Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

WIX filter alert

I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around how that internal filter element got crushed/twisted by oil pressure - I think we need one of Dan’s cross-section illustrations to see where the crushing pressure is coming from and where it is deadheading against. Otherwise, I am leaning towards (but not convinced of) Larry’s manufacturing defect explanation. Horses instead of Zebras…..

Either way - Steve’s thread title is still likely correct!
 
I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around how that internal filter element got crushed/twisted by oil pressure - I think we need one of Dan’s cross-section illustrations to see where the crushing pressure is coming from and where it is deadheading against. Otherwise, I am leaning towards (but not convinced of) Larry’s manufacturing defect explanation. Horses instead of Zebras…..

Either way - Steve’s thread title is still likely correct!

The only thing I can think of is the media is “designed” for a much lower viscosity fluid and overall flow. Cram some thick fluid in there at high rates and it starts to collapse on itself, thereby causing even more restriction and it then has a catastrophic failure of the media stack and relieves itself through the distorted and no longer sealing end caps.

It’s also possible that the internal bypass was functional - but “if” designed for a lower viscosity fluid, the bypass rate was not enough to keep ahead of the Delta P and it suffered a structural overload anyway.
 

Ok, Steve measured 0.900, and 0.0725" of crush (almost 2 mm!) is probably enough to seal off the bypass flow path. Steve, you can confirm by poking a rod of some kind through one of the 12 bypass holes and pressing hard. Looking into the center passage, if you don't see a clearance open up at the thin rubber ring, it's squeezed off.
 
Last edited:
Ok, Steve measured 0.900, and 0.075" of crush (almost 2 mm!) is probably enough to seal off the bypass flow path. Steve, you can confirm by poking a rod of some kind through one of the 12 bypass holes and pressing hard. Looking into the center passage, if you don't see a clearance open up at the thin rubber ring, it's squeezed off.
There is about 0.09--0.1" of travel remaining in the bypass valve. I can put a 1/8" punch in through the holes and push and it unseats the backing washer and rubber seal disc and travels about 0.09" before the spring coil-locks. (or it hits some other kind of internal stop.) So the bypass valve was not completely disabled by the axial crush.

And I don't see how any over pressure could generate any axial load that would compress that valve housing. A big delta_P would collapse the filter medium in against the inner porous sleeve, and MIGHT be able to cause that inner sleeve to collapse, but that would not put any axial force on the bypass valve housing. The effective shortening in length from the crush would be taken up by the end spring, keeping the filter element seated down on the bypass valve housing. But that's not going to produce any large amount of axial force. The pressure load on the top cap of the filter element would be balanced by the pressure load on the bottom cap, except for the area of the hole in the bottom for the bypass valve housing.

And the kind of pressure differentials we are talking about, that would crush that steel inner sleeve -- the paper element would not be just distorted, it would be completely squished down tight against the inner sleeve.

On the other hand, the bottom cap is bucked and folded upward more than the top cap is folded downward. Hard to see how some assembly mistake could do that.
 
Looking at those pics, I am pretty confident that it came from the factory that way. Don’t believe our oil pumps are anywhere near strong enough to bend metal to that extent.

Likely an automated assembly line and a tool crushed the inside part but kept rolling to the next step, outer can. You can see the partial fluting from where the machine went haywire. The top should have looked like the bottom cap.
You know, I'm beginning to agree with you. I think the key is the bent element end plates/caps. There really shouldn't be any delta-p on those plates because their area is completely outside of the center perforated cylinder (low pressure region).

Skylor
 
It’s a positive displacement pump and as such, if “deadhead” it can deliver thousands of PSI. The only real limit is the strength of the drive mechanism. We only see “about 100 PSI” in our engines because of internal bearing leakage and the high pressure relief valve. In Steve’s case, the “deadhead” was upstream of all those relief mechanisms, so the filter was subject to unregulated output.

Would be interesting to somehow force oil through a section of Steve’s failed example and compare it to a known exemplar, like a 51515 or Tempest. Could be a simple as a gravity flow test…. How long does it take a pint of 20/50 Phillips to gravity feed through a section of each filter media. One would think it “should” be similar.
Not an ME so can’t really argue that claim. However, if it can produce 1000’s of psi, why is the paper still intact? May not be an engineer but pretty confident that the paper element would tear and release the pressure long before the metal bent and deformed.
 
You know, I'm beginning to agree with you. I think the key is the bent element end plates/caps. There really shouldn't be any delta-p on those plates because their area is completely outside of the center perforated cylinder (low pressure region).

Skylor
And consider the amount of force to not just bend the caps, but do so at such strength that it created flutes in the cap edges. Were not talking about small forces to be able to do that. I simply don’t believe our little oil pumps can create that kind of force.
 
And consider the amount of force to not just bend the caps, but do so at such strength that it created flutes in the cap edges. Were not talking about small forces to be able to do that. I simply don’t believe our little oil pumps can create that kind of force.
A positive displacement pump "can" create huge amount of force. But what would make a pressure seal strong enough to allow the pressure to build up? The paper element would be completely squished against the inner support sleeve. The paper would probably be extruded through the holes in the sleeve before the inner sleeve would buckle. And as Skylor correctly points out, the only delta_P on the end caps is in the footprint inside the inner support sleeve.

Could a difference in fluid viscosity support that much delta_P? Dan's tests looked at the amount of contaminant load required to cause just 10 PSI of delta_P. And the bypass valve should have released at 19 psi. So it doesn't really matter that a positive displacement pump is capable of very high pressures - there is nothing to explain what could have 'dead-headed' the pump inside that filter that would cause such a pressure build up across the filter element. Note that if there is an obstruction that could dead-head the filter anywhere else besides the filter element, then there would be no delta_P across the element to crush it.

Tis a mystery.
 
I admit that it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to allow the oil pump to crush the inner media structure, but I will stand by my assertion the Lycoming pump and the relatively high viscosity of the oil are two factors that would easily do that if the “holes in the cheese” lined up.

So that leaves MFG defect as a (similarly extraordinary) possibility. Pulling on that thread, are there any mechanical witness marks that would indicate a hard, destructive clash during assembly? Did the element end cap somehow get caught under the outer can when it was pressed and swaged in place? If so, there should be marks and/or deformation. I know it’s not routine to inspect a new filter for deformation BEFORE installation, but has this ever been reported anywhere else?

Do you think WIX would be interested in analyzing this failure? Maybe an email is in order.

At the very least, from now on I’m looking at the innards of any new filter I install.
 
A great reminder to take a good look at any new part. I’m certainly guilty of glossing over inspections of new parts. I think that Ross? recently pictured a crooked rod cap nut? I’m certainly taking a good look inside any filter I install now.
 
OK, so it seems that an oil pump can and does crush filter elements given enough Delta P. Check.

So that leaves the question of “why” Steve’s filter saw so much Delta that it crushed? I assume it did not load up with metal in 30 hours, and even if it did, why did it not bypass?
 
Very interesting - they are making the assumption in this graphic that the bypass valve is not integrated into the filter.

View attachment 105728


View attachment 105729

I think this is correct for external bypass valves, but if the bypass valve is integrated into the filter, and it does not open, that points to a manufacturing defect.
That shows only the thin center support crushed. The end caps are thicker and harder to bend, as they have 90* edges. Also much more surface area for the pressure to act upon. I can see the center support tube crushing from a blocked system, but not the end caps.
 
I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around how that internal filter element got crushed/twisted by oil pressure - I think we need one of Dan’s cross-section illustrations to see where the crushing pressure is coming from and where it is deadheading against.

One outlier here is the use of a transmission filter. In this case the 51624 is a design specific to a Powershift transmission in a Hyster forklift. The Powershift is a pedal operated hydrostatic with a rapid forward-reverse function. The fluid used is J20 (now J20C), a widely used John Deere spec.

The viscosity of J20 is around 60 cSt @ 40C, and 9.5 cSt @ 100C. As previously noted, the viscosity of Phillips 20W-50 is 159 cSt @ 40C, and 19.8 cSt @ 100C. The aviation oil is almost 3x thicker at 40C and about twice as thick at 100C. 40C is 104F. Given a cold crank at say 7C (45F), Phillips 20W-50 could be 4x or 5x thicker than the fluid typically used with the 51624.

Wix lists the 51624 as 19 micron nominal, and does not assign a dual beta as they do with their engine oil filters, which typically have nominal ratings between 20 and 25. There is no information specifically relating flow restriction to nominal ratings, but they do suggest the 51624 is more restrictive than a motor oil filter. That could be checked with a simple gravity flow test, an elevated bucket feeding a tee, which in turn feeds two comparison filters. Put a catch can under each filter, fill the bucket, and come back in a hour.

For the moment, assume the media is overly restrictive for the oil in use, a cold start was performed, the canister was subjected to a significant deltaP, and the bypass valve couldn't keep up, i.e. maintain deltaP below its rated max of 19 psi. What happens?

A few readers doubt a simple deltaP overpressure could bend the end caps. Actually it becomes more and more likely to bend the end caps as the ratio of diameter to height is increased. Shorter, fatter filters will result in higher rate of bent end caps.

Think of the filter cartridge as a balloon. Pressure is equal on all sides. When the media begins to collapse inward, there are two forces available to bend the caps. One is the pressure on the outside, and the other is due to the media pulling the perimeter.

Collapse.JPG

The net is full of collapse photos.

1638709.jpg

Notice the green arrow in the diagram above? There is one unbalanced pressure pushing the canister down against its base. The force would be equal to the area of the bypass valve base times the fluid pressure in psi. Here the valve base is about 1" D, so area is 0.785 sq in. If (picking a number for example) deltaP rose to 20 psi, just one more than the rated maximum, the resulting force would push down on the bypass valve with 15.7 lbs. If it bends the flat section with the holes, the bypass flow area is decreased. The deltaP immediately rises further, and the valve bends a little more. The process doesn't stop until the system reaches equilibrium....which is where Steve found his. Again, a little test would be illustrative. Put a new valve on a flat surface and load it with weight until it starts to bend.

(A) valve
(B) deltaP below opening pressure, valve closed
(C) deltaP well above opening pressure, valve open to maximum.
(D) bent inlet disk reduces flow area

Valve Collapse.JPG
 
Last edited:
OP had no pressure bypass relief valve in his oil filter adapter. The one that has a separate relief had normal filter inspection.

OP had not only media collapse of support the support tube, but the end caps distorted.

The outer can did not rupture, those of the 51624 fail around 500 psi, right? Is that a minimum burst or design burst?

Can the resistance that crushed the filter innards but not rupture the can damage the positive displacement oil pump? Anything to tear down like a prop strike?

Data logger files on the OP plane able to be reviewed? Was there a spike caught? Presumably within the first minute of either first run or first run where oil was too cold and viscous?

I attached the oil filter adapter type on my plane. Same oil used as OP, possibly higher minimum oil temps at starting, undamaged filter inspection.
 

Attachments

  • 17670102417280.jpg
    17670102417280.jpg
    167.3 KB · Views: 30
  • Lyc Oil Filter Adapter 2 (2) (1).jpg
    Lyc Oil Filter Adapter 2 (2) (1).jpg
    86 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
OP had no pressure bypass relief valve in his oil filter adapter. The one that has a separate relief had normal filter inspection.

Adapter list here.

Can the resistance that crushed the filter innards but not rupture the can damage the positive displacement oil pump? Anything to tear down like a prop strike?

Data logger files on the OP plane able to be reviewed? Was there a spike caught? Presumably within the first minute of either first run or first run where oil was too cold and viscous?

Our oil pressure senders are downstream of the filter, so logger files won't show a spike. So far, all we can infer for sure is that Steve's upstream pressure didn't rise above the burst pressure of the cooler, lines, and filter can.

Steve, any evidence of can swelling? A externally pristine can would suggest pressure didn't get real high, i.e. despite the collapse, it was still flowing oil, likely through both the media and the bypass. I assume you didn't get an indication of low pressure.

From Wix literature. Note the popped out top on the left can.

ScreenHunter_3102 Dec. 29 08.26.jpg

I attached the oil filter adapter type on my plane.

That's one of my old illustrations. Here's the other side. I have a spare, so I'll look at the available bypass flow area.

Lyc Oil Filter Adapter 1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think a simple gravity cold flow comparison between the subject 51624 and a known “good” Wix exemplar like a 51515 is in order to establish a difference in media composition. Maybe the moniker of “transmission” actually has an engineering significance?

In the meantime, I’ll pay more attention to the application descriptions on the filters I use.
 
I think a simple gravity cold flow comparison between the subject 51624 and a known “good” Wix exemplar like a 51515 is in order to establish a difference in media composition. Maybe the moniker of “transmission” actually has an engineering significance?

That's what we want to find out. Restrictive or not more restrictive is a major fork in this fault diagnosis. All I wrote above is based on clues, not fact. If the 51624 is not more restrictive we need to keep looking.
 
Dug into my collection of cut filters and made a survey.

A 51515 bypass is the usual Wix top hat style. Twelve holes, 0.15625" each, so total area is 0.230 sq in.

Wix Bypass Holes.jpg

A few measurements made by inserting the anvil of a bridge mike through one of the holes says the spring, flat ring, and rubber seal will depress roughly 0.090". It's had to be exact because there is rubber in the measurement, but it's close. With a diameter of of 0.875", the area of the short cylindrical passage would be 0.247 sq in...roughly the same as the sum of the 12 holes. Makes sense.

Note: Steve measured his valve (post #55 above) as opening 0.09" to 0.10", fundamentally the same as this known good valve. I conclude Steve's valve is not crushed. One possibility disproven!

Wix Bypass Depth.jpg

A Champion 48108 has a single 0.6875"D bypass, so area is 0.371 sq in. The similar Tempest bypass is 0.625"D, so 0.307 sq in...but wait.

Champion Bypass.jpg

A standard Lycoming horizontal filter adapter has a built in bypass. Diameter is 0.500", so area is 0.196", the smallest of the bunch.

Lycoming Bypass.jpg

It appears the available flow area of the Wix valve is probably not a factor in Steve's crush incident. Although less area than the Champion and Tempest, it offers more total area than the Lycoming adapter.

We have some good fluid flow guys here. Is there a flow coefficient which would make multiple smaller holes more restrictive than one large hole, given equal area?
 
Is there a flow coefficient which would make multiple smaller holes more restrictive than one large hole, given equal area?
Yes. Look up orifice plate tables for sizes and shapes which most closely match the holes in the filter. Compare the pressure losses, making sure to convert them to the same reference area.
 
Ahhh, I was kinda hoping a kindly engineering Phd would work up a comparison of the pressure losses, given (for example) flow at 500 cSt and 3 gallons per minute (about 40F and 1200 RPM) and 160cSt @ 7 gallons per minute (104F and takeoff RPM).
 
OK, I did some very rough calculations, for a single hole 0.5" diameter and 12 holes 0.15625" diameter. No warranty expressed or implied. I assumed a hole length of 2mm. The Reynolds numbers are very low, ranging from about 25 to about 300, so flow is treated as laminar. Results are:

GeometryFlow rate (US gpm)Viscosity (cSt)Pressure drop (kPa)Pressure drop (psi)
12 × 0.15625 in holes7.0160273.9
1 × 0.5 in hole7.01600.200.028
12 × 0.15625 in holes3.0500436.2
1 × 0.5 in hole3.05000.380.055

Clearly the multi-hole case can generate significant pressure losses, while the single large hole is almost lossless. The pressure drop should vary linearly with viscosity, flow rate and 1/hole diameter^4.
 
OK, I did some very rough calculations, for a single hole 0.5" diameter and 12 holes 0.15625" diameter. No warranty expressed or implied. I assumed a hole length of 2mm. The Reynolds numbers are very low, ranging from about 25 to about 300, so flow is treated as laminar.

Thank you sir. That's a real eye-opener.

A few corrections, if you have another moment to spare:

The 0.5" passage in the Lycoming adapter is 35 to 40 mm, significantly more than 2mm. The twelve holes in the Wix valve have far less length, as they merely pass through sheet metal of perhaps 0.5 mm.

Upon closer examination, the 40F viscosity for the Phillips 20W50 is more like 1000 cSt (ack!).
 
The 0.5" passage in the Lycoming adapter is 35 to 40 mm, significantly more than 2mm. The twelve holes in the Wix valve have far less length, as they merely pass through sheet metal of perhaps 0.5 mm.

Upon closer examination, the 40F viscosity for the Phillips 20W50 is more like 1000 cSt (ack!).
OK, those differences change things quite a bit, although the flows are still laminar. The revised numbers are:

GeometryFlow (US gpm)Viscosity (cSt)Hole length (mm)ΔP (kPa)ΔP (psi)
12 × 0.156 in holes7.01600.56.80.99
1 × 0.5 in hole7.0160403.90.56
12 × 0.156 in holes3.010000.5324.6
1 × 0.5 in hole3.01000403.10.45

The higher viscosity is a big contributor, but so is the hole length. The multi-hole design is still generating more pressure drop than the single hole in both cases.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to know where these numbers come from (not just made up at random :)), they are based on the Poiseuille equation for laminar flow through cylindrical passages. The equation is more accurate for longer holes, lower flow rates, and higher viscosity. The very short holes are outside its range of applicability at higher flow rates and lower viscosities, but the numbers will give a rough indication for comparison.

Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, if anyone wants to know where these numbers come from (not just made up at random :)), they are based on the Poiseuille equation for laminar flow through cylindrical passages. The equation is more accurate for longer holes, lower flow rates, and higher viscosity. The very short holes are outside its range of applicability at higher flow rates and lower viscosities, but the numbers will give a rough indication for comparison.
The expertise available on this forum never ceases to amaze me.
 
Does this math out toward mine being undamaged from the bypass relief in the filter adapter and the OP without seeing crushed filter innards?
 
Interesting how Wix had to eliminate the pressure regulating valve in the second sketch to prove their point....

Our Lycomings are different. The oil pressure regulating valve (PVR) is downstream of the filter. A defective PVR can't collapse the filter.

Sketch below is equivalent to an engine with the horizontal filter adapter, the difference being the bypass valve is built into the adapter itself.

ScreenHunter_3104 Dec. 31 07.51.jpg
 
OK, those differences change things quite a bit, although the flows are still laminar. The revised numbers are

...fascinating. Thank you sir.

Clearly the Wix-style valve has the potential to be more restrictive in the case of a cold start, potentially 10x more than the Lycoming adapter, and even more if compared to the Champion and Tempest, which have 0.6875 and 0.625 bypass holes with depth equal to sheet metal thickness.

Remember, these numbers are comparative, and assume an open passage, which is not necessarily accurate for the real valves. All of them have some sort of flap or door which must be pushed open by the flowing oil, i.e. in reality they are not open passages.

So who wants to do the media check?
 
OK, those differences change things quite a bit, although the flows are still laminar. The revised numbers are:

GeometryFlow (US gpm)Viscosity (cSt)Hole length (mm)ΔP (kPa)ΔP (psi)
12 × 0.156 in holes7.01600.56.80.99
1 × 0.5 in hole7.0160403.90.56
12 × 0.156 in holes3.010000.5324.6
1 × 0.5 in hole3.01000403.10.45

The higher viscosity is a big contributor, but so is the hole length. The multi-hole design is still generating more pressure drop than the single hole in both cases.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to know where these numbers come from (not just made up at random :)), they are based on the Poiseuille equation for laminar flow through cylindrical passages. The equation is more accurate for longer holes, lower flow rates, and higher viscosity. The very short holes are outside its range of applicability at higher flow rates and lower viscosities, but the numbers will give a rough indication for comparison.

Hope this helps

Brought back dim recollections of the questions on the MCAT (at least in the 1970's) that required one to know that the resistance to flow in a hypodermic needle was directly proportional to its length but inversely proportional to the 4th power of its radius (ignoring corner effects and bell mouths, etc because these are long channels in relation to their diameter). Young doctors needed to appreciate why an ultrtafine 30 gauge needle might be optimal for insulin, but it's a lousy choice for penicillin in peanut oil :LOL:.

All very fascinating. There's always more to learn. Carry on... 🫡
 
I kept my 25 hour 51624 media after the cut check. Have an unused old k&n 3003 too tall for my firewall clearance I can open. That would be a ballpark media fiber density eyeball/light pass check.

We could ask M+H for supporting data, as long as "RV" use is supported.

Otherwise, are you asking for a new 51624 filter, unused or used and uncut? Any lurkers have one? It could be cut and inspected afterwards.

I assume you need 2 adapters sans bypass relief and 2 hose/reservoirs to put about 10 PSI of oil head pressure through them.
 
Our Lycomings are different. The oil pressure regulating valve (PVR) is downstream of the filter. A defective PVR can't collapse the filter.

Sketch below is equivalent to an engine with the horizontal filter adapter, the difference being the bypass valve is built into the adapter itself.

View attachment 106062
I learned that from your drawings years ago...
 
I skimmed through here and focused on mostly DanH and Steves comments. The media is certainly different in the filters. That, along with a colder start and TO temps lower would certainly be the offending condition. The crushing exhibited is consistent with excess delta p across the element. I defer to DanH's work on the specifics of oil filter testing, and personally don't recall differences on filters between hydraulics and engines, my engineering world was engines. If application for hydraulics has a lower target for debris capacity and tends to favor to higher bypass pressure could explain this failure. It is certainly appropriate to consider why the bypass did not relieve the pressure sufficiently to prevent collapse, and if it was done without deforming the can. I would not jump to a manufacturing defect. There are too many other unknowns.

Steve, if you have engine data collected, look at the first 5 min of oil pressure starting at take-off. Typically, that would be the time for lower oil T and higher pressure due to lower viscosity. The pressure sensor is downstream of the filter so may actually read lower than typical for cold operation and it might jump when the filter collapses.

Thanks for bring this up, Steve.

As a side note, I have begun to run a preflight and post flight test with slowly rising and falling rpm to collect oil pressure vs speed data. I would publish here but have an accumulator in the circuit that causes the a hysteresis in the pressure vs rising and falling rpm.
 
Shake the tree a little here...Steve, any updates?

I just cut a Wix 51647 after 50 hours on the 390 using 15/50 Aeroshell. The element appeared to be entirely normal. No can issues either. I've installed another one and we'll see how it looks after another 50.

Element 600w.jpg

FYI, the 51647 (aka NAPA 1647) is an engine oil filter intended for Nissan UD commercial 6-cyl diesels. Higher burst pressure rating than typical for car filters. No internal bypass, so it's suitable for the OEM horizontal Lycoming filter adapter, which has its own built-in bypass. Do NOT use a 51647 on any of the angle adapters, as they do not have a bypass.

WIX 51647.jpg
 
I'm testing these from Mann Filter. The have the same size on the business end, but essentially different sizes of case and filter media. Started with the W940/4, which is very big, and will test a few smaller filters like the below:


1774277348575.png

 
I'm testing these from Mann Filter. The have the same size on the business end, but essentially different sizes of case and filter media. Started with the W940/4, which is very big, and will test a few smaller filters like the below:

The largest possible element will be the superior choice...highest dirt/carbon capacity, and lowest deltaP across the element. If a big one fits, there's not much point in looking at a smaller filter.

BTW, WIX is a Mann & Hummel brand.
 
The largest possible element will be the superior choice...highest dirt/carbon capacity, and lowest deltaP across the element. If a big one fits, there's not much point in looking at a smaller filter.

BTW, WIX is a Mann & Hummel brand.
The big one fits, but my main concern was having that extra mass at the end of the angle adapter. And eventually, these things become "big enough", right?

One thing I didn't mention - this thing has a very effective anti-drainback. When I removed it, it still had a lot of oil in it, even after several days of "draining". I have not seen that with the Champion.


IMG_1430 2.JPG
 
rv8ch beware! The Mann-Filter W 920 seems to be a hydraulic filter. For Switzerland you can look up applications on www.motointegrator.de
Thanks for the heads up Jerry. The Mann website doesn't mention anything about the filtration level on the page talking about the W920: https://www.mann-filter.com/uk-en/catalogue/search-results/product.html/w920_mann-filter.html

I'll have to have a closer look at the filter case and box to see if they mention anything.
 
Back
Top