POSITION PAPER

Setting Wear Metal Flagging Limits

Determining wear limits for components can be challenging. Commercial testing laboratories
each have their own system for determining how limits are set, which is part of what
differentiates one laboratory from another.

We recognize that not all components wear equally. Gears will create higher amounts of wear
than engines due to the meshing of gear teeth. Likewise, seeing any amount of wear metal in
a turbine system can be of concern. Even within a specific component type, different
manufacturers and models will demonstrate different rates of wear. These differences can be
attributed to metallurgies, duty cycles, operating conditions and environments, and the amount
of time on the lubricant.

Because there are so many factors that influence wear rates, we utilize both statistical
analysis and rate of change to define abnormal wear. Statistical limits are determined using
component manufacturer and model-specific data from our database of over 7.5 million
samples. Several statistical parameters, including the median, quartile values, and standard
deviation are reviewed and used to determine the initial flagging point, which is the highest
value of our severity 1 level.

Severities 2, 3, and 4 of each wear metal are determined by several factors, including the
combination of metals seen together in alloys and the excursion level from the initial flagging
point. The rate of change of each wear metal from previous results is also taken into

1 | Setting Wear Metal Flagging Limits

consideration. If a component is wearing rapidly, the severity of a result will be elevated to
bring attention to the issue as it could be an indication the component is in a failure mode.

Why don’t we publish our limits?

We have more than 10,000 different flagging templates that are component, manufacturer and
model, and fluid specific, and the number of templates grows continuously as our data pool
becomes more robust.

Published limits lead end users to look at individual data points as absolutes. The focus of an
analysis report shouldn’t be isolated data points, but the data as a whole. It is a Data Analyst’s
responsibility to study all of the data and apply the appropriate recommendations based on the
overall health of the fluid and equipment. These comments should be the customer’s main
focus when a fluid analysis report is reviewed.

Why don’t we use OEM limits?

Most OEM publish oil analysis guidelines, but these guidelines are not designed to be used as
absolutes. The value of fluid analysis really comes from being able to reduce maintenance
costs, extend equipment life and extend drain intervals. These factors all contribute to the cost
of ownership. Strict adherence to OEM published guidelines would not optimize
recommendations for our customers.

It should also be noted that several OEM use our fluid analysis themselves. They trust us to
send fluid analysis reports with their branding and company logo, knowing we use our own
limits and commenting.

Conclusion
Using flagging limits appropriately is a complicated process. It involves weighing a number of
factors against each other and making a maintenance recommendation on equipment that
could be worth millions. Our Data Analysts are trained to assess all of the available data, not
just flagging limits, in order to give our customers the best recommendations possible.

2 | Setting Wear Metal Flagging Limits