100% found this document useful (1 vote)
379 views15 pages

DieselNet - Crankcase Ventilation

Uploaded by

Khanh Cung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
379 views15 pages

DieselNet - Crankcase Ventilation

Uploaded by

Khanh Cung
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 15

2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

DieselNet Technology Guide

DieselNet | Copyright © ECOpoint Inc. | Revision 2012.12

Crankcase Ventilation
Hannu Jääskeläinen

Abstract: Crankcase blowby gases can be an important source of particulate emissions, as well as other regulated and unregulated emissions. They can also contribute to the
loss of lubricating oil and to fouling of surfaces and engine components. A number of crankcase ventilation systems have been developed which include various types of filters
to separate particulate emissions.

Crankcase Blowby
Blowby Emissions
Crankcase Ventilation System Design
Engine Performance Impacts
Performance Tests

1. Crankcase Blowby

The crankcase of a combustion engine accumulates gases and oil mist—called blowby—that can leak from several sources. The most important source of blowby is
the combustion chamber, Figure 1 [Avergard 2003]. Most of the combustion blowby occurs when the combustion chamber pressure reaches a maximum, during the
compression and the expansion strokes. At high pressures, the gases leak to the crankcase around the piston rings and through the piston ring gap.

Figure 1. Combustion Blowby

Other important sources of blowby include the turbocharger shaft, air compressors and in some cases the valve stems. In total, these components can be responsible
for as much as 40% of the crankcase blowby [Avergard 2003]. Turbochargers and air compressors are often lubricated with oil supplied by the engine’s oil pump and
drained back into the engine’s crankcase. The oil drain line from these components ensures that gas leaking past the turbocharger shaft and the piston rings of an air
compressor will pass into the engine crankcase contributing to blowby.

Blowby amounts vary greatly depending on engine design, temperature operating conditions and engine wear. While a number of “rules of thumb” exist for
estimating maximum engine blowby, they should be used with caution. Some of these estimates are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1
Estimates of Maximum Blowby Rates (Actual Flow Rate)

Engine Blowby Estimate Reference


Blowby [dm3/s] = rated power [kW]/180 [Caterpillar 2000]
New engine
Blowby [ft3/min] = rated power [hp]/120
Blowby [dm3/s] = rated power [kW]/90 [Caterpillar 2000]
Blowby [ft3/min] = rated power [hp]/60 [Barris 2000]
Worn engine
Blowby [dm3/s] = rated power [kW]/60
[Powell 2007]
Blowby [ft3/min] = rated power [hp]/40

Piston ring stability is an engine design detail that has a very significant impact on blowby rates from the combustion chamber. Generally the more stabile a piston
ring is in the piston’s ring groove, the lower the blowby rates [Tian 2002]. However, stable piston rings can have an adverse effect on oil consumption leading to a
trade-off between blowby control and oil consumption control. Therefore, piston ring stability in engine design needs to be dealt with cautiously. The dependence of

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 1/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
blowby on ring stability can lead to some very non-linear behaviour such as that shown in Figure 2 [Koszałka 2003]. As the dynamic sealing characteristics of the
engine change, for example with engine speed, blowby can change in a seemingly unexpected fashion. Additional blowby measurement data can be found in the
literature [Tatli 2008][Avergard 2003].

Figure 2. Blowby Rates at Full Load with Different Piston Ring Clearances
2.4 dm3 four cylinder naturally aspirated diesel rated at 51.5 kW at 4200 rpm

To prevent a build-up of pressure in the crankcase, the blowby must be vented. While this can be accomplished with nothing more than an open vent, such an
approach is not always acceptable for numerous reasons. Blowby contains combustion products such as HC, CO, NOx and PM that are regulated pollutants. In
addition, the blowby gas can entrain a significant amount of oil mist from the crankcase that can be a significant contributor to total PM emissions from the engine.
If blowby gas is not properly handled, it can also foul surfaces, increase engine oil consumption and create a health hazard if an engine is operated in an enclosed
space.

Several factors have driven the development of systems for handling blowby gases from diesel engines. The most basic factor is a need to eliminate the loss of oil
and the subsequent oil drip and surface fouling associated with a simple open vent from the crankcase. A more recent factor is the development of regulatory
requirements that either require that crankcase gases from new engines not be vented to the atmosphere or that if they are, they be included in the measurement of
total emissions from the engine for certification purposes. As will be shown later, if crankcase emissions are not treated, they can easily exceed the most stringent
tailpipe emission standards such as those for EPA 2007 onroad heavy-duty diesel engines.

Crankcase gases and how they are treated can also have a significant impact on oil consumption. In one case, venting crankcase gases to the atmosphere with no oil
recovery contributed an estimated 10-20% to total oil consumption depending on the engine operating condition [Froelund 2004].

2. Blowby Emissions

The primary constituent of crankcase emissions is the total PM. Emissions of other components such as THC, NOx and CO are less significant. One study reported
these, relative to the overall exhaust emissions, as 3.7% for THC, 0.1% for NOx and 1.3% for CO [Clark 2006][Tatli 2006].

Table 2 outlines the results from a number of studies that measured crankcase and tailpipe PM emissions. It should be noted that these results are average results
collected over a drive cycle. Results at individual engine operating points can vary significantly. Under engine idling conditions, PM emissions from the crankcase
have been reported to be as high as 0.7 g/bhp-hr [Jaroszczyk 2006] to 5 g/bhp-hr [Barris 2000].

Table 2
Contribution of Blowby to PM Emissions

PM Emissions
Engine Cycle Study
Unit Blowby Exhaust Total Blowby/Total
Hot start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.009 0.079 0.088 12%
MY 2000 Cummins ISM 350 hp [RTI 2007]
Cold start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.005 0.064 0.069 8%
Hot start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.014 0.072 0.086 16%
MY 1998 DDC Series 60 400 hp [RTI 2003]
Cold start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.009 0.116 0.125 7%
Hot start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.006 0.105 0.111 5%
1997 Cummins N-14 370 hp [SRI 2005]
Cold start FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.003 0.122 0.125 2%
MY 1991 DDC Series 60 350 hp FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.018 0.188 0.206 9% [Schmeichel 2007]
MY 2000 Cat 3126 300 hp FTP HD transient g/bhp-hr 0.036 0.140 0.176 20% [Schmeichel 2007]
1996 Dodge RAM Cold start phase of FTP-75 (1st 505 s) g/mile 0.0202 0.0811 0.101 20% [Farmer 2004]
1996 Cat 3406550 hp UDDS g/mile 0.037 0.58 0.62 6% [Clark 2006]
1 - Exhaust PM after installation of CCV
2 - Estimated from the difference in total PM before and after installation of CCV

The above table suggests that the average PM contribution to total emissions for the engines shown can be from 0.01 to 0.04 g/bhp-hr and represent as much as 20%
of total PM emissions. If attempts were made to only control tailpipe PM emissions to below 0.01 g/bhp-hr—the US EPA 2007 on-highway standard—and nothing

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 2/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
was done to lower crankcase emissions, it is apparent that crankcase emissions could easily exceed the allowable PM emission limit.

The above table also suggests that PM emissions over the cold start FTP are lower than a hot start FTP. Particle number and size distribution data collected during
engine idling and cold and hot start UDDS cycles suggests that crankcase emissions actually decrease as the engine temperature rises [Tatli 2008][Clark 2006]. These
contradictory results may reflect differences in the testing procedures and sampling techniques used.

Crankcase PM has been found to be composed in 100% of organic matter [SRI 2005]. About 50% of crankcase PM has been estimated to be derived from lubricating
oil [Clark 2006].

Particle number emissions in crankcase blowby are illustrated in Figure 3, which shows particle numbers in the crankcase blowby and in the diluted exhaust gas
over the UDDS drive cycle. Crankcase particle emissions show the highest concentrations around engine acceleration and deceleration while tailpipe particle
number concentrations are high during engine acceleration and loaded operation. Crankcase particles in this case were centered about 70 nm, while those from the
exhaust were spread out from 20-200 nm [Clark 2006].

Figure 3. Particle Number Emissions in Crankcase Blowby


Top: Total Number of Particles in Crankcase Blowby. Middle: Particles in Diluted Exhaust Gas. Bottom: UDDS Speed Trace.

Testing with other engines by the same group shows that crankcase particle average number-weighted sizes can reach about 200 nm and assume a bimodal
distribution in some cases [Tatli 2008]. Mass-weighted blowby particle distributions show particle sizes well in excess of 1 µm, as illustrated in Figure 4 [Jaroszczyk
2006][Dollmeyer 2007]. As apparent from the data, blowby gas particle sizes can vary significantly with operating conditions for a specific engine and also from
engine to engine.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 3/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

Figure 4. Blowby Particle Size Distribution for Different Operating Conditions and for Different Engines

Vehicle Self-Pollution. In some cases, crankcase PM emissions can be a significant source of vehicle self-pollution—the migration of vehicle’s own emissions into
the passenger compartment—as discovered in North American studies looking at PM exposures in school buses [Hill 2005][Zielinska 2008]. Crankcase emissions
proved to be an extremely strong source of fine particles mass (PM2.5) inside the school bus. The PM2.5 concentrations were in fact dominated by particulate
emissions from the crankcase, vented under the hood through the “road draft tube”. Installing a diesel particulate filter (DPF) in the vehicle exhaust did not
measurably reduce PM2.5 levels inside the bus—not due to a lack of particle removal efficiency, but rather as a result of the strong crankcase PM2.5 source under
the hood of the bus.

Regulatory Requirements. Regulatory requirements related to crankcase emissions vary depending on the jurisdiction and vehicle class. The US EPA regulations
for diesel fueled vehicles reflects a range of different requirements. For light-duty vehicles complying with Tier 2 emission standards, no crankcase emissions are
allowed to be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any 2001 and later model year vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles complying with EPA 2004 on-highway
standards, only naturally aspirated engines required closed crankcase ventilation (CCV). Turbocharged and supercharged diesel fueled engines were exempt from
requirements to control the discharge of crankcase emissions. For heavy-duty on-highway engines meeting EPA 2007 requirements the regulation maintains the
crankcase emission control exception for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel fueled engines but if a CCV system is not used, crankcase emissions must be added to the
exhaust emissions during all testing and that the deterioration of crankcase emissions be accounted for in exhaust deterioration factors. In Europe, control of
crankcase emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines will likely be introduced with Euro VI regulations.

Blowby Emission Control. PM emission control is one of the most important functions of modern crankcase ventilation systems. One of the system components is
the separator, where particles and oil mist are removed—often with better than 90% efficiency—from the crankcase ventilation gases.

Closed crankcase ventilation systems can be included as part of a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) or a DPF retrofit package [SRI 2005][RTI 2007] to provide some
additional PM emission reduction, as illustrated using example data [Schmeichel 2007] in Figure 5. Installing a DOC alone on engine A provided a total PM
reduction (tailpipe + crankcase PM) of 27%. Including a CCV to eliminate the crankcase PM emissions raised this by 7% to 34%. Fitting a DPF to engine B
provided a total PM reduction of 82%. When a CCV system was included, this increased by 14% to 96%.

Figure 5. Emission Impact of CCV System As a Part of DOC or DPF Retrofit


Engine A: MY 1991 DDC Series 60, 350 hp. Engine B: MY 2000 Caterpillar 3126, 300 hp.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 4/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

3. Crankcase Ventilation System Design

3.1 General System Configuration


There are several system design approaches that can be taken to handle crankcase ventilation gases, including:

Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV): Crankcase gases—typically filtered to remove oil mist and other particulates—are routed back into the intake system.
Open Crankcase Ventilation (OCV): Crankcase gases (filtered or not) are vented to the atmosphere.
Exhaust system venting: Crankcase gases are routed into the vehicle exhaust, upstream of the exhaust aftertreatment system.

The two types of OCV system—without and with filtration—and the closed crankcase ventilation design are shown in Figure 6. The thick black arrows in the
schematics represent the flow of blowby gases.

Figure 6. Crankcase Ventilation Systems


(a) Open unfiltered crankcase (“road draft tube”); (b) Open crankcase filtration system; (c) Closed crankcase ventilation (CCV)

Routing the crankcase gases back into the intake system has been used with spark ignition since at least the 1970s. Various designs of oil separators are commonly
employed to reduce the amount of fouling of the intake system with engine oil. The CCV system is attractive since crankcase gases are returned to the engine and
combusted before exiting via the tailpipe.

With diesel engines, such a CCV system can pose some challenges. The particulate matter and oil mist carried over into the intake system can be a significant
problem for some turbocharged diesel engines. Such fouling can impact the performance of the turbocharger and intercooler and have serious consequences for
engine performance and emissions. Oil deposited in the turbocharger can lead to coking at engine operating conditions where air temperatures after the turbocharger
exceed about 170°C. This can rapidly degrade turbocharger performance. Oil and coke on the intercooler can reduce heat transfer. Thus a high performance
filter/separator is an absolute necessity for a CCV system on many turbocharged diesel engine.

While high performance filters can remove in excess of 90% of the oil and particulates from crankcase exhaust, a small amount can still reach the turbocharger and
intercooler and would be more than some heavy-duty severe service diesel engines could tolerate. For this reason, many heavy-duty 2007 and later engines for the
North American market are fitted with open crankcase ventilation systems. Since the crankcase gases in an OCV system must be included in the measurement of
total emissions in these engines, a high performance filter is still needed to ensure the engine complies with emission standards. However, the filter performance
required for an OCV system to meet emission standards is lower than that required to protect the turbocharger and intercooler in a CCV system [Dollmeyer 2007].

Routing crankcase gases to the exhaust system has also been considered as an option. If the engine is equipped with a DPF and/or DOC, this option could provide
an effective means of reducing the crankcase PM contribution if the gases are introduced upstream of these aftertreatment devices. If the crankcase gases were
vented upstream of a DPF, the pressure in the exhaust system at this point can be higher than the crankcase pressure and a pump may be required. Also, ash build-up
in the DPF would be higher and the need for DPF service may occur sooner. For systems with a DOC, the need for a pump may be avoided. An additional issue
with all catalytic aftertreatment systems (DPF, DOC, ...) is catalyst poisoning by lubricating oil components. The gases could also be vented downstream of any
aftertreatment devices but would require their own aftertreatment system [Opris 2007].

In most cases, the oil separator has to be located at a point on the engine that allows oil to drain back to the crankcase by gravity under all conditions and the line
must contain a check valve to prevent reverse flow. Since crankcase pressure can occasionally exceed atmospheric pressure, a vertical separation typically about
0.38 m or more between the separator and the crankcase is required. This can make oil separator integration into some vehicle platforms a challenge. Oil separators
that use a jet pump to return oil to the crankcase, such as the Cummins Filtration system supplied for Navistar’s EPA 2010 Maxxforce 7 engine, offer more flexible
placement in such vehicles [Herman 2010][Holzmann 2010].

3.2 System Sizing Parameters


In addition to the blowby flow rate and the general system configuration, several other considerations need to be taken into account in designing a crankcase
ventilation system.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 5/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
A maximum mass concentration of 0.7 g/bhp-hr in the crankcase gases is often assumed for design purposes. A particle removal efficiency of more than 90% for 1
micron and larger particles should be used [Jaroszczyk 2006]. Estimates of the level on contaminants that a turbocharger can tolerate range from less than 0.5 g/h
[Barris 2000] to 2-3 g/h [Jaroszczyk 2006].

Another important consideration is the pressure differential that is available to maintain flow through the crankcase ventilation system. Manufacturer recommended
crankcase pressure limits are low in order to maintain the integrity of seals and gaskets. In some cases these limits are no more than -1 to +1 kPa (-4 to +4" water).
For OCV systems, this will be the maximum pressure difference than would be available to drive the maximum blowby flow rate through a separator and any
associated piping. For CCV systems, a higher pressure drop may be available as the CCV usually vents into the intake system downstream of the air filter. Pressure
downstream of the air filter is usually less than atmospheric.

3.3 Separator Options

3.3.1 Overview
A number of separation technologies can be used of ranging complexity and PM removal efficiency. The options include wire mesh, cyclone, centrifuge, impactor,
coalescer or electrostatic precipitator. These technologies can be used individually or in combination to achieve the desired separation efficiency. Figure 7 illustrates
the PM removal efficiency of selected separator types [Jaroszczyk 2006].

Figure 7. Removal Efficiency of Crankcase Ventilation Separation Technologies

3.3.2 Electrostatic Precipitators


Large electrostatic precipitators are commonly used in separating particulate matter from gas flows in industrial applications. Compact designs have also been
considered for crankcase ventilation applications. They can provide high separation efficiency with a very low flow restriction. They were investigated by Cummins
as an option early in the development of engines for use on 2007 and later US highway truck engines when the performance of standard filtration and separation
technologies was not capable of meeting the demands of these applications. Ultimately passive filtration technology developed to the point where it replaced
electrostatic precipitators as a viable option for crankcase emissions control [Nelson 2009].

Electrode fouling is a significant challenge when they are used with wet oily aerosols such as those found in crankcase ventilation gases. The fouling can lead to
arcing, unstable operation and ultimately a decrease in efficiency and stress on the electrical components [Heckel 2006].

3.3.3 Inertial Separators


Inertial separators such as labyrinth separators, cyclones, impactors, and centrifuges utilize particle inertia to achieve separation. Inertia is a function of fluid and
particle density. In the case of solid mineral particles, the density ratio dust and air is about 2200. Therefore, removal efficiency for solid particles in these types of
separators is high. In the case of oil particles, the ratio is about 700 and removal efficiency can be lower. On the one hand, solid particles may easily bounce and be
re-entrained, especially at high velocities, while liquid particles remain on collecting surfaces.

Inertial separators require high velocities to achieve high efficiency. Because of the limited pressure available to drive the flow through the crankcase ventilation
system, generating sufficient velocity for an inertial separator to provide high separation efficiency can be difficult. For this reason, separators such as impactors
that only utilize crankcase pressure offer only limited aerosol efficiency on their own, if placed ahead of a higher efficiency separator option such as a coalescer, the
service life of the coalescer can be extended.

Centrifuges that use an electric motor or are driven by oil pressure are one available inertial separator option that can provide much higher separation efficiency.
Figure 8 (left) illustrates a cone stack centrifuge design that consists of layers of separation plates combined into a stack [Kissner 2007]. Figure 8 (right) shows the
principle of operation one separation channel. The blowby gas flows radially inward or outward along the separation channels. Droplets first settle on the lower
surface of the upper cone and due to the high centrifugal force generated by the rotating stack, the oil droplets are forced to move outwards. The flow direction has
only a small influence on the separation but is significant for the resulting pressure drop.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 6/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

Figure 8. Electrically Driven Cone Stack Centrifugal Separator

Separation efficiency depends of gas flow rate and the rotational speed of the centrifuge, Figure 9. The size dependant separation efficiency increases with particle
size. In one example on a 12 liter test engine, power consumption was 42 W at 6000 rpm, total efficiency was 88-96% depending on operating conditions and oil
carryover was less than 0.2 g/h [Kissner 2007].

Figure 9. Separation Efficiency of Electrically Driven Cone Stack Centrifugal Separator

One unique feature of the cone stack separator is that it can act as a pump at low flow rates if the flow is from inner radius to outer. In the case illustrated in Figure
10, this was able to generate a pressure of about 0.5 kPa (2" water) with flow rates less than 20 l/min [Kissner 2007].

Figure 10. Differential Pressure across Cone Stack Centrifugal Separator for Different Flow Directions
Centrifugal separator rotational speed of 6000 rpm (negative differential pressure implies that pressure upstream of the separator is higher that downstream)

3.3.4 Coalescing Filters


Coalescing filters are a common option for separating aerosols from crankcase gases. Coalescing filters are thick media filters that capture liquid aerosol droplets,
cause them to coalesce and then to drain off. They are very different in design and behavior when compared to thin media filters such as air filters than only capture
particles.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 7/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
Figure 11 is a schematic illustration of how a coalescing medium works [Schwandt 2007]. An incoming gas flow containing small liquid aerosols, such as that from
the crankcase of a diesel engine, impinges on the inlet side (left) of the media. As these droplets penetrate into the media, they coalesce together and grow in size
until they eventually “pool” together. These pools reach a size such that flow and/or gravity forces overcome the adhesion forces of the fibers and the pools drain to
be collected.

Figure 11. Coalescing Medium Schematic

This behavior is very different from that of other types of filters such as air filters that rely on the impaction of particles to separate the solids from the air stream.
Air filters also use the dirt itself to create a surface cake of particles to increase filtration efficiency.

The coalescing media reaches a saturation level where the average amount of liquid entering the media equals the average amount drained off. Saturation does not
mean that the entire void volume of the media is filled with oil. At saturation, the element is holding as much oil as it can. With reference to Figure 11, this would
mean that more oil would be present at the bottom and right side than the top and left side.

An important characteristic of coalescing filters is the pressure drop at saturation. As the media becomes saturated, the pressure drop increases, Figure 12. When
saturation is reached, the pressure drop reaches a steady-state value that is reflective of the effective porosity of the media [Schwandt 2007]. While the filter in Figure
12 becomes saturated in less than 60 minutes, it may take as long as 15,000 km before saturation is reached in some commercial applications [Dollmeyer 2007].

Figure 12. Pressure Drop Characteristics of Coalescing Crankcase Ventilation Filter As Saturation Proceeds

The crankcase aerosols also contain solid particles such as soot that are not drained off but rather accumulate in the media. Over time, the accumulation of these
solid particles can reach a level where the pressure drop in the filter becomes excessive. Figure 13 shows that the rate of pressure rise due to soot plugging is much
slower than that due to saturation. In the commercial application just mentioned, soot plugging of the crankcase filter media can take as long as 200,000 km
[Dollmeyer 2007].

Figure 13. Coalescing Crankcase Filter Pressure Drop Characteristic Showing Combined Effects of Oil Saturation and Soot Plugging

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 8/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
While coalescing a liquid from a gas stream is done in many industrial settings and separation efficiencies as high as 99.9% are common. In industrial applications,
the high separation efficiency is achieved at relatively high pressure drops in the range of 30 kPa (5 psi). These high pressure drops allow good drainage of oil from
the filter media. In crankcase applications, such high pressure drops are not acceptable due to need to keep crankcase pressure low and avoid damage to seals and
gaskets. As a result, filtration needs to be done with a media with a low flow restriction making it more challenging to achieve high filtration efficiencies. Despite
this challenge, some coalescing filters can provide efficiencies in excess of 90% when used in crankcase applications.

Aerosol size distribution is an important consideration in order to achieve high filtration efficiency in a coalescing filter. Several different filtering mechanisms are
involved and the relative importance of each depends on the on the particle size. The hardest to remove particles with a coalescing media are in the 300 nm size
range, Figure 14. This can be considered a disadvantage of coalescing media, as blowby gases, depending on the engine and the conditions, can contain a significant
amount of particles in the 300 nm size range. However, while Figure 14 shows the efficiency dropping to below 50% around 300 nm, a well designed coalescing
filter can keep the minimum efficiency at any particle size at about 90% or even higher [Dollmeyer 2007].

Figure 14. Filtration Efficiency As a Function of Particle Diameter

Another important factor with coalescing filter media is that liquid carry over through the filter is affected by flow rate. The most common cause of liquid carryover
through a coalescing filter is excessive blowby from the engine, Figure 15. A properly designed filter should take into account the expected increase in blowby rate
of the engine as it ages.

Figure 15. Performance Characteristics of Crankcase Ventilation Filter


Cummins CV51118

The following figures show some common crankcase separators employing coalescing filters. Figure 16 shows a design employed by Cummins on new engines
[Jaroszczyk 2006][Dollmeyer 2007] and in some retrofit applications [RTI 2007].

Figure 16. Cummins Crankcase Ventilation Filter Open to Show ‘Race-Track’ Shaped Coalescing Filter Elements

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 9/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
Figure 17 shows a design also used in new engines and retrofit applications manufactured by Parker [Powell 2007]. This design integrates a pressure regulation on
the inlet side of the filter and a bypass valve. The bypass valve will begin to vent blowby gas if the crankcase pressure becomes excessive. The valve also acts as a
pre-separation impactor surface when operating, which processes large droplet sizes above 10 micron.

Figure 17. Coalescing Crankcase Filter with Integral Pressure Regulator and Bypass

Figure 18 shows a two-stage design by Donaldson. The first filter stage employs an impactor for eliminating larger aerosol particles and can provide an average
efficiency around 50%. The second stage filter uses a coalescing filter for a combined filtration efficiency in the range of 90%. Both filter stages are integrated into
a single, replaceable non-metallic filter cartridge. The pressure regulator on this design is placed on the outlet of the separator.

Figure 18. Coalescing Crankcase Filter with Impactor and Coalescing Filter Media

3.4 Additional Components


Another important component of crankcase filtration systems is the pressure regulator. The pressure regulator can be placed upstream, Figure 19, or downstream,
Figure 20, of the separator. The pressure regulator serves an important function in ensuring that the crankcase pressure does not become too low or too high and
exceed the engine manufacturer’ limits. Without a regulator, a considerable vacuum could be experienced by the crankcase as the engine’s air filter accumulates
dirt.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 10/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

Figure 19. Crankcase Ventilation System with Pressure Regulator Upstream of Filter

Figure 20. Crankcase Ventilation System with Pressure Regulator Downstream of Filter
Mann + Hummel ProVent

Additional components may include a check valve in the oil return line and a relief valve or bypass valve that vents blowby gas to prevent crankcase over
pressurization if the restriction of the separator become excessive.

Some systems can also be provided with a heater for engine applications operating in severe weather. This can help prevent the condensation of water vapor in the
separator and subsequent contamination of the lubricating oil and/or plugging of the separator.

4. Engine Performance Impacts

4.1 Fuel Economy


Some aftermarket manufacturers of CCV systems claim that their devices can improve fuel efficiency from a few percent to as much as 30%. However, careful
examination of available data shows that such claims are unfounded and cannot be supported. Engine dynamometer testing—with a sufficient number of repetitions
to provide confidence in the results—has shown no effect on fuel consumption [SRI 2005].

Vehicle testing using the SAE J1321 method has suggested that very modest fuel economy improvement of about 2.5% may be possible [Powell 2007]. However, it
should be noted that the limit of detection of SAE J1321 has been estimated to be 3% and the coefficient of variation (COV) greater than 5% [Ensfield 2006], making
such modest fuel economy improvements difficult to verify with this procedure.

4.2 Turbocharger Impacts


As is apparent from Figure 7, while the separation efficiency of crankcase ventilation separators can be very high, none are 100% and all the designs allow a small
amount of oil carryover. When integrated over hundreds of thousands of kilometers, the small amounts of carryover can become significant. While much of this
carryover will be ingested by the engine and combusted, some will inevitably accumulate in the turbocharger and the intercooler. If intake manifold temperatures
reach the cracking temperature of the lubricant, the oily deposits that accumulate in the turbocharger and on the intercooler can coke and reduce the effectiveness of
these engine components. For this reason, many North American heavy-duty engines intended for severe service applications continue to use OCV system—albeit
with high efficiency coalescing filters.

Figure 21 shows the impact that turbocharger fouling can have on compressor performance under high load conditions where coking of the lubricating oil deposits
occurs [Dollmeyer 2007].

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 11/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

Figure 21. Effect of CCV on Compressor Efficiency

The most critical area of the turbocharger for such coking problems is the diffuser gap—the narrow gap immediately outside the outer circumference of the
compressor wheel. Being immediately after the discharge from the outer diameter of the compressor wheel, the temperatures are highest here. Even a small amount
of deposit in this area can significantly increase flow friction and lower compressor efficiency [Holm 2006][Gray 2004].

While turbocharger and intercooler deposits have the potential to cause serious degradation in engine performance, this does not by any means preclude the
application of CCV to turbocharged diesel engines. To the contrary, CCV has been successfully applied to may new engines and retrofitted to existing ones. A
number of measures are available to minimize the potential for turbocharger deposits.

1. An important measure to minimizing turbocharger deposits and thus impacts on performance are through lubricating oil formulations. For some applications,
the lubricating oil can be formulated so than little or no deposits form in the turbocharger even under high load conditions when oil contained in the crankcase
ventilation gases is deposited on turbocharger surfaces.

In order to measure the tendency of oil formulations to form performance degrading deposits in the turbocharger and intercooler in engines equipped with
CCV, several tests have been developed. However, these tests have proven to be inadequate for modern diesel engines and test development continues to
evolve.

One bench test is the Turbocharger/Intercooler (TC/IC) glass wear test (DIN 51535). This bench test uses simple laboratory glassware to simulate the effect of
lubricating oil mist on deposit formation on hot turbocharger surfaces of large industrial diesel engines.

An engine test that measures a number of parameters related to lubricating oil including boost pressure loss and the mass of deposits collected in the
turbocharger resulting from CCV is the OM441LA (CEC-L-52-T-97). This uses a turbocharged Daimler Euro II heavy-duty diesel engine equipped with
CCV.

Before 2008, European AECC heavy-duty oil sequences E4, E6 and E7 and Global DHD-1 needed to pass the OM441LA engine test that includes a
maximum boost pressure loss of 4% at 400 hours. The 2008 AECC oil sequences replaced the OM441LA engine test with a more modern test based on an
OM501LA engine. The new OM501LA engine test, however, does not measure the effect of crankcase ventilation gases on turbocharger performance and the
2008 AECC heavy-duty oil sequences do not specify a minimum level of perfromance related to turbocharger deposits. While development of a new
turbocharger deposit test was initiated at the Coordinating European Council (CEC) in 2006 (Group TDG-L-100), the test was still under development in the
fall of 2008 [CEC 2008].

In North America, the oil formulated for 2007 and later heavy-duty diesel engines, API-CJ-4, does not include a test to determine whether the oil is suitable
for use in any engine with CCV. However, some CJ-4 oils meet additional requirements that individual engine manufacturers feel are important for engine oil
used in their products. For example, in addition to meeting the requirements of API-CJ-4, an engine lubricant meeting Detroit Diesel’slubricant specification
DDC 93K218 must meet additional requirements including a the maximum boost pressure loss of 4% at 400 hours on the OM441LA test.

While the existence of these tests methods may appear to be a useful tool in generating lubricating oil formulations that are compatible with CCV systems,
they are not entirely satisfactory. A comparison of these two test methods [Gray 2004] showed that their precision is poor and that the correlation between the
TC/IC glassware test and the OM441LA is poor. Even in the parameters measured in the OM441LA test, boost pressure loss and turbocharger weight gain,
the correlation is poor suggesting that the location of deposit formation is critical in determining changes in turbocharger performance. Additionally, the boost
air temperatures reached in the OM441LA test (165°C at 1900 rpm) are lower than those that would be encountered in some newer engine designs such as
those with multiple turbochargers operating in series and may not adequately protect the turbocharger from deposit formation for all engine designs.

Viscosity modifiers found in multigrade oils are an important lubricant oil component that contributes to turbocharger deposit formation in engine equipped
with CCV [Gray 2004]. Monograde oils typically do not contain viscosity modifiers and are less likely to form turbocharger deposits. Lubricant base stock can
also have an impact with higher quality Group III base stocks producing less turbocharger deposits than Group I base stocks [Scott 2003].

2. One approach taken by some engine manufacturers is to limit CCV to engines that will not see high intake manifold temperatures. For example, on their EPA
07 on-highway engines, Caterpillar uses a CCV system on their C7 and C9 models that have only one stage of turbocharging. On the other hand, the C13 and
C15 engines that have two stages of turbocharging and would generate higher boost pressures and temperatures use an OCV system.

Another approach is to limit the compressor outlet temperature. Figure 22 shows the impact of CCV deposit coking on turbocharger compressor efficiency as
a function of compressor discharge temperature [Dixon 2012]. However, this approach can limit boost pressure which may not be tolerable for some
appications.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 12/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation

Figure 22. Impact of CCV Deposit Coking on Turbocharger Compressor Efficiency


Effect of compressor outlet temperature on time for maximum tolerable compressor efficiency loss in an engine with CCV gases passing through the turbocharger compressor.

3. Another approach is to design the turbocharger to be more tolerant of contamination. Some turbochargers can tolerate a contaminant load as high as 2-3 g/h
[Jaroszczyk 2006]. Methods that have been investigated to increase the ability of the turbocharger compressor to deal with crankcase ventilation aerosols
include:

Coatings that can affect how well deposits stick to the compressor surfaces. In some cases, deposits can be dry and non-sticky and relatively easily
removed during normal operation [Münz 2007].
Resilient diffuser gap walls that flex slightly under pressure pulsations to loosen any accumulated deposits [French 2006].
Instead of introducing the crankcase gases at the inlet of the compressor, they can be introduced at a single point in the diffuser gap of the compressor
where velocity is highest and pressure lowest. This minimizes the diffuser gap surface area that is contacted by the CV containments [Holm 2006]

4. The tolerance of the turbocharger to CCV can also be improved by reducing the oil consumption of the engine—especially the amount of oil carried past the
crankcase ventilation separator. This is the component of oil consumption that would have most impact on turbocharger deposit formation. Leakage past the
turbocharger’s compressor oil seal could also be important in some cases. Other important contributors to oil consumption that would have less impact on
turbocharger deposits include oil passing from the crankcase past the piston and into the cylinder and oil leakage past the valve stems.

The impact of oil consumption control on turbocharger deposit formation does, however, depend strongly on the lubricating oil formulation. This is illustrated
in Figure 23 for two different oil formulations. All tests results in Figure 23 were obtained with several different OM441LA test stands all running the same
test sequence. Oil B was formulated to perform well on this test while Oil A was not. Note that while the boost pressure loss of oil B is almost independent of
oil consumption, even Oil A will perform better and come much closer to meeting the 4% boost loss criteria under conditions where oil consumption is kept
low.

Figure 23. Effect of Oil Consumption on Boost Pressure Loss


OM441LA test using two different oil formulations

It should be noted that simply meeting the boost pressure limit does not allow an oil to perform well on the entire OM441LA test. The test also evaluates bore
polish, and piston cleanliness. Oil A does poorly on piston cleanliness regardless of the oil consumption of the test stand.

While it is not entirely apparent what contributes to the wide range of oil consumption in Figure 23, carryover past the CCV separator is strongly suggested
by the significant correlation for Oil A. Leakage past the compressor shaft seal is also a possibility. Figure 23 illustrates the following points:

seemingly identical engines performing under identical operating conditions with oil consumption levels deemed acceptable (the OM441LA test
requires oil consumption to be ≤ 40 kg/400 hour test) can produce widely varying turbocharger performance degradation with some engine oils, that to
a large extent can be explained through differences in oil consumption.
if the engine lubricant is formulated specifically to address turbocharger deposits, oil consumption, if maintained within specification, can have less
impact on turbocharger deposits in engines equipped with CCV.

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 13/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
with lubricants not specifically formulated to lower turbocharger deposits from CCV, a further reduction in oil consumption through design changes
that reduce the amount of oil ending up in the intake manifold can significantly reduce the loss in turbocharger performance.

5. Performance Tests

5.1 Overview
Standard test procedures for crankcase ventilation system performance have been under development. ISO has been developing ISO/TC22/SC5, “Aerosol Separator
Performance Test for Diesel and Petrol Engines”, for both bench and on-engine testing. However, no standard test has yet been finalized.

The lack of standardized test methods combined with the need to control crankcase emissions in some juristictions has lead to manufacturer’s developing their own
test methods for measuring the performance of CCV or OCV systems. Common performance tests for coalescing filter media by one manufacturer include [Parker
2006]:

Flow Test
Pressure Regulation Test
Gravimetric Efficiency Test
Size Dependant Efficiency Test

5.2 Flow Test


This is one of the first tests carried out and is done to ensure that the separator media being considered is not overly restrictive. It can be done dry as well as with the
element saturated with oil. Figure 24 shows some typical results.

Figure 24. Flow vs. Pressure Drop Curves for Dry and Saturated Crankcase Filter Element
Parker CCV350I unit

5.3 Pressure Regulation Test


The function of the crankcase ventilation system’s pressure regulator is also tested to determine if the regulator is functioning to design specifications and that
engine manufacturer crankcase pressure limits are not exceeded at a variety of flow conditions. Figure 25 shows typical results for one crankcase ventilation system
manufacturer’s products.

Figure 25. Crankcase Pressure As a Function of Pressure between Air Cleaner and Turbocharger (Turbo Inlet Restriction)
Three trial runs at 3 CFM of Parker CCV350I unit

5.4 Total Gravimetric Efficiency and Particle Distribution Analysis


Determination of the total gravimetric efficiency and particle size analysis can be carried out on an engine to better simulate real operating conditions with an
aerosol composed of oil mist and soot particles. In order to determine the total gravimetric efficiency, separate 50 liter samples of blowby gas are collected
isokinetically upstream and downstream of the separator. Particulates are collected on PM sampling filters and the mass difference between these sample filters
determines the total gravimetric efficiency. The particle distribution analysis can also be carried out with instruments such as a laser spectrometer or a coronal
cascade impactor using a similar sampling technique on blowby gas that has been diluted by a dilution factor of about 100.

5.5 Size Dependant Efficiency

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 14/15
2/14/2020 Crankcase Ventilation
Size dependant efficiency is carried out with an automated test stand that has a heated, temperature controlled environment in which aerosols are generated. A
particle spectrometer takes upstream and downstream measurements. The stand has capability to determine the total gravimetric separation efficiency and the
fractional separation efficiency. Figure 26 shows an example for an impactor.

Figure 26. Impactor Efficiency at Three Different Gas Flows

References
Avergard, P., Lindstrom, F., 2003. “Modelling of Crankcase Gas Behaviour in a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine”, Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, January 2003,
http://www.control.lth.se/documents/2003/5699.pdf
Barris, M., 2000. “Closed Crankcase Filtration -- The next step in diesel engine emissions reduction”, Donaldson Company, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA
Caterpillar, 2000. “Electric Power Application and Installation Guide - Crankcase Ventilation”, Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL, USA
CEC, 2008. “TDG-L-100 - Turbo Deposits Test”, The Co-ordinating European Council (CEC), Leicester, UK, CEC Newsletter, July 2008
Clark, N., et al., 2006. “Evaluation of crankcase emissions abatement device”, Center for Alternative Fuels Engines & Emissions, West Virginia University report to New Condensator, Inc., August 8, 2006,
http://www.worldnci.com/files/Documents/WVA_FinalReport_200600808.pdf
Dixon, J., 2012. “Method For Controlling The Operation Of A Compressor”, US Patent Application 2012/0204560, http://www.google.com/patents/US20120204560
Dollmeyer, T. A., et al., 2007. “Meeting the US heavy-duty diesel emission standards - designing for the customer”, SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-4170, doi:10.4271/2007-01-4170
Ensfield, C., et al., 2006. “Evaluating real-world fuel economy on heavy-duty vehicles using a portable emissions measurement system”, SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-3543, doi:10.4271/2006-01-3543
Farmer, L.E., 2004. “Final Report on Testing Performed For NCI On the Condensator On a MY1996 Dodge RAM 2500 Truck With the 12-valve, 5.9L Cummins Turbo Diesel Engine”, Automotive Testing and
Development Services, Inc., Ontario, CA, USA
French, P., 2006. “Compressor”, US Patent 7,014,421, http://www.google.com/patents/US7014421
Froelund, K., Yilmaz, E., 2004. “Impact of engine oil consumption on particulate emissions”, International Conference on Automotive Technologies, ICAT 2004
Gray, C., et al., 2004. “Comparison of the Turbo/Intercooler Glassware Test (Using DIN 51535) to a Fired Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Test”, SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-1957, doi:10.4271/2004-01-1957
Heckel, S.P., et al., 2006. “Electrostatic precipitator with pulsed high voltage power supply”, US Patent 7,082,897, http://www.google.com/patents/US7082897
Herman, P.K., M.J. Connor, C.E. Holm, M.V. Holzmann, 2010. “Crankcase ventilation system with pumped scavenged oil”, US Patent 7,699,029, http://www.google.com/patents/US7699029
Hill, B.L., et al., 2005. “A Multi-City Investigation of the Effectiveness of Retrofit Emissions Controls in Reducing Exposures to Particulate Matter in School Buses”, Clean Air Task force, Boston, MA, USA,
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/CATF-Purdue_Multi_City_Bus_Study.pdf
Holm, C.E., Schwandt, B.W., 2006. “Turbocharger with blow-by gas injection port”, US Patent Application 11/018,738, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060130479A1/en
Holzmann, M.V., et al., 2010. “Crankcase ventilation system with engine driven pumped scavenged oil”, US Patent Application 12/340,924 (Cummins), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100043734A1/en
Jaroszczyk, T., et al., 2006. “New developments in diesel engine crankcase emission reduction - requirements, design and performance”, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, 13(2), 155-167
Kissner, G., Sauter, H., 2007. “Blow-by truck application: electrically driven cone stack separator for crankcase ventilation”, ASME ICE Division Fall Technical Conference, Charleston, SC, Oct. 14-17, 2007,
ICEF2007-1655
Koszałka, G., Niewczas, A., 2003. “Influence of top ring axial clearance on blowby and oil consumption in diesel engine”, Journal of KONES Internal Combustion Engines, 10(1-2)
Münz, S., et al., 2007. “Turbocharger for emission concepts with low-pressure-end exhaust-gas recirculation”, BorgWarner KnowledgeLibrary, http://turbos.bwauto.com/tools/download.aspx?
t=document&r=510&d=599
Nelson, C.R.., 2009. “Heavy Truck Engine Program”, US DOE Contract Number FC26-00OR22804. Final Report, Reporting Period: July, 2000 - September, 2006
Opris, C.N., 2007. “Crankcase ventilation system”, US Patent 7,159,386, http://www.google.com/patents/US7159386
Parker, 2006. “Racor: Closed Crankcase Ventilation Filtration Systems Technical Information”, Parker Hannifin Corporation Bulletin RCR01-7678/US, http://www.parker.com/literature/Racor/Racor-Engine-Air-
Filtration_-_Closed-Crankcase-Ventilation-Filtration_-_7678.pdf
Powell, R.P., 2007. “TMC RP-1102 (SAE J1321) Type II Fuel Consumption Test with TMC RP-1115 Fuel Economy Benefit Product Qualification”, Report by Auburn University for World NCI
RTI, 2003. “Environmental Technology Verification Report Mobile Source Emission Control Devices Donaldson Company, Inc. Series 6000 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler and Spiracle Closed Crankcase Filtration
System”, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR829434-01-1, September 2003, http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/05_vr_6000.pdf
RTI, 2007. “Environmental Technology Verification Report Mobile Source Emission Control Devices Cummins Emission Solutions & Cummins Filtration Closed Crankcase Ventilation System (201350N Precious
Metal Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Plus Coalescer Breather CV5061200 and”, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR831911-01-1, June 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv07027.pdf
Schmeichel, S.D., et al., 2007. “Apparatus for emissions control systems, and methods”, US Patent 7,278,259, http://www.google.com/patents/US7278259
Schwandt, B.W., et al., 2007. “Space optimized coalescer”, US Patent Application 11/346,679, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070062887A1/en
Scott, R., 2003. “Lubricating oil compositions”, US Patent Application 10/351,947, https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030162674A1/en
SRI, 2005. “Environmental Technology Verification Report New Condensator, Inc. - The Condensator Diesel Engine Retrofit Crankcase Ventilation System”, Southern Research Institute, Report SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-
36, August 2005, http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr36.pdf
Tatli, E., Clark, N., 2006. “Characterization and abatement of diesel crankcase emissions”, SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-3372, doi:10.4271/2006-01-3372
Tatli, E., Clark, N., 2008. “Crankcase particulate emissions from diesel engines”, SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-1751
Tian, T., 2002. “Dynamic behaviours of piston rings and their practical impact. Part 1: ring flutter and ring collapse and their effects on gas flow and oil transport”, Proc Instn Mech Engrs Part J: J Engineering Tribology,
216, 209-227
Zielinska, B., et al., 2008. “Detailed characterization and profiles of crankcase and diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions using speciated organics”, Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 5661-5666

###

https://dieselnet.com/tech/engine_crank.php 15/15

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy