What this product reference covers.
Gear oil is formulated for enclosed or open gear contacts where viscosity, load-carrying chemistry, micropitting response and material compatibility are application-specific.
Products within the family.
Names used in commerce can overlap. Use the nominated standard and exact grade rather than relying on a generic product label.
Industrial R&O gear oil
Industrial R&O gear oil is a recognised gear oil category whose exact composition, grade limits and suitability must be confirmed from the governing specification and equipment requirement.
Industrial EP gear oil
Industrial EP gear oil is a recognised gear oil category whose exact composition, grade limits and suitability must be confirmed from the governing specification and equipment requirement rather than inferred from the generic label.
Automotive axle gear oil
Automotive axle gear oil is a recognised gear oil category whose exact composition, grade limits and suitability must be confirmed from the governing specification and equipment requirement rather than inferred from the generic label.
Synthetic gear oil
Synthetic gear oil is a recognised gear oil category whose exact composition, grade limits and suitability must be confirmed from the governing specification and equipment requirement rather than inferred from the generic label.
What the product is built from.
| Component | Technical role |
|---|---|
| Mineral, synthetic or renewable base fluid | Provides the principal lubricating film and viscosity-temperature foundation. |
| Anti-wear / extreme-pressure system | Protects loaded contacts where the application requires it. |
| Antioxidant and corrosion inhibitors | Control ageing, deposits and surface corrosion. |
| Application-specific additives | Tune detergency, friction, demulsibility, air release, tackiness or seal compatibility. |
Define the decision before selecting the panel.
- 01
Confirm new gear oil identity, grade and fitness for the intended application.
- 02
Detect contamination, degradation, mixing or storage-related change.
- 03
Investigate abnormal equipment, combustion, filtration or handling behaviour.
- 04
Establish a representative baseline for later comparison.
- 05
Support specification, maintenance and root-cause decisions with corroborated evidence.
What each result contributes.
“High” and “low” are directional investigation prompts, not pass/fail decisions. Corroborate them using the correct specification, baseline and companion evidence.
Open ASTM, ISO, IS/BIS, DIN and companion methods →| Test / parameter | Typical methods | Why it matters | Possible causes when high | Possible causes when low |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinematic viscosity | ASTM D445 / ISO 3104 | Confirms grade and detects dilution, shear, oxidation or mixing. | Oxidation, wrong oil, soot, evaporation or heavy contamination. | Shear, fuel/solvent dilution, wrong grade or lighter make-up oil. |
| Acid number | ASTM D664 | Trends acidic constituents, oxidation and contamination against a new-oil baseline. | Oxidation, overheating, acidic contamination or wrong fluid. | Fresh oil, make-up dilution or formulation difference. |
| Water | ASTM D6304 | Quantifies moisture relevant to corrosion, additive loss and film strength. | Condensation, cooler/seal leak, washdown, storage or sampling contamination. | Dry operation or dehydration; hot sampling can reduce free-water representation. |
| Elemental analysis | ASTM D5185 with PQ / ferrography where needed | Screens wear, contaminants and additive chemistry within method limitations. | Wear, corrosion, dirt, additive source, wrong oil or maintenance debris. | Stable wear, dilution, filtration or particles too large for ICP response. |
| FTIR condition | ASTM E2412 trending | Tracks oxidation and selected molecular contaminants against a comparable reference. | Heat, extended service, contamination or depleted antioxidant reserve. | Fresh oil, make-up dilution or a non-comparable baseline. |
| Particle count / cleanliness | ISO 11500; reporting to ISO 4406 | Quantifies solid-particle cleanliness where component clearances and servo reliability are sensitive. | Dirt ingress, active wear, ineffective filtration, maintenance debris or wrong sampling point. | Effective filtration or clean new oil; settling, dilution or non-representative sampling can under-report. |
| Ferrous debris / PQ index | Direct-reading ferrous density / PQ method; laboratory procedure | Responds to ferromagnetic debris including particles larger than routine ICP can efficiently detect. | Active gear, bearing, liner or steel-component wear; corrosion scale or maintenance debris. | Stable wear or little ferrous debris; a low value does not exclude non-ferrous or very fine wear. |
| Analytical ferrography / wear-particle morphology | ASTM D7690 or documented microscopic procedure | Examines particle size, shape, colour and concentration to distinguish rubbing, cutting, fatigue, corrosion and contaminant debris. | More severe particles, increasing concentration or a morphology consistent with active distress. | Few captured particles; poor agitation, settling or sampling away from the wear path can reduce recovery. |
| Water separability / demulsibility | ASTM D1401; ISO 6614 | Assesses the oil's ability to release water in circulating, turbine, gear and hydraulic systems. | Report as persistent emulsion or longer separation time: oxidation products, incompatible mixing, detergency or contamination. | Faster separation is usually favourable but does not prove absence of dissolved or free water. |
| Wear / load-carrying performance | ASTM D4172; ASTM D2783 or application-specific gear/EP test | Characterises anti-wear or extreme-pressure performance for product qualification and comparative investigation. | For scar diameter: poor anti-wear response, contamination or depleted/additive-incompatible oil. | For scar diameter: stronger film/additive response; results do not directly predict a specific machine's wear rate. |
| Copper corrosion | ASTM D130; ISO 2160 | Screens corrosivity toward copper-containing bearings, coolers, bushings and yellow-metal components. | Reactive sulfur, acidic degradation, contamination or formulation incompatibility; report uses a corrosion rating rather than concentration. | A low corrosion rating is favourable but does not rule out in-service copper wear. |
Five-step evidence analysis.
Move from a trustworthy sample to a tested failure hypothesis, proportionate maintenance response and documented confirmation. Each step increases or reduces diagnostic confidence.
Choose a representative sampling procedure →- 01Validate the evidence: confirm asset identity, a repeatable live-zone sampling point, operating state, oil hours, make-up volume and recent maintenance for industrial gearboxes. Repeat the sample when identity, container, flushing or handling is doubtful.
- 02Establish the correct baseline: confirm the declared gear oil grade, base chemistry and additive profile. Compare method-consistent results with new oil, the previous stable sample and rate of change rather than a universal limit.
- 03Build the contamination pattern: Evaluate water, silicon, particles and mixed-fluid evidence against seals, breathers and recent maintenance. Require an independent companion signal, inspection finding or filter observation before assigning a source.
- 04Test and localise the failure hypothesis: Use iron trend, PQ and debris morphology to distinguish running-in from adhesive, abrasive, fatigue or corrosive wear. Check whether the proposed mechanism explains the full pattern, including contradictory or absent evidence.
- 05Select and verify proportionate action: Inspect teeth, bearings and alignment when wear signals agree; correct load or contamination and take a short-interval follow-up sample. Record the intervention, resample at a risk-based interval from the same point and confirm that the trend responded as expected.