Cat 3304 engine failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
17
Location
Botswana
A customer of ours complained that his Cat 3304 engine was not running as he expected it to. An oil sample was taken and submitted to a laboratory that we use and the following report was sent to us. If anyone has any input or comments, I shall reply with my 2c worth. Many thanks guys.Analysis Report
Sample 20/04/2009
Turbo Oil Supplier Oil Grade
TOTAL TIR 7400 15W40
PQ / Spectrometer
Sample 90740
Number
PQ Fe Al Cr Pb Cu Sn Ni Ag Si B Na Mg Ca P Zn Mo Ba Ti V
498 1249 43 12 438 985 52 11 0 201 8 45 49 1928 1139 894 13 12 1 1
PQ-Particle Quantifier (total metal count) Fe-Iron Cr-Chromium Pb-Lead Cu-Copper Sn-Tin Al-Aluminum Ni-Nickel Ag-Silver Si-Silicon B-Boron Na-Sodium Mg-Magnesium Ca-Calcium P-Phosphorous Zn-Zinc Mo-Moly Ba-Barium Ti-Titanium V-Vanadium (All values in parts per million)
Viscosity / FTIR / Fuel dilution / Base Number

V40 Oxi Nit Sul %Soot %H20 %Fuel Base

45.4 10 7 20 0.5 ND 14.1 9.40
V40-Viscosity@40°C (cSt) Oxi-Oxidation (index no.) Nit-Nitration (index no.) Sul-Sulphation (index no.) Base No. - TBN (Total Base Number) ND-Not detected
Particle count cleanliness
Sample
Number
Iso4 Iso6 Iso14
 
welcome2.gif


I must admit, the way you've written it out is a bit confusing.

Is that 1249 ppm of Fe?
438 ppm of Pb?
43 ppm of Al?
201 ppm of Si? (possible heavy dirt ingestion)

Fuel at 9.4%, or TBN at 9.4%???

What was the exposure duration? (How many miles or km's or hours were on the samples?)

Those numbers are quite high for what we would call a "normal" OCI. However, if this is a gen-set that runs non-stop for months at a time, that might explain something. The fuel level (if correct) could explain quite a lot of wear. I'd also think that the fuel consumption would be terrible with that level as well.

How can a "PQ" (particle quantifier = total metal count) be in at 498 when the Fe alone is WAY over that? I don't understand the report system this lab is using ...

Can you confirm these numbers?

More detail regarding the type of engine use would be helpful as well. What is the engine used in? How often is it serviced? What type fuel? What brand/grade/type oil? The more info, the better.


Also, when you post again, please use a new line for each item. Here's an example:

Fe 20
Al 17
Pb 7

That makes is much easier for us to read. And the better we understand it, the easier it is for us to help.

Any chance you could retype it out?

Again, welcome to the site!
 
Last edited:
Sorry it looks confusing, but the report was in PDF format and I transferred it into word and I must admit, it does look a mess, so here goes, retyping manually.
This engine was overhauled and fitted to a Cat 120g motor grader. The engine failed (more about that later) and the customer claims bad workmanship.
The reason i am posting this is to get a completely unbiased opinion from experts, using the results of the oil analysis as to the possible/probable cause of the failure.
Oil used was Total TIR 7400 carrying a Ci-4/SL spec. The motor ran for 230 hours before going PHUT! Particle Quantifier/Spectrometer values as follows;
Fe 1249
Al 43
Cr 12
Pb 438
Cu 985
Sn 52
Ni 11
Ag 0
Si 201
B 8
Na 45
Mg 49
Ca 1928
P 1139
Zn 894
Mo 13
Ba 12
Ti 1
V 1
V40 45.4
Oxi 10
Nit 7
Sul 20
% soot 0.5
% fuel 14.1
Base # 9.4
Based on these numbers, any input would be appreciated. I have my own theory but for the object of impartiality, I would like forum members to give their opinions.
Many thanks for the welcome dnewton3!
 
Many thanks, hate2work. Just what is the purpose of this forum if opinion is not asked for?
 
Primary factor: The Viscosity at 40C is very thin due to excessive fuel dilution; Telltale crank bearing failure showing high Cu/Pb/Fe.
other factors: Si is high due to dust ingestion, the additisation PPM does not look fully up to a heavy duty diesel oil(CI-4/Cj-4), the oil must have been changed out at one point after running in the engine; was the initial sump fill replaced with a API-SL passenger car oil at one point?
 
Last edited:
No, oil used for the (short) duration of the engine was 15w40 Ci-4 although it also carries a gasoline spec. of SL. Funny that you should mention low addative count as we have several analysis reports showing similar values that have comfortably done 450 hours.
 
It can be showing low adds due to the high fuel dilution % in the sample displacing proper lubricant. But not that low. Not use to seeing no mg in a CI-4 diesel package - maybe something new from total/Elf.
 
Originally Posted By: Oxman
Many thanks, hate2work. Just what is the purpose of this forum if opinion is not asked for?


I'm just saying that if you really want an expert's opinion, which is what you asked for, Terry is the man.
 
The wear metals are clearly way too high; the Fe, Cu and Pb indicate the bearings and possible crank or cylinder damage was occuring. A UOA at this point is simply too late. That damage was likely occuring way before this UOA took place.

Having it in the new format certainly shows that fuel may have been a major contributor. 14%? Yikes, that is scary high. And the dirt ingestion, as I said in my earlier post, is also a contributor.

It is possible that the Si is from sealants used in the reman job, but since you've had an OCI or two, those should have dropped a bit. The Si is still high, which makes me question the combustion air cleanliness.

If you're looking for a place to put the "blame" (which is what I suspect you're ultimately after) I would have to say that the rebuild itself is not the issue, but rather the fuel/intake set up after the engine was re-installed. My point is that the actual machining jobs (boring, honing, bearing installation, etc) are not the root cause. If the wear metals were this high, and there was no fuel or dirt to blame, then I'd say it was a poor machining job. If coolant were present, I'd also say a deck or head didn't get the proper attention. But that's not the case here. The wear metals are a result of gross air and oil contamination. The machinist's work is not likely the cause on this job.

Was the fuel system part of the rework? Or, was the old system simply reused? Did anyone check the injection rates? Fuel dilution that high should not go un-noticed. I would think that you could have smelled the fuel because it was so darn high in concentration. Was there a sharp increase of fuel useage right after the install, or did it happen slowly along the way, or did it shoot up right near the end before it died? I'm not that familiar with the injection system, but I'd start looking for a blown, nicked, or missing o-ring? Or an injector that is otherwise damaged? Check the intake tract as well for the dirt source.

Most likley it was the combination of a bad fuel system and air intake leak. Both the dirt ingestion and the grossly excessive fuel/oil dilution are what caused the early demise of this engine.
 
Last edited:
Numbers wise this has to be the most devastating UOA I've ever seen.

I agree with dnewton3. I would guess this engine was sucking in dirt big time. Not sure if the fuel is a separate issue or if the ingested dirt ground the rings/cylinder walls to the point blow-by could account for it.

I also agree that depending on your situation it may be well worth the cost to have Dyson Analysis read this for you. Terry does a great deal of forensics work and you would be hard pressed to find better help in this situation.

Good luck with everything and thanks for posting your report!

REDDOG
 
What kind of oil pressure did this unit have with the high concentration of fuel? We had a Cummins 8.3L with leaky transfer pump that couldn't hardly maintain 15 psi when it was warm. It had >10% fuel dilution.
 
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. As I stated earlier, I was seeking opinion, based on purely UOA values, what COULD have caused a failure. Here is the actual lowdown.
This motor threw a rod through the block. Upon stripping the engine and removing the sump, were we in for a shock! The sump was half full of sand/dirt that gave the oil a 'lumpy' texture. I have seen similar oil consistency, but that was due to massive overheating and oil oxidation. (we regularly have above 45 deg C)
As this motor appeared to be at max revs when the failure occured, a piston disintegrated which caused the con rod to have a look at the outside world. Could the following (my limited expertise) be possible?
1) High fuel values in the oil occured AFTER the piston was compromised (there would still be fuel in the cylinder).
2) Even if the air filters were removed, would it be possible for an engine, even in a dusty environment, to ingest that much dirt? By the way, filters were new and correctly installed.
3) As stated by REDDOG, could the high concentration of Si had that much of an influence on the rings to cause blow by and add to fuel dilution?
dnewton3 we are not getting much joy out of this customer wrt fuel useage etc as he is adamant that faulty workamanship is the cause of the failure.
Due to the amount of foreign material in the sump could it be sabotage??
Once again, thank you all for your contributions. Much appreciated!
 
Oxman,

How the dirt got in there is certainly the million dollar question. Was the intake dirty or did it show evidence of leakage at some point? What did the valves, pistons and cylinders look like? In the environment this unit probably operated in (grader service)it seems plausible to me it could intake enough dirt to destroy it in a relatively short time. Were you able to locate any pebbles or dirt particles of large enough size in the sump, etc that would tend to "rule out" the dirt being airborne? Carefully cutting the oil filter apart would be worth while as well. I would guess it would be loaded with dirt and bypassing.

Sabotage seems like another plausible cause. "Topping up" with sand and diesel fuel is a good way to wreck an engine and both substances were probably readily available. My father has had some pretty severe damage done to equipment by juveniles-it's amazing what some people consider entertainment and the lengths they will go to. Disgruntled employees, etc, are other obvious possibilities.

Given the massive amount of damage done physical inspection of the unit will be more telling at this point of what the true source of introduction was.

Thanks again for posting,

REDDOG
 
REDDOG
Judging by the consistency of the muck that was in the sump, we were not dealing in microns. Rubbing the oil between your fingers, definite grains of sand could be felt. No clear evidence of abnormal dirt in the intake.
We are in dispute as a third party commented that the high fuel concentration was a major contributing factor to the failure. This was coroborated by the Tribologist, who in his report stated 'viscosity is very low due to excessive fuel ingress'. That I do not dispute as the V40 count is low for a 15w40, but could a low viscosity have had such a significant impact in the very high metal count, not to mention abnormal levels of Si!!
 
Originally Posted By: Oxman
Due to the amount of foreign material in the sump could it be sabotage??


That was my first thought when I read your description of the oil. It wouldn't be the first time someone dumped some dirt in the oil fill tube. Mischievous kids, angry adjacent landowner, environmentalist…who knows.

Something else to check, when the engine is torn down I would look in the intake manifold and intake ports for dirt/sand. If those areas are clean, it would seem that the engine didn’t suck in that much dirt on its own. As for the fuel, if the dirt in the oil started this whole thing, and the pistons/rings disintegrated to the point that the engine had massive blow by and poor combustion…you could get a lot of fuel in the oil.
 
') High fuel values in the oil occured AFTER the piston was compromised (there would still be fuel in the cylinder)."
Yes.
This screams sabatoge or running a LOONG time with an inert issue.
 
If the intake path is clean and the dirt size is inconsistent with being airborne I say sabotage. Frankly the customer arguing that a fuel system problem caused the failure when the base is half full of sand is kind of silly. It's like shooting someone with a heart condition and blaming there death on heart disease. Gee, maybe the gunshot kind of set things in motion! How did they explain all the dirt in the engine?

The fuel could be a separate issue or due to excessive wear or the failure itself but this poor thing was on its way out one way or another.

I had another thought too-maybe diesel was poured in to wash down the dirt after it was added so it would go unnoticed? Having said that I'm amazed that an operator wouldn't have picked up on it if he was checking fluids, (or he was in on it) unless the fuel was a late development due to the dirt induced failure.

I would like to think my own fluid ckecks would be often enough and thorough enough to catch something like this, but maybe not. Honestly, I hope I never have to find out.

REDDOG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top