SAE Review of Dr. Schneider's Paper, Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
1,622
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Effect of Lubricant Properties and Lubricant Degradation on Piston Ring and Cylinder Bore Wear in a Spark-Ignition Engine, Schneider et al:

First read part 1:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...ge=0#Post917811

Let me begin by saying again that every person interested in motor oil should go to SAE.org and purchase this article. (The paper was very detailed and I have tried to simplify the results. Also, I will need to report the results in several different postings so hang on please.) This research is made more relevant by actually using V-6 engines for wear testing - 1999 GM 3.4-L 60 degree block. And the radiotracer method of wear detection has been shown to be very accurate. They go on to say that cylinder wear and ring wear are perhaps the best areas to test oil and wear for engine longevity, particularly the rings.

Part 2:

Continuing with SJ GF-2 and SL GF-3 mineral based oils - they show that there is no significant differences between the oils for the initial break-in wear of top compression rings. They state that bore wear differes from ring wear in that most wear occurs during initial break-in and with start up periods. Steady state wear is very low except when changing to high load conditions. But even here bore wear is less than ring wear rates. They reiterated that start up wear was most significant but there were no differences between the oil classes.

They compared the mineral based SJ oils for wear rates by varying the ZDDP levels. There were no differences between phosphorous levels of 0.10 and 0.05. The only other level tested was zero ZDDP where wear rates doubled. Another SAE paper showed no difference in wear as long as the level was greater than 0.03 (1). They further show that there is in fact minimal bore wear differences when no ZDDP is present. (Note that doubling the wear rate is still not too bad as the rate of wear was still relatively low.) They conclude that the newer GF-4 oils will have no negative impact on ring and bore wear rates even with the reduced ZDDP levels.

(I heard information that the ZDDP levels will be 0.05 in the GF-5 Oils.)

Oil age effects were tested by measuring wear after the oil was subjected to 16,000 miles of city driving. Although the oils thickened some, TAN increased and TBN decreased, there were no differences in wear rates from fresh oil. The test oils were mineral based SJ GF-2.

aehaas

(1) Development of the Sequence III G Engine Oil Certification Test, Clark et al:
Engine tests were made more severe again. (Over the years the oil ratings have improved but this has always been despite the increase in testing severity. It was III ...D, E, F, and is now III G). The oil inlet temperature was decreased from 155 to 150 C. The test was 80 and is now 100 hours. There were 8 oil level adjustments allowed now there are 5. The inlet engine air temperature was raised from 27 to 35 C. The engine load was increased 25 percent.
Despite all this the current 0W-20 oils were still GF-4 compliant and showed minimal valve train wear characteristics as long as ZDP levels were higher than 0.03 percent. (The SM rated oils I have seen so far have levels of 0.08.)

Written with permission from Dr. Eric Schneider.
...And he has heard of this web site.
 
Is some level low level of ZDDP always adequate, even under high load conditions, or do higher levels of ZDDP result in less wear with high load ? I guess the same question applies to old oil, as it was previously stated that city driving was low load.
 
If I'm reading this correctly, it's stating that wear is higher under conditions of low (high stress/heat = thin oil film) to no (start up) oil flow/film...well DUH. This study also appears to be focused on ring/bore wear. There are other non-reciprocating areas of the engine that would greatly benefit from AW films like gears/chains...etc.

The info for the ZDDP % was interesting. I think that with reports like this, we will continue to see reductions in the levels of ZDDP.
 
AEHaas,Thanks for the summary of this article. This is a lot of good info we would not be priveledged to if not for your research and digging. Very informative.
 
The author's state in the introduction of the paper:

"The overall purpose of this research project is to develop lubrication systems that can greatly reduce the need for customer oil changes while protecting the engine from excess wear."

However, the conclusion in the abstract is:

"These results suggest that concerns of wear between the rings and cylinder bore may not be a roadblock to extended oil-change intervals."

The unstated assumption is that ring and cylinder bore wear dominates the goal of "... protecting the engine from excess wear."

This may or may not be true, depending on other engine design factors.
 
This is why it is so important to read entire articles. There is a ton of information unrelated to the paper's introduction.

aehaas
 
AE

I am reading the entire article. However, the results and conclusions are only valid for ring and cylinder bore wear. They cannot be considered valid for any other engine components, including:

Bearings
cams and followers
chains and tensioners
guides
 
AE

there seems to be a discrepancy in the data figure 14. At the beginning of the paper they claim that all tests were performed at a coolant temperature of 95C and oil temperature of 120C, which be reasonable operating temperatures for an engine at high load.

In figure 14 coolant temperature starts out at 95C, however oil temperature starts low, in the 65-60C range. I notice this because even there the wear rates are huge (750 ug/h) when compared to the original idle plot of Figure 3, which has an average wear rate around 60 ug/h. However, the plot would have us believe that the engine had been running for 2.8 hours by the start of this test.

I'm confused. Since you are in contact with the author, would you care to have him clarify? Such a large difference in temperatures would certainly place some large thermal stresses on the engine internals, since by design, coolant and oil temperature should track and correlate. The question in my mind is whether the results between 2.8 and 3.3 hours in figure 14 represent a real operating condition of the engine.
 
RI RS4, That is a good point. This is a well done study and includes statistical analysis to help verify the conclusions. Yet we are only studying cylinder and ring wear. You have to read hundreds of studies and analyze them for what each one is worth, then put things together for a bigger picture. As one does that, the meaning of combined studies often varies more than the analysis of a given independent study.

aehaas
 
I remember staring at fig. 14 for some time. I can think of some reasons for doing things the way they did but you are correct that it was not exactly the same way other arms were conducted.

As much as I am able to contact the Professor I do not want to bother him but I will make a note of this and maybe bring it up after I get a list of things to discuss.

aehaas
 
Lab tests like this can lead to some wrong conclusions. How well do certain oils handle increased contamination loads, water, fuel dilution, etc?
Here is something to think about. The freezer I have in my basement belonged to my grandmother. It has been running for over 50 years. The same very thin oil has protected the compressor all this time.. The difference between this situation and an auto engine is contamination and heat. Thin oils with fewer additives do fine in a clean environment, but I suspect things look different in real life.
 
AE, yes it is a good study. However, the standard deviation of the ring wear data is problematic, wouldn't you agree? The hand wave this off as "due to other uncontrolled variables in engine operation." This is further confounded in Table 4 by their computing average wear for GF-2 and GF-3 oil separately, and standard deviations only for the combined GF-2 and GF-3 data sets. Some of the outliers are 5 times the averages.
 
RI RS4 - Give us a feel for being able to read the whole thing. Is it dangerous for some? Do you agree with my recommendation that everybody should get a copy? This IS one of the best studies so people should see how hard it is to get viable data.

aehaas
 
Dr Haas,

I'm an advocate of more knowledge, always. This happens to be one of the more scientific SAE papers I've seen in a while, and it (along with it's predecessor) uses some very good techniques using radioisotope tagging to accurately measure wear rates, which allows the authors to measure wear in real time at 30 minute intervals. I find that fascinating, since BITOGers normally think in terms of monthly or yearly sample rates. I'm just sorry that the experiments did not include other components of the engine, but obviously that was not their agenda.

The paper can be daunting at first (especially for one like myself who is AADD). But taken in small chunks, there are lots of gems. Having said that, it is very easy to misinterpret the data, or to take the conclusions of the authors at blind faith.

Dangerous ... hmmm ... probably no more dangerous than BITOG already is. Whatever data (or lack of data) that is out there will be misinterpreted by some. However I've always felt that it is better to err on the side of more information, rather then less. Then we can at least discuss (or argue about) factual information, rather then opinions.
 
From my experience, the failure mode of most engines I work with is in the cylinder ring area. Bearing areas are little affected in extended life engines. Oil consumption, blow by and compression tests are the ****ing limits. Thus the work is 'right on' in relation to critical wear areas, from my experience.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
 
Quote:


From my experience, the failure mode of most engines I work with is in the cylinder ring area. Bearing areas are little affected in extended life engines. Oil consumption, blow by and compression tests are the ****ing limits. Thus the work is 'right on' in relation to critical wear areas, from my experience.
George Morrison, STLE CLS





So when we're looking at UOAs and we're worried about seeing high lead in the reports, I suppose we should really be more concerned about high levels of chromium instead? What other materials are rings made of other than chromium?
 
"From my experience, the failure mode of most engines I work with is in the cylinder ring area. Bearing areas are little affected in extended life engines. Oil consumption, blow by and compression tests are the ****ing limits. Thus the work is 'right on' in relation to critical wear areas, from my experience.
George Morrison, STLE CLS:

There are some catastrophic but rare cam failures that are always blamed on oil by engine builders and mechanics. Others point to manufacturing defects as improper coatings or hardening processes. I am in this group. Most commonly today the ZDDP level is blamed on new cam failures. I do not believe this is actually the case and I blame the manufacturing and processing departments.

Any engine part can fail. But for those parts wearing normally and appropriately cared for, I agree that it is the ring area that eventually retires the engine from service.

aehaas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top