Turbocharger Reliability Issues on

Caterpillar G3600 Series Engines

William A. Couch PE, El Paso Corporation

Mitchell A. Opat, Universal Turbo®

Background
Caterpillar® (Cat®) introduced the gaseous fueled G3600 series of engines in the
early 1990’s. The Cat® G3600 engines are available in four Models: G3606,
G3608, G3612 and G3616. The “G” signifies gaseous fuel, the “36” represents
the series/size of power cylinder (300mm bore and 300mm stroke) and the last
two digits represent the number of power cylinders.

The G3606 and G3608 engines were originally outfitted with one ABB Model
VTC254 turbocharger per engine. The G3612 and G3616 engines were outfitted
with two ABB Model VTC254 turbochargers per engine. The external
dimensions of the VTC254 turbocharger are the same for all Cat® G3600 series
of engines. However, the ABB Model VTC254 turbochargers used on the G3608
and G3616 engines are sized to accept the 33% increase in air and exhaust
mass flow rates associated with the larger engines. In the late 1990’s the
engines were modified to accept the ABB Model TPS57 turbochargers. The later
model of turbocharger are very different from their predecessors in that the
exhaust stream has a radial rather than axial flow path through the turbine wheel
and the turbocharger physical dimensions are also very different. These
changes resulted in very different installations on the G3600 series of engines;
more on these differences later. The axial flow turbine wheel on the earlier
turbocharger models were comprised of a turbine disk and blading (buckets)
similar to the turbine wheels design in industrial gas turbine engines (Figure 1).
The later model of turbocharger utilized an open-faced radial flow turbine wheel
design (Figure 2).

Since their introduction in the early

1990’s the Cat® G3600 engines
with ABB VTC254 turbochargers
have been plagued with poor
turbocharger life as compared to
other gas engines. Traditionally
slow speed natural gas engines
have a useful turbocharger life of
approximately 30,000 hours; with
many turbochargers approaching
40,000 hours of trouble free
operation. This fact has been born
out over the years on many
Figure 1 different engine brands, such as

1
 Clark, Cooper-Bessemer,
Worthington and Ingersoll-Rand,
using a multitude of turbocharger
brands, such as Cooper-
Bessemer, Clark, Elliott, ABB,
Napier, Man, Delaval and Alco.
Superior high speed natural gas
engines with large frame Cooper-
Bessemer, Man and Elliott
turbochargers have experienced
useful turbocharger lives of
approximately 20,000 to 30,000
Figure 2 hours between overhaul. This has
not been the industry’s experience
®
with the Cat G3600 engines using the large frame ABB VTC 254 turbochargers.
The 1st generation ABB Model VTC254 turbochargers installed on Cat® G3600
engines rarely pass 15,000 hours of operation without failure or intervention
(scheduled removal) by the operator.

Waukesha, Superior and Cat® G3500 series (and smaller) high speed natural
gas engines with small frame Garrett, Borg-Warner, Holset, and ABB
turbochargers have experienced useful turbocharger lives of approximately 8,000
to 16,000 hours between overhaul.

The change over from the 1st generation VTC to the 2nd generation TPS
turbocharger was a product of several factors: ABB had recently developed the
TPS line; the TPS line of turbochargers is less costly; and the TPS models are
not as negatively affected with scale deposits.

There are currently 867 Cat® G3600 engines with 1,320 1st generation VTC254
ABB turbochargers and >280 Cat® G3600 engines with >340 2nd generation
TPS57 ABB turbochargers (Figure 3).

Mode of Failure – VTC254

The engine exhaust stream deposits a hard whitish gray residue on the turbine
section nozzle ring (Figure 4) and the turbine wheel (Figure 5) of the
turbocharger. The buildup continues until there is a thick, fairly uniform, residue
deposited on the
First Generation Second Generation nozzle ring and
Series of G3600 VTC254 G3600 TSP57 turbine wheel.
Engines Engines Turbochargers Engines Turbochargers
G3606 195 195 >200 >200
G3608 219 219 >20 >20
G3612 201 402 >50 >100
G3616 252 504 >10 >20
Total 867 1320 >280 >340
Figure 3

2
 The following are two likely failure
scenarios for the VTC254
turbochargers:

Scenario 1
At some point during the operation of
the turbocharger, a non-symmetric
piece of residue breaks-away from
the turbine wheel, severely affecting
the balance of the rotating element.
The breakaway of material may be
caused by changes in load,
Figure 4 temperature, blade flutter or simply
centrifugal force. The radial
bearings are unable to maintain the radial position of the turbine wheel
and blade tip rub occurs producing non-typical forces and moments on the
shaft and bearings, flexing the shaft, compromising the integrity of the
bearings and oil seals and further worsening the out of balance condition.

Scenario 2
As the fouling builds up on the nozzle ring and turbine wheel, the normal
radial clearances are gradually reduced, until a rub develops between the
rotating and static elements within the turbocharger. The rub flakes off the
residue buildup on the turbine wheel and produces imbalances and/or the
rub creates natural resonance in the blading which “shakes off” residue
and produces imbalances in the turbine wheel.

The above scenarios have a “snowball” affect and ultimately result in a

catastrophic failure of the turbocharger. At typical turbocharger operating speeds
(~ 27,000 - 28,000 RPM) the aforementioned occurrences can happen very
quickly. Therefore any turbocharger health monitoring program must be
proactive rather than reactive if they are to prevent a catastrophic failure of the
turbocharger.

The VTC254 turbocharger was

introduced in the early 1980’s. It
has a proven record in many
applications. For example, the VTC
model turbocharger has been in
operation on the Cat® Diesel 3600
series engine since the mid 80’s.
The diesel application is not
affected with any type of scaling or
deposit issues. One reason may be
that the diesel 3600 in-cylinder
temperatures are less than the
Figure 5

3
corresponding G3600 in-cylinder temperatures, even though the BMEP of the
diesel 3600 engines are higher than the G3600 engines (183 psi). Exhaust port
cylinder head temperatures on the G3600 engines range from 500 to 525°C (932
to 977°F). Lowering or raising exhaust temperatures on these engines has an
effect on turbocharger deposit rates; however, changes in exhaust temperatures
also contribute to changes in emissions levels.

The Cat® G3600 series of engines are equipped with a very sophisticated control
system that is able to compensate for the degradation in turbocharger
performance caused by scale deposits. Net power output of the engine is
maintained by closing the waste gate, thus increasing the exhaust flow rate
through the turbocharger and maintaining the desired airflow for low emission
combustion. In other words the turbocharger works harder for the same engine
power level. It should be noted that the operator can “drill down” and trend
specific engine performance parameters to identify changes in engine operation
such as: operation of the waste gate, indicated engine load and inlet manifold air
pressure to identify the onset of fouling in the turbocharger hot section.

The axial flow 1st generation VTC254 turbocharger design tends to encourage
deposit formation due to the tightly spaced turbine blades. Moreover, the
deposits are concentrated near the perimeter of the wheel which further
exacerbates any out of balance condition that exists. The radial flow 2nd
generation TPS57 turbocharger design utilizes a heavier exhaust wheel with
wide open blade spacing and a smaller diameter. This tends to discourage the
formation of deposits and nullify the imbalance created by such. The heavier and
more robust design of the exhaust wheel and shorter shaft of the rotor assembly
allow the TPS to be less susceptible to imbalance conditions produced by fouling
deposits.

Avoiding the Catastrophic Failure

Many operating companies have become proactive and instituted increased
monitoring and inspection schedules for the 1st generation turbochargers. El
Paso monitors the vibration of the 1st generation turbochargers quarterly and
removes any turbocharger from service with a vibration level equal to or greater
that 0.15 in/sec. Additionally, the technician may short cycle the quarterly
inspection period if the rate of rise is considered abnormal and suggests that the
0.15 in/sec threshold limit will be reached before the next quarterly inspection. It
should be noted that this low conservative threshold value has been established
by El Paso Plant Services to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic failure. If
accelerated fouling is suspected the operator may also perform borescope
inspections of the turbine section in addition to the periodic vibration monitoring.
It should be noted that borescope inspections are an inexact science as far as
turbocharger fouling is concerned; it is virtually impossible to visually look at the
fouling deposits and quantitatively predict when or even if the deposits non-
symmetrically may flake off and cause sufficient imbalance to cause a failure.
Figure 6 is a good example of fouling deposits that have flaked off of the leading

4
 edge of the turbine
buckets. As previously
stated, (semi)
symmetrical deposits will
not adversely affect rotor
balance. Only when the
deposits are flaked off
non-symmetrically does
the detrimental out of
balance condition exist
which could lead to
premature catastrophic
failure.

Another method used by

Figure 6 operators is to simply
schedule removal of the
turbochargers based upon hours of operation without regard to condition,
typically time periods are 12,000 to 15,000 hours of operation depending on the
operators’ site specific experience and tolerance for unscheduled failures. This
procedure greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, the chance of a failure; El
Paso had a catastrophic left bank turbocharger failure on a new G3616 engine
with only 9,111 total hours of operation on the engine and turbochargers. The
right bank turbocharger on this engine was removed from service a few weeks
later with excessive residue buildup on the turbine section and escalating
vibration levels.

Though rather effective in preventing a catastrophic failure, the two above

mentioned methods are more costly (repair costs, freight charges, labor, reduced
throughput and lost revenue) when compared to turbocharger installations on
other gas engines because of the increased monitoring and overhaul frequency.

Categorizations and Costs of Turbocharger Failures

The turbocharger repair industry has developed the following three categories of
turbocharger repair and associated approximate cost of repair:

Level 1
Routine overhaul with no replacement of major hot or cold side
components: approximate cost $10,000.

Level 2
Routine overhaul of cold side components with major overhaul of hot side
components (turbine blade repair and nozzle ring replacement):
approximate cost $26,000.

5
 Level 3
Major overhaul of cold side components (impeller repair) and major
overhaul of hot side components (turbine blade repair and nozzle ring
replacement) plus bearing holder replacement: approximate cost $45,000.

The exact number of VTC254 turbochargers overhauled annually is not known by

the authors; however, the population of VTC254 turbochargers overhauled by
Universal Turbo® per year, utilizing the Warren Equipment Exchange Program, is
known and shown in Figure 7 for the three levels of repair defined above. Note,
the overhaul numbers for 2004, noted with an asterisk, have been extrapolated
based upon known year-to-date overhaul numbers for each level of repair.

160

140

120

100

Level 3
80 Level 2
Level 1

60

40

20

0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 *2004

Figure 7

The number of turbochargers requiring attention is clearly on the rise and

indicates significant annual expenditures for owners and operators of Cat®
G3600 engines with the 1st generation ABB VTC254 turbochargers.

As previously stated, in the late 1990’s Cat® updated the G3600 series of
engines to use the ABB TPS57 turbocharger with the radial flow turbine wheel
design. The 1st of these turbochargers are now finding their way into overhaul
facilities. The exact number of TPS57 turbochargers overhauled annually is not
known by the authors; however, the population of TPS57 turbochargers
overhauled by Universal Turbo® per year, utilizing the Warren Equipment
Exchange Program, is known and shown in Figure 8 for the three levels of repair

6
defined above. Note, the overhaul numbers for 2004, noted with an asterisk,
have been extrapolated based upon year-to-date overhaul numbers for each
level of repair.

40

35

30

25

Level 3
20 Level 2
Level 1

15

10

0
2001 2002 2003 *2004

Figure 8

It is significant that all of the Level 3 failures, associated with the 2nd generation
TSP57 turbocharger, have been a result of a loose band clamp and not the out of
balance failures associated with the 1st generation VTC254 turbochargers. The
loosening of the band clamp allows harmful rotation of the turbine housing,
bearing housing and the nozzle ring. Figure 9 shows a band clamp installed on a
TSP57 turbocharger. The use of band clamps on TSP57 turbochargers has
been discontinued by ABB and all current production turbochargers utilize a
bolted connection.

The Effect of Residue Fouling on

Rotor Balance
The effect of residue fouling on rotor
balance is quantified in the table below
for an ABB VTC254 turbocharger
previously installed on a Cat® G3608
gas engine (Figure 10).

Figure 9

7
 Turbine Plane Compressor Plane
Engine Turbocharger (oz-in) (oz-in)
Tolerance G3608 VTC254 0.0088 0.0088
September 30, 2002 G3608 VTC254 0.0036 0.0050
August 25, 2004 G3608 VTC254 0.0464 0.0650
Figure 10

Universal Turbo® has established a maximum two plane imbalance (tolerance)

for VTC254 at ≤0.0088 oz-in. On September 30, 2002 the subject turbocharger
rotor assembly was balanced during overhaul to the values shown, these values
are significantly below the established limits for the turbine and compressor
planes. The unit was subsequently removed from service because the real time
vibration monitoring device had reached the alarm level. On August 25, 2004 the
as received (fouled) rotor assembly had the balance checked prior to a Level 1
overhaul; the results are shown in Figure 10. The as received rotor balance was
over four times and six times the acceptable levels on the turbine and
compressor planes, respectively as shown in Figure 11.

Two Plane Rotor Balance

0.07
0.0650

0.06

0.05
0.0464
Balance Level (oz-in)

0.04
Turbine Plane
(oz-in)
Compressor Plane
(oz-in)
0.03

0.02

0.01 0.0088 0.0088

0.0050
0.0036

0
Tolerance September 30, 2002 August 25, 2004

Figure 11

It should be noted that rotor imbalance is greatly suppressed when vibration

reading are taken on the turbocharger housing due to cushioning effect of the
bearing oil film and the significant mass difference between the turbocharger and
rotor assembly.

8
Root Cause of 1st Generation Turbocharger Failures
It has been well established that the out of balance condition caused by
excessive fouling of the turbine section is the root cause of the VTC254
turbocharger failures. Samples of fouling debris from each turbocharger, engine
coolant and lubricating oil from a Colorado Interstate Gas Company Cat® G3616
engine were sent to Hauser Laboratories in Boulder, Colorado and Southwest
Research Institute® in San Antonio, Texas for analysis. Analysis from both
laboratories identified comparable levels of zinc and calcium in the samples of
fouling residue and lubricating oil. Silica is typically the surrogate element for
coolant; no such correlation was established between the fouling residue and the
coolant from the samples provided for the Cat® G3616 engine. The correlation
between the fouling residue and engine oil was confirmed in a discussion with a
Caterpillar® G3600 Project Engineer who is very familiar with fouling
phenomenon.

Although the majority of turbine blade deposit samples show a direct correlation
between the contents in engine oil and the composition of the deposit, some
deposit samples taken by Universal Turbo on incoming turbochargers had a high
percentage of silica. Silica is not consistent with engine oil. When these deposit
samples are compared to engine oil and engine coolant samples, it becomes
apparent that in some instances, coolant is also entering the exhaust
stream. Elements of the coolant in the exhaust also adhere to the turbine blades.
Once the original layer of deposit is formed, any additional mediums introduced
into the exhaust stream tend to assist in the build up of deposits on the turbine
blades. When this happens, the build up of the deposit is escalated. This
phenomenon is similar to the condition of barnacles on the bottom of a boat.
With the barnacle analogy, the establishment of barnacles promotes additional
buildup. Coolant leaks are not prevalent in every engine and are repairable
when detected. This is supported by the data found in the deposit samples,
which shows that not all deposit samples contained high percentages of silica.

The Colorado Interstate Gas Company Cat® G3616 uses Mobil Pegasus 805
engine oil with an ash level of 0.48%. Mobil was contacted regarding the
potential use of their virtually ashless (0.13%) Mobil Pegasus 801 engine oil
instead of the Mobil Pegasus 805 engine oil in the Cat® G3600 engines. The
Mobil engineer explained that a 0.5% ash level is required by Cat® to ensure
acceptable valve and valve seat life in the G3600 engines. The ash cushions the
contact between the valve and valve seat and prevents valve recession in the
G3600 combustion environment.

Figure 12 contains typical Cat® G3600 oil consumption values for fully loaded
engines. Oil consumption on partially loaded engines may be significantly
higher.

9
 Engine Oil Consumption Power Another interesting fact
Consumption
lb/BHP-hr BHP worth noting is the
gal oil/day
3606 0.0005 1,775 percentage of VTC254
2.9
3608 0.0005 2,370 turbochargers overhauled by
3.8
3612 0.0005 3,550 Universal Turbo® by engine
5.7
3616 0.0005 4,445 7.2
class and severity of
Figure 12 turbocharger overhaul. The
percentage of G3606/G3612
and G3608/G3616 turbocharger overhauls is 70% and 30%, respectively (Figure
13). While the percentage of G3606/G3612 and G3608/G3616 Level 3
turbocharger overhauls is 56% and 44%, respectively (Figure 14). This may be
attributed to the 33% increase in exhaust mass flow rate through the
G3608/G3616 turbochargers.

Fuel quality and air filtration efficiency were discounted from consideration as a
root cause of the failures; the vast geographical and diversity of applications did
not suggest a common trend between fuel quality and air filtration efficiency.

Percentage of Overhauls by Engine Type

30%
Figure 13
G3606/G3612
G3608/G3616

70%

Percentage of Level 3 Overhauls by Engine Type

Figure 14
44% G3606/G3612
56% G3608/G3616

10
Conclusions
The following conclusion can be drawn from the research performed by the
authors and discussions with other Cat® G3600 operators and Cat® engine
gurus:

1. Unfortunately there is no “magic bullet” to eliminate the root cause of the

problem – fouling deposits. We can only develop methods and protocols
to mitigate and lessen the costs of turbocharger repairs.
2. The major contributor to the fouling deposits is low ash (0.5%) lubricating
oil.
3. The leakage of coolant into the combustion chamber is a secondary factor
in the fouling deposits
4. The use of ashless lubricating engine oil would decelerate the
accumulation of fouling deposits; however, an ash level of 0.5% is
required to prevent valve recession into the head.
5. Cat® issued a document “Extending Service Life of Turbocharger” on July
1, 2004 which recommends the admission of a 15% glycol mixture into the
intake manifold. The glycol has a combustion characteristic which assists
with the steam cleaning process of the pre-combustion chamber and the
turbocharger. Additionally, the glycol mixture does not dampen the flame
as pure water would. When this process is performed, it is recommended
to decrease engine load to 85%. If misfire occurs, the introduction of the
glycol product should be backed off until the engine recovers. Typically,
this process would be performed at frequent intervals involving a new or
remanufactured installation. If one were to practice this process on a unit
with considerable run time, a greater risk of failure to the turbocharger
could occur due to possible greater amounts of residue being non-
symmetrically removed and greatly affecting rotor balance. The most use
of this practice has been performed by customers operating in land fill
applications. However, the coolant may alter burn time and could have an
effect on emission levels.
6. The effect of the glycol/water mixture on engines with catalyst is not
known for all brands of catalyst and should be further investigated prior to
use. However, HIS catalyst, used on Colorado Interstate Gas Company
G3600 engines, is not adversely affected by the glycol/water mixture.
Although having a coolant leak is similar to the glycol/water injection
cleaning process, it does not have the same positive effect because the
flow rate of the leak typically is not severe enough to remove the deposit
from the turbine blades. If the coolant leak reached a level that would
facilitate the cleaning process, engine performance problems would occur.
Therefore, if the glycol/water injection method is utilized, it is imperative to
utilize this process very early from date of installation and very often in
order to avoid the establishment of deposit buildup.
7. The second generation TSP57 turbochargers are less susceptible to
fouling and give satisfactory service in all Cat® G3600 engines. Typically

11
 these turbochargers meet or exceed the 20,000 hours major engine
overhaul recommendation by Cat®.
8. Retrofitting TSP57 turbocharger/s on first generation engines is very
costly. Cat® had stated that the conversion would not only include
turbochargers but also require extensive modification to the exhaust and
air piping, removing the ESS control system and replacing it with the
ADEM III control system, and replacing the waste gate. A cost benefit
analysis would be required to weigh the cost of modification against the
cost of periodic replacement of the first generation turbochargers.
Besides cost benefits other factors such as engine availability and
reliability would also need to be factored in on the decision.

12