CalculationofFrictioninHighPerformanceEngines PDF

www.ricardo.
com
Ricardo plc 2010 RD.10/174701.1
Calculation of Friction in High Performance Engines
Ricardo Software European User Conference 2010
Phil Carden
Ricardo UK
2 Ricardo plc 2010 RD.10/174701.1 20th April 2010
Presentation contents
Introduction
Some general comments and issues
Semi-empirical models FAST
Piston assembly friction PISDYN and RINGPAK
Fluid film bearing friction ENGDYN
Crankcase pumping loss WAVE
Valve train and timing drive friction VALDYN
Case study
Conclusions
Introduction
Minimising friction in motorsport engines is vital because
power is required elsewhere
high friction often means high wear
high friction leads to unnecessary heat generation and greater need for cooling
Knowledge of friction level is required
to evaluate potential of alternative low friction designs, coatings etc
as input to performance simulation models
Measurement of engine friction is
highly problematic, particularly at high engine speed
the results are often obtained too late to make key design changes
but measurements are useful for validation of calculation methods
Analytical tools are beginning to reach required level of fidelity
but there are still some problems and mysteries
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Which losses are included in engine friction ?
Pumping of gas above piston Losses due to pumping of
crankcase gas below pistons
Windage losses in engine
Oil churning losses in engine
Power required to drive
auxiliaries (oil pump, water
pump, alternator)
Transmission losses (gears,
bearings, seals, windage, oil
churning etc)
Piston ring/liner friction
Piston skirt/liner friction
Small end bearing friction
Big end bearing friction
Main bearing friction
Thrust bearing friction
Valve train friction
Camshaft bearing friction
Timing drive friction
Balancer bearing friction
Seal friction
Auxiliaries friction (oil pump,
water pump, alternator,
scavenge pumps etc)
Definitely not included Optional Definitely included
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Duty parameter (viscosity x speed / load)
or specific film thickness (film thickness / surface roughness)
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Stribeck curve
Friction coefficient at any lubricated contact depends on relative speed, normal load, oil
viscosity, shape of contacting parts, roughness of contacting parts, temperature,
materials of contacting parts etc
Boundary
lubrication
Mixed
lubrication
Elastohydrodynamic
lubrication
Hydrodynamic
lubrication
Cam/follower
Piston rings / liner
Crankshaft bearings
How to measure friction ?
FMEP is small compared to IMEP and
BMEP so any measurement error is
magnified
Use of more intrusive instrumentation
usually involved changes to components
and this can affect durability
When the whole engine is motored then
pumping loss cannot be separated from
friction by measurement
No combustion so gas load due to
compression only
No way to account for increased local
temperatures due to combustion
Issues
Operate engine normally
Measure cylinder pressure (with very
good knowledge of TDC) and brake torque
as accurately as possible
Calculate FMEP from IMEP BMEP
Can extend test to make more detailed
measurements
Simply connect engine to motor
Drive the engine without firing and
measure the torque
Need to control temperature of oil and
water carefully
Test can be extended by progressively
stripping engine to give approximate
breakdown in friction by subsystem
Description
Fired test Motored test
What kinds of calculation are performed ?
Potentially long set up times
Potentially long run times
Need different tools to analyse all
contacts
Some losses are very difficult to model
Easy to lose sight of big picture
Need lots of test data to develop tool
Accuracy depends of how similar
engine is to those in database
Cannot accurately predict effect of
detail design changes
Limitations
Potentially good accuracy for any
contact if suitable model is available
Can account for differences in load,
detailed component geometry, oil grade,
temperature etc
Very quick to set up and run
Can potentially account for most
sources of loss
Advantages
Advanced CAE approach Semi-empirical approach
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time (hours)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
Some special problems of motorsport engines
Friction testing usually calls for prolonged operation
under stabilised conditions
Many motorsport engines cannot be operated under
stabilised conditions at high speed/load
During a race the piston temperature varies
significantly and can approach the limit at end of
straights after ~15 seconds
If the engine is held at full load the piston temperature
will rise significantly affecting clearances, local oil
temperature and so piston friction before failure
Motorsport engines are often not run-in properly before
use
In typical passenger car engine friction reduces from
initial value for at least 20-30 hours
Motorsport engines are sometimes used straight from
new build so friction level is reducing all the time
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
time (sec)
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

p
i
s
t
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g

C
)
Simulation of 1 lap at Monza
Measurement on passenger
car engine at 4000 rpm
5% reduction in 40 hours
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Semi-empirical models - FAST
FAST (Friction Assessment Simulation Tool) is a semi-empirical engine friction
prediction program used internally by Ricardo
FAST predicts friction loss across the engine speed range for individual subsystems
and for the whole engine
FAST uses semi-empirical equations
Coefficients and exponents were developed by Ricardo to give improved agreement
with the latest measured data obtained from motored teardown tests on modern
passenger car engines and with other published measured data
New equations were developed for systems not covered by published sources
Latest version extended to enable prediction of friction under fired conditions
FAST currently requires ~50 input values such as bore, stroke, bearing diameter, valve
train type etc. to make a prediction of motored friction loss
All input values can be obtained easily from drawings or components
More detailed information such as cylinder pressure, piston mass, rod mass, ring
tension etc. is required to calculate the increase in piston friction under fired engine
conditions
Typical results for reciprocating group
Predictions
under motored
conditions
compared with
measured data
from motored
teardown test
Prediction
under full load
conditions
shows
significant
increase in
friction at top
piston ring and
skirt
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
7
0
0
0
Engine speed (rpm)
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
t
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
p

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

-

m
o
t
o
r
e
d

(
b
a
r
)
CPMEP
FIRST RING
SECOND RING
OIL CONTROL RING
PISTON SKIRT
BIG END BEARING
MEASURED
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
7
0
0
0
Engine speed (rpm)
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
t
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
p

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

-

f
u
l
l

l
o
a
d

(
b
a
r
)
CPMEP
FIRST RING
SECOND RING
OIL CONTROL RING
PISTON SKIRT
BIG END BEARINGS
Typical results for other systems
Results
accurate to
+/-20% for
each
subsystem
and often
much better
than this
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
Engine speed (rpm)
V
6

g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

v
a
l
v
e
t
r
a
i
n

g
r
o
u
p

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
b
a
r
)
TIMING BELT
DIRECT ACTING HYDRAULIC VALVETRAINS
CAMSHAFT SEALS
CAMSHAFT BEARINGS
MEASURED DATA
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Engine speed (rpm)
I
4

g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
o
r

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
b
a
r
)
FAST V2
Measured data
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Engine speed (rpm)
I
4

g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

o
i
l

p
u
m
p

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
b
a
r
)
FAST V2
Measured data
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
Engine speed (rpm)
V
6

g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

c
r
a
n
k
s
h
a
f
t

g
r
o
u
p

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
b
a
r
)
WINDAGE
SEALS
MAINS BEARINGS
MEASURED DATA
Typical results for high performance sports car engine
For whole
engine
friction the
results are
generally
accurate
to within
+/-10%
FAST has
not been
validated
for
engines
designed
to rev
higher
than 8000
rpm
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
8
0
0
0
Engine speed (rpm)
W
h
o
l
e

e
n
g
i
n
e

-

n
o

l
o
a
d

(
b
a
r
)
Auxiliaries group
Crankshaft group
Valvetrain group
Reciprocating group
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
8
0
0
0
Engine speed (rpm)
W
h
o
l
e

e
n
g
i
n
e

-

f
u
l
l

l
o
a
d

(
b
a
r
)
Auxiliaries group
Crankshaft group
Valvetrain group
Reciprocating group
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Piston assembly friction prediction
Piston assembly friction
involves losses at many sliding interfaces
is very difficult to measure even if cost is not an issue
Analysis can offer insights not possible by measurement
Need for validated software but
Losses and rings and skirt are inter-related
Some key inputs are hard to determine
Temperature of surfaces and oil
Film thickness on liner
Worn surface shapes of skirt and rings
The lubrication regime, and so the effective friction
coefficient, , can change dramatically during each
half stroke
boundary at end of stroke ( = ~0.1)
hydrodynamic at mid stroke ( = ~0.005)
rings
skirt
Ricardo Software - PISDYN and RINGPAK
PISDYN can calculate
friction loss due to oil shearing
effects and asperity contact
at skirt/liner contact
at small end bearing
piston secondary motion
wear loads
RINGPAK can calculate
friction loss due to oil shearing
effects and asperity contact
at each ring/liner contact
wear loads
oil consumption
blow-by and blow-back
Cylinder oil
evaporation
Oil supply
Piston tilt
Dispersed
oil flow
Ring
dynamics
Pin bearing
eccentricity
Ring lubrication,
friction
Inter-ring
gas flows
Ring - bore
conformability
Oil supply
Piston tilt
Dispersed
oil flow
Ring
dynamics
Pin bearing
eccentricity
Ring lubrication,
friction
Inter-ring
gas flows
Ring - bore
conformability
Asperity
Contact
Skirt Oil Film
Hydrodynamics
(Pressure)
Secondary Motions
Cut Outs
Elastic
Deformation
Bore Distortion
Crown Land
Profiles
Crown Contact
and Friction
Thermal / Pressure
Inertial Skirt
Deformation
Bore Temps.
(Viscosity effect)
Lubrication
Cylinder
Dynamics
Top Ring Groove
Friction Force
Asperity
Contact
Skirt Oil Film
Hydrodynamics
(Pressure)
Secondary Motions
Cut Outs
Elastic
Deformation
Bore Distortion
Crown Land
Profiles
Crown Contact
and Friction
Thermal / Pressure
Inertial Skirt
Deformation
Bore Temps.
(Viscosity effect)
Lubrication
Cylinder
Dynamics
Top Ring Groove
Friction Force
Model validation at low engine speed
Predictions validated at low engine speed (up to 2500
rpm) using force difference method
Measured cylinder pressure, connecting rod strain,
crankshaft angular position, liner temperature, piston
temperature etc.
Piston friction force calculated from gas force, inertia
force and rod force
Future plans for validation at higher speed as part of
ENCYCLOPAEDIC project
Results at
2000 rpm
full load
Experience at high speed
Ricardo have used PISDYN and
RINGPAK to calculate piston friction at
very high engine speeds
Credible ring/liner friction results
obtained from RINGPAK
But at high speed losses are
dominated by piston/skirt asperity
contact which is predicted to occur in
each stroke even for a well-developed
piston skirt profile
Skirt/liner friction power loss shows strong
sensitivity to
component temperature
governs clearance, component
distortion, and local oil temperature
oil supply assumptions
component surface texture
rings
rings
skirt
Predicted result shows asperity contact pressure at 15000 rev/min
High Speed Case Study
Wear region above rings
Each skirt has patches of wear,
either side of the central region
And
Centrally under the rings
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Fluid film bearing friction
Journal bearings normally operate in the
hydrodynamic lubrication regime
Losses are dominated by oil shearing effects
Relatively easy to quantify using simple
bearing analysis methods
Can be used to study the effects of bearing
dimensions, clearance, oil viscosity etc
Surface contact (and so boundary or mixed
lubrication) is possible during running-in
process or if bearing is overloaded
Friction prediction is theoretically possible
using elasto-hydrodynamic analysis with
asperity contact model but
Measured worn axial bearing profiles
and distorted shapes are needed for
sensible results
so not very useful for design
Bearing axial position (mm)
rear front
Main 2
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
)
Bearing axial position (mm)
rear front
Main 2
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Engine Speed (rpm)
T
o
t
a
l

M
a
i
n

B
e
a
r
i
n
g

F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
Oil A
Oil B
Axial profile No axial profile
Camshaft bearing friction effect of ENGDYN model level
Front camshaft bearings often exhibit edge wear due to
loads from the timing drive
This wear usually occurs during run-in period and
then stabilises
ENGDYN used to predict friction at camshaft bearings
Simple rigid model gives power loss due to oil shear
effects
With flexible camshaft model edge contact leads to
high friction loss
When worn profile is introduced friction loss is
similar to results from simple model
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
camshaft speed (rpm)
p
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
W
)
statically determinate loading
dynamic loading
dynamic loading - with axial profile
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Crankcase pumping loss - WAVE
Crank case pumping incurs a power loss
Power required to pump crankcase gas from one
bay to the next as the pistons move up and down
This can be significant loss on high speed
engines
so dry sump designs with scavenge pumps
are often used to minimise this
Ricardo and others have used 1D gas dynamics
modelling software such as WAVE to predict crank
case pumping loss with some success
Complex geometry of crank case from CAD and
then automatically reduced to 1D network
BREATHER AREA
C
P
M
E
P> Critical Breather Area
Losses reduce with
increase in area
Reduced resistance to
inter-bay flow exchange
< Critical Breather Area
Losses increase with increase in area
Increasing inter-bay flow exchange
Reduced recovery of compression work
Max CPMEP at
a Critical
Breather Area
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
EFFECTIVE BREATHER AREA (mm
2
)
C
P
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
7000
8500
11000
13500
16000
Inter-bay breathing
holes removed
-0.50
-0.45
-0.40
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000
ENGINE SPEED (rpm)
C
P
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
P
O
W
E
R

(
k
W
)
0.38
bar
4.7
kW
Single external breather
exit through balancer
shaft center
4 scavenge points
Wet
Sump
Dry
Sump
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Valve train friction prediction
At system level valve train friction is reasonably well-understood
The mean friction level of valve trains can be measured by driving the camshaft using
an electric motor and measuring mean drive torque
However
These system level measurements mask the fact that the detailed sources of loss are
not very well understood
Especially since the measurements often include the timing drive as well as the valve
train
Motorsport engines nearly always have
sliding contacts between cam and
tappet to enable use of a lightweight
follower and optimise high speed
dynamics
Friction loss is dominated by losses
at the these highly-loaded sliding
contacts 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
total gear losses
camshaft bearings
tappet/bore contacts
cam/tappet contacts
Cam/follower friction sliding contact
VALDYN can calculate friction power loss at sliding
contacts between cam/tappet or cam/follower
Friction due to oil shear and asperity contact are
calculated separately
Friction is therefore dependent on oil viscosity as
well as surface texture
The model also considers
friction between tappet and cylinder
tappet rotation
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Engine Speed (rpm)
M
e
a
n

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Oil A
Oil B
Timing drive friction - VALDYN
VALDYN has the capability to calculate
the losses in chain timing drives
Models have been validated validated
against measured data at passenger
car engine speeds
Results can be very dependent on
tensioner design
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
engine speed (rpm)
p
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s

(
W
)
link/guide
roller/sprocket
pin/bush
cam bearings
idler bearings
measured
Timing drive friction - VALDYN
VALDYN has gear models for
calculation of contact forces and
sliding speeds
Friction coefficients can be entered
to calculate losses at gear meshes
But actual losses in high speed
gears are mostly caused by
windage and oil churning effects
which cannot be modelled with
confidence
VALDYN can model belt drive
dynamics but detailed sources of loss
are not understood so cannot be
predicted
Belt material hysteresis?
Rubbing losses between teeth and
pulleys?
Pumping air out during meshing?
Tensioner
Crankshaft
Camshafts
Tensioner
Crankshaft
Camshafts
Tensioner
Crankshaft
Camshafts
Tensioner
Crankshaft
Camshafts
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Case study
The following slides illustrate the use of CAE tools and the results of motored teardown
test to understand the distribution of friction in a racing engine
The engine was motored and a 4-stage teardown test was made
1 Whole engine with intake and exhaust systems
2 Intake and exhaust systems removed
3 Cylinder head removed
including upper timing gears
Cylinder head removed by plate to maintain bolt loads on structure
Plate was non restrictive so no pumping losses
4 Pistons and rods removed
Replaced by dummy weights
All stages include driven oil pump, water pump and transmission
Case study - Valve train group friction
Measured data obtained by
subtraction
Test 2 Test 3
Pumping loss under motored
conditions calculated using
WAVE
Camshaft bearing friction
calculated using ENGDYN
Cam/tappet losses and
tappet/bore losses calculated
using VALDYN
Gear contact losses estimated
using loads from VALDYN and
friction coefficients
Windage losses estimated
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
pumping loss
total gear losses
camshaft bearings
cam/tappet contacts
measured data
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
total gear losses
camshaft bearings
cam/tappet contacts
measured data minus
predicted PMEP
Case study - Reciprocating component group friction
Measured data obtained by
subtraction
Test 3 Test 4
Piston skirt friction loss and
small end bearing loss
calculated using PISDYN
Piston rings friction loss
calculated using RINGPAK
Crankcase pumping loss
calculated using WAVE
Big end bearing loss
calculated using ENGDYN
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
piston skirt
oil control rings
top piston ring
crankcase pumping
small end bearings
big end bearings
measured data
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
water pump
gear windage
oil pump
seals
balancer windage
rolling element bearings
gear meshes
crankshaft windage
main bearings
measured data
Crankshaft/transmission group friction
Measured data
obtained directly Test 4
Main bearing loss
calculated using
ENGDYN
Windage losses
estimated using simple
approach
Gear contact losses
estimated using simple
approach
Oil pump losses and
water pump losses
estimated
Rolling element bearing losses calculated using
calculated loads and friction coefficients
Seals losses estimated using suppliers database
Whole engine motored friction loss (1)
With motored pumping
losses included
Additional loads at main
bearings due to inertia of
pistons and rods
accounted
Allowance in calculations
for additional loads at
pistons and bearings due
to motored gas force
with cylinder head on
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
pumping loss
timing gears
camshaft bearings
cam/tappet contacts
piston skirt
oil control rings
top piston rings
crankcase pumping
small end bearings
big end bearings
water pump
gear windage
oil pump
seals
balancer windage
rolling element bearings
gear meshes
crankshaft windage
main bearings
measured data
Whole engine motored friction loss (2)
Same data but with results grouped
by subsystem
Pumping losses excluded
At 15000 rpm
Crankshaft 25.1%
Transmission 7.9%
Pumps 11.4%
Crankcase pumping 8.5%
Pistons 33.9%
Valve trains 13.2%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
valve trains and drive
piston assemblies
crankcase pumping
oil and water pumps
transmission (inc balancer)
crankshaft
measured minus pumping loss
Full load fired friction loss by analysis
Next step was to use CAE tools to model the
following under fired engine conditions
Piston rings
Piston skirt
Small end bearing
Big end bearings
Main bearings
The following were accounted for
Increased cylinder pressure
Increased component temperature and
effect on clearances
Increased oil temperature and effect on
oil viscosity
Full load fired friction loss at piston group (1)
Fired conditions lead to
slightly higher loss at small end
bearings
no significant change at top piston
rings
reduced loss at oil control rings
significantly increased loss at piston
skirt (particularly at lower engine
speeds)
small end bearings
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
top piston rings
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
oil control rings
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
piston skirts
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
Full load fired friction loss at piston group (2)
Predicted losses at piston
skirt are highly sensitive to
skirt/liner clearance which is
sensitive to assumed
component temperatures
Results shown with +/-5
micron clearance
No change in component
or oil temperatures
Model could be refined with
better knowledge of
component temperatures
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired (nominal)
full load (5um reduced clearance)
full load (5um increased clearance)
Full load fired friction loss at crank train bearings
Fired conditions lead to
slightly higher loss at
lower speeds
but similar losses at
high speed as inertia
forces dominate
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
motored
full load fired
Main
bearings
Big end
bearings
Whole engine full load fired friction loss
Results grouped by subsystem
Pumping losses excluded
Measured line is whole engine
motored data for comparison
At 15000 rpm
Crankshaft 22.2%
Transmission 6.9%
Pumps 10.0%
Crankcase pumping 7.5%
Pistons 41.9%
Valve trains 11.5%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000
Engine speed (rpm)
F
M
E
P

(
b
a
r
)
valve trains and drive
piston assemblies
crankcase pumping
oil and water pumps
transmission (inc balancer)
crankshaft
measured minus pumping loss
Introduction
Case study
Conclusions
Conclusions
Overall friction level can be estimated easily based on historical data
If more complex calculations are performed there are many problems
All major contacts involve asperity contact losses and oil shear losses
Asperity contact losses dominate if dimensions from drawings are used
but as components wear during run-in period these losses reduce
This makes true prediction difficult
but if worn component geometry and surface roughness data are used as model
inputs then better results are possible
Some interesting insights can be obtained by
use of relatively inexpensive motored strip test
combined with use of advanced CAE tools
But to make further progress we need
measured data from fired engines at high speed to validate software
improved models of mixed lubrication including 3D surface texture effects
Thank you for your attention
Any Questions?

CalculationofFrictioninHighPerformanceEngines PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CalculationofFrictioninHighPerformanceEngines PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

www.ricardo.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi