Lyon2007 Friction Wear Bore

7/29/2019 Lyon2007 Friction Wear Bore

1/17

Friction and Wear Bench Tests ofDifferent Engine Liner Surface Finishes

Eduardo Tomanik

MAHLE Brazil Tech Center

34th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology

2007

Tomanik E. Friction and wear bench tests of different engine liner surface finishes.

Tribology International 41 (2008) 10321038


2/17

2/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Index

1- Introduction

2- Studied Liner Finishes

3- Reciprocating Friction Tests

4- Reciprocating Wear Tests

5- Discussion and Conclusions

Friction and Wear Bench Tests of Different

Engine Liner Surface Finishes


3/17

3/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Smedley, Tian, Wong, 2004

INTRODUCTION

Different engine bore finishes have been investigated and introduced in productiondue to the potential of minimizing- Friction,- Wear,- Lube Oil Consumption

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Speed (rpm)

ExperimentalFrictionCoef.

Plateau Honing

Slide Honing

Tomanik, 2006


4/17

4/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Index

1- Introduction








5/17

5/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Studied Liner Finishes

0.280.320.200.18Non-Laser Region

2.000.380.170.93Laser 3mm

1.580.640.230.85Laser 1mm

0.600.600.660.41UV Laser

1.690.540.130.69Slide Rk 0.5-0.9

1.680.700.170.74Slide Rk 0.5-1.2

RvkRkRpkRq

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Slide 0.5-

1.2

Slide 0.5-

0.9

UV Laser Laser 1mm Laser 3mm Non-Laser

Region

Bearing

Rate(um)

Rpk

RkRvk

Roughness (m)

3 mm

HDD 131 mm, alloyed perlitic grey cast iron


6/17

6/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Slide 0.5-

1.2

Slide 0.5-

0.9

UV Laser Laser 1mm Laser 3mm Non-Laser

Region

BearingRate(um)

Rpk

Rk

Rvk

Studied Liner Finishes

Slide

UV Laser Laser Non-Laser region



7/17

8/20

2005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Index

1- Introduction








8/17

9/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


2

5

.

4

m

m

S

t

r

o

k

e

l i n e r

L o a d

R i n g p i e c e

2

5

.

4

m

m

S

t

r

o

k

e

l i n e r

L o a d

R i n g p i e c e

Friction Tests 50 N

UMT Reciprocating Test, 10 mm strokeApplied load: 50, 100 N. Speed from 25 to 375 rpm

Flooded with SAE30 Texaco Regal oil

PVD 3mm top rings

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Speed/Load

FrictionCoefficient

Slide 0.5-1.2

Slide 0.5-0.9UV Laser

Laser 1mm

Laser 3mm

Non-Laser Region

[rpm/N]


9/17

11/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Index

1- Introduction








10/17

12/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


UMT Reciprocating Test 4 hour test

P = 360 N (P= 12 MPa), 900 rpm

Flooded with SAE30 Texaco Regal oil doped with hard particles to accelerate ring wear

PVD top rings

Wear Tests Friction along Test

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

T(h)

FrictionCoef

Slide 0.5-1.2

Slide 0.5-0.9

UV Laser

Laser 1mm

Laser 3mm

Non-Laser region


11/17

13/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


2

5

.

4

m

m

S

t

r

o

k

e

l i n e r

L o a d

R i n g p i e c e

2

5

.

4

m

m

S

t

r

o

k

e

l i n e r

L o a d

R i n g p i e c e

UMT Reciprocating Test 4 hour test

Flooded with SAE30 Texaco Regal oil doped with hard particles to accelerate ring wear

PVD top rings

Wear Tests Ring and Liner Wear

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Slide 0.5-1.2 Slide 0.5-0.9 UV Laser Laser 1mm Laser 3mm Non-Laser

W

ear(um)

Wear (m)

Liner

Ring

Liner After Test

4m

2m

Ring


12/17

14/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Index

1- Introduction








13/17

15/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Dep

th(um)

Slide PlateauRpk

Rk

Rvk

SH PH

Rq 0.43 1.00

Rpk 0.17 0.26

Rk 0.47 0.99

Rvk 1.37 1.79

ZS 0.33 0.72

0.25 0.40

13.1 12.5

(109) 35 28

Modelling

Greenwood surface parameters,summit asperity:

ZS mean height [m]

height standard deviation [m] mean radius [m] density [m-2]

zS

surface heightdistribution

summit height

distribution

LP = 1 bar

P = 1 barT = 30 C

b

h

Sp

LP = 1 bar

P = 1 barT = 30 C

b

h

Sp

MIT ring simulation adapted code

assumed fully flooded conditions

Profile and Surface parameters calculated from the experimentalpieces

dry friction coeff. assumed = 0.11

Patir & Cheng Flow Factors



14/17

16/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Ring profile is non-symmetric, friction varies with direction. Negative values are only due to the force sensor.

Experimental vs. Predicted Friction

Plateau Honing

-0.12

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.020.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Speed/Load

FrictionC

oefficient

Exp

Model

[rpm/N]


15/17

17/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Experimental vs. Predicted Friction

Slide Honing

Ring profile is non-symmetric, friction varies with direction. Negative values are only due to the force sensor.

-0.12-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.060.08

0.10

0.12

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Speed/Load

FrictionCoefficient

Exp

Model

[rpm/N]


16/17

18/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Predicted Oil Film Thickness /Asperity Contact

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

-360 -180 0 180 360

Crank Angle (deg)

Plateau

Slide

Calculated Oil Film Thickness

Plateau

at 0.80 m

AC/A0 = 21 %

VOil/A0= 0.84 m

Slide

at 0.80 m

AC/A0 = 0.3 %

VOil/A0= 0.80 m

OilFilm(

m)

HDD engine, 1800 rpm, 25% load

Calculated Results show that the Smoother finishingpresents: lower asperity contact pressure lower friction & wear lower oil volumes potential for lower LOC

at 0.30 m

AC/A0 = 53 %

VOil/A0= 0.53 m

at 0.15 m

AC/A0 = 32 %

VOil/A0= 0.19 m


17/17

19/202005200520052005----01010101----1864186418641864


Conclusions

-- With increase of speed, the smoother surfaces tend to enter first in hydrodynamicregime. The laser 3 mm and the smooth non-laser region showed significant lowerfriction. But only roughness can not explain the different friction.

-- In the wear tests, friction reduced along the test due the break-in. In general,friction along the wear test followed the friction test ranking.

-- Effect of surface finish was not significant on the measured liner wear. For thering wear, the smoother variants caused lower wear.

-- Under engine operation, the structured laser spots may combine the lower friction

advantage of the very smooth finish along the stroke and the oil reservoirs on thespotted region.

Lyon2007 Friction Wear Bore

Documents

Transcript of Lyon2007 Friction Wear Bore