The Lubricant That Doesn’t Lubricate

The fastest-growing fluid market for companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, FUCHS, Castrol, and Lubrizol has nothing to do with turbines, hydraulic presses, or gearboxes. It’s a stainless steel tank full of servers submerged in dielectric fluid.

The data center immersion cooling fluids market is projected to grow from roughly $190 million in 2025 to over $840 million by 2032, expanding at nearly 24% annually. By the broader measure of the total immersion cooling market, including hardware and integration, some analysts put the 2025 figure above $4 billion.

These fluids never form a hydrodynamic film. They never protect metal-to-metal contact. They carry no EP or AW additive packages. And yet the companies formulating and selling them are the same organizations that fill your lubricant reservoirs. The base stock chemistries, the supply chains, and increasingly the technical service models are converging.

Why “Lubrication” Is Moving into Thermal Management

Up to 40% of the energy consumed by a typical data center goes toward preventing it from overheating. That was manageable when servers ran at moderate power densities and air cooling could handle the load. It is no longer manageable. AI training clusters routinely push rack power densities above 50 kW, and next-generation GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) configurations are targeting 100 kW per rack and beyond. Air resists heat transfer, which is the reason that double-pane windows insulate a room so well. Water conducts heat roughly 25 times better than air at rest. In motion, the gap widens further.

A May 2025 lifecycle assessment published in Nature by researchers at Microsoft and WSP Global quantified the efficiency gains across three liquid cooling technologies compared to traditional air cooling. Cold plate systems delivered a 15% reduction in energy consumption and a 31% decrease in water use. Single-phase immersion improved those numbers to 15% and 45%, respectively. Two-phase immersion outperformed both, yielding a 20% energy reduction and 48% less water consumption.

Goldman Sachs estimates that data centers already consume 1–2% of global electricity, a figure that could nearly double by the end of the decade. In Ireland, data centers account for roughly 17% of national electricity consumption and could reach a third by 2026. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates domestic data centers used more than 4.5% of total U.S. electricity in 2025, with cooling systems responsible for 25–40% of that draw.

For the lubrication community, the conceptual shift is this: in rotating machinery, the fluid manages friction and wear, with heat removal as a secondary function. In data center immersion, heat removal is the entire job. The fluid’s role flips from tribological to thermal. But the underlying science of fluid chemistry, oxidation stability, contamination control, and condition monitoring is remarkably similar.

Up to 40% of the energy consumed by a typical data center goes toward preventing it from overheating. Water conducts heat roughly 25 times better than air at rest. In motion, the gap widens further.

Immersion Fluids vs. Traditional Lubricants: What’s the Same, What’s Not

Immersion cooling comes in two fundamental variants:

Single-phase immersion uses synthetic hydrocarbons (polyalphaolefins, gas-to-liquid bases), synthetic esters, or bio-based oils that remain in liquid state throughout the cooling cycle. The fluid circulates through a tank containing fully submerged servers, absorbs heat by convection, and transfers it to a heat exchanger. Synthetic hydrocarbons held roughly 41% of the 2024 market revenue, favored for their low viscosity and strong material compatibility. These are chemically familiar to anyone who has worked with Group IV or Group V base stocks.

Two-phase immersion uses fluorinated chemistries, including hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), that boil at low temperatures, typically 50–60°C. The phase change from liquid to vapor absorbs significantly more heat per unit volume than single-phase convection. It’s thermally superior, but as we’ll discuss, it carries serious regulatory and supply chain risk.

What should feel immediately familiar to lubrication professionals is the list of fluid performance parameters. The Open Compute Project (OCP), the industry’s primary standards body for data center hardware, has published a Base Specification for Immersion Fluids that reads like a lube  oil spec sheet translated into a different application. Viscosity targets, thermal conductivity requirements, flash point minimums, pour point behavior, oxidative stability expectations. The OCP specification sets a single-phase viscosity target of 1.5 × 10⁻² N·s/m² at 40°C (approximately 17cSt at at 40°C), noting that lower viscosity fluids allow higher fin density in heatsink design and better thermal performance overall.

What’s different is the failure mode. In rotating machinery, inadequate lubrication leads to metal-to-metal contact, adhesive wear, and ultimately seizure. In immersion cooling, the catastrophic failure is thermal runaway, where the fluid can no longer remove heat fast enough and server components exceed their thermal limits. Dielectric strength replaces film thickness as the critical performance metric. There are no wear particles to count, but there are degradation byproducts to monitor, contamination limits to enforce, and material compatibility issues that will sound very familiar.

Side-by-Side: Industrial Lubricant vs. Immersion Cooling Fluid

The Risk Landscape: Material Compatibility, Oxidation, and Contamination

The risks that data center operators are discovering are risks that lubrication professionals have been managing for decades.

Material compatibility is the most immediate concern. OCP’s material compatibility guidelines, published as an open-source reference document, warn that dielectric fluids can stiffen cable sheathing, remove identification markings, soften or dissolve adhesives and plastics, and interact unpredictably with certain coatings. The guidelines explicitly state that mineral oils should be avoided for immersion use due to impurities including sulfur, nitrogen, and aromatic compounds that create compatibility problems. Synthetic hydrocarbons and esters are the preferred chemistries.

Anyone who has managed a hydraulic system conversion or dealt with seal compatibility issues will be familiar with compatibility concerns. In a data center however, this concern is on a bigger scale. A single immersion tank can contain hundreds of servers, each with dozens of distinct materials in contact with the fluid. Cables, connectors, thermal interface materials, PCB substrates, conformal coatings, and adhesives all sit in the same bath. A compatibility failure is also on a larger scale than lubricants. Incompatibility doesn’t ruin a pump seal but destroys millions of dollars of compute hardware. Incompatibility examples can be seen in Figures 2 and 3.

A single immersion tank can contain hundreds of servers, each with dozens of distinct materials in contact with the fluid. A compatibility failure here doesn’t ruin a pump seal. It destroys millions of dollars of compute hardware.

Oxidation and degradation follow familiar pathways but with a different stress profile. Even though immersion systems are often designed as closed-loop, oxygen ingress is never zero. At sustained operating temperatures (typically 40–60°C bulk, with localized hot spots near chips exceeding 80–100°C), the fluid undergoes the same radical chain oxidation you see in lubricating oils. The rate accelerates with copper exposure from bus bars, connectors, and heat sinks, which act as potent catalysts.

But the oxidative stress is relentless: 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with no shutdown cycles, no seasonal variation, and no opportunity for the fluid to rest. Oxidative degradation proceeds, acid numbers escalate, and fluid properties deteriorate. Therefore, monitoring these parameters matter in a server tank just as much as it does in a critical compressor train.

Contamination sensitivity in data center cooling systems is similar to many industrial lubricant cleanliness requirements. OCP’s August 2025 Technology Cooling System (TCS) guidance specifies that microchannel heat exchangers require filtration to below 25 μm. The document emphasizes that fluid quality standards, detailed flushing procedures, and biofilm prevention protocols are essential for reliable operation.

Pipe materials prone to corrosion, particularly carbon steel, are prohibited. Pre-commissioning guidelines call for deionized water flushes meeting ASTM D1193 conductivity requirements, hydrostatic pressure testing, and documented cleanliness verification before the first drop of coolant enters the system. Anyone who has managed an EHC or hydraulic system to low NAS 1638 or ISO 4406 cleanliness codes will recognize the criticality of contamination control.

“Forever Chemicals” Split the Market in Two

No discussion of immersion cooling fluids is complete without addressing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl), also referred to as Forever Chemicals. This family of chemicals has incredibly strong carbon-fluorine bonds that do not break down in the human body or in the environment, leading to toxic bioaccumulation.

In December 2022, 3M announced it would stop manufacturing all PFAS chemicals by the end of 2025. That single decision effectively destroyed the supply chain for two-phase immersion cooling in data centers. The three fluids that made the technology possible, Novec 7100, Novec 649, Fluorinert FC-72, are gone. The last day to place a new Novec order was March 31, 2025. 3M was staring down over 4,000 lawsuits and a $12.5 billion settlement with more than 11,000 U.S. public water systems alleging PFAS contamination in drinking water.

The three fluids that made two-phase immersion cooling possible, Novec 7100, Novec 649, Fluorinert FC-72, are gone. One corporate decision wiped out the entire supply chain.

The regulatory pressure extends well beyond 3M’s exit. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating a PFAS restriction proposal submitted by five EU member states under REACH that covers over 10,000 substances. Updated proposals published in August 2025 expanded exemptions from 26 to 74, including longer transition periods for certain heat transfer applications. ECHA’s final opinions are expected by end of 2026, with European Commission restriction legislation anticipated in early 2027. In the United States, the EPA has classified certain PFAS compounds as hazardous substances, imposing stringent waste management and reporting requirements. Several U.S. states are pursuing their own restrictions.

The practical result is a bifurcation in the immersion cooling market. Single-phase systems using hydrocarbon-based fluids (PAOs, synthetic esters, bio-based oils) are positioned as the safe, scalable path. They avoid PFAS entirely and use chemistries that lubricant companies already manufacture at industrial scale.

Two-phase systems are in limbo, waiting for Chemours and others to commercialize PFAS-free alternatives like HFO-based fluids with zero ozone depletion potential. Commercial production of Chemours’ Opteon 2P50 is targeted for 2026, and Samsung has already qualified the fluid. But as one industry analysis noted, any vendor building a two-phase product around a fluorinated fluid is building on ground that may shift under them within 18 months.

For the lubrication community, the PFAS collapse is more than a data center story. PFAS are used in specialty lubricants and greases due to their superior heat resistance, antiwear and anticorrosion properties. These regulatory changes require reformulation of hundreds of greases and lubricants. It’s a good reminder that supply chain resilience isn’t just about having a backup supplier. It’s about understanding the regulatory trajectory of your base chemistries.

Who Owns the Fluid Spec? OEM vs. Operator Dynamics

In industrial rotating machinery, the power dynamic around fluid specifications is well established. The OEM, whether it’s Volvo, Siemens Energy or Caterpillar, publishes an approved lubricant list. The end user follows it, often because the equipment warranty depends on compliance. Lubricant suppliers invest heavily in OEM approvals. The OEM holds the leverage.

Data centers have inverted this model.

OCP’s specifications are publicly available, their meetings are open and recorded, and their technical documents are published under Creative Commons licensing. The lubrication industry doesn’t have anything like it.

The Open Compute Project (OCP) sits at the center of the emerging standards landscape. OCP’s Immersion Sub-Project operates through dedicated technical committees for Fluids, Solutions, Reliability, and IT Equipment integration. These committees are developing open-source specifications, reference designs, and best practices through a volunteer-driven process that unites technology providers, end users, researchers, and fluid manufacturers. Their Immersion Requirements sub-project exists specifically to separate marketing claims from engineering reality, ensuring what OCP calls “accurate and factual technology positioning.”

This is an open-standards approach to fluid qualification that doesn’t have a clear parallel in traditional lubrication. ASTM and ISO develop test methods, but they don’t publish application-specific fluid requirements the way OCP does. OEM lubricant approvals are proprietary and often opaque. OCP’s specifications are publicly available, their meetings are open and recorded, and their technical documents are published under Creative Commons licensing.

Meanwhile, the hyperscalers are writing their own rules. Microsoft, Google, and Meta have internal testing programs and qualification protocols that effectively function as proprietary fluid specifications. When Microsoft validates a two-phase immersion tank at its Quincy, Washington campus, or when Google standardizes immersion-cooled TPU pods across its fleet, those decisions influence the market. The hyperscalers have more testing infrastructure, more purchasing leverage, and more operational data than any traditional OEM.

Chip manufacturers add another layer. In May 2025, Shell became the first immersion fluid provider to receive certification from Intel for its 4th and 5th generation Xeon processors, including a warranty rider for immersion-cooled chips. Intel estimated the electricity consumption reduction at up to 48%. This mirrors how turbine OEMs approve specific lubricant brands, but the twist is that Intel isn’t the system integrator; it’s the component manufacturer inside someone else’s machine.

Colocation providers and enterprise data center operators don’t have Google’s testing labs or Microsoft’s engineering teams. They need standardized, vendor-neutral fluid specifications they can trust. That is exactly the role OCP is filling, and it represents a model the lubrication industry could learn from. OCP’s transparent, committee-driven approach to fluid qualification stands in contrast to the often opaque process by which industrial OEMs approve or delist lubricants.

Why Lubricant Companies Are Repositioning Around Data Centers

The number of companies competing in the immersion cooling fluids market tells the story. Shell, ExxonMobil, Castrol, FUCHS, Lubrizol, Valvoline, TotalEnergies, PETRONAS, Cargill, and ENEOS are some of the major lubricant companies focused on data center immersion coolants.

Industrial lubricant volumes in traditional applications are mature in most developed markets. Electrification is shrinking some automotive and drivetrain lubricant categories. Data center fluids offer a new, high-growth volume play using chemistries these companies already manufacture. PAOs, synthetic esters, Group III+ bases, and bio-based oils are all viable single-phase immersion fluids.

Lubricant companies bring global supply chain scale, established quality management programs and technical service teams with decades of experience in condition monitoring and fluid analysis. In addition, they have deep institutional knowledge of oxidation chemistry, additive interactions, and degradation mechanisms. A lubricant company that already produces thousands of tons of PAO annually doesn’t face the same scale-up challenges as a venture-backed fluid startup trying to commercialize a novel chemistry.

Industrial lubricant volumes in traditional applications are mature. Electrification is shrinking some categories. Data center fluids offer a new, high-growth volume play using chemistries these companies already manufacture.

Oil manufacturers are also focused on the sustainability aspect. TotalEnergies’ BioLife product line demonstrates that plant-based fluid stocks can match petrochemical performance while biodegrading rapidly enough to satisfy EU waste directives. Cargill brings agricultural feedstock expertise. Bio-based lubricants have been a perennial topic at lubrication conferences for years. Data centers are giving the category a new, high-volume market to accelerate product development.

FUCHS has been particularly aggressive, signing a long-term partnership with Anhui Zhongding Intelligent Thermal Management Systems in China for data center immersion solutions in January 2024. Shell’s Intel certification positions it as the trusted fluid in one of the largest chip ecosystems on earth. Lubricant companies are quickly capitalizing on these emerging data center opportunities. 

What This Means for Lubrication Professionals

The skills that define precision lubrication, fluid analysis, contamination control, material compatibility assessment, condition-based maintenance, and the ability to understand degradation mechanisms at a molecular level, are exactly what data center operators need as they transition from air to liquid cooling. The application is different. But the science is the same.

Consider what the OCP’s own documentation demands. Regular fluid testing with defined alarm limits. Material compatibility protocols. Cleanliness targets for particulate and ionic contamination. Flushing and commissioning procedures. Biofilm monitoring. Thermal performance trending over the fluid’s service life. These are the same program elements that world class lubrication programs require.

The data center immersion cooling market is growing at nearly 24% annually. The broader liquid cooling market nearly doubled in 2025, approaching $3 billion, and is forecast to reach $7 billion by 2029. Only 45% of data centers now run purely on air cooling, down from 48% just a year earlier, with 59% planning to implement liquid cooling within five years. This is a rapidly evolving market where fluids expertise will be demanded.

The definition of “lubricant” is expanding. It now includes fluids that never touch a bearing but carry the same chemical DNA, require the same analytical rigor, and depend on the same foundational science. The professionals who recognize this early won’t just watch the transition. They’ll lead it. 

The Data Center Power Boom and What It Means for Traditional Lubrication Markets

The conversation about data centers and fluids tends to focus on what’s inside the server tank. Immersion cooling is new, it’s technically interesting, and it represents a genuine expansion of what the word “lubricant” means. But there is a second story running in parallel that may impact the lubrication industry’s bottom line. Power generation.

The scale of the power buildout is difficult to overstate. The International Energy Agency projects that global data center electricity consumption will roughly double to around 945 TWh by 2030, growing at about 15% per year. That growth rate is more than four times faster than electricity consumption growth from all other sectors combined. Gartner’s estimate is even higher, projecting worldwide data center electricity consumption will rise from 448 TWh in 2025 to 980 TWh by 2030. In the United States specifically, data centers consumed approximately 176 TWh in 2023, roughly 4.4% of total national electricity. The Department of Energy and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory project that figure could reach 6.7% to 12% of all U.S. electricity consumption by 2028.

Gas turbines are the biggest technology in this buildout. Natural gas supplied more than 40% of U.S. utility-scale electricity in 2023, and developers currently plan 18.7 GW of newly constructed combined-cycle gas turbine capacity through 2028. Globally, gas-fired power capacity in development rose 31% in 2025 alone, reaching a total of 1,047 GW across all stages of planning and construction. The Global Energy Monitor reports that 2026 could set a record for new gas power projects coming online, potentially exceeding the previous high of 100 GW added in 2002 during the wave of gas-fired construction that followed electricity market deregulation.

Data centers are a primary driver of this surge. Meta’s Hyperion project in Louisiana will use three H-class natural gas turbines as part of a facility that will eventually scale to 5 GW. Elon Musk’s xAI has ordered up to 60 gas turbines for its Memphis supercomputer facility. Boom Supersonic signed a $1.25 billion deal to supply Crusoe, an OpenAI data center developer, with 29 jet-engine-derived gas turbines. The Oracle/OpenAI Stargate project in Abilene, Texas is deploying GE Vernova and Solar Turbines units to deliver more than 1 GW of on-site power. Industrial Info Resources expects natural gas power plant investment to top $35 billion annually and sustain that level for several years, reaching a pace of construction not seen in two decades.

Gas turbine lead times have stretched to five to seven years in some cases, and turbine prices have risen 195% since 2019 according to Wood Mackenzie, reflecting the intensity of demand. OEMs like GE Vernova, Siemens, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries report order backlogs at record highs.

Diesel generators represent a hidden fleet of enormous scale. Data centers require backup power systems capable of sustaining the full facility load during grid outages, and diesel generators remain the dominant technology. Just in the state of Virginia alone, over 10,500 diesel generator units had been permitted for data centers by the end of 2025, with a total capacity of 27 GW. That is equivalent to the power usage of roughly 20 million U.S. households, in a state with fewer than 4 million homes. Nationwide, the U.S. data center backup diesel fleet is expected to approach 67 GW of installed capacity by the end of the decade, roughly 35 nuclear power plants worth of generating capacity.

Virginia alone has permitted over 10,500 diesel generator units for data centers, with 27 GW of total capacity. That’s enough to power roughly 20 million U.S. households, in a state with fewer than 4 million homes.

A new class of power plant operator. More than 25% of new data center facilities above 500 MW will have behind-the-meter power generation by 2030, up from just 1% today. This means data center operators will be managing their own gas turbines, reciprocating engines, and combined-cycle plants, not the grid utility. Many of these data center operators have deep expertise in IT infrastructure and thermal management but no institutional experience managing rotating equipment maintenance programs. They will need lubrication engineers, fluid analysis programs, vibration monitoring, and contamination control technologies.

Renewables complete the picture. The data center buildout is simultaneously driving renewable energy procurement at unprecedented scale. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta are among the world’s largest corporate buyers of wind and solar capacity. In Europe, the major hyperscalers each account for roughly 4 to 9 GW of total corporate energy procurement.

The data center industry doesn’t just redefine what a lubricant is. It amplifies demand for every lubricant category that already exists: gas turbine oils, diesel engine oils, hydraulic fluids, wind turbine gear oils, and grease. Where turbines go, lubrication programs follow.

References

1. Open Compute Project, “Immersion Sub-Project Overview,” OCP Cooling Environments, 2025. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/projects/immersion
2. Open Compute Project, “Base Specification for Immersion Fluids,” Revision 1.0, Version 1.0, December 2022. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/documents/ocp-base-specification-for-immersion-fluids-20221201-pdf
3. Open Compute Project, “Material Compatibility in Immersion Cooling,” Version 1.0, November 2022. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/documents/material-compatibility-in-immersion-cooling-document-version-1-0-nov-28-2022-1-pdf
4. Open Compute Project, “OCP Immersion Requirements,” Revision 2.1, August 2023. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/documents/ocp-acs-immersion-requirements-rev-2-1-pdf
5. Open Compute Project, “Modular Technology Cooling System for Cloud Scale,” Revision 1, August 2025. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/documents/ocp-modular-tcs-rev-1-final-2025-pdf
6. Open Compute Project, “Guidelines for Pre-Commission Preparation of Technology Cooling System (TCS) Row Manifolds,” March 2025. Available: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Cooling_Environments/Immersion
7. MarketsandMarkets, “Data Center Immersion Cooling Fluids Market by Technology, Data Center Type, Type, and Region – Global Forecast to 2032,” September 2025. Available: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/data-center-immersion-cooling-fluids-market-255406797.html
8. Mordor Intelligence, “Data Center Immersion Cooling Market Size, Growth, Competition 2025–2030,” January 2026. Available: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/immersion-cooling-market-in-data-centers
9. Microsoft and WSP Global, “Using Life Cycle Assessment to Drive Innovation for Sustainable Cool Clouds,” Nature, May 2025. Available: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12058514/
10. Chemical & Engineering News, “Data Centers Take the Plunge,” C&EN, August 2025. Available: https://cen.acs.org/business/Data-centers-take-plunge/103/web/2025/08
11. Data Center Dynamics, “Two-Phase Cooling Will Be Hit by EPA Rules and 3M’s Exit from PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals,’” February 2026. Available: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/two-phase-cooling-will-be-hit-by-epa-rules-and-3ms-exit-from-pfas-forever-chemicals/
12. The Cooling Report, “The Fluid That Made Two-Phase Immersion Cooling Work Just Became a Liability Worth $12.5 Billion,” March 2026. Available: https://thecoolingreport.com/intel/pfas-two-phase-immersion-cooling-crisis
13. Grist, “The Trump Administration’s Data Center Push Could Open the Door for New Forever Chemicals,” December 2025. Available: https://grist.org/accountability/the-trump-administrations-data-center-push-could-open-the-door-for-new-forever-chemicals/
14. Plastics Engineering, “PFAS-Free Liquid Cooling Hardware for AI Data Centers,” November 2025. Available: https://www.plasticsengineering.org/2025/11/pfas-free-liquid-cooling-hardware-for-ai-data-centers-010198/
15. Network World, “Why AI Rack Densities Make Liquid Cooling Nonnegotiable,” March 2026. Available: https://www.networkworld.com/article/4149069/why-ai-rack-densities-make-liquid-cooling-nonnegotiable.html
16. International Energy Agency, “Energy Demand from AI,” Energy and AI Report, 2025. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai
17. Gartner, “Gartner Says Electricity Demand for Data Centers to Grow 16% in 2025 and Double by 2030,” November 2025. Available: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-11-17-gartner-says-electricity-demand-for-data-centers-to-grow-16-percent-in-2025-and-double-by-2030
18. U.S. Congressional Research Service, “Data Centers and Their Energy Consumption: Frequently Asked Questions,” Report R48646, January 2026. Available: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48646
19. S&P Global Market Intelligence (451 Research), “Data Center Grid-Power Demand to Rise 22% in 2025, Nearly Triple by 2030,” October 2025. Available: https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/101425-data-center-grid-power-demand-to-rise-22-in-2025-nearly-triple-by-2030
20. S&P Global Market Intelligence, “Global Data Center Power Demand Expected to Almost Double by 2030,” November 2025. Available: https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/110525-global-data-center-power-demand-expected-to-almost-double-by-2030
21. Goldman Sachs, “AI to Drive 165% Increase in Data Center Power Demand by 2030,” February 2025. Available: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/ai-to-drive-165-increase-in-data-center-power-demand-by-2030
22. World Resources Institute, “Powering the US Data Center Boom: The Challenge of Forecasting Electricity Needs,” 2025. Available: https://www.wri.org/insights/us-data-centers-electricity-demand
23. Carbon Brief, “AI: Five Charts That Put Data-Centre Energy Use – and Emissions – into Context,” September 2025. Available: https://www.carbonbrief.org/ai-five-charts-that-put-data-centre-energy-use-and-emissions-into-context/
24. Kroll Tax Services, “Gas Turbines & the Data-Center Surge: Powering AI Growth,” Kroll Tax Insights Q1 2026. Available: https://www.kroll.com/en/reports/tax/kroll-tax-insights-q1-2026/gas-turbines-today-powering-hyperscaler-data-center-surge
25. Gas Turbine World, “Powering the Data Center Boom,” November 2025. Available: https://gasturbineworld.com/powering-the-data-center-boom/
26. Global Energy Monitor, “Betting Big on Data Centers, U.S. Now Leads World for New Gas Power Development,” January 2026. Available: https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/betting-big-on-data-centers-u-s-now-leads-world-for-new-gas-power-development/
27. Marketplace (APM), “More Data Centers Plan to Build Their Own Natural Gas Plants for Power,” February 2026. Available: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/02/04/more-data-centers-plan-to-build-their-own-natural-gas-plants-for-power
28. Turbomachinery Magazine, “Surging Gas Turbine Demand Fueled by Data Center, AI Growth,” December 2025. Available: https://www.turbomachinerymag.com/view/surging-gas-turbine-demand-fueled-by-data-center-ai-growth
29. Bloomberg, “Gas-Turbine Prices Surge, Crimping Efforts to Power Data Centers,” April 2026.
30. Mitsubishi Power, “U.S. Power Outlook for 2025 and Long-Term Trends: AI Data Center Boom Creates Opportunities and Challenges for Gas Turbine OEMs,” November 2025. Available: https://power.mhi.com/regions/amer/insights/us-power-outlook-and-long-term-trends
31. Latitude Media, “The Data Center Boom Is a Diesel Generator Boom,” March 2026. Available: https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/the-data-center-boom-is-a-diesel-generator-boom/
32. The National Interest, “AI’s Dirty Secret: Why Diesel Still Powers the Digital Age,” December 2025. Available: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/ais-dirty-secret-why-diesel-still-powers-the-digital-age
33. Power Engineering, “Onsite Gas Turbines, Reciprocating Engines to Power Meta Data Center,” June 2025. Available: https://www.power-eng.com/onsite-power/onsite-gas-turbines-reciprocating-engines-to-power-meta-data-center/
34. Data Center Dynamics, “ProEnergy Repurposes Jet Engines to Power Data Centers Amid Gas Turbine Shortages,” March 2026. Available: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/proenergy-offers-repurposed-jet-engines-to-data-cent/
35. Grist, “Data Centers Are Scrambling to Power the AI Boom with Natural Gas,” February 2026. Available: https://grist.org/energy/data-centers-natural-gas-methane-behind-the-meter/

Condition monitoring is sometimes portrayed in industry messaging as being effectively limited to vibration analysis and ultrasound. Such claims, including those recently advanced by emerging vendors in the sensing technology space, reflect a broader pattern of marketing-driven simplification rather than technical accuracy. International standards define condition monitoring as a process that incorporates multiple diagnostic techniques, including lubricant analysis, vibration, thermography, and electrical methods ¹.

Reliability-centered maintenance theory further emphasizes that different technologies are required to detect distinct failure modes and stages of degradation ². Empirical research in predictive maintenance consistently demonstrates that no single method provides complete fault coverage across all mechanical systems ³. These foundational perspectives establish that condition monitoring must be understood as an integrated, multi-technology framework rather than a simplified binary construct.

Condition monitoring must be understood as an integrated, multi-technology framework rather than a simplified binary construct.

Oil analysis is a critical component of this framework because it can detect early-stage degradation and identify the root causes of failure. Oil analysis is formally recognized as a primary condition monitoring method capable of evaluating lubricant condition, contamination, and wear debris as indicators of machine health ¹. Standardized testing methods developed by ASTM provide consistent procedures for assessing these parameters across a wide range of equipment types ⁷.

In particular, tribological research demonstrates that wear particle generation occurs at the onset of failure mechanisms, often preceding measurable changes in vibration signatures ⁴. Furthermore, applied studies in machinery diagnostics show that oil analysis frequently identifies incipient faults earlier than vibration-based methods in rotating equipment systems ⁶. Accordingly, this article directly challenges reductionist claims by demonstrating that condition monitoring is inherently multi-modal and that oil analysis plays a critical, often leading role in fault detection and diagnosis.

Condition Monitoring as a Multi-Technology Framework

Standards and Established Practice

Condition monitoring is fundamentally structured as a multi-technology discipline designed to capture different dimensions of machine degradation. ISO 17359 explicitly identifies lubricant analysis as a primary condition-monitoring technique, alongside vibration and other diagnostic methods ¹. Furthermore, reliability-centered maintenance frameworks reinforce that the selection of monitoring technologies must align with specific failure mechanisms rather than convenience or convention ².

In addition, industry research demonstrates that combining multiple technologies significantly improves fault detection accuracy and reduces the risk of missed failures ³. Taken together, these perspectives confirm that any attempt to reduce condition monitoring to a limited subset of technologies is inconsistent with established practice.

Any attempt to reduce condition monitoring to a limited subset of technologies is inconsistent with established practice.

This broader context underscores the need to examine how different technologies contribute uniquely to fault detection.

Failure Mechanism Complexity

The necessity of multiple technologies becomes more evident when considering the complexity of failure mechanisms in rotating equipment. Mechanical systems experience degradation through processes such as wear, fatigue, corrosion, and contamination ⁸. Notably, each process produces distinct physical and chemical signatures that are not uniformly detectable by a single monitoring method ⁵.

Moreover, empirical studies have shown that certain faults remain undetected when relying exclusively on vibration or acoustic methods ⁹. Consequently, this complexity reinforces—not merely suggests—the need for oil analysis within a comprehensive monitoring strategy.

Oil Analysis as a Foundational Diagnostic Method

Lubricant Condition and Wear Assessment

Oil analysis serves as a foundational diagnostic method by providing direct insight into both lubricant condition and machine wear. Standard practices defined by ASTM establish oil analysis as a structured approach for monitoring viscosity, oxidation, contamination, and wear metals ⁷. In particular, tribological research confirms that lubricants act as carriers of wear debris and contaminants, effectively transporting evidence of internal machine conditions ⁴.

Additionally, engineering studies demonstrate that oil analysis enables simultaneous evaluation of mechanical and chemical degradation processes ⁵. As a result, this dual capability distinguishes oil analysis from external sensing methods that rely solely on energy measurement. This distinction becomes particularly important when precise diagnostic resolution is required for effective maintenance decisions.

Characterizing Wear Mechanisms

The diagnostic depth of oil analysis is further enhanced by its ability to characterize wear mechanisms. Analytical ferrography and particle analysis techniques allow for the identification of wear modes such as abrasion, adhesion, and fatigue ⁹. Likewise, elemental spectroscopy provides additional resolution by linking detected metals to specific machine components ⁶.

Together, these capabilities enable practitioners to move beyond fault detection and toward precise failure diagnosis. Consequently, this level of diagnostic resolution establishes oil analysis as a critical tool for understanding the underlying causes of machine degradation.

Early Fault Detection and the Failure Progression Curve

Detection at the Point of Origin

Oil analysis enables earlier fault detection by identifying degradation at the point of origin within the machine. Wear particles are generated during the initial stages of material interaction, often before significant energy is produced ⁴.

In fact, empirical studies have shown that wear debris analysis can detect bearing and gear faults months in advance of vibration-based detection thresholds ⁶. In applied industrial settings, advanced lubricant data analysis has demonstrated the potential to extend this detection window significantly, in some cases approaching multiple years of advanced indication.

Wear debris analysis can detect bearing and gear faults months in advance of vibration-based detection thresholds.

Furthermore, additional research indicates that early-stage contamination and lubricant degradation can be identified before they result in measurable mechanical symptoms ⁵. As a result, these findings demonstrate that oil analysis operates at the earliest portion of the failure progression curve. This early positioning is best understood within the context of reliability engineering models.

The P–F Interval Advantage

The temporal advantage of oil analysis is best understood within the context of the P–F interval. Reliability literature defines the P–F interval as the time between detectable potential failure and functional failure ². Importantly, technologies that detect faults earlier within this interval provide a greater opportunity for corrective action and risk mitigation ³.

In contrast, comparative studies have shown that vibration analysis often detects faults at later stages when damage has progressed sufficiently to affect machine dynamics ⁹. Therefore, this positioning highlights the strategic value of oil analysis in extending the predictive maintenance window.

Root Cause Identification and Diagnostic Resolution

Particle Morphology and Elemental Analysis

Oil analysis provides diagnostic resolution that enables the identification of root causes of failure. Wear particle morphology allows analysts to distinguish between different wear mechanisms based on particle size, shape, and texture ⁴. Elemental analysis further supports root cause identification by associating specific metals with machine components ⁶.

Contamination analysis reveals external influences such as dirt ingress or water contamination that contribute to accelerated wear ⁵. These capabilities allow oil analysis to move beyond symptom detection and toward causal diagnosis. This ability to identify underlying causes has direct implications for maintenance effectiveness.

From Symptoms to Causes

The ability to identify root causes has significant implications for maintenance strategy. Corrective actions based on root cause analysis are more effective than those based solely on symptom detection ³. Studies in reliability engineering have demonstrated that addressing underlying causes reduces recurrence rates and improves equipment lifespan ².

Corrective actions based on root cause analysis are more effective than those based solely on symptom detection.

In contrast, technologies that primarily detect symptoms may require additional analysis to determine the source of failure ⁹. This distinction reinforces the importance of oil analysis within a comprehensive diagnostic framework.

Internal Access Versus External Measurement

The Lubricant as a Diagnostic Medium

Oil analysis provides direct access to the internal operating environment of machinery. Lubricants circulate through critical components, collecting information about wear, contamination, and chemical changes ⁵. As such, tribological studies confirm that this internal perspective allows for the detection of conditions that are not immediately observable through external measurement ⁸.

Moreover, wear debris transported in the lubricant reflects real-time interactions occurring at the surface level of machine components ⁴. Consequently, this internal visibility provides a unique diagnostic advantage. This advantage becomes more apparent when contrasted with external sensing approaches.

Limitations of External Sensing

External sensing technologies, including vibration and ultrasound, rely on detecting energy transmitted through machine structures. By comparison, these methods require faults to reach a severity level that produces measurable signals ⁹. Additionally, signal interpretation can be influenced by factors such as machine geometry and operating conditions ³.

As a result, certain early-stage faults may remain undetected until they progress further. This contrast highlights the complementary nature of internal and external monitoring approaches, particularly when evaluating the limitations of any single diagnostic method.

Limitations of Vibration and Ultrasound as Exclusive Solutions

Detection Gaps in Single-Technology Approaches

Vibration and ultrasound are valuable diagnostic tools, but are limited when used as standalone solutions. Vibration analysis is highly effective for detecting imbalance, misalignment, and looseness, but is less sensitive to early-stage wear in low-energy conditions ³. Ultrasound can detect friction-related phenomena but provides limited information regarding wear mechanisms and contamination sources ⁹.

Research has shown that reliance on a single technology increases the likelihood of missed or delayed fault detection ². These limitations underscore the need for a multi-technology approach. This recognition leads directly to the importance of integrating complementary diagnostic methods.

Closing the Gap with Oil Analysis

The integration of oil analysis addresses many of these limitations by providing complementary data. Oil analysis captures early-stage degradation and identifies root causes, while vibration and ultrasound provide information about fault severity and dynamic behavior ⁵.

Studies in predictive maintenance demonstrate that combining these methods improves diagnostic accuracy and maintenance decision-making ³. This integrated approach aligns with best practices in reliability engineering and forms the basis for modern condition monitoring strategies.

Integration of Technologies in Modern Reliability Practice

Complementary Diagnostics as Core Principle

Modern reliability practice formalizes the integration of multiple condition monitoring technologies as a core operational principle. Reliability-centered maintenance frameworks advocate for the use of complementary diagnostic tools to address different failure modes ². Industry research demonstrates that integrated monitoring programs achieve higher reliability and lower maintenance costs than single-technology approaches ³.

Tribological and mechanical studies confirm that combining internal and external monitoring methods provides a more complete understanding of machine condition ⁸. These findings support a holistic approach to condition monitoring. This holistic approach is essential for maximizing diagnostic effectiveness.

Building a Comprehensive Diagnostic System

The integration of oil analysis with vibration and ultrasound creates a comprehensive diagnostic system. Oil analysis provides early detection and root cause identification, while vibration and ultrasound assess fault progression and severity ⁵. This combination enables more informed maintenance decisions and reduces the risk of unexpected failures ⁹.

Integrated monitoring programs achieve higher reliability and lower maintenance costs than single-technology approaches.

The resulting synergy enhances both detection capability and diagnostic accuracy. This integrated perspective provides the foundation for evaluating reductionist claims.

Conclusion

The assertion that condition monitoring has been reduced to vibration analysis and ultrasound is inconsistent with established standards, empirical research, and practical application. Oil analysis is recognized as a primary condition-monitoring technology in international standards and provides unique capabilities for early fault detection and root-cause identification ¹. Furthermore, tribological and engineering research demonstrates that oil analysis detects degradation at its origin and offers diagnostic insights not available through external sensing methods ^4,5.

In addition, reliability frameworks confirm that effective condition monitoring requires integrating multiple technologies rather than relying on a single approach ². Therefore, a more accurate and defensible position is that condition monitoring is a multi-technology discipline in which oil analysis plays a critical and often leading role in identifying and diagnosing machine failure.

To suggest otherwise is misleading and reflects a reductionist narrative that prioritizes market positioning over technical accuracy.

Growth strategies that narrow the scope of condition monitoring do not improve reliability; rather, they dilute it.

As industry leaders, we have a responsibility to represent these technologies accurately and with integrity, ensuring that end users are equipped with the full range of tools necessary to detect, diagnose, and prevent failure. Ultimately, anything less is a disservice to the profession and the organizations that depend on it.

References

1. ISO. (2018). ISO 17359: Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines—General guidelines.
2. Moubray, J. (1997). Reliability-Centered Maintenance.
3. Bloch, H. P., & Geitner, F. K. (2014). Machinery Failure Analysis and Troubleshooting.
4. Stachowiak, G. W., & Batchelor, A. W. (2014). Engineering Tribology.
5. Totten, G. E. (2006). Handbook of Lubrication and Tribology.
6. Macian, V., et al. (2003). Wear, 255, 1297–1305.
7. ASTM International. (2020). Standards for used oil analysis and condition monitoring.
8. Hutchings, I. M., & Shipway, P. (2017). Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials.
9. Anderson, D. (2012). Oil Analysis Solutions.

Over the years, I have come across instances where issues have arisen, such as the filters blinding prematurely.  With testing, this has ultimately been identified as leaving the tank open in a paper mill, and an investigation of the elements highlighted this, along with the high particle counts. 

There have been other root causes, such as mineral oil being added to a phosphate ester oil on an electro-hydraulic control system, or, in another case, the oil supplier putting engine oil in drums intended for turbine oil.  In the latter case, within less than an hour of topping up the turbine tank with just one of the mislabelled drums, the filters were showing as blocked, and the turbine was out of service for six months.

Within less than an hour of topping up the turbine tank with just one mislabelled drum, the filters were blocked, and the turbine was out of service for six months.

A more confusing scenario was a switch in supplier for a bearing oil at a paper mill.  The end-user was assured of compatibility, but it transpired that a difference in the additive package, combined with water ingress (it was a paper mill after all), led to deposits on the filter.  This could so easily have been checked by a filter-compatibility test from the new oil supplier.  Filter companies often offer this service as well.

Consequently, I tend to use the following checklist when clients experience sudden, premature filter blockages in a previously stable system.

In the first instance, however, it is always useful to ask what the last maintenance action was, as this is often the cause or at least a clue to the possible cause. 

While a number of these were major incidents involving high costs, I still frequently encounter the “oil is just oil” issue, and top-ups on smaller machines have been made with the wrong oil.

I still frequently encounter the “oil is just oil” issue, and top-ups on smaller machines have been made with the wrong oil.

Typically, I might get a phone call along the lines of “Is it possible to see if the wrong oil has been used for a top-up?”  To which my answer is always, “Let me guess, you found the wrong container next to the asset?”  Invariably, the answer is always yes. 

Field Checks Before the Lab

So, when it comes to testing for the wrong oils used as top-ups, before even considering a laboratory test, there are a few basics to consider first.

What the Lab Results Reveal

When it comes to laboratory testing, ideally, two samples need to be sent: a sample of the correct oil from a container in the store, along with the suspect sample from the asset.  Using a sample of the correct oil, fresh from a container, a reasonable baseline for inorganic additive levels can be established and used for comparison with the suspect oil.

In terms of testing, however, apart from the obvious chemical and physical properties, measured wear rates may be affected by incorrect oil, which will elevate the measured wear metals. 

Ultimately, though, several lessons spring to mind that we would do well to remember:

1. Training and raising awareness of the need to avoid cross-mixing oils
2. The use of a color code system for lubricants, with the color code visible on the new containers in stores, on handling equipment, and on assets.
3. Guarantees backed up by insurance coverage from the suppliers when switching lubricant brands, but ideally, with technical testing.
4. Certificates of conformity for all new batches of lubricants supplied.
5. Random sampling of new oils, particularly for the high-cost assets.

Temperature is a dominant factor influencing lubricant degradation, machine reliability, and overall asset performance. The widely accepted heuristic that lubricant life is reduced by half for every 10 °C increase in temperature is rooted in the Arrhenius equation, which describes the exponential relationship between temperature and chemical reaction rates.

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of thermally driven degradation mechanisms, supported by graphical interpretation, and discusses the implications for reliability-centered maintenance strategies.

Lubrication is a fundamental pillar of machine reliability, directly influencing friction, wear, and thermal stability. However, its effectiveness is strongly dependent on operating temperature.

Heat speeds up oil failure and quietly reduces its ability to do its job.

In industrial systems, even moderate temperature increases can significantly accelerate lubricant degradation while simultaneously reducing its load-carrying capacity creating a compounded reliability risk often underestimated in maintenance strategies.

Thermokinetic Fundamentals: The Arrhenius Equation

The degradation of lubricants follows chemical kinetics governed by the Arrhenius equation:

This equation demonstrates that reaction rates increase exponentially with temperature, forming the scientific basis for the widely used engineering rule:

For every 10 °C increase, lubricant life is reduced by approximately 50%.

The exponential nature of this relationship is illustrated below:

Technical Interpretation:

• Reaction rates remain relatively low at moderate temperatures
• Beyond a threshold, degradation accelerates sharply
• Small temperature increases result in disproportionately high chemical activity

This explains why oxidation, additive depletion, and oil breakdown escalate rapidly in elevated temperature conditions.

Thermally Driven Lubricant Degradation Mechanisms

Elevated temperatures initiate multiple degradation pathways:

• Oxidation acceleration (acid formation, sludge, varnish)
• Additive depletion (loss of antioxidants and anti-wear protection)
• Thermal cracking (molecular breakdown of base oil)
• Volatilization (loss of light fractions)
• Deposit formation (varnish and carbon residues)

These mechanisms are not independent – they interact synergistically, amplifying degradation rates.

Viscosity-Temperature Relationship and Lubrication Regimes

While temperature accelerates chemical degradation, it also directly affects lubricant physical properties, particularly viscosity.

Technical Interpretation:

• Viscosity decreases exponentially with increasing temperature
• Reduced viscosity leads to thinner lubricant films
• Increased risk of metal-to-metal contact

This directly impacts lubrication regimes:

• Hydrodynamic → Mixed → Boundary lubrication

As viscosity drops, the lubricant loses its ability to separate surfaces, dramatically increasing wear rates.

Combined Effect: The Dual Degradation Mechanism

One of the most critical insights from reliability engineering is the simultaneous occurrence of two degradation processes:

1. Chemical degradation accelerates (Arrhenius effect)
2. Mechanical protection decreases (viscosity loss)

Key Insight

Temperature does not create a single failure mechanism it creates a compound failure environment.

This dual effect significantly increases failure probability, particularly in:

• High-load systems
• High-speed machinery
• Thermally stressed applications (compressors, turbines, hydraulics)

Impact on Machine Components

Bearings:

• Reduced film thickness
• Increased asperity contact
• Accelerated fatigue

Bearing life may be reduced by up to 50% under poor thermal and lubrication conditions.

Seals and Elastomers

• Thermal hardening
• Loss of elasticity
• Increased leakage and contamination

System-Level Effects

• Filter clogging (due to varnish/sludge)
• Reduced heat transfer efficiency
• Increased internal friction

Thermal Feedback Loop in Failure Development

A critical reliability concept is the self-accelerating failure cycle:

1. Temperature increases
2. Lubricant degrades
3. Friction increases
4. Heat generation increases
5. Further degradation occurs

This feedback loop explains many catastrophic and unexpected failures in industrial systems.

Reliability Engineering and Maintenance Strategy

To mitigate thermal effects, organizations must adopt a proactive approach:

Monitoring

• Temperature sensors
• Infrared thermography
• Online oil condition monitoring

Predictive Maintenance

• Viscosity tracking
• TAN and oxidation analysis
• Particle counting (ISO 4406)

Prescriptive Actions

• Improve cooling systems
• Use synthetic lubricants with high thermal stability
• Control contamination
• Optimize lubrication intervals

Strategic Implications for Asset Management

Temperature control must be treated as a critical reliability variable, not a secondary parameter.

Organizations that integrate thermal management into lubrication strategies achieve:

• Increased MTBF
• Reduced downtime
• Lower maintenance costs
• Improved operational efficiency

Temperature is one of the most influential factors affecting lubricant performance and asset reliability.

The Arrhenius relationship and viscosity-temperature behavior clearly demonstrate that thermal effects simultaneously:

• Accelerate chemical degradation
• Reduce mechanical protection

This dual mechanism significantly increases failure risk.

Effective temperature control is not optional; it is essential for achieving high reliability and operational excellence.

References

• Bannister, K. (2007). Practical Lubrication for Industrial Facilities.
• Bloch, H. P. (2004). Machinery Failure Analysis and Troubleshooting.
• Fitch, J. (2012). Lubrication and Reliability Handbook.
• Harris, T. A. (2006). Rolling Bearing Analysis.
• Mortier, R. M. (2011). Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants.
• Moubray, J. (1997). Reliability-Centered Maintenance.
• Stachowiak, G. (2014). Engineering Tribology.
• ISO 4406 – Cleanliness Code
• ISO 55000 – Asset Management

Crude oil prices have fluctuated significantly over the past 12 months, with a recent sharp increase in 2026 due to the crisis in the Middle East, while global lubricating oil prices remain relatively stable and do not directly track crude oil volatility.

An analysis of the monthly average crude oil prices (spot average of Brent, WTI, and Dubai in USD per barrel) and price estimates per liter for lubricants such as ISO 46 mineral hydraulic, engine synthetic, ISO 320 mineral and synthetic current shows that now there is no significant variation and depends more on brands and volumes.

Lubricants do not immediately reflect changes in oil due to long-term contracts and stocks.

Why is there no rise in lube oil prices if there was a rise in oil prices?

Lube oil prices have not risen immediately despite the recent increase in crude oil (from ~60 USD/barrel to 95 USD in March 2026) due to several structural factors in the industrial supply chain.

Main reasons

• Delay in the production chain: The oil is refined into base oils, a process that takes 2 to 6 months. Lubricants use stocks purchased at previous prices, cushioning rapid rises.
• Long-term contracts: Lubricant manufacturers sign fixed agreements (3 to 12 months) for base oils and additives, which represent between 70 and 80% of the final cost of the product, but are not adjusted daily like spot crude.
• Low proportion of crude oil: Only 50 to 70% of the lubricant is petroleum-derived base oil; the rest are imported additives (20-40%), packaging and margins, diluting the impact a little more, 10 to 20% of the final price.
• Isolated volatility: The oil base markets have their own dynamics (refinery supply, technical shutdowns, scheduled maintenance); they do not follow Brent/WTI 1:1.
• Stable demand and competition: Industrial, hydraulic, or gear lubricants, for example, are sold in large volumes with negotiated prices, without the “rocket-feather effect” as marked as in fuels.

Comparison with fuels

•  The stability of oils reflects robust supply chains and low spot volatility, although gradual increases may be beginning to be felt in some countries and may soon become a practice globally.
• The war in the Middle East (which began on February 28, 2026) has caused significant disruptions in the global production of petroleum derivatives, including lubricants such as those in the table above, although the effects on lubricants are more indirect and later than on fuels.

Confirmed impacts on petroleum derivatives

• Fall in crude oil supply: Up to 8 million barrels per day less (IEA, March 2026), due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (20% of world oil), cuts in the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.), and attacks on Iranian and regional refineries.
• Affected refineries: Shutdown of complexes in Iran, Qatar, and others, reducing capacity to produce base oils (raw material for lubricants). These impact derivatives such as gasoline, diesel, and lubricants.
• Lubricants specifically: what we can expect in the following months

• • Price increase announced (not immediate shortages)
  • Rising energy, transport, and raw material prices
  • Lubricant refining process (vacuum distillation + hydrogenation) depends on stable crude
  • Outages lead to delays of 1 to 3 months

 Table of effects by product type

Impact of the rise in oil prices on these economies

The rise in oil prices generates energy inflation, but the large economies can cushion through diversification and reserves.

• Importers (China, India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, France): Cost increase by 10 to 20% in transport/industry.
• Exporters (Russia, Indonesia): They will generate extra profits and have plans to invest in local refining.
• USA: Minimal impact, less than 2%, refiners increase their profit margins.

Effect on demand and stock of lubricants

Although most countries have not yet seen a direct impact on end-user prices, the situation is not stable, and the impact is expected to materialize sooner or later.

Conclusions and recommendations

If you can negotiate the prices and purchase volumes of your plant and depend on the region where you are located, you can apply any of the following recommendations:

• The stock in Europe, the US, and China in the next 2 to 6 months is stable and there will probably not be a price increase, unless producers take advantage of this scenario; but if the conflict continues for more than months, there is a possible strangulation of the production chain with an immediate impact and increases in industrial oils starting in the summer.
• The 10 largest economies in the world and the surrounding countries are facing possible inflation, but they maintain a lubricant demand, as the industry is inelastic. This means that even though lubricant prices are likely to rise, the industry needs to buy what it needs.
• Secure short- to medium-term stocks with your lubricant supplier, or prioritize advanced purchases of the most-consumed products in your plant.
• Invest wisely in training for your maintenance personnel, in applications and tools that allow you to keep the lubricant in proper conditions and in lubricant analysis with which you ensure that when discarding oil it is because it no longer fulfills any of its main functions for which it has been designed and can have a negative impact on the lubricated component and the availability of the machine.

Moving Beyond Detection to Deliver Reliability

For maintenance managers and reliability professionals, identifying a problem is only the beginning. The real objective is preventing it from happening again.

In demanding industries with processing and manufacturing equipment that operate under high loads, harsh environments, and tight production schedules, when a gearbox, hydraulic system, or bearing fails, the cost extends far beyond replacement parts. Uptime, safety, and production are on the line.

Oil analysis plays a critical role in early detection. But when advanced diagnostics are applied, it becomes a powerful tool for root cause investigation.

Routine Testing Identifies the Symptom

Standard oil analysis parameters like wear metals, contamination levels, viscosity, oxidation, and particle counts are essential for trending and early warning. They answer important questions like: Is wear increasing? Is contamination entering the system? Is the lubricant degrading prematurely?

However, for reliability engineers tasked with eliminating repeat failures, elevated iron levels or rising particle counts just aren’t enough. Those results identify the symptom – not the failure mechanism.

Understanding the mechanism is what drives corrective action to prevent future problems.

Filter Debris Analysis: Examining What the Filter Captures

In high-load applications common in production and manufacturing operations, significant wear debris is often captured by the filter before it can be detected in a standard oil sample.

Filter Debris Analysis retrieves and evaluates that trapped material, providing a clearer picture of active damage. Using Analytical Ferrography and Micropatch testing to examine particle size, morphology, and composition, analysts can determine whether the debris originates from rolling element fatigue, gear tooth spalling, severe sliding wear and even break-in conditions versus progressive failure.

For a maintenance manager, this level of detail supports informed, smarter decisions; to continue operating under monitoring, schedule a controlled shutdown, or take immediate action. It replaces guesswork with evidence.

Define the Wear Mode

Analytical Ferrography testing uses magnetic separation and microscopic examination to characterize wear particles in detail. This method distinguishes between wear modes and can answer these questions:

Are wear particles caused by rubbing wear during normal operation?
Is it cutting wear caused by abrasive contamination?
Is lubrication film failure causing severe sliding wear?
Is it fatigue wear caused by surface distress?
Are chemicals causing corrosive wear?

For facilities where contamination control and lubricant performance are critical, identifying the wear mode is often the turning point in a root cause investigation.

For example, severe sliding wear may indicate inadequate viscosity selection or excessive load. Cutting wear often traces back to contamination control deficiencies in breathers, seals, or overall maintenance practices. Fatigue wear may reveal misalignment or load distribution problems.

Without microscopic confirmation, these distinctions are difficult to make. With it, corrective actions become targeted and sustainable.

Microscopic Contaminant Identification: Finding the Entry Pathway

Contamination remains one of the leading root causes of equipment failure across all industries. Advanced microscopic analysis can identify:

• Silica from environmental dirt
• Process materials unique to processing and manufacturing facilities
• Fibers from filters or cleaning materials

Reliability managers can use this information to address ingress points, refine storage and handling practices, or adjust filtration strategies. Instead of repeatedly changing oil, facilities can eliminate the source.

Turning Data Into Reliability Strategy

For reliability engineers, the goal is not simply monitoring machine health – it is building a no-surprises culture around asset performance.

Advanced oil analysis techniques such as Filter Debris Analysis and Analytical Ferrography transform a condition monitoring program into a diagnostic partnership. They provide evidence-based insight that supports root cause analysis, justifies maintenance planning decisions, and reduces repeat failures.

In high-demand production environments, that distinction matters.

Oil carries the story of what is happening inside your equipment. When you look beyond the numbers and examine the evidence, you move from reacting to failures to preventing them. And that is where real reliability gains are made.

Several years ago, I published an article titled, “How to Get Started with Onsite Oil Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide”.  In that article, I outline 7 steps to developing a successful onsite program:

1. Developing an equipment criticality profile
2. Determining sampling frequency
3. Developing a sample test slate and alarms
4. Designing a lab
5. Designating a lubricant storage space (and keeping it tidy and clean)
6. Training
7. Software

Let’s build on that article and review some key advancements in the industry that are highlighted in Spectro Scientific’s TruVu 360^TM software and the new AI-enabled oil health forecasting tool, TruVu 360^TM Fluid IQ.  We will look at how the new features in the software can help with defining equipment criticality and risk, sampling frequency, and oil analysis alarms.

Equipment Criticality

Defining equipment criticality remains the first step in getting started with managing a program onsite.  There are several standard methods the end user can use to evaluate criticality, including ASTM 7874, Standard Guide for Applying Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to In-Service Lubricant Testing, and ASTM D6224, Standard Practice for In-Service Monitoring of Lubricating Oil for Auxiliary Power Plant Equipment.

Once criticality is determined, reliability engineers need to use that information and incorporate it into the overall workflow of the oil condition monitoring program. That means prioritizing maintenance checks, sampling, and testing based on the risk profile.

In TruVu 360^TM, the equipment risk profile is defined using concepts from ISO 13381-2025.  Users can assign these risk levels within the TruVu 360^TM software, with TruVu 360TM Fluid IQ enabled, to each component.  Risk and recommendations from the software go hand in hand.  The greater the risk associated with the component, the more conservative the recommendations for sampling and oil changes.  An important concept to define early and evaluate often to ensure the program continues to meet the organization’s goals.

Sampling Frequency

Determining the sampling frequency for critical components is often the most complex part of setting up a program.  Reliability engineers can find themselves oversampling, but more commonly, not enough.  Relying on industry documentation and OEM’s has been the norm, but new advances in artificial intelligence have enabled smarter sampling strategies.

TruVu 360^TM Fluid IQ users now have the opportunity to implement smart sampling into their maintenance strategies. Building on the idea of risk evaluation, sampling recommendations are made using sampling history and historical trends, and comparing to a broad database of like-components, operating history, and sample history to forecast when the next sample needs to be taken. This strategy enables optimized sampling aligned with the condition rather than fixed schedules.

Alarms

Setting proper alarm levels is also a challenging part of managing an onsite program.  Again, OEM recommendations, ASTM standards, and reference materials are available to help.

Users may find the ideas outlined in ASTM D7720 helpful (ASTM D7720: Standard Guide for Statistically Evaluating Measurand Alarm Limits when Using Oil Analysis to Monitor Equipment and Oil for Fitness and Contamination).  ASTM D7720 outlines condition-based alarm concepts, helping users adjust alarm levels based on the component’s condition.

This methodology is particularly helpful for users who may have a large number of severe alarms to manage (and reduce) but simply can’t address everything at once.  The statistical models referenced in D7720 enable alarm adjustments based on historical data to effectively identify extremely elevated alarms and address maintenance concerns promptly.

By employing this approach as a systematic process, prioritizing and resolving the most significant alarms first, then reassessing after each stage, it is possible to incrementally return all alarms to their normal status.  When utilizing this technique, it is important to use the equipment criticality profile, which is directly correlated with safety, and ensure that adjusting alarms to support condition-based alarming, as outlined in ASTM D7720, is appropriate.

This condition-based alarming (ASTM D7720) concept is implemented in TruVu 360TM and can be easily applied if sufficient oil sample history is available for the component.

Software

There is software for every function of life, personal or work.  It can be overwhelming at times.  The key is to purchase software that offers the most options for quickly and effectively implementing an oil condition monitoring program onsite.  Spectro Scientific’s MiniLab with TruVu 360TM solution is a valuable tool for a complete, all-in-one oil analysis solution onsite.

With the new AI-enabled forecasting tool within TruVu 360^TM users can:

• Evaluate and record criticality of components using risk profiles
• Utilize AI to optimize sampling frequency
• Create condition-based alarms using ASTM D7720
• Utilize AI to predict the remaining useful life of the oil
• Understand limiting properties and catch issues early (even when the oil condition is normal)

Conclusion

It’s exciting to be part of the industry’s integration of AI techniques into onsite lab workflows. While the core principles of condition monitoring programs remain relevant, they are adapting to include advancements in AI.  If you would like more information about onsite oil analysis solutions, please reach out to me.

Learn More about TruVu 360 Fluid IQ

Oils are composed of base oils and additives. Typically, additives are sacrificial; they deplete first before the base oil is affected. As such, by trending their quantities over time, we can gain insight into a few of the conditions to which the oil is subjected.

By interpreting these conditions and patterns, we can correlate them with the health of the asset and plan accordingly for possible repairs or maintenance. In this article, we will do a deeper dive into ways these can be explored to add value to your asset management program.

Why Do Additives Matter?

Additives come in various ratios and chemical compositions, but when we talk about additives in oils, they really have three main functions. They can either;

• Enhance the properties of the base oil, which already exist
• Suppress the undesirable base oil properties or
• Impart new properties to the base oil

On their own, they cannot affect anything, but when coupled with a base oil, they can impact an asset. Base oils also have specific properties, which, when combined with additives, allow assets to perform at their best.

The real performance comes from how the additives and base oil work together.

As shown in Figure 1, some additives that enhance properties include antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, anti-foam agents, and demulsifying agents. Those responsible for suppressing undesirable properties can include pour-point depressants and viscosity improvers.

Finally, those responsible for imparting new properties include extreme-pressure additives, detergents, metal deactivators, and tackiness agents.

Here are some quick descriptions for a few of these additives, which will help you to gain an appreciation of their functions:

Antioxidants: these protect the oil from oxidation. They are very common in Turbine oils but can be found in many other oils. They are the first line of defense when oxidation begins and react with free radicals to neutralize them before they attack the base oil. 

Corrosion inhibitors: adsorb onto the metal surfaces to help protect them. Comprised of sodium sulphonates, alkylbenzene sulphonates, or alkylphosphoric acid partial esters.

Anti-foam agents: reduce surface tension to break up foam formation. Typically, these are silicon-based, although silicone-free defoamers also exist.

Demulsifying agents: enable water and oil to separate. These were formerly composed of barium and calcium, but modern formulations use special polyethylene glycols.

Pour point depressant: alters oil crystallization, allowing the oil to form fewer crystals at lower temperatures.   

Viscosity improvers: specifically designed to ensure that the viscosity of the lubricant can be more tolerant of changes in temperature and shear.  

Extreme pressure additives: used under high stress to prevent the welding of moving parts. Usually comprised of a phosphorus compound.

Antiwear additives: designed to reduce wear under moderate stress. The most famous sulphur-phosphorus compound is ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl dithiophosphate).

Detergents: keep oil soluble combustion products in suspension (especially for engine oils) and ensure they do not agglomerate. These usually contain metal additives such as Calcium and Magnesium.   

Understanding the function and composition of these additives can help us to determine how they are performing in the oil. Since many of these are sacrificial, their values will decrease over time. As such, it is important to trend these values to determine whether they are remaining constant, increasing, decreasing, or decreasing at an accelerated rate.

How Can Additives Deplete?

Additives can be depleted through different mechanisms. Some of these include:

• Regular consumption through normal functioning of the lubricant
• Antioxidant depletion during oxidation
• Antiwear depletion due to high wear on the inside of the equipment
• Additive depletion via a contaminant to produce a bleaching effect

As mentioned earlier, additives are sacrificial in nature. It is very normal to see additives deplete over time; if they are not depleting and increasing, this may be a cause for concern. This can mean that someone is topping up the oil frequently or perhaps topping up with an incorrect lubricant.

Since there are numerous oils on the market, the best way to monitor the depletion of your additives is to compare them against a new sample of that oil and use that as your baseline. Your lab will help you confirm when the additive limits are approaching the danger zones.

During oxidation, a free radical is formed under conditions such as heat, wear, metal catalysts, oxygen, or water. These free radicals are unstable, and antioxidants usually neutralize them.

In the process, antioxidant levels decrease. However, if the conditions still permit oxidation, more free radicals will be formed. This means that more antioxidants will be depleted as they neutralize the free radicals until they diminish and can no longer protect the base oil. This is when the free radicals begin to attack the base oil, and varnish can form.  

Once the antioxidants are gone, the oil stops defending – and starts degrading.

If there are causes of high wear, such as the incorrect viscosity of the lubricant (too thin) or the machine finishing of the inner parts of a component not being done to the required standard, this can affect the levels of antiwear in the oil. Antiwear additives protect the metal surfaces inside the equipment. However, these are only activated when moderate stress exists within the equipment.

Typically, in these situations, the antiwear additive adheres to the metal surface and helps protect it by forming a layer. Once this layer is formed, the antiwear additive has officially left the oil, and this will be reflected in a decrease in its value in the oil analysis report.

The layer will not remain forever, and due to wear on the equipment, it can be worn off and replaced by a new layer, leading to further depletion of the antiwear additives until there are no more to form another layer or protect the metal surface.

Contamination can also cause some additives to become depleted. Contaminants can react with additives, causing them to form deposits that leave the oil. Therefore, their presence will not be detected by oil analysis.

Some common contaminants are water, fuel, coolant, and acids. These contaminants can also promote the formation of catalysts for degradation mechanisms such as oxidation. Dirt and solid particles can also promote additive depletion, especially when they act as catalysts. 

What Tools Can Be Used to Monitor Additive Depletion?

There are some basic analytical tools that can be used to measure the quantity of additives in oils. The spectroscopy methods are the FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared) and ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma). Another method is the RULER® test exclusively designed for antioxidants.

With FTIR and ICP methods, users obtain quantitative values for the elements present in the tested oil sample. These are usually reported in ppm and trended over time. Figure 2 shows an extract from a Turbine Sample report from Eurofins lab, where the levels of additives (and contaminants) are shown. When trending this, analysts should pay attention to the rate at which these additives decrease and whether an increase or decrease is noticed.

Another tool that can be used is the RULER® (Remaining Useful Life Evaluation Routine) test, which specifically quantifies the levels of antioxidants remaining in the oil. It trends the values, compares them against the baseline for that oil, and then determines the change as a percentage.

If the RULER value falls below 25%, the antioxidant levels have reached a critical level, and one may consider replacing the oil. 

Figure 3 shows a RULER graph, which identifies the presence of different types of antioxidants (Amines) and antiwear additives (ZDDP), as well as oxidation products (Fluitec, 2022).

This is a comprehensive readout of the quantities of these additive types at the time of sampling. It is easy to get a quick snapshot of its trend over time and determine whether it is declining rapidly or reaching critical levels.

The key to using these analytical tools is to provide insight into what is happening inside the equipment, allowing us to determine whether any preventive action is needed.

By monitoring the quantities of these additives over time, we can easily establish whether oxidation is occurring, which can lead to varnish and overheating of the asset. We can also determine whether significant wear is occurring as the antiwear additives are depleted (confirmed by the presence of wear metals in the oil analysis). When monitoring your asset’s health, trending specific additive levels can also be very useful. 

References

Eurofins. (2025, September 06). Annual Turbine Analysis. Retrieved from Eurofins Testoil: https://testoil.com/services/turbine-oil-analysis/annual-turbine-analysis/

Fluitec. (2022, September 29). Why is LSV Used for RULER Analysis? Retrieved from Fluitec: https://www.fluitec.com/2022/09/29/why-is-lsv-used-for-ruler-analysis/

Introducing Lubripedia: The Definitive Illustrated Encyclopedia of Industrial Lubrication

Lubripedia is a full-color, 918-page encyclopedic reference featuring 1,001 carefully curated lubrication terms. Designed as the most comprehensive single-source guide to industrial lubrication ever published, the book bridges technical precision with accessible understanding in a discipline where accuracy matters.

Built for engineers, tribologists, maintenance professionals, lubrication practitioners, technicians, researchers, students, and decision-makers, Lubripedia works as both a quick-reference tool and a deeper learning resource. It covers foundational concepts alongside emerging terminology driven by synthetic materials, nanotechnology, sustainability, and digital condition monitoring.

Each entry delivers a concise definition supported by full-color illustrations, photographs, contextual explanations, and cross-references. Where relevant, entries include historical background and modern applications—connecting individual terms to the broader world of lubrication science and practice.

Why It Matters

Lubrication is fundamental to engineering, manufacturing, and everyday life—yet often invisible until failure occurs. From aerospace bearings to industrial gear systems to medical devices, effective lubrication directly impacts asset reliability, performance, and service life. Despite that, lubrication terminology remains dense and fragmented, creating barriers to communication, training, and operational excellence.

Lubripedia establishes a common, precise language that strengthens knowledge transfer, improves decision-making, and elevates professional practice across the lubrication and reliability community.

About the Author

Ken Bannister is an internationally recognized authority in machinery lubrication, reliability engineering, and asset management. He has authored more than 500 books, articles, and white papers in the field. Recent titles from River Publishers include Practical Lubrication for Industrial Facilities (Fourth Edition), Lubrication Strategies and Tips: How to Kick Start Your Lubrication Program, and The Maintenance Partnership Relationship.

Book Details

• Title: Lubripedia: A 1001 Concise Illustrated Encyclopedia Reference of All Things Lubrication
• Publisher: River Publishers
• Format: Full-color, 918 pages
• Scope: 1,001 lubrication terms with illustrations, photos, and cross-references
• ISBN (Hardback): 978-87-7004-140-9
• ISBN (Paperback): 978-87-802-2
• ISBN (Online): 978-87-4380-661-5

Oil analysis is widely recognized as one of the most potent tools in precision lubrication and reliability engineering. Yet, despite decades of industry experience, many organizations unknowingly undermine their effectiveness before the first sample is even taken.

A Real-World Example of a Hidden Oil Analysis Failure

Recently, we received an enquiry for an oil analysis call-off contract from a major industrial organization for their critical rotating machinery. The scope initially appeared comprehensive – until we examined the details. A closer review of the Scope of Work revealed a fundamental issue that, unfortunately, is becoming increasingly common across several industrial facilities.

The client attached the lubricant specification sheet, extracted directly from the OEM manual, assuming these parameters specified the tests to be performed on used oil samples during routine condition monitoring. When questioned regarding the selected oil analysis test package, the client reiterated that the OEM required the lubricant to meet the specifications stated in the Operation and Maintenance manual and therefore assumed that all such tests must be applied to used oil samples.

Where Oil Analysis Programs Go Off Track

This increasingly common assumption, observed in several recent cases, exposes a deeper industry-wide problem: a lack of understanding of what used oil analysis is intended to achieve.

New oil specifications and used oil analysis serve entirely different purposes.

OEM lubricant specification sheets are designed for one primary objective: To define the quality and performance requirements of fresh oil at the time of purchase and commissioning.

These specifications typically include properties such as:

• Viscosity grade limits
• Viscosity Index
• Flash point
• Pour point
• Density
• Rust-preventing characteristics
• Foaming characteristics
• Demulsibility
• Oxidation and ageing tests
• FZG or load-carrying capacity

All of these tests are essential – but only for qualifying new oil before it enters the system.

Once the oil is in service, the objective changes completely.

Used oil analysis is not about confirming what the oil was when it was new. It concerns understanding what is happening inside the machine at present.

Used Oil Analysis Is a Condition Monitoring Tool, Not a Compliance Checklist

In operating equipment – especially gas turbines, steam turbines, compressors, and hydraulic control systems – used oil analysis must answer particular reliability questions:

• Is the oil in healthy condition or degrading faster than expected?
• Is contamination entering the lubrication system?
• Are wear mechanisms developing inside bearings or gears?
• Is varnish or insoluble material forming?
• Are control valves, journals, or servo systems at risk?

Tests such as Pour point, Rust Prevention, Viscosity Index, or FZG ratings provide little to no actionable insight once the oil is in service. Meanwhile, critical failure mechanisms often go undetected when the wrong test slate is applied.

This is how organizations end up with beautiful laboratory reports but poor machine reliability.

What Goes Wrong When Spec Sheets Drive Your Oil Analysis Program

When OEM new-oil specifications are incorrectly used as an in-service oil analysis program, several things happen:

1. Early failure indicators are missed
   Parameters that actually trend degradation—such as varnish potential, water contamination, Particle cleanliness, and additive depletion—are either overlooked or underemphasized.
2. Oil analysis becomes reactive instead of predictive and proactive
   Issues are detected only after alarms, trips, or component damage occur.
3. Lubrication decisions lose credibility
   Maintenance teams receive reports that do not translate into clear actions, leading to distrust in oil analysis as a reliability tool.
4. Critical machinery reliability is compromised
   Bearings, journals, and hydraulic components fail prematurely – not solely due to oil quality, but also due to poor visibility into oil condition.

The True Purpose of Oil Analysis

To simultaneously assess three conditions:

1. Oil condition – how well the lubricant is holding up in service
2. Contamination condition – what unwanted materials are entering the system
3. Machine condition – what the oil is revealing about internal wear and distress of the machine.

When properly designed, an oil analysis program serves as an early-warning system, detecting degradation and failure mechanisms well before alarms, trips, or component damage occur.

However, this only works if the right tests are selected for the right purpose.

Before You Design an Oil Analysis Program, Audit Your Lubrication Practices

A robust oil analysis program should never be built by copying tables from OEM manuals.

Global best practice dictates that a Lubricant Benchmarking and Assessment Audit must precede the design of any oil analysis program.

A structured lubrication audit enables organizations to systematically identify gaps across all critical elements of machinery lubrication management.

• Lubricant Selection and Purchase
• Assess staff competency, training needs, and lubrication awareness
• Evaluate contamination control practices, including ingress prevention and filtration
• Review lubricant storage, handling, and dispensing methods
• Examine oil sampling practices and the condition monitoring program
• Verify machine-specific lubrication requirements and target cleanliness levels

Addressing these areas holistically ensures that oil analysis objectives are properly aligned with overall reliability and asset performance goals.

Oil Analysis Is Not a Lab Activity – It Is a Reliability Discipline

Oil analysis does not fail because laboratories lack capability. It fails because programs are often designed without a clear understanding of what needs to be detected, why it matters, and when it must be detected early.

The difference between oil analysis that merely reports numbers and oil analysis that prevents failures lies in program design, not testing volume.

More data doesn’t mean better reliability. Better questions do.

Oil analysis is one of the most powerful reliability tools available – when applied correctly. However, when new oil specifications are mistaken for used-oil condition monitoring, the entire purpose is undermined.

The industry does not suffer from a lack of data. It suffers from misaligned data.

Understanding the distinction between oil quality and oil condition is not a laboratory issue – it is a responsibility of reliability leadership.

Until that distinction is clearly understood, companies will continue to spend on oil analysis while still incurring unplanned downtime costs.