See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265097418

Valvetrain Valvetrain Friction Friction - -Modeling, Analysis and Modeling, Analysis

and Measurement of a High Performance Engine Measurement of a High
Performance Engine Valvetrai...

Chapter · May 2010

DOI: 10.4271/2010-01-1492

CITATIONS READS

5 270

5 authors, including:

Michele Calabretta Phil Carden

STMicroelectronics ricardo uk
11 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of High Performance V12 Lamborghini Engine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michele Calabretta on 10 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 10SFL-0068

Valvetrain Friction - Modeling, Analysis and Measurement of an High

Performance Engine Valvetrain System
Michele Calabretta and Diego Cacciatore
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.

Phil Carden
Ricardo UK
Copyright © 2010 SAE International

ABSTRACT
Engine efficiency is one of the key aspect to reduce CO2 emission. Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. has focused
the attention on the engine friction modeling, analysis and measurement to understand and control the
phenomena. Valvetrain can make a significant contribution to whole engine friction especially at low engine
speed and this is particularly true for a high speed sports car engine. Direct acting valvetrains are often used for
this type of engine to minimise the moved mass and so enable high speed operation. To achieve this it is
necessary to improve understanding of the behavior of engine components and to pay attention to detail at every
tribological contact.. However the sliding contact between the cam and tappet results in higher friction loss than
the roller finger follower valvetrain used on many modern passenger car engines. In addition, the high
maximum engine speed demands a large valve spring force to maintain contact between cam and tappet. The
large spring force can lead to increased valvetrain friction at low engine speed when the inertia force is low.
Thus the development of calculation methods to quantify friction of direct acting valvetrains and support the
design of components is important.

This paper describes the use of advanced mathematical models to quantify power loss at cam/tappet contact,
tappet/bore contact and camshaft bearings.

At the cam/tappet contact the power loss is a function of contact load, sliding velocity and friction coefficient.
The contact load is a function of spring force, inertia forces and vibration. The sliding velocity is determined by
the cam profile, the geometry of the mechanism and the engine speed. The friction coefficient is a complex
variable dependent on contact force, sliding speed, lubricant film thickness, lubricant viscosity, lubricant
temperature, surface texture, materials combination etc. The lubrication regime at the cam/tappet contact varies
rapidly during the cycle from hydrodynamic on the cam flanks at high engine speed to boundary lubrication on
the nose at low speed.

At the camshaft bearings the power loss is a function of shaft speed, valvetrain load, bearing diameter, bearing
length, oil viscosity and bearing clearance. The lubrication regime at the cam bearing is predominantly
hydrodynamic but may involve some asperity contact friction at low engine speed with hot oil.

The mathematical models are sufficiently detailed to capture the major influencing factors while being quick
enough to use to enable engine designers to make decisions in the required time frame. This paper compares

Page 1 of 19
calculated and measured friction data for the valvetrain of a high speed passenger car engine as tested on a
motored cylinder head test rig. The system friction was measured and calculated across the operating speed
range with different oil supply temperature. The effect of diamond like carbon (DLC) coatings on the tappets
was quantified by measurement and analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Valvetrain friction makes a significant contribution to the whole engine friction loss, especially at low engine
speed. The total amount depends on the valvetrain type, engine architecture, engine speed and lubricant
temperature among many other factors. In Reference 1 a graph, derived from motored strip test data, shows the
valvetrain for a modern spark ignition car engine contributing ~35% to total friction at 1000 rpm and ~10% at
6000 rpm. This type of test typically includes the timing drive as part of the valvetrain group. On an engine for
a high performance sports car the friction of the valvetrain at low engine speeds is relatively high for the
following reasons. This kind of engine uses a direct acting valvetrain as it is very hard to make a roller type
valvetrain light and stiff enough to enable very high engine speed (>8000 rpm) without significantly
compromising.. Direct acting valvetrains have inherently higher friction than roller types due to the sliding
contact between the cam and tappet and this is also indicated in another graph in Reference 1. In addition, sports
car engines have large valve diameter to give high performance, the large valve head diameter leads to high
valve mass which, combined with the high maximum engine speed and large valve lift, leads to the requirement
for high valve spring forces to ensure acceptable high speed dynamic behaviour. At low engine speed the high
cam/tappet contact force leads to high friction loss.

To enable optimisation of the valvetrain system and component design it is necessary to be able to predict the
various contributions to valvetrain friction at the design stage so that friction level at low speed (and effect on
fuel consumption) can be weighed against dynamic performance (and effect on engine power) at high speed.

This paper describes research work performed by Lamborghini and Ricardo to evaluate the potential of software
for calculation of the losses in a direct acting valvetrain. Measurements of mean camshaft drive torque were
made on a motored cylinder head under controlled conditions. The effect on friction loss of oil supply
temperature, oil supply pressure and tappet coating were measured across the operating speed range and some
measurements were also taken with camshaft bearings present but valvetrains removed in an attempt to separate
the losses due to camshaft bearings. The paper presents a record of the calculation input data used to obtain a
good match to the measured data.

MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
A motored cylinder head from a V12 engine was used for this investigation (see Figures 1 and 2). The intake
camshaft only was driven by an electric motor connected to the end of the camshaft. The exhaust camshaft was
not present. The camshaft operated 12 intake valves via hydraulic tappets. The torque was measured by the
electric motor. The losses in the electric motor were measured by operating it with no connection to the
camshaft and these losses were subtracted from all subsequent measurements of drive torque.

The rig was also used to take measurements of valve motion using a laser system. This was used to verify the
physical dynamic behaviour of the valvetrain and to check the fidelity of the dynamic analysis and is not the
subject of this paper.

Measurements of camshaft drive torque were made across the normal operating speed range for the following
builds.

Page 2 of 19
Whole valvetrain with standard steel tappets

Whole valvetrain with steel tappets with diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating

Camshaft only with no tappets or valves present

In each case the measurements were made with oil supply temperature controlled to 50˚C, 70˚C, 90˚C and
110˚C and oil supply pressure controlled to 3 bar.

Figure 1 Test rig and measurement system

Figure 2 Test rig photo

MATHEMATICAL MODELS
A dynamic model of a single valvetrain was modelled using Ricardo Software VALDYN as shown in Figure 3.

This valvetrain was represented as a series of lumped mass/inertia nodes connected by stiffness and damping
values. The cam node was suspended on a stiffness element representing camshaft bending stiffness and
camshaft support stiffness. The tappet top stiffness was modelled as a function of eccentricity of the cam/tappet
contact. The hydraulic tappet was modelled as two mass nodes connected by a special element to account for
the action of the high pressure chamber, the expansion spring and the check valve. The tappet was connected to
the valve using a lash stiffness element representing the stiffness of the valve stem between the tip and the
centre of mass. The valve and spring retainer were modelled as a single mass node. The valve node was
Page 3 of 19
connected to ground by another lash stiffness element representing the valve head and seat stiffness. The
valvetrain had a double spring pack and each spring was modelled using 4 mass nodes per coil connected by
stiffness.

Figure 3 Valvetrain model

The cam profile was designed to meet the many conflicting requirements for engine breathing, acceptable
durability, high speed dynamics etc. The spring pack was designed to maintain contact between cam and
follower at high engine speed. Figures 4 and 5 show the calculated dynamic valve lift and dynamic valve
acceleration and against crank angle at camshaft speed of 4000 rpm. These graphs demonstrate the good
dynamic response even at high engine speed.
100
90
80
70
Valve lift (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 4 Calculated dynamic valve lift at 4000 rpm engine speed

Page 4 of 19
 25000

20000

Valve acceleration (m/s )

2
15000

10000

5000

-5000

-10000
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 5 Calculated dynamic valve acceleration at 4000 rpm camshaft speed

The calculation model has the capability to make calculations of friction loss at the cam/tappet contact based
on the methods described in References 2 and 3. The oil film thickness at the cam/tappet contact was calculated
using elastohydrodynamic theory and compared to the surface roughness. If asperity contact was predicted then
the Greenwood and Tripp algorithm (see Reference 4) was used to determine the asperity contact friction loss
using a specified friction coefficient. In addition the energy required to shear the thin oil film was calculated
accounting for the non-Newtonian behaviour of the oil film under the influence of high pressure between the
contacting surfaces. Thus the friction due to oil shear effects and asperity contact effects was determined at each
point in the simulation and summed to give the mean total friction torque at each speed. In addition the losses at
the tappet/bore due to tappet translation and tappet rotation were calculated using the method described in
Reference 3. The cam/tappet friction and tappet/bore friction algorithms require the special program inputs
shown in Appendix 1 in addition to the other data required to calculate dynamic forces and motions at each
contact.

The camshaft bearing friction was calculated using Ricardo Software ENGDYN. Initial calculations were made
using the following assumptions.

each bearing was assumed identical

each bearing was initially loaded only by a rotating force due to the out-of-balance mass of the two adjacent
cam lobes (so no valvetrain actuation forces)

camshaft journal and housing were assumed to be rigid

camshaft journal and housing were assumed to be cylindrical shape

finite volume hydrodynamic bearing solver was used

Greenwood and Tripp algorithm (see Reference 4 was applied if mixed lubrication regime was predicted (if
predicted oil film thickness is similar to combined surface roughness)

The bearings were also analysed with increased loading due to the action of the two adjacent valvetrains as
calculated by VALDYN at each speed. Some of the program input data for this analysis was difficult to obtain
with certainty and the following strategy was used to identify the finally chosen values during this study.

Page 5 of 19
Validate the valvetrain dynamic model by comparison of predicted valve motion with measurements (not
reported here)

Choose values for those special parameters required by analysis models (using data from component drawings
and oil specification data where possible)

Calculate camshaft bearing friction loss with no valvetrain actuation loads and compare with measured data for
camshafts only

Calculate camshaft bearing friction loss with valvetrain loads included and subtract these values from the total
measured camshaft friction torque with valvetrains present

Calculate friction due to cam/tappet and tappet/bore contacts and adjust asperity contact friction coefficient to
obtain an acceptable match to the whole valvetrain measured data

Test the response of the model to variations in asperity contact friction coefficient and oil supply temperature
and compare with measured data (see later sections)

To obtain the best match between calculation and measurement it was found necessary to introduce a variable
coefficient of asperity contact friction and the effect of this is shown in the section comparing measured and
calculated results. In addition different values of this friction coefficient were used to match the measured data
for standard steel tappets and DLC tappets.

RESULTS
MEASURED RESULTS
The first build involved measurement of camshaft drive torque with standard steel tappets. The results are
shown in Figure 6. The y-axis shows normalised drive torque where 100% is taken as the highest measured
value (at 350 rpm camshaft speed with oil supply temperature of 110˚C). This same scale was used for all
measurement graphs. The graph shows the classic response of a direct acting valvetrain as shown by many other
papers in the literature (for example see References 3,5,6 and 7). Friction torque reduced with increasing
camshaft speed. Increasing the oil supply temperature gave increased friction at low speed and reduced friction
at high speed but the effect was quite small. No significant change in behaviour at very high engine speed was
observed - friction torque continued to decrease.
100
Camshaft friction torque (% of maximum)

50 degC
90
70 degC
80 90 degC
70 110 degC

60
50

40
30

20

10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 6 Measured camshaft drive torque with standard steel tappets

Page 6 of 19
In the next build the steel tappets were replaced by tappets coated with diamond-like carbon. The results are
shown in Figure 7. The coated tappets gave a lower friction level across the speed range compared with the steel
tappets and a slightly greater response to varying oil supply temperature.
100

Camshaft friction torque (% of maximum)

50 degC
90
70 degC
80 90 degC
70 110 degC

60
50
40
30

20
10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 7 Measured camshaft drive torque with DLC coated tappets

A direct comparison between the friction level achieved with standard steel tappet and DLC coated tappet with
oil supplied at 90˚C is presented in Figure 8. This shows that the use of DLC gave a strong reduction in
valvetrain friction of 24% at 350 rpm, 33% at 1000 rpm and 24% at 4000 rpm camshaft speed. This
improvement was expected and was in agreement with results presented by other researchers (for example see
Reference 8).
Camshaft friction torque at 90 degC oil (%)

100
90
standard tappets
80 DLC tappets
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 8 Comparison between whole valvetrain measurements at 90˚C

The final build involved removal of the valves, springs and tappets and operation with only the camshaft
present. This build was tested to quantify the losses at the camshaft bearings with low load to assist with the
understanding of the relative contributions to the total system friction. The results are shown in Figure 9.
100
Camshaft friction torque (% of maximum)

90 50 degC
70 degC
80
90 degC
70 110 degC
60

50
40

30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 9 Measured camshaft drive torque with camshaft bearing losses only
Page 7 of 19
The very low torques measured at this final stage resulted in questionable accuracy and this may be reflected in
the non-linear shapes of the curves. However the broad trend shown in the data was as expected. The drive
torque increased with camshaft speed and the highest losses occurred with the lowest oil supply temperature.
This pattern indicated that the camshaft bearings were operating in the hydrodynamic lubrication regime as
expected and the losses were mainly due to oil shear effects. These results were used for comparison with
calculations of camshaft bearing losses (see later section).

ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section shows some key results from the analysis with oil supplied at 90˚C and with a DLC coated tappet.
A variable coefficient of asperity contact friction was used in these models (see later section). Calculations were
also made with oil at 50˚C, 70˚C and 110˚C and some of these results are presented in the next section.

The camshaft bearing friction was calculated as described in earlier section with and without loads due to the
action of the valvetrains. The results at 90˚C are shown in Figure 10.
10
Camshaft bearing torque (% of maximum)

9
no valvetrain loads
8
with valvetrain loads
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 10 Calculated camshaft bearing friction torque with and without valvetrain loads

The losses increase with camshaft speed and also increase with camshaft load. At very low camshaft speed with
valvetrain loads present the bearing analysis indicated that some asperity contact friction occurred for a short
part of the cycle and this is the cause of the slight calculated increase in friction at low speed.

The cam/tappet friction power loss is a function of cam/tappet sliding velocity, cam/tappet contact force and
minimum oil film thickness between the cam and the tappet. Calculated values of these parameters are shown at
camshaft speeds of 350 rpm and 4000 rpm in Figures 11, 12 and 13.
13
12
Cam/tappet sliding velocity (m/s)

350 rpm
11
10 4000 rpm
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 11 Calculated cam/tappet sliding velocity against cam angle

Page 8 of 19
 2800
2600
2400 350 rpm

Cam/tappet contact force (N)

2200 4000 rpm
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 12 Calculated cam/tappet contact force against cam angle

2.6

Cam/tappet min. oil film thickness (um)

2.4
2.2 350 rpm
2 4000 rpm
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 13 Calculated minimum oil film thickness against cam angle

At low camshaft speed the sliding velocity was low, cam/tappet contact force was high on the cam nose but low
on the flanks and the oil film thickness was low, particularly over the cam nose. This led to boundary
lubrication conditions with predicted asperity contact and significant contribution from boundary friction
particularly over the cam nose part of the cycle. This is shown in Figure 14. At high camshaft speed the sliding
velocity is high and high peaks in cam/tappet contact force occur on the cam flanks (corresponding to locations
of high valve acceleration). However the increased oil film thickness results in lower level of predicted
boundary contact friction force.
75
Cam/tappet boundary friction force (N)

70
65 350 rpm
60
4000 rpm
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 14 Calculated cam/tappet boundary friction force against cam angle

The friction force due to oil shear effects is shown on Figure 15. Oil shear effects were predicted to be
significant at low and high speed over the cam nose.

Page 9 of 19
 75

Cam/tappet oil shear friction force (N)

70
65 350 rpm
60
4000 rpm
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 15 Calculated cam/tappet oil shear friction force against crank angle

An equivalent friction coefficient at the cam/tappet contact, accounting for the effects of both asperity contact
friction and oil shear effects, was calculated and plotted in Figure 16. The same broad trends can be seen at both
camshaft speeds. The equivalent friction coefficient was low on the cam flanks, where high oil film thickness
was predicted, rising to higher levels over the nose, particularly at the points where oil film thickness was low.
High friction coefficient was predicted on the base circle, particularly at low speed, but this did not contribute
much to the overall loss as the contact force was low during this part of the cycle.
0.12
Cam/tappet equivalent friction coefficient

0.11
0.1 350 rpm

0.09 4000 rpm

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 16 Calculated cam/tappet equivalent friction coefficient against crank angle

The calculated friction force at the tappet/bore contact due to boundary friction and oil shear effects is shown in
Figures 17 and 18, respectively.
75
Tappet/bore boundary friction force (N)

70
350 rpm
65
60 4000 rpm
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 17 Calculated tappet/bore boundary friction force against crank angle

Page 10 of 19
 75

Tappet/bore oil shear friction force (N)

70
350 rpm
65
60 4000 rpm
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
720 780 840 900 960 1020 1080
Camshaft angle (deg)

Figure 18 Calculated tappet/bore oil shear friction force against crank angle

At low engine speed asperity contact friction at the tappet/bore contact was significant. Oil shear effects were
less significant, even at high speed, and were negligible at low speed. The mean calculated power loss due to
the cam/tappet contact, tappet/bore contact translation and tappet/bore contact rotation are shown plotted against
engine speed in Figure 19 for a single valvetrain in terms of percentage of total value at high speed.
100
Tappet/bore rotation
90
Tappet/bore translation
80 Cam/tappet
Fric tion pow e r los s (% )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
350 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 19 Calculated mean power loss from valvetrain contacts against camshaft speed

This shows that the total power loss increased roughly linearly with speed and that the largest loss occurred at
the cam/tappet contact.

COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED AND MEASURED DATA

The calculated friction torque was compared with measured friction torque in each case. Firstly the predicted
camshaft bearing friction was compared with the measured data as shown in Figure 20 for the highest and
lowest oil temperature. The model showed good correlation with the measured data.

Page 11 of 19
 12

Camshaft bearing torque (% of maximum)

11 calculated - 50degC oil
measured - 50degC oil
10 calculated - 110degC oil
9 measured - 110degC oil
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 20 - Comparison of measured and calculated bearing friction

Figure 21 shows the measured whole valvetrain data at 90˚C with steel coated tappet compared with calculated
values with a constant coefficient of friction of 0.045 applied during periods when asperity contact was
predicted. The coefficient of friction was chosen to give good correlation with measured data at high camshaft
speed but correlation was poor at low speed. At 350 rpm a coefficient of friction of 0.095 was required to
provide good correlation with measurement.

100
Tappet/bore rotation friction
90 Tappet/bore translation friction
C amshaft friction torque at 90degC (%)

80 Cam/tappet friction
Camshaft bearings
70
Measured data
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
350 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 21 Comparison of measured and calculated friction with standard steel tappets and friction coefficient of
0.045

Figure 22 shows calculated and measured data with standard steel tappets at 90˚C and a variable coefficient of
asperity contact friction designed to give good correlation for this case. The graph indicates that cam/tappet
friction accounts for the major share of the losses in the valvetrain. The next largest contributor is the
tappet/bore contact and the camshaft bearings represent a small loss even at high engine speed. This breakdown
of losses is in broad agreement with work by other researchers (see References 5 and 7).

Page 12 of 19
 100
Tappet/bore rotation friction
90

Camshaft friction torque at 90degC (%)

Tappet/bore translation friction
80 Cam/tappet friction

70 Camshaft bearings
Measured data
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
350 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 22 Comparison of measured and calculated friction with standard steel tappets and variable friction
coefficient

The variable coefficient of friction was defined simply as a function of camshaft speed and is shown in Figure
23. The constant value of 0.045 gives good correlation at speeds between 1500 rpm and 4000 rpm camshaft
speed but significantly higher values are required at lower speeds. The reason for this is not fully understood.
However similar under-prediction of valvetrain friction at low engine speeds with this type of model has been
reported by others (see Reference 10). It could be due to the action of lubricant additives in forming tribofilms.

0.1
Asperity contact friction coefficient

0.09 steel cam against steel tappet

0.08 steel cam against DLC coated tappet

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Camshaft speed (rpm)

Figure 23 Coefficient of friction required for good correlation at low engine speed

Figure 23 also shows the lower variable coefficient of friction required to obtain good correlation to measured
data with the DLC coated tappets. DLC is known to have a lower coefficient of friction and the value of friction
coefficient required by the model to obtain correlation at high speed was well within the range of values
measured for different DLC types as measured on a test rig with oil containing friction modifier additives as
described in Reference 11.

The response of the model to variations in oil supply temperature is shown for the standard steel tappet and the
DLC coated tappet in Figures 24 and 25, respectively.

Page 13 of 19
 predicted - 350 rpm
140 measured - 350 rpm
130 predicted - 1500 rpm

Friction torque - standard tappet (%)

measured - 1500 rpm
120
predicted - 4000 rpm
110
measured - 4000 rpm
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Oil temperature (degC)

Figure 24 Comparison between predicted and measured data for whole valvetrain friction with standard steel
tappets as a function of oil supply temperature

predicted - 350 rpm

140 measured - 350 rpm
130 predicted - 1500 rpm
Friction torque - DLC tappet (%)

120 measured - 1500 rpm

110 predicted - 4000 rpm
100 measured - 4000 rpm
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Oil temperature (degC)

Figure 25 Comparison between predicted and measured data for whole valvetrain friction with DLC coated
tappets as a function of oil supply temperature

The model shows the same trends as the measured data; friction increased with oil temperature at low speed and
friction decreased with temperature at high speed.

CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this work is to create a close loop between modelling, analisys and measurment for a clear
understanding of valvetrain friction phenomena. Key factor is using modern numerical tools to capture and
understand the single contribute of each component of valvetrain friction in order to optimize the system by an
engineering and technological point of view in a preliminary stage of work.

The work presented in this paper demonstrates that it is possible to achieve good agreement between measured
and calculated friction losses for a direct acting valvetrain across the operating speed range using dynamic
analysis techniques to calculate dynamic forces and motions together with friction models proposed in the
literature (see References 2 and 3). However to achieve acceptable agreement between measurement and

Page 14 of 19
calculation it was necessary to specify a set of lubricant rheological parameters that are not specified on oil
specification sheets and to introduce a variable, speed-dependent coefficient of asperity contact friction.

For these reasons the model cannot be regarded as truly predictive. However the values for these model inputs
chosen in this paper did enable to model to respond to variations in oil supply temperature in the same way as
indicated by the measurements.

The reason for the required variable coefficient of asperity contact friction was not clear. It may be explained by
the effects of oil additives in forming tribo-films on the component surfaces as this is known to give speed
dependent effects. A different speed-dependent function of asperity contact friction was required for the
standard steel tappets and the DLC coated tappets. This was as expected as this DLC is known to have a lower
friction coefficient than steel. The required friction coefficients were in the range reported by others for steel
and DLC in lubricated Hertzian contacts.

The model indicated that friction losses in a direct acting valvetrain are dominated by losses at the cam/tappet
contact particularly at low engine speed. Tappet/bore interactions were less important but still worthy of
consideration.

Camshaft bearing losses were shown to make a very small contribution to total losses even at high engine
speed. This assertion was backed up by the good correlation shown between calculated and measured bearing
losses without valvetrain loads present.

Models of the type shown in this paper can be used to evaluate the effect on valvetrain friction of many
variations in valvetrain design (changes to cam profile design, spring design, surface finish, tappet coating etc.)
but final testing is still required to prove the benefits of such changes particularly if they involve changes to the
oil specification.

The fact that variable asperity contact friction coefficient was required as an input to achieve good correlation to
measured data at low engine speed indicates that there is room for further improvement in understanding of the
fundamental mechanisms of friction in elastohydrodynamic contacts

REFERENCES
Koch, F. "Chapter 9: Friction", in Internal Combustion Engine Handbook edited by Basshuysen, R. and
Schafer, F., SAE International, Warrendale, PA, ISBN 0-7680-1139-6, 2004.

Teodorescu, M., Taraza, D., Henein, N.A., Bryzik, W. "Simplified Elasto-hydrodynamic Friction Model of the
Cam-Tappet Contact", SAE Paper 2003-01-0985, 2003.

Zhu.G and Taylor, C.M. "Tribological Analysis and design of Modern Automobile Cam and
Follower", Engineering Research Series, Ed D. Dowson, Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd, London and
Bury St. Edmunds, UK, 2001.

Greenwood, J.A. and Tripp, J.H. "The contact of two nominally flat rough surfaces" IMechE proceedings,
Vol.185 pp 625-633.

Staron, J.T. Willermet, P.A. "An Analysis of Valve Train Friction in Terms of Lubrication Principles", SAE
Technical paper 830165, 1983

Page 15 of 19
Baniasad, S.M. and Emes, M.R. "Design and development of Method of Valve-Train Friction Measurement"
SAE Paper 980572, 1998.

Pieprzak, J.M., Willermet, P.A. and Dailey, D.P. "Experimental Evaluation of Tappet/bore and Cam/Tappet
Friction for a Direct Acting Bucket Tappet Valvetrain", SAE Paper 902086.

Boghe, M. "Lower Emissions with DLC Coatings - Frictional Behaviour within Valve Train" MTZ, March
2009.

Schwarze, H., Wiersch, P., Menne, R., Brohmer, A., Muschen, A. "Friction and Wear Simulation of a Cam
Tappet Contact using TEHL under Mixed Friction Conditions" 11th EAEC Congress, Automobile for the
Future, Budapest, Session AE16, Hungary, 30 May - 1 Jun 2007.

Roshan, R. Priest, M. Neville, A. Morina, A. Xia, X. Green, J.H., Warrens, C.P. Payne, M.J. "Friction
modelling in an engine valve train considering the sensitivity to lubricant formulation" IMechE Journal of
Engineering Tribology, Vol. 223, No.3, pp413-424, 2009.

Broda, M. and Bethke, R. "Friction Behavior of Different DLC Coatings by using Various Kinds of Oil", SAE
Paper 2008-01-1467, 2008.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Michele Calabretta

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.

Via Modena, 12

I-40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese

Italy

Tel. +39 051 795 70 69

e-mail michele.calabretta@lamborghini.com

Diego Cacciatore

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.

Via Modena, 12

I-40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese

Italy

Tel. +39 051 795 79 74

e-mail diego.cacciatore@lamborghini.com

Page 16 of 19
Phil Carden

Ricardo UK

Shoreham Technical Centre

Shoreham- By-Sea

BN43 5FG

UK

Tel. +44 1273 794959

e-mail phil.carden@Ricardo.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks to Alberto Bruni, Andrea Ponzi, Andrea Piretti, Luigi Foggia and Giulio Volpi for their support
and competence during the measurement activities.

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
DLC - diamond-like carbon

Page 17 of 19
APPENDIX 1 - CAM/TAPPET AND TAPPET/BORE MODEL INPUT DATA
Value for steel Value for DLC
Parameter Source
tappet tappet

Cam lobe taper angle (deg) 0.05 Mean value from camshaft drawing

Cam offset from tappet centre

0.5 Mean value from camshaft drawing
(mm)

Tappet diameter (mm) 35.0 Nominal value from drawing

Tappet length (mm) 26.0 Nominal value from drawing

Tappet top spherical radius (mm) 16000 Nominal value from drawing

Radial clearance between tappet Calculated from mean cold value on

0.035
and tappet bore (mm) drawing and thermal expansion

Equivalent elastic modulus at

210000 Calculated value for steel/steel contact
cam/tappet contact (MPa)

Composite surface roughness at Calculated based on expected values

0.78 0.6
cam/tappet contact (micron) from drawings

Composite surface roughness at Calculated based on expected values

1.58 1.5
tappet/bore contact (micron) from drawings

Asperity parameter at cam/tappet

0.012
contact

Asperity radius of curvature at

0.00002
cam/tappet contact (mm)

Asperity sliding friction Chosen to correlate to measured data

0.045 0.02
coefficient at both contacts with 90˚C oil at high engine speed

0.0420@50˚C 0.0216@70˚C Data from viscosity/temperature curve

Oil dynamic viscosity (Pas)
0.0127@90˚C 0.0082@110˚C for 5W30 oil used on test

Oil viscosity/pressure coefficient

0.14x10-7 Typical value for engine oil
(m2/N)

Oil shear stress change rate with

0.08 Typical value
pressure

Oil Eyring shear stress (MPa) 10 Typical value

Oil limiting shear stress (MPa) 16.7 Typical value

Page 18 of 19
APPENDIX 2 - CAMSHAFT BEARING MODEL INPUT DATA
Parameter Value Source

Oil supply pressure (bar) 3.0 Measured

0.0420@50˚C 0.0216@70˚C Data from viscosity/temperature curve

Oil viscosity (Pas)
0.0127@90˚C 0.0082@110˚C for 5W30 oil used on test

Camshaft journal diameter (mm) 28.0 Nominal value from drawing

Camshaft bearing length (mm) 20.0 Nominal value from drawing

Camshaft bearing radial clearance Calculated based on measured mean

39.5
(micron) cold clearance and thermal expansion

Oil supply hole diameter (mm) 4.0 Nominal value from drawing

Angle from drawing (relative to valve

Oil supply hole location (deg) 216.9
axis)

Elastic modulus for camshaft

207000 Typical value for steel
journal (MPa)

Elastic modulus for bearing

75000 Typical value for aluminium alloy
surface (MPa)

Hardness of cam journal (HBN) 207 Typical value for hardened steel

Hardness of bearing surface

80 Typical value for aluminium alloy
(HBN)

Composite surface roughness at Calculated from measured roughness

0.71
cam bearing contact (micron) of cam journal and bearing surface

Page 19 of 19

View publication stats