Recent Improvements in the Measurement and Control of Ceramic Foam Filter Quality

Steve Ray
Pyrotek SA, Ile Falcon, 3960 Sierre, Switzerland
steray@pyrotek-inc.com

Synopsis

Ceramic foam filters are commonly used to clean liquid aluminum. It is well accepted that
finer filters have greater filtration efficiency than coarser filters. It is also well known that
operating difficulties with fine filters have prevented their potential from being fully utilized.

This article outlines the improvements made by Pyrotek SA to measure and control filter pore
size. It will also show how these techniques lead to greater consistency and improved
efficiencies of casthouse filtration.

Background

Pyrotek SA began the development of a technique to measure the pore size of Ceramic Foam
Filters in 1997. One of the most common requests from users of filters was for information
relating to the size of the pores in the filter. At the time a quick, reliable, non-destructive, non-
operator sensitive pore size measurement technique was not available.

The first embodiment of the measurement system was presented at the 1998 TMS Annual
Meeting[4].

Figure 1 A schematic of the filter structure, showing pore and window diameter

Figure 1 shows a simple schematic of a filter structure. White spheres represent the filter
pores. The diameter of a sphere (p) is the pore size (sometimes referred to as cell size). The
diameter of the circle at the point of intersection of two spheres () is referred to as the
window size. The window is the smallest hole that the metal passes through and is
geometrically related to the pore size. A window is approximately 1/3 of the diameter of the
corresponding pore[4].

Measurements were made on various filters to characterize:

Average pore size range for each filter grade

Relationship between filter and foam pore size
Relationship between pore and window size
Pore size distribution in a single filter

Filters that had been characterized in this way were tested in partnership with VAW R&D in
Bonn, Germany[2] & [3]. Filtration efficiency was measured using a dual head LiMCA II system.
Typically each 15 or 17 filter cleaned 25,000 lbs of 1050 alloy. Filter grades 30, 50, 65 and
80 were tested. Each filter size and grade combination was tested a minimum of 10 times to
generate reliability data.

Figure 2 Pore size and inclusion removal efficiency distribution for filter grades 30, 50 and 80

Figure 2 shows a summary of this data. The lines show pore size distribution and the bars
show the range of inclusion removal efficiencies recorded. Green represents grade 80, blue
grade 50 and red grade 30.

Both pore size and filtration efficiency vary less, with finer filters. The grade 30 filter has a
pore size range (within a single filter) of around 1400 microns. The grade 80 has a range of
less than 300 microns. The probability of inclusion capture varies with pore size, so a larger
variation in pore size can give unpredictable and therefore inconsistent filtration performance.

Figure 3 Showing how inclusion removal efficiency relates to inclusion size, for two different filter grades

Inclusion size is also important and smaller inclusions are more likely to be captured by finer
filters. Figure 3 shows this clearly. The x axis shows the inclusion size ranges measured by
the LiMCA II unit. The y axis is the filtration efficiency. The two curves are based on the
aggregate data of around 20 trials with grade 30 filters (the red line, 1945 microns) and 20
trials with grade 50 filters (blue line, 960 microns).

Improvements

The measurement technique developed is now an integral part of Pyrotek's quality control
system for the production of SIVEX ceramic foam filters.

The ability to check foam pore size means that the specification of ceramic foam filters can be
improved. Traditionally ceramic foam filter manufacturers have used ppi or pores per inch to
indicate the pore size of ceramic foam filters. This has served well as a guide, however; since
there are no standard test methods for measuring ppi, it has led to large discrepancies in pore
size between various filter manufacturers. This lack of an absolute measurement of pore size
has made it difficult for manufacturers to control filter quality, leading to inconsistencies in
practical application.

It has also been commonplace to use air permeability as an indicator of filter ppi. This is a
useful guide and it will continue to be used. However, it is possible for filters with the same air
permeability to have very different pore sizes dependant upon the manufacturing
techniques employed[1]. It is the pore size, not the air permeability; that determines filter
performance. Clearly, without control of pore size in conjunction with air permeability, it is not
possible to adequately control filter performance.

Pyrotek has implemented four changes:

Filters are now referred to by 'grade' and not ppi

The mean pore sizes follow a logical pattern. A grade 20 has a pore size of
approximately half that of a grade 10. A grade 40 is half of that a grade 20. A grade
80 half that of a grade 40
The tolerances for pore sizes within each grade have been reduced leading to
improved consistency
There are distinct gaps between filter grades

Figure 4 Improvements made to filter pore size specifications

These improvements are shown graphically in Figure 4. The old specifications are shown in
green, the new in blue. The x axis shows the average pore size of the filter.
In production, these tight tolerances are achieved by 100% measurement of incoming foam
and careful control of the foam impregnation process. Improvements in the impregnation
process have eliminated banding or other inconsistencies that are often apparent when
looking at a filter when it is backlit by a halogen lamp. The result is a totally uniform ceramic
structure, with precisely controlled pore size.

Benefits

Clearly by improving filter pore size consistency, the consistency of filter performance is also
improved. This paper has briefly discussed the relationship between inclusion capture and
pore size. It is clear that the size of the pore that the metal must pass through has a major
effect on the filters efficiency.

Additionally, the head of metal required to prime a filter has a direct relationship to the pore
size. The larger the pore, the easier it is to prime. This is particularly valid where there are
two filters in the same filter box. In this situation, the filters must prime at the same time. If
one filter primes first, the second filter may not prime fully or at all. The only way to ensure
consistent priming is to improve the consistency of pore size.

The advantages of improved reliability and performance of fine pore filters can more easily be
realized if these filters perform consistently. A grade 50 filter, when compared to a grade 30;
offers a higher mean efficiency, improved reliability and the possibility to remove finer
inclusions. A grade 65 or 80 will offer further improved reliability and performance. Operating
difficulties have often prevented such fine filters being successfully utilized. By improving the
consistency of the filters, some of these difficulties have been solved. Filters in a double
bowl, will prime reliably. Priming height is repeatable, so the filter bowl does not overflow,
and the filter does not block prematurely unless the incoming inclusion load increases
dramatically.

The ability to measure and control pore size of ceramic foam is an important advance
contributing to increased aluminum quality.

References

[1] S Ray, B Milligan, Recent Improvements in the Measurement and Control of Ceramic
Foam Filter Quality, APPA 2001

[2] N J Keegan, W Schneider, H P Krug, Evaluation of the Efficiency of Fine Pore Ceramic
Foam, Light Metals 1999, pp 1031 1041

[3] N J Keegan, W Schneider, H P Krug, Efficiency and Performance of Industrial Filtration

th
Systems, 6 Australasian Asian Pacific Course and Conference, Aluminium Casthouse
Technology: Theory and Practice (ED: M Nilmani), TMS 1999, pp 159-174

[4] S Ray, N J Keegan, Measurement of Cell and Window Size in Ceramic Foam Filter
Manufacture, Light Metals 1998, pp 885 894