Study of Break-In Process and its Effects on Piston

Skirt Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines

The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share
how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

Citation Meng, Zhen et al. "Study of Break-In Process and its Effects
on Piston Skirt Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines."
Lubricants 7, 11 (November 2019): 98 © 2019 The Authors

As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/lubricants7110098

Publisher MDPI AG

Version Final published version

Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124976

Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

Detailed Terms https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

 lubricants
Article
Study of Break-In Process and its Effects on Piston
Skirt Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines
Zhen Meng *, Linfeng Zhang and Tian Tian
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA;
linfengz@princeton.edu (L.Z.); tiantian@mit.edu (T.T.)
* Correspondence: zhenmeng@mit.edu




Received: 17 September 2019; Accepted: 29 October 2019; Published: 2 November 2019


Abstract: The piston skirt is one of the main contributors to the total mechanical loss in internal
combustion engines. Usually, the skirt friction experiences a rapid change during the break-in period
largely due to the wear of the machine marks or roughness against soft coatings. It is thus important
to consider the effect of the change of the roughness for a realistic prediction of the piston skirt
friction and system optimization. In this work, an existing model of piston skirt lubrication was
improved with the consideration of a breaking in process for the most commonly used triangle
machine marks. A new set of flow factors in the averaged Reynolds equation were analytically
derived for the trapezoid shape formed after wear of the original triangle shape. A new asperity
contact model was developed for the trapezoid shape. The calculation results reflect the trend of
friction mean effective pressure (FMEP) during break-in in an engine test and showed quantitative
agreement under the same amount of wear.

Keywords: piston skirt lubrication; break-in; worn surface; modeling; floating liner engine

1. Introduction
The piston skirt can be a major contributor to the total engine friction loss in internal combustion
engines. Piston skirt friction is a consequence of complex interactions at different scales. At the largest
scale is the piston secondary motion and the deformation of the piston skirt and the cylinder liner due
to the impact of the piston skirt. Then, the profile of the piston skirt and bore distortion determines the
exact nominal clearance distribution for the lubrication of the skirt and the liner. At the lowest level is
the roughness or waviness of designed patterns on the skirt whose peak-valley height is in the order
of sub-microns to 10 microns, which will be referred to as the Level III feature hereafter. A realistic
prediction of skirt friction needs an adequate understanding of and models for these interactions.
Furthermore, depending on the coating material, the Level III feature can change drastically during
the initial running period intentionally or unintentionally. Applying a soft coating on the skirt to
allow fast break-in can be considered as advantageous as the exact bore distortion is changing with
operating conditions and not known. It was found that maximizing the hydrodynamic lubrication
is still beneficial to the reduction of the skirt friction even when the coefficient of the friction of the
boundary lubrication is as low as 0.03 [1–3].
The interaction on the interface between the skirt and the liner, especially during early expansion
stroke as shown in Figure 1, has attracted great attention from both academia and industry. First of
all, there have been studies on the coating materials for the skirt. Wang, et al. [4,5] evaluated the
tribological behaviors of composite polymer coatings and ceramic composite coatings for aluminum
pistons, and ranked different materials in terms of wear and scuffing resistance. In recent years,
graphite coatings [6–8] and diamond-like carbon coatings [9,10] have become increasingly popular.
In addition, new surface treatment technologies have been developed. Ogihara [11] applied micro

Lubricants 2019, 7, 98; doi:10.3390/lubricants7110098 www.mdpi.com/journal/lubricants

 Various models have been built to study the friction associated with the piston [15–18]. Most of
the models treat the system as an elastohydrodynamic lubrication problem, and apply the
Greenwood–Williamson model [19] for asperity contact. Kobayashi [20] established estimation
indices for wear and scuffing of the skirt using the pressure results from a piston secondary motion
analysis software, and compared model prediction with the engine test results. However, there are
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 2 of 18
few existing models that incorporate the influence of the breaking-in process on the friction behavior
and lubrication performance. The objective of this work is to develop a process to consider the effect
of the change
dimple treatment of Level III features
and MoS during engine
2 shot treatment to therunning to improve
piston skirt, the able
and was fidelity of optimization
to reduce the slidingof
piston skirt
resistance ofdesigns.
the tested pistons by 2%–2.6% and 4%–5%, respectively.

Figure 1. Sketch of the power cylinder system in internal combustion engines with forces on the piston
Figure 1. Sketch of the power cylinder system in internal combustion engines with forces on the piston
during early expansion stroke.
during early expansion stroke.

The effect of Level III feature is also investigated. Sugimura [12] pointed out that the feature is
1.1. Floating Liner Engine Testing
able to keep the lubricant in order to resist stick and wear, and at the initial running the conventional
Thewould
features floating liner engine
experience (FLE)
abrasion, is a specialized
or break-in. Sugimuratestmodified
engine theused in surface
skirt the traditional
properties fired
by
configuration
adding to measure
microscopic the friction
hard particles, and associated with balance
achieved better the power cylinder
between lowsystem.
friction It allows
and accurate
anti-abrasion
measurement of
performance. totalLee,
Cho, friction
and force
Lee [13]from all the
tested components
the specimens that comesurfaces
of skirt in contact with
with thedifferent
three cylinder
liner, including the piston and the piston rings.
roughness values, and found that higher roughness leads to larger friction losses due to asperity
Table 1with
interactions shows
thesome
liner. of theagreed
This enginewith
specifications. In the
the results from cases studied
Westerfield, et al.in[14],
thiswhere
work,athe peak
floating
cylinder
liner pressure
engine is 20used
setup was bar, for
corresponding
testing. to 4 bar indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP). The
Various models have been built to study the friction associated with the piston [15–18]. Most
of the models treat the system as an elastohydrodynamic lubrication problem, and apply the
Greenwood–Williamson model [19] for asperity contact. Kobayashi [20] established estimation
indices for wear and scuffing of the skirt using the pressure results from a piston secondary motion
analysis software, and compared model prediction with the engine test results. However, there are few
existing models that incorporate the influence of the breaking-in process on the friction behavior and
lubrication performance. The objective of this work is to develop a process to consider the effect of the
change of Level III features during engine running to improve the fidelity of optimization of piston
skirt designs.

1.1. Floating Liner Engine Testing

The floating liner engine (FLE) is a specialized test engine used in the traditional fired configuration
to measure the friction associated with the power cylinder system. It allows accurate measurement of
total friction force from all the components that come in contact with the cylinder liner, including the
piston and the piston rings.
testing procedure, referred to as a “sweep”, consists of warming up the engine, and collecting data
at 1000, 1500, and 2000 rpm at 4 bar IMEP. More detailed setup and test methods of the experiment
can be found in [14].
The2019,
Lubricants pistons
7, 98 tested in the FLE experiment have GRAFAL® coating by Mahle [21] on the piston 3 of 18
skirt, which is designated by RS12. The coefficient of friction of the coating is 0.03. The Level III
feature of the skirt has a triangular shape, and its nominal peak- valley heights after coating is
Table 1 shows
micrometers. some ofused
The lubricant the engine specifications.
in the test is SAE 5W-30. In the cases studied in this work, the peak
cylinder pressure is 20 bar, corresponding to 4 bar indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP). The testing
procedure, referred to as a “sweep”, consists
Table 1. Floating of warming
liner upspecifications.
engine (FLE) the engine, and collecting data at 1000,
1500, and 2000 rpm at 4 bar IMEP. More detailed setup and test methods of the experiment can be
Parameter Value Unit
found in [14].
Displaced volume 0.496 L
Stroke
Table 1. Floating liner engine (FLE)92.8
specifications. Mm
Bore 82.51 Mm
Compression ratioParameter Value
10:1 Unit -
Maximum BMEPDisplaced volume 0.496
0.7 L MPa
Maximum engine speed Stroke 92.8
3000 Mm rpm
Bore 82.51 Mm
Compression ratio 10:1 -
Figure 2 shows the friction mean effective
Maximum BMEPpressure (FMEP)
0.7 during
MPa different sweeps for the RS12
piston under 4 bar IMEP and at variousengine
Maximum enginespeed
speeds. Each
3000 run in
rpm the horizontal axis lasted for 0.5
h. There is a clear drop of around 2000 Pa in FMEP during the first eight to nine runs, after which it
starts to stabilize. For all the three running conditions, there exist large fluctuations in the first three
The pistons tested in the FLE experiment have GRAFAL®coating by Mahle [21] on the piston
hours. Unfortunately, there was no parts analysis after those initial runs and it may be interesting to
skirt, which is designated by RS12. The coefficient of friction of the coating is 0.03. The Level III feature
investigate for a future work. Here it is considered that FMEP reduces during 10 h break-in. It needs
of the skirt has a triangular shape, and its nominal peak- valley heights after coating is micrometers.
to be mentioned that the liner and the ring pack in the engine were already broken-in. Therefore, the
The lubricant used in the test is SAE 5W-30.
change in FMEP during this break-in period is considered to be caused by the skirt.
Figure 2 shows the friction mean effective pressure (FMEP) during different sweeps for the RS12
Figure 3 shows the centerline of the piston skirt profiles on the thrust side before and after
piston under 4 bar IMEP and at various engine speeds. Each run in the horizontal axis lasted for 0.5 h.
testing. The profiles are measured with a surface contour and surface roughness unit developed by
There is a clear drop of around 2000 Pa in FMEP during the first eight to nine runs, after which it
Mahr Metrology. The original profile can be simplified and represented by a wave length and a peak-
starts to stabilize. For all the three running conditions, there exist large fluctuations in the first three
to-valley wave height. After the test, the peaks of the waves are truncated by around 3 micrometers
hours. Unfortunately, there was no parts analysis after those initial runs and it may be interesting to
due to breaking in, and a new surface is created on the plateau part. This is important when
investigate for a future work. Here it is considered that FMEP reduces during 10 h break-in. It needs
evaluating the long-term performance of the piston skirt. In this study, the worn waviness is
to be mentioned that the liner and the ring pack in the engine were already broken-in. Therefore,
simplified to have a trapezoidal shape.
the change in FMEP during this break-in period is considered to be caused by the skirt.

Figure
Figure 2. RS12 piston
2. RS12 piston break-in
break-in friction
friction mean
mean effective
effective pressure
pressure (FMEP)
(FMEP) for
for 4-bar
4-bar indicated
indicated mean
mean
effective pressure (IMEP).
effective pressure (IMEP).

Figure 3 shows the centerline of the piston skirt profiles on the thrust side before and after testing.
The profiles are measured with a surface contour and surface roughness unit developed by Mahr
Metrology. The original profile can be simplified and represented by a wave length and a peak-to-valley
wave height. After the test, the peaks of the waves are truncated by around 3 micrometers due to
breaking in, and a new surface is created on the plateau part. This is important when evaluating the
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 4 of 18

long-term performance of the piston skirt. In this study, the worn waviness is simplified to have a
Lubricants
trapezoidal2019,shape.
7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Profileof
Figure3.3.Profile
Figure ofthe
thecenterline
centerlineof
ofRS12
RS12piston
pistonskirt
skirton
onthe
thethrust
thrustside
sidebefore
before and
and after
after break-in.
break-in.

1.2. Piston Skirt Lubrication Model

1.2. Piston Skirt Lubrication Model
The piston secondary motion and skirt lubrication model (P2M) is initiated by McClure [22] and
The piston secondary motion and skirt lubrication model (P2M) is initiated by McClure [22] and
Bai [23] and further developed by Totaro [24] and Meng [1]. The model is a comprehensive analytical
Bai [23] and further developed by Totaro [24] and Meng [1]. The model is a comprehensive analytical
tool that integrates the dynamics of piston’s primary and secondary motions, structural deformation
tool that integrates the dynamics of piston’s primary and secondary motions, structural deformation
of the skirt and the liner, lubrication theory, and oil transport between the skirt and its surrounding
of the skirt and the liner, lubrication theory, and oil transport between the skirt and its surrounding
areas. The hydrodynamic part of the model applies the theories developed by Patir and Cheng [25]
areas. The hydrodynamic part of the model applies the theories developed by Patir and Cheng [25]
and Elrod [26], and uses the following dimensionless governing equation:
and Elrod [26], and uses the following dimensionless governing equation:
∂ 3 ∂(FΦ ) ∂ 3 ∂(FΦ ) ∂  ∂ 
" # " #
ϕx H + + ϕz H = = U 1 +[11+−(1 − F)Φ+]H + ϕ+s + 1 +[1 +1−(1 − F)Φ]H (1)(1)

∂X ∂X ∂Z ∂Z ∂Z ∂T

where ϕx , ϕz , and
where , ϕ , and
s are flow are flow incorporating
factors factors incorporating theofeffects
the effects of the waviness
the waviness on the
on the skirt. H isskirt.
the gap
is the gapthe
between between
skirt andthethe
skirt and
liner andtheUliner
is theand
slidingisvelocity
the sliding velocity
of the piston.ofInthe
thepiston.
full filmInregion,
the fullwhere
film
lubricating oil fills the entire gap, F takes the value of 1 and Φ represent the gauge pressure; in the
region, where lubricating oil fills the entire gap, takes the value of 1 and represent the gauge
pressure;
partial filminregion,
the partial
F is 0 and + Φ equates
film 1region, is to
0 and 1 + between
the ratio equates theto
oilthe
filmratio between
thickness oil film
and the gap. The
thickness and the gap.
ambient pressure in theThe ambientispressure
crankcase used as thein the crankcase
boundary is used as the boundary condition.
condition.
To
To numerically
numerically solvesolve Equation
Equation (1),(1), the
the Poiseuille
Poiseuille terms
terms is is discretized
discretized byby the
the central
central difference
difference
scheme:
scheme:   
∂ ∂(FΦ)
∂X
ϕx H 3 ∂X
i,j
(ϕx H3 )i,j +(ϕx H3 )i+1, j h
=, (2)
i
(FΦ)i+1, j − (FΦ)i,j
, +
2∆X 2
, (2)
= (ϕx H3 )i,j +(ϕx H3 )i−1, j h −
FΦ)i−1, j −, (FΦ)i,j ,
i
+ 2∆
2∆X2
(
, + ,
∂(FΦ+ , −
  
∂ ) ,
ϕz H ∂X
3 2∆
∂Z
i,j
(ϕz H3 )i,j +(ϕz H3 )i,j+1 h i
(3)
= 2∆Z2
(FΦ)i,j+1 − (FΦ)i,j
,
(ϕz H3 )i,j +(ϕz H3 )i,j−1 h
+
i
+ , , (FΦ)i,j−1 − (FΦ)i,j (3)
= 2∆Z2 , − ,
2∆
, + ,
+ , − ,
2∆
The first-order upwind scheme is applied to the Couette term:
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 5 of 18

The first-order upwind scheme is applied to the Couette term:

 Q −Q
i,j i,j−1
∂Q  U ∆Z , U > 0
! 

U = (4)
∂Z i,j
 U Qi,j+1 −Qi,j , U < 0

∆Z

where Q = [1 + (1 − F)Φ]H + ϕs .
The squeezing term uses the first-order backward scheme:

(t) (t−1)
∂R
!(t) Ri,j − Ri,j
= (5)
∂T i,j ∆T

where R = [1 + (1 − F)Φ]H.
The P2M model was recently improved [2] with a physics-based sub-model for the separation
of oil film on the interface. The oil transport process predicted by the model has been found to be
consistent with experimental observation.
In the following, the further development of the P2M model will be discussed, especially the
consideration of the effects of worn waviness. Then, the model will be applied to the simulation of the
tested engine configurations, and compared with the results from the experiment.

2. Model Development
Wear of the waviness has two major influences on the model. Firstly, the hydrodynamic pressure
generated on the interface will be different from when there is no break-in. Secondly, the calculation of
the contact pressure when the skirt and the liner are close enough to each other also needs adjustments.

2.1. Update on the Average Flow Model

The flow factors for arbitrary roughness are usually calculated numerically using the method
developed by Patir and Cheng [25,27]. However, for some specific profiles, including those involved in
this work, analytical expression can be obtained. The flow factors in Equation (1) for mono-dimensional
Level III feature are given by:
1
ϕx = 3 (6)
hm hh−3 i
hh3 i
ϕz = (7)
h3m
1 h − hm
ϕs = h i (8)
σhh−3 i h3
One the other hand, the averaged hydrodynamic shear stress takes the form:

µ  hm
τ= ϕf + ϕfs U − ϕ ∇p (9)
2 2 fp
where
ϕ f = hm hh−1 i (10)

hh−2 i2
" #
ϕfs = 3hm hh−1 i − −3 (11)
hh i
hh−2 i
ϕfp = (12)
hm hh−3 i
 2
ℎ −ℎ
= (15)
2
Because of symmetry and periodicity, the average values of the surface are the same as those in
the boxed area,
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98where the height is: 6 of 18
2
ℎ =ℎ − , − (16)
k 2 2k
In these equations, hh i is defined as the average value of h in a certain area:
It is straightforward to calculate the averaged powers of ℎ ,
Z lz Z lx
k 1
hh i = 1 hk dxdz
ℎ + (13)
〈ℎ 〉 = lxℎlz d0 = 0 log (17)
2 ℎ −
and hm = hhi.
1
Because the wave height of the Level〈ℎ 〉=
III feature here is much larger than the roughness of(18)
the
ℎ −
cylinder liner, the liner can be simplified as a smooth surface. For the original triangular waviness,
as shown in Figure 4, we have: ℎ
〈ℎ 〉 = (19)
hℎ1 +−h2
hm = (14)
2
〈ℎ 〉 = ℎ ℎ + (20)
h2 − h1
and these expressions can be used to calculate σ= the flow (15)
2 factors.

Figure 4. Original triangular waviness on the piston skirt.

Figure 4. Original triangular waviness on the piston skirt.
Because of symmetry and periodicity, the average values of the surface are the same as those in
the boxed area, where the height is:

2σ l l
h ( x ) = hm − x, − ≤ x ≤ (16)
l 2 2

It is straightforward to calculate the averaged powers of h(x),

l
hm + σ
Z
−1
2 1
hh i = h−1 dx = log (17)
− 2l 2σ hm − σ

1
hh−2 i = (18)
h2m − σ2
hm
hh−3 i =  2 (19)
h2m − σ2
 2
hh3 i = hm h2m + σ2 (20)

and these expressions can be used to calculate the flow factors.

Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 7 of 18

If the waves are truncated by a height of z0 , as shown in Figure 5, the height in the boxed area is:
  z0

 h2 − σ − l x, x ≤ 2 1 −
 2σ l
σ

h(x) =  z0 (21)
Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW  h2 − 2σ + z0 , x > 2l 1 −

σ 7 of 19

Figure 5. Worn waviness on the piston skirt.

Figure 5. Worn waviness on the piston skirt.
The average values thus become:
If the waves are truncated by a height of , as shown in Figure 5, the height in the boxed area
is: z20
hm = h2 − σ − (22)
2 4σ
ℎ − − , 1− !
ℎ =1 2 (21)
z0 h2
hh−1 i = + log (23)
2σ ℎh2−−22σ +
+ z0, > 1 −+ z0
h2 − 2σ
2
The average values thus become:−2 2σh2 − (z0 − 2σ)2
hh i = (24)
2σh2 (h2 − 2σ + z0 )2
ℎ =ℎ − − (22)
4σh2 − (z − 2σ)3 − 4 3h2 (z0 − 2σ)2
−3 2 0
hh i = 1 ℎ (25)
〈ℎ 〉 = + z0 )3
4σh22 (h2 −+2σlog (23)
2 ℎ −2 + ℎ −2 +
3
h42 + 4z0 (h2 −22σℎ +−z0 )3 −
−(2h2 − 2σ + z0 )
4
hh i = 〈ℎ 〉 = (26)
(24)
2 ℎ ℎ 8σ −2 +
and the new flow factors are: 4 ℎ − −2 − 3ℎ −2
〈ℎ 〉 = (25)
4 2ℎ(h ℎ− 2σ
4σh − 2+ z+)3
2 2 0
ϕx =  (27)
ℎ + 4z2 3 hℎ − 2 + − ℎ −2 +
〈ℎ 〉h= 4σh22 − (z08− 2σ)3 − 3h2 (z0 − 2σ)2 (26)
i
2 − σ − 4σ
0

and the new flow factors are:

h42 + 4z0 (h2 − 2σ + z0 )3 − (h2 − 2σ + z0 )4
ϕz = 4 ℎ ℎ − 2 +3 (28)
= z2
8σ h2 − σ − 4σ0 (27)
ℎ − − 4 ℎ − −2 − 3ℎ −2
4
3
 
(2σ − z0 ) 4σ − z0 − 3h2 z0 − 2h2 σ
2 2
ϕs==ℎ + h4 ℎ − 2 + 2 − ℎ − 2 +3 i (29)
4σ2 4σh22 − 3(2σ − z0 ) h2 + (2σ − z0 ) (28)
8 ℎ − −
 2 
4
z
!
1  h2 z0 h
0 
ϕ f =  − 21 −− 2  4 − − 3ℎ + log − 2ℎ 2
 
(30)
2 =σ 4σ h2 − 2σ + z0 h2 − 2σ + z0 (29)
4 4 ℎ −3 2 − ℎ + 2 −
1 ℎ ℎ
= −1− + log (30)
2 4 ℎ −2 + ℎ −2 +
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 8 of 18

z20
 n
z0 h2
 
ϕ f s = 3 h2 − σ − 4σ
1
2σ h2 −2σ+z0 + log h2 −2σ +z
2 ) 0 (31)
[2σh2 −(z0 −2σ)2 ]
−
σ(h2 −2σ+z0 )[4σh22 −(z0 −2σ)3 −3h2 (z0 −2σ)2 ]

2h2 (h2 − 2σ + z0 ) 2σh2 − (z0 − 2σ)2

h i
ϕfp = (32)
z20 h

h2 − σ − 4σ 4σh22 − (z0 − 2σ)3 − 3h2 (z0 − 2σ)2
i

2.2. Contact Pressure

The P2M model used to apply the correlation for a blunt wedge (piston skirt) against a plane
(liner) developed by Johnson [28] to calculate the contact pressure. As the waves are worn, a new
correlation is necessary for more accurate simulation.
When the lowest value of h(x) in Equation (21) is negative, the new distribution of the gap with
contact pressure is given by:
Z +∞ Z +∞ pc (x0 , z0 )dx0 dz0
∗ 2
h (x, z) = h(x) + (33)
πE
q
−∞ −∞
(x0 − x)2 + (z0 − z)2

Under the assumption of semi-infinite body and constant baseline gap h2 , h∗ is periodic in the x
direction and constant in the z direction:

h∗ (x + λ, z + ξ) = h∗ (x, z) = h∗ (x) (34)

where λ is the wave length of the machine marks and ξ is an arbitrary value.
On the other hand, there is a complementarity relation between the gap and the contact pressure:
q
h∗ ·pc = 0h∗ ≥ 0pc ≥ 0or h∗ + pc − h∗2 + p2c = 0 (35)

Therefore, given h2 and z0 , and effective Young’s modulus E, h∗ and pc can be calculated by
Equations (34) and (35).

2.3. Worn Height of Waviness

The updated model uses the workflow described in Figure 6 to determine how much the surface
waviness is worn.
As the model applies a finite difference scheme, the wave length λ is chosen as the length of the
cells in the axial direction. In the pre-processing stage of the model, contact pressure of a large number
of combinations of h2 and z0 are calculated to generate a map:

pc = f (h2 , z0 ) (36)

At each time step of the calculation, the contact pressure at each cell i is interpolated from the map:
 
(i,t) (i,t) (i,t−1)
pc = f h2 , z0 (37)

As the worn height has a linear relationship with the multiplication of the contact force and the
sliding velocity of the piston, the accumulation of the multiplication during the latest engine cycle is
then updated:
Z t
(i,t)
c(i,t) = pc v(t) dt (38)
t−4π
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 9 of 18

and the worn

Lubricants height
2019, 7, at each
x FOR PEER cell is given by:
REVIEW 9 of 19

(i,t) c(i,t),
z0 , = zm · (39)
= max ∙ (39)
h i
(i,t)
maxc ,
wherezm is is
where a pre-determined
a pre-determined maximum
maximum value
value forfor
thethe worn
worn height.
height.

Figure 6. Determining the worn height z0 .

Figure 6. Determining the worn height .
3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Break-In
3.1. Effects of Break-In
Figure 7 shows the reduction in FMEP of the RS12 piston from model calculations with different
valuesFigure
of maximum 7 shows worn theheight zm . The
reduction in engine
FMEPspeed of theis RS12
2000 rpm,
pistonandfrom
the wavelength of the Level
model calculations III
with
feature is 300 micrometers.
different values of maximum worn heightIn each calculation, the model keeps running until the result
. The engine speed is 2000 rpm, and the wavelength is cyclically
converged.
of the LevelThe III FMEP
featuredecreases with more wear,
is 300 micrometers. In each and stabilizes the
calculation, when zm reaches
model about half
keeps running of the
until the
wave
resultheight. Fromconverged.
is cyclically the measurement The FMEP afterdecreases
FLE testing,withthe moreworn height
wear, andofstabilizes
the skirt when
is 3 micrometers.
reaches
From
aboutthehalfmodel,
of thewhenwavezheight.
m is set From
at the the
same value, the amount
measurement of decrease
after FLE in FMEP
testing, the worn isheight
around of 2000 Pa,
the skirt
which is quite close
is 3 micrometers. to the
From theexperimental
model, whenresult.is After set at 3the
micrometers,
same value,the theexperiment suggests in
amount of decrease that the
FMEP
breaking-in is slowing down, whereas the models shows that FMEP can further
is around 2000 Pa, which is quite close to the experimental result. After 3 micrometers, the experiment decrease if somehow
there can be
suggests that morethe break-in
breaking-in untilisthe worn height
slowing down, on the Level
whereas theIII featureshows
models reaches 5 microns.
that FMEP can further
Figures
decrease 8 and 9 show
if somehow there thecanfriction
be moreforces thatuntil
break-in come thefrom
wornthe contact
height on pressure
the Levelon III the thrust
feature and
reaches
anti-thrust
5 microns. sides of the skirt during a complete engine cycle, starting from the intake stroke. Compared
with the friction
Figures 8 andfrom the hydrodynamic
9 show the friction forces lubrication
that come regime,
fromwhich are shown
the contact in Figures
pressure on the 10 andand
thrust 11,
boundary
anti-thrustfriction
sides is of much larger
the skirt even when
during its coefficient
a complete engineofcycle,
friction used infrom
starting the model is as low
the intake as
stroke.
0.03. The result here is one example demonstrating the effectiveness
Compared with the friction from the hydrodynamic lubrication regime, which are shown in Figures of maintaining hydrodynamic
lubrication in achieving
10 and 11, boundary low friction.
friction is much larger even when its coefficient of friction used in the model is
as low as 0.03. The result here having
The occurrence of both sides is one friction
exampleatdemonstrating
the same time indicates an overlap
the effectiveness of between
maintaining the
piston skirt and the
hydrodynamic cylinderin
lubrication liner. This is low
achieving adverse for the lubrication performance because it is difficult
friction.
for oilThe
to enter the interface
occurrence of both from below
sides having the friction
piston. However,
at the same compared with Case
time indicates I, wherebetween
an overlap there is the
no
break-in, Cases II and III are still able to have less friction forces during
piston skirt and the cylinder liner. This is adverse for the lubrication performance because it is almost the entire engine cycle.
difficult for oil to enter the interface from below the piston. However, compared with Case I, where
there is no break-in, Cases II and III are still able to have less friction forces during almost the entire
engine cycle.
 Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Lubricants
Lubricants 2019,
2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
7, 7,
98 1018
1010
of of 19
Lubricants 2019, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 19

Figure 7. FMEP reduction of RS12 profile with different maximum worn height allowed.
Figure
Figure 7. FMEP
7. FMEP reduction
reduction of of RS12
RS12 profile
profile with
with different
different maximum
maximum worn
worn height
height allowed.
allowed.
Figure 7. FMEP reduction of RS12 profile with different maximum worn height allowed.

.
.
Figure 8. Friction forces on the thrust side from contact pressure when the maximum worn .heights
Figure 0,8.2 Friction
Figure
are forces
8. Friction
and on the
forces thrust
on the
5 micrometers. sideside
thrust fromfrom
contact pressure
contact whenwhen
pressure the maximum worn heights
the maximum are
worn heights
Figure 8. Friction forces on the thrust side from contact pressure when the maximum worn heights
0, 2are
and0, 52 micrometers.
and 5 micrometers.
are 0, 2 and 5 micrometers.

Figure
Figure 9. Friction
9. Friction forces
forces onanti-thrust
on the the anti-thrust sidecontact
side from from contact
pressurepressure
when thewhen the maximum
maximum worn
worn heights
Figure
0, 2 and9.
areheights 5Friction
are 0, 2 andforces on the anti-thrust side from contact pressure when the maximum worn
5 micrometers.
micrometers.
Figure 9. Friction forces on the anti-thrust side from contact pressure when the maximum worn
heights are 0, 2 and 5 micrometers.
heights are 0, 2 and 5 micrometers.
 Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Lubricants 2019,7,7,98x FOR PEER REVIEW
Lubricants2019, 1111ofof1819

Figure 10. Friction forces on the thrust side from hydrodynamic pressure when the maximum worn
heights
Figure are
Figure10.
10. 0, 2 and
Friction
Friction 5 micrometers.
forces
forces onthe
on thethrust
thrustside
sidefrom
fromhydrodynamic
hydrodynamicpressure
pressurewhen
whenthe
themaximum
maximumworn
worn
heights
heightsare
are0,0,2 2and
and5 5micrometers.
micrometers.

Figure11.
Figure 11.Friction
Frictionforces
forceson onthe
theanti-thrust
anti-thrustside
sidefrom
fromhydrodynamic
hydrodynamicpressure
pressurewhen
whenthe
themaximum
maximum
worn
Figure
worn heights are0,0,2 forces
11. Friction
heights are 2and
and5 5micrometers.
micrometers.
on the anti-thrust side from hydrodynamic pressure when the maximum
worn heights are 0, 2 and 5 micrometers.
There are two reasons for such friction reduction. The first reason is that the skirt after breaking
in has a smaller effective diameter. Therefore, when the lateral force on the piston from the pin is
moderate, the amount of overlap between the skirt and the liner is lower, and the lateral force on each
side is correspondingly smaller. For example, the model shows that at 180-degree crank angle, the total
lateral forces on the thrust side are 284.8 N for Case I and 247.3 N for Case III. On the anti-thrust side,
the forces are 278.3 and 234.2 N.
During most of the expansion stroke, the piston is only interacting with the thrust side of the
liner, so there is no overlap and the first reason does not apply. But in this situation, worn profile is
able to generate higher hydrodynamic pressure with the same minimum height (h in Equation (21)).
Figure 12 shows the result of a simplified 1D model, where the black curves represent the skirt profiles,
and the horizontal axes represent the liner. The dimensionless hydrodynamic pressures with the same
normalizing factor are plotted in red.

Figure 12. 1D hydrodynamic pressure generation of the piston skirt before and after break-in.
Figure 12. 1D hydrodynamic pressure generation of the piston skirt before and after break-in.
 Figure 11. Friction forces on the anti-thrust side from hydrodynamic pressure when the maximum
worn heights
Lubricants 2019, 7, are
98 0, 2 and 5 micrometers. 12 of 18

Figure 12. 1D hydrodynamic pressure generation of the piston skirt before and after break-in.
Figure 12. 1D hydrodynamic pressure generation of the piston skirt before and after break-in.
Therefore, the skirt with a worn surface can generate more hydrodynamic pressure before making
Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
solid-to-solid contact with the liner. The lateral forces between the skirt and the liner that come
Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
from
12 of 19
hydrodynamic pressure and contact pressure are shown, respectively, in Figures 13 and 14.

Figure 13. Lateral forces supported by hydrodynamic pressure when the maximum worn heights are
0,
Figure 13. 2,Lateral
Figureand13.
5 micrometers.
Lateral
forcesforces supported
supported by hydrodynamic
by hydrodynamic pressure
pressure when
when themaximum
the maximumworn
worn heights
heights are
are 0,
0, 2, and 5
2, and 5 micrometers.micrometers.

Figure
Figure 14. 14. Lateral
Lateral forces forces supported
supported by contact
by contact pressure
pressure whenwhen
the the maximum
maximum worn
worn heights
heights are
are 0, 0,2,2,and
and 5
Figuremicrometers.
5 micrometers.14. Lateral forces supported by contact pressure when the maximum worn heights are 0, 2,
and 5 micrometers.
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 13 of 18

Figure 15 shows the differences in the minimum value of the valley clearance, or oil film thickness,
between the skirt and the liner on the thrust side. Here the valley clearance is defined as h2 in Figure 5.
Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Case III and Case II have lower minimum gap during most of the engine cycle compared to Case I.

Figure15.
Figure 15.Difference
Differenceininminimum
minimumvalley
valleyclearance
clearanceononthe
thethrust
thrustside
sideamong
amongcases.
cases.

As an illustration,
There Figure
are two reasons for16such
shows the distribution
friction reduction. Theof valley clearance
first reason onthe
is that theskirt
thrust side
after of the
breaking
skirt
in hasat 430-degree crank angle
a smaller effective in Case Therefore,
diameter. I, and the differences
when the between Caseon
lateral force IIIthe
andpiston
Case I.from
Although theis
the pin
skirt in Casethe
moderate, IIIamount
is closeroftooverlap
the liner in terms
between theof minimum
skirt and the valley
liner isclearance,
lower, anditthehaslateral
less contact
force onwith
each
the liner.
side This is illustrated
is correspondingly by Figure
smaller. For 17 which shows
example, the distributions
the model shows that atof180-degree
the closest crank
distance (peak
angle, the
clearance)
total lateralfrom theon
forces skirt
theto the liner.
thrust The284.8
side are peakNclearance
for Case Iisand represented h2 −III.
247.3 N forbyCase 2σ On+ zthe
0 inanti-thrust
Figure 5,
and contact
Lubricants
side, 2019,
the will occur
7, x FOR
forces if REVIEW
arePEER
278.3itand
becomes
234.2 negative.
N. The gaps along the centerline of the skirt, which14isofthe 19
dashedDuring
line onmost
the left
of part, are shownstroke,
the expansion in Figure
the18. There
piston is is no contact
only for Case
interacting withIII at thrust
the this crank
sideangle.
of the
liner, so there is no overlap and the first reason does not apply. But in this situation, worn profile is
able to generate higher hydrodynamic pressure with the same minimum height (ℎ in Equation 21).
Figure 12 shows the result of a simplified 1D model, where the black curves represent the skirt
profiles, and the horizontal axes represent the liner. The dimensionless hydrodynamic pressures with
the same normalizing factor are plotted in red.
Therefore, the skirt with a worn surface can generate more hydrodynamic pressure before
making solid-to-solid contact with the liner. The lateral forces between the skirt and the liner that
come from hydrodynamic pressure and contact pressure are shown, respectively, in Figure 13 and
Figure 14.
Figure 15 shows the differences in the minimum value of the valley clearance, or oil film
thickness, between the skirt and the liner on the thrust side. Here the valley clearance is defined as
ℎ in Figure 5. Case III and Case II have lower minimum gap during most of the engine cycle
compared to Case I.
As an illustration, Figure 16 shows the distribution of valley clearance on the thrust side of the
skirt at 430-degree crank angle in Case I, and the differences between Case III and Case I. Although
the skirt in Case III is closer to the liner in terms of minimum valley clearance, it has less contact with
the liner.
FigureThis is illustratedofby
16. Distributions Figure
valley 17 which
clearance shows
on the thrustthe
sidedistributions
of the skirt at of the closest
430-degree distance
crank angle. (peak
Figure 16. Distributions of valley clearance on the thrust side of the skirt at
clearance) from the skirt to the liner. The peak clearance is represented by ℎ − 2 + 430-degree crank angle.
in Figure 5,
and contact will occur if it becomes negative. The gaps along the centerline of the skirt, which is the
dashed line on the left part, are shown in Figure 18. There is no contact for Case III at this crank angle.
Figures 19 and 20 show the distributions of hydrodynamic pressure and contact pressure at the
same crank angle.
 Lubricants 16.7, Distributions
2019,
Figure 98 of valley clearance on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle. 14 of 18

Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure 17. Distributions of peak clearance on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle.
Figure 17. Distributions of peak clearance on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle.

Figure
Figure 18.18. Gaps
Gaps along
along thethe centerline
centerline of the
of the skirt
skirt onon
thethe thrust
thrust side
side at 430-degree
at 430-degree crank
crank angle.
angle.

Figures 19 and 20 show the distributions of hydrodynamic pressure and contact pressure at the
same crank angle.

3.2. Effects of Wavelength

Figure 21 shows the friction forces on the thrust side for three different wavelengths with maximum
worn height of 6 micrometers. The case with higher wavelength has lower friction force. This is mainly
due to the magnitude of contact pressure. As shown in Figures 22 and 23, with the same worn height
of the waves and the same valley clearance, contact pressure generated with higher wavelength is
much lower.
 Figure
Lubricants 2019,18. Gaps along the centerline of the skirt on the thrust side at 430-degree crank angle.
7, 98 15 of 18

Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

Figure
Lubricants 2019,19. Distributions
7, x FOR PEER REVIEWof hydrodynamic pressure on the thrust side of the skirt at 16
430-degree
of 19
Figure 19. Distributions of hydrodynamic pressure on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank
crank angle.
angle.

Figure 20. Distributions of contact pressure on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle.

3.2. Effects of Wavelength

Figures 21 shows the friction forces on the thrust side for three different wavelengths with
maximum worn height of 6 micrometers. The case with higher wavelength has lower friction force.
This is mainly due to the magnitude of contact pressure. As shown in Figures 22 and 23, with the
same worn height of the waves and the same valley clearance, contact pressure generated with higher
wavelength is much lower.
Figure 20. Distributions of contact pressure on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle.
Figure 20. Distributions of contact pressure on the thrust side of the skirt at 430-degree crank angle.

3.2. Effects of Wavelength

Figures 21 shows the friction forces on the thrust side for three different wavelengths with
maximum worn height of 6 micrometers. The case with higher wavelength has lower friction force.
This is mainly due to the magnitude of contact pressure. As shown in Figures 22 and 23, with the
same worn height of the waves and the same valley clearance, contact pressure generated with higher
wavelength is much lower.

Figure
Figure 21. 21. Friction
Friction forces
forces on theon the side
thrust thrust side
with with wavelengths
different different wavelengths
of wavinessofwhen
waviness when the
the maximum
maximum
worn height isworn height is 6 micrometers.
6 micrometers.

Figure 21. Friction forces on the thrust side with different wavelengths of waviness when the
maximum worn height is 6 micrometers.
 Lubricants
Lubricants 2019,
2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW
7, 98 16 17
of of
18 19
Lubricants 2019, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 19

Figure 22. Average contact pressure as a function of valley clearance and worn height when
Figure
Figure 22.22. Average
Average contact
contact pressure
pressure as a function
as a function of valley of valley and
clearance clearance and worn
worn height height when
when wavelength
wavelength is 150 micrometers.
is wavelength is 150 micrometers.
150 micrometers.

Figure
Figure 23. 23. Average
Average contact
contact pressure
pressure as a function
as a function of valley and
of valley clearance clearance and worn
worn height height when
when wavelength
Figure 23. Average contact pressure as a function of valley clearance and worn height when
wavelength is
is 450 micrometers.450 micrometers.
wavelength is 450 micrometers.
4. 4.
Conclusions
Conclusions
4. Conclusions
Benefitting
Benefitting from its large
from its surface area, thearea,
large surface pistontheskirtpiston
is veryskirt
effective in generating
is very effectivehydrodynamic
in generating
Benefitting
pressure. The skirt from its
friction large
can be surface
maintained area, to the
a piston
negligible skirt
level is
if very effective
solid–solid in generating
contact does not
hydrodynamic pressure. The skirt friction can be maintained to a negligible level if solid–solid contact
hydrodynamic
occur. While in pressure.
theory a The skirt friction
smoother skirt can
can be be maintained
more effectivetothan
a negligible
a rough level if solid–solid
surface in contact
minimizing
does not occur. While in theory a smoother skirt can be more effective than a rough surface in
doessolid–solid
direct not occur.contact,While in theory
it may notabesmoother skirt can betomore
tribologically effective than
anda may
rough be surface toin
minimizing direct solid–solid contact, it may not be robust foreign
tribologically robustparticles
to foreign particles prone
and may
minimizing
seizure direct
[29].toTherefore, solid–solid
it can contact, it
be argueditthat may not be tribologically robust to foreign particles and may
be prone seizure [29]. Therefore, can having
be arguedan adequate
that havinginitial
an roughness and applying
adequate initial roughness a soft
and
be prone
coating can to
be seizure
a good [29]. Therefore,
solution, it can
especially be the
since arguedexact that
borehaving an adequate
distortion and initial
piston roughness
distortion duringand
applying a soft coating can be a good solution, especially since the exact bore distortion and piston
applying
engine runninga soft arecoating
not can be a known.
completely good solution, especially since the exact
findbore distortion and piston
distortion during engine running are notThe challenge,
completely of course,
known. Theischallenge,
to theofproper
course, roughness
is to findorthe
distortion
the III during
featuresengine
Level roughness to the running
ensure are not
sufficient completely known.
hydrodynamic pressureThe challenge,
generation of course,
to support theisside
to find the
force
proper or Level III features to ensure sufficient hydrodynamic pressure generation to
proper
with roughness
maximum or the Level IIItofeatures
average to ensure sufficient hydrodynamic pressure Ingeneration to
support the side forceclearance
with maximum minimize the shear
average stressto
clearance from the lubricating
minimize the shear oil.stressthisfrom
sense,
the
support
the knowledgethe side theforce
of In Level with maximum
III features after average
break-in clearancecrucial.
to minimize the shear stress fromthe the
lubricating oil. this sense, the knowledge of thebecomes
Level III features Theafterpresent workbecomes
break-in developed crucial.
lubricating oil. In this sense, the knowledge of the Level III features after break-in becomes crucial.
The present work developed the necessary tools and showed a path to consider break-in effect for
The present work developed the necessary tools and showed a path to consider break-in effect for
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 17 of 18

necessary tools and showed a path to consider break-in effect for optimizing the skirt design. Although
the present work is focused on one type of roughness, the same methodology can be applied to other
roughness patterns.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, Z.M.; investigation, L.Z.; writing—original draft, Z.M.; writing—review
and editing, T.T.
Funding: This work was sponsored by Daimler and the Consortium on Lubrication in Internal Combustion
Engines in the Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with additional support by
Argonne National Laboratory and the US Department of Energy. The consortium members were Mahle, MTU,
PSA, Renault, Shell, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo Truck, and Weichai Power.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
α angle between the central axis of the piston and the connecting rod
λ wavelength of the tooling marks on the piston skirt
σ half of the peak-to-valley distance of the waves on the skirt without break-in
τ hydrodynamic shear stress
ϕx , ϕz flow factors for the Poiseuille term in the average Reynolds equation
ϕs flow factor for the Couette term in the average Reynolds equation
ϕf , ϕfs , ϕfp flow factors for the shear stress
Φ gauge pressure in full film region and opposite value of the void ratio in partial film region
h local distance between the liner and the skirt
h1 distance between the liner and the peak of the wave on the skirt without break-in
h2 distance between the liner and the valley of the wave on the skirt
hm average value of h over the wavelength of the skirt profile
hhk i average value of hk over the wavelength of the skirt profile
pc contact pressure
z0 worn height of the wave on the skirt
zm maximum worn height allowed
E effective Young’s modulus between the skirt coating and the liner
F indicator of full film and partial film regions
U dimensionless sliding velocity of the piston

References
1. Meng, Z. Numerical Investigation of the Piston Skirt Lubrication in Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. Ph.D.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
2. Meng, Z.; Ahling, S.; Tian, T. Modeling of Oil Transport between Piston Skirt and Cylinder Liner in Internal
Combustion Engines (No. 2019-01-0590); SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2019.
3. Meng, Z.; Ahling, S.; Tian, T. Study of the Effects of Oil Supply and Piston Skirt Profile on Lubrication Performance in
Power Cylinder Systems (No. 2019-01-2364); SAE Technical Paper: Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2019.
4. Wang, Y.; Tung, S.C. Scuffing and wear behavior of aluminum piston skirt coatings against aluminum
cylinder bore. Wear 1999, 225, 1100–1108. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, Y.; Brogan, K.; Tung, S.C. Wear and scuffing characteristics of composite polymer and nickel/ceramic
composite coated piston skirts against aluminum and cast iron cylinder bores. Wear 2001, 250, 706–717.
[CrossRef]
6. Zhang, G.; Li, W.Y.; Cherigui, M.; Zhang, C.; Liao, H.; Bordes, J.M.; Coddet, C. Structures and tribological
performances of PEEK (poly-ether-ether-ketone)-based coatings designed for tribological application.
Prog. Org. Coat. 2007, 60, 39–44. [CrossRef]
7. Deuß, T.; Ehnis, H.; Rose, R.; Künzel, R. Friction power measurements of a fired diesel engine–influence of
piston skirt coatings. MTZ Worldw. Emag. 2011, 72, 18–23. [CrossRef]
8. Moosavian, A.; Najafi, G.; Ghobadian, B.; Mirsalim, M.; Jafari, S.M.; Sharghi, P. Piston scuffing fault and its
identification in an IC engine by vibration analysis. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 102, 40–48. [CrossRef]
Lubricants 2019, 7, 98 18 of 18

9. Demas, N.G.; Erck, R.A.; Ajayi, O.O.; Fenske, G.R. Tribological studies of coated pistons sliding against
cylinder liners under laboratory test conditions. Lubr. Sci. 2012, 24, 216–227. [CrossRef]
10. Moosavian, A.; Najafi, G.; Ghobadian, B.; Mirsalim, M. The effect of piston scratching fault on the vibration
behavior of an IC engine. Appl. Acoust. 2007, 126, 91–100. [CrossRef]
11. Ogihara, H. Research into surface improvement for low friction pistons. In SAE Transactions; SAE Technical
Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2005; pp. 1182–1190.
12. Sugimura, K. Development of Piston Surface Treatment for Internal Combustion Engine. SAE Int. J.
Mater. Manuf. 2009, 1, 824–831. [CrossRef]
13. Cho, D.H.; Lee, S.A.; Lee, Y.Z. The effects of surface roughness and coatings on the tribological behavior of
the surfaces of a piston skirt. Tribol. Trans. 2009, 53, 137–144. [CrossRef]
14. Westerfield, Z.; Totaro, P.; Kim, D.; Tian, T. An Experimental Study of Piston Skirt Roughness and Profiles on
piston Friction Using the Floating Liner Engine (No. 2016-01-1043); SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA,
USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2016.
15. Dursunkaya, Z.; Keribar, R.; Ganapathy, V. A model of piston secondary motion and elastohydrodynamic
skirt lubrication. J. Tribol. 1994, 116, 777–785. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, K.; Xie, Y.B.; Gui, C.L. A comprehensive study of the friction and dynamic motion of the piston assembly.
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J J. Eng. Tribol. 1998, 212, 221–226. [CrossRef]
17. Malik, M.A.; Rashid, B.; Qasim, S.A.; Khushnood, S. Modeling and simulation of elastohydrodynamic
lubrication of piston skirts considering elastic deformation in the initial engine start-up. In ASME/STLE 2004
International Joint Tribology Conference; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2004;
pp. 859–867.
18. Duyar, M.; Bell, D.; Perchanok, M. A Comprehensive Piston Skirt Lubrication Model Using a Mass Conserving
EHL Algorithm (No. 2005-01-1640); SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2005.
19. Greenwood, J.A.; Williamson, J.P. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. In Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Royal Society: London, UK, 1966; Volume 295,
pp. 300–319.
20. Kobayashi, T. Prediction of Piston Skirt Scuffing Via 3D Piston Motion Simulation (No. 2016-01-1044); SAE
Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2016.
21. MAHLE GmbH. Pistons and Engine Testing, Stuttgart: AZ Druck and Datentechnik; MAHLE GmbH: Stuttgart,
Germany, 2012.
22. McClure, F. Numerical Modeling of Piston Secondary Motion and Skirt Lubrication in Internal Combustion
Engines. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
23. Bai, D. Modeling Piston Skirt Lubrication in Internal Combustion Engines. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012.
24. Totaro, P. Modeling Piston Secondary Motion and Skirt Lubrication with Applications. Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
25. Patir, N.; Cheng, H.S. An average flow model for determining effects of three-dimensional roughness on
partial hydrodynamic lubrication. J. Lubr. Technol. 1978, 100, 12–17. [CrossRef]
26. Elrod, H.G. A cavitation algorithm. J. Lubr. Technol. 1981, 103, 350–354. [CrossRef]
27. Patir, N.; Cheng, H.S. Application of average flow model to lubrication between rough sliding surfaces.
J. Lubr. Technol. 1979, 101, 220–229. [CrossRef]
28. Johnson, K.L. Contact Mechanics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1987.
29. Sato, O.; Takiguchi, M.; Takayuki, A.; Seki, Y.; Fujimura, K.; Tateishi, Y. Improvement of Piston Lubrication
in a Diesel Engine by Means of Cylinder Surface Roughness (No. 2004-01-0604); SAE Technical Paper; SAE:
Warrendale, PA, USA; Troy, MI, USA, 2004.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).