done and why.

This column is Part 3 on this topic. In Part 1 “A New Look at Criticality Analysis for Machinery
Lubrication (http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29346/machinery-criticality-analysis)”, I
discussed the concept of Overall Machine Criticality (OMC) and its importance on a wide range of
decisions relating to machinery lubrication and oil analysis. When optimized, these decisions de ne
the Optimum Reference State (ORS) needed to achieve the desired level of machine reliability. It is
intuitively obvious that smart maintenance decisions require a heightened sense of both the
probability and consequences of machine failure.

Figure 1. The relationship between machine criticality and lubricant criticality

Part 2, “Don’t Forget Lubricant Criticality When Designing Oil Analysis Programs
(http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29696/designing-lubricant-criticality)”, explained how
there are consequences when lubricants fail that are, at least initially, independent of machine failure.
These include the lubricant replacement costs (material, labor, ushing, etc.) and associated
downtime. These costs can exist in the presence of a perfectly healthy and operating machine. Of
course, lack of timely replacement of a defective lubricant will invariably lead to dire machine failure
consequences. For some machines, these cascading events can produce enormous collateral damage
and nancial hardship to an organization.

To my knowledge, the method presented in this article is the rst truly rationalized and uni ed
approach to condition monitoring based on both machine and lubricant failure mode ranking and
criticality analysis. The condition monitoring methods and technologies being integrated include oil
analysis (real-time, portable and laboratory), eld inspections (advanced methods providing frequent
and comprehensive assessments), and other portable and real-time condition monitoring technologies
(thermography, vibration, etc.).

This approach is important enough that it deserves a name: Uni ed Condition Monitoring (UCM). What
makes UCM different from other strategies is the following:

Periodic condition monitoring technologies and methods for each machine are integrated and
optimized.
Periodicity for each technology and method is optimized.
The method of optimization is based on criticality analysis and failure mode ranking.

Failure Mode Ranking

Ranking failure modes helps customize and optimize the condition monitoring strategy. This is
another way to say gaining the greatest bene t for the least possible cost and risk. According to the
Pareto principle, the top 20 percent of failure causes are responsible for roughly 80 percent of the
failure occurrences. It only makes sense to focus resources and condition monitoring on the top 20
percent.

Failure modes and failure root causes are closely associated and are often the same. For instance,
abrasive wear may be the failure mode, but particle contamination is the root cause. Ignorance,
culture, insu cient maintenance and poor machine design are all possible pre-existing conditions that
individually or collectively lead to contamination. Because you can always search for deeper levels of
“cause,” for simplicity, the terms “failure mode” and “root cause” are used interchangeably.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between machine and lubricant failure. On the left are common
causes (failure modes) of lubricant failure (LFM) and machine failure (MFM). For example, heat,
aeration and contaminants are known to be highly destructive to lubricants. In a similar sense,
overloading, misalignment and contamination can abruptly cause a machine to fail. Note how
contamination not only can fail a lubricant but also can fail a machine directly without the need to
harm the lubricant rst.

It is best to not only list failure causes but also to rank them in terms of probability and severity. This
helps allocate resources by priority. From lubricant and machine failure come speci c consequences,
which are listed on the right in Figure 1. Again, these consequences are mutually exclusive. Lubricant
failure consequences include oil replacement costs, downtime during the oil change, labor to change
the oil and ushing costs. Machine failure consequences relate to safety, spare parts, labor to repair
and downtime (e.g., production losses).

The Overall Lubricant Criticality (OLC) de nes the importance of lubricant health and longevity as
in uenced by the probability of premature lubricant failure and the likely consequences (for both the
lubricant and the machine). The Overall Machine Criticality (OMC) de nes the likelihood and
consequences of machine failure alone. The methods for calculating OLC and OMC were previously
discussed. Like many such methods, the approach is not an exact science but nevertheless is
grounded in solid principles in applied tribology and machine reliability.

Building the Surveillance Planning Table

Figure 2 shows an example of a Surveillance Planning Table (SPT) for a given machine, e.g., a
reciprocating compressor. The SPT is used to de ne the degree of surveillance (oil analysis and
inspection, for instance) for each of the ranked failure modes. These failure modes are ranked from
one to seven on the left of the SPT. Tribo-analysts and reliability professionals are best suited to
assign this ranking for individual machines. The list shown in Figure 2 is hypothetical for the
compressor example to illustrate how to build an SPT.

Across the top is the OMC range (see Part 1 for calculating the OMC score) from 10 to 100. A score of
100 represents high criticality from the standpoint of probability of failure and consequences of
failure. In this example, the arrow shows the compressor to have an OMC score of 80. There are seven
color-coded condition monitoring zones corresponding to time-based surveillance levels. These are