Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
A Study of Axle Fluid Viscosity and
Friction Impact on Axle Efficiency
Takashi Hoshino
Isuzu Motors Ltd.
Farrukh Qureshi, Nicholas Virostko, and Elizabeth Schiferl
The Lubrizol Corporation
Ananda Gajanayake, Motoji Hiroki, Tomoya Higuchi, and Keita Ishizaki
Lubrizol Japan Ltd.
CITATION: Hoshino, T., Qureshi, F., Virostko, N., Schiferl, E. et al., "A Study of Axle Fluid Viscosity and Friction Impact on Axle
Efficiency," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-0899, 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-0899.
Copyright © 2016 SAE International
Abstract
The growing need for improved fuel economy is a global challenge
due to continuously tightening environmental regulations targeting
lower CO2 emission levels via reduced fuel consumption in vehicles.
In order to reach these fuel efficiency targets, it necessitates
improvements in vehicle transmission hardware components by
applying advanced technologies in design, materials and surface
treatments etc., as well as matching lubricant formulations with
appropriate additive chemistry.
Axle lubricants have a considerable impact on fuel economy. More
importantly, they can be tailored to deliver maximum operational
efficiency over specific or wide ranges of operating conditions. The
proper lubricant technology with well-balanced chemistries can
simultaneously realize both fuel economy and hardware protection,
which are perceived to have a trade-off relationship.
In this study, Isuzu light duty truck axle, which is used in one of the
highest selling cab-over vocational trucks in the global market, was
tested on a full-scale axle test stand. The test stand was equipped with
three electric motors and equipped and axle temperature control
system. Two fluids, a commercial fluid of SAE 85W-90 (Fluid-A,
Group-I with conventional additive) and the candidate fluid of SAE
75W-90 (Fluid-B, Group-III and the viscosity index improver and the
new additive) were compared in this testing.
This work describes the impact of fluid’s viscosity grade, friction (or
traction) and additive chemistry on axle efficiency and durability
performance. Additionally detailed results and analyses of the
full-scale axle testing results will be presented.
2016-01-0899
Published 04/05/2016
Introduction
Gear lubricants are required to protect axle components under a
variety of stressed conditions such as high speed scuffing, low
speed-high torque operation, corrosion and oxidation. Concurrently,
gear lubricants must maximize torque transfer efficiency under wide
variety of operating conditions.
There are several aspects of friction and power loss that can be
attributed to the axle fluids such as viscous drag, traction and
frictional losses.
The viscous drag is attributed churning and pumping losses outside
the load zone, and is also called no load loss. Generally, fluids with
high viscosity are prone to high viscous drag and lower efficiency as
they require more energy to flow.
Traction or elastohydrodynamic (EHD) friction is the fluid’s
resistance to shear within the load zone. Fluids with high traction
coefficients hurt efficiency because they require more energy to shear
under heavily loaded conditions. With respect to the traction of base
oils, Vinci, J., et al. reported that polyalphaolefin (PAO) has the
lowest traction throughout the slide-to-roll range, followed closely by
API Group III oils; Group I and Group II mineral oils run with
appreciably higher traction coefficients [1].
Friction is caused by mating surfaces coming in contact with each other
in the mixed and boundary lubricating regimes. The fluid must provide
sufficient film thickness to separate contacting surfaces, or energy is
lost to friction. Smeeth, M., et al. reported that viscosity index
improvers (VIIs) that have polar molecular groups form much thicker
films than predicted from EHD theory in the very thin film regime [2].
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Historically, reducing the oil’s viscosity has resulted in improved fuel
economy, but lower viscosities may lead to reduced or weakened
lubricant films that fail to hold up under higher temperatures and
heavier loading conditions.
Therefore, tailored axle lubricants are needed to deliver
maximum operation efficiency in either specific or wide rages of
operating conditions.
Thermal Stability
To confirm the thermal stability, the fluids were evaluated by the
ASTM D5704 (L-60-1) test method, which is run at 162.8 °C for
50 hours using standard gears as specified in the test procedure.
The results are shown in Figure 1. These results clearly show the
cleanliness benefit of Fluid-B for sludge and varnish compared to
Fluid-A.

Experimental Result and Discussion

Fluid Description
The testing for this study was conducted on two fluids shown in Table 1.

Group-III base oil, which generally shows lower traction coefficient

than Group-I and Group-II [1], was selected for the purpose of
improving oxidation stability and fuel economy.

With respect to VII, higher viscosity index (VI) with high shear
stability is required since automotive gear oils experience a high load, Figure 1 A. ASTM D5704 (120 mL, 162.8 °C, with air bubbled through)
high shear environment in operation. Furthermore, deposit control is Fluid-A at the end of test gear surface comparison.
also vital to extend the drain interval and thus to improve axle
hardware durability. To address the above requirements, a dispersant
type ester olefin copolymer was used for Fluid-B [3, 4].

A tailored additive package, which features the new additive

technology comprising friction modifiers and an optimally balanced
extreme pressure and antiwear additive chemistries was used for
Fluid-B.

Table 1. Composition of test fluids.

Figure 1 B. ASTM D5704 (120 mL, 162.8 °C, with air bubbled through)
Fluid-B at the end of test gear surface comparison.

ASTM D2783 Extreme Pressure Properties

The viscometric properties (ASTM D445 and ASTM D2983) of two
fluids are shown in Table 2. Permanent shear loss is evaluated by 20
hour KRL test (CEC L-45-A-99).
Table 2. Test fluid viscometric properties (ASTM D445, ASTM D2983 and
CEC L-45-A-99).
Extreme-pressure property is one of the key performance parameters
for axle fluids. In this study, ASTM D2783 (four-ball method) was
used for evaluation.
Fluid-B, which has lower viscosity than Fluid-A as shown in Table 2,
showed almost identical extreme-pressure performance with that of
Fluid-A [Table 3].

Table 3. ASTM D2783 extreme pressure properties.

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Traction
Traction is the fluid’s resistance to shear within the load zone and one
of the contributors for power loss. The fluids were evaluated using a
commercially available mini traction machine (MTM) from PCS
Instruments. The friction (traction) measurements were conducted at
the rolling speed of 2.5 m/s, and at 20 °C temperature increments
between 40 °C and 120 °C, under Hertzian contact pressure of 1.0 GPa.

Figure 2 compares the traction coefficients of the fluids at 20 % slide

to roll ratio (20 % SRR) versus fluid temperatures. Figure 3 shows
the comparison versus calculated kinematic viscosities at the same
fluid temperatures.

According to Figure 3, Fluid-B showed lower traction coefficient
than Fluid-A even when the kinematic viscosities of the fluids
were identical.
Figure 4. Full-scale axle test stand configuration.
Test Axle Unit
An Isuzu light duty truck axle used in one of the highest selling
cab-over vocational trucks in the global market and with an axle ratio
is 4.55, was setup in the full-scale test stand as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 2. Traction coefficient at 20 % SRR versus fluid temperature. Figure 5. Test axle unit (axle ratio 4.55).

Test Conditions
A conventional break-in procedure (100 hours, total 9,230 km) was
used before axle testing for lubrication evaluation commenced.

Following the break-in procedure, the fluids were evaluated for axle
efficiencies in multiple combinations of speed (from 400 rpm to 3,600
rpm at the pinion) and load (from no-load to 1,800 Nm as input
torque) corresponding to a broad range of driving conditions. The
most severe conditions were equivalent to climbing 8 % steep slope
with full load at 100 km/h speed. Fluid temperatures were set to 45 °C
and 80 °C.

No-Load Power Loss (Spin Loss)

Figure 6 shows a comparison of the fluids on no-load power loss
Figure 3. Traction coefficient at 20 % SRR versus calculated kinematic (spin loss) measured at 9 different pinion speeds and 2 different fluid
viscosities at the same fluid temperatures. temperatures (total 18 test conditions). Accordingly, Fluid-B showed
consistently lower no load loss than Fluid-A. This benefit was larger
Efficiency Study of Axle Unit Test at 45 °C than at 80 °C. The results indicate that viscosity has apparent
and considerable impact on the no load loss.
Test Stand Configuration
A full-scale axle test stand having three electric motors and equipped
with an axle temperature control system as outlined in schematics of
Figure 4, was used to simulate a variety of operating conditions. The
accuracy of this test stand is ± 0.01 % at full scale.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Figure 6. No-load power loss versus pinion speeds (18 operating conditions). Figure 8. Power loss behavior of load condition at 45 °C versus input torque at
different pinion speeds (9 operating conditions).
Figure 7, which shows the behavior of no-load power loss against
kinematic viscosity very clearly as a linear correlation, is providing a
better understanding on the viscosity impact on the no-load power loss.

Figure 9. Power loss behavior of load condition at 80 °C versus input torque at

different pinion speed (16 operating conditions).

Figure 7. The correlation between kinematic viscosity and spin loss. Hollow
Gear Loss
symbols are the results of Fluid-A, and solid symbols are the results of Fluid-B. As described above, the power loss under no-load conditions is
predominantly governed by fluid viscosity differences.
Power Loss under Load Conditions
In order to optimize the design of axle fluid, it is also important to
Two sets of representative test conditions of different pinion speeds
understand the key factors behind the power loss under load
and axle loading combinations pertaining to the two axle
conditions.
temperatures of 45 °C and 80 °C were selected for understanding the
actual efficiency difference between Fluid-A and Fluid-B.
Therefore, the gear loss portion of power loss was isolated by
defining it as the difference between load loss and no-load loss (Gear
Following their test runs, Figure 8 shows power loss results at 45 °C
loss = Load loss - No load loss).
corresponding to 9 test conditions, and Figure 9 shows power loss
results at 80 °C corresponding to 16 test conditions.
Following that the data set selected from Figure 9 corresponding to
16 operating conditions was used to determine gear loss. This is
According to the overall test results, Fluid-B showed lower power
shown in Figure 10, where Fluid-B showed overall lower gear losses
loss than Fluid-A, and the benefit became greater with increased
than Fluid-A.
severity in load, speed and temperature conditions.
Barton, W., et al. reported that FZG spur gear efficiency is
significantly impacted by the traction coefficient of the fluid [4].
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
Therefore, the gear loss difference may be due to traction coefficient.
This topic will be described later in detail.
Figure 10. Gear loss behavior of load condition at 80 °C versus input torque at
different pinion speeds (16 operating conditions).
Numerical Study on Stabilized Fluid Temperature
Very high axle fluid temperatures will lead to hardware durability
concerns as well as rapid degradation of fluids and hence, suppressing
the axle fluid temperature rise in severe operating conditions is
always desirable. Therefore, measurements were made at 7 test
conditions when the axle temperature became stable.
In order to understand about key factors causing fluid temperature
rise, below-described numerical study was conducted by
hypothesizing that stabilized axle fluid temperature is basically
related to the input power and the power loss.
As shown in Figure 11, a linear correlation between stabilized fluid
temperature and input power (kW), which is defined as input torque
(Nm) * pinion speed (rpm) * 2π / 60 / 1,000, could be confirmed.
Accordingly, Fluid-B showed notably lower stabilized fluid
temperature than Fluid-A in the range of 5 ∼ 10 °C.
Figure 11. The correlation between stabilized fluid temperature and power loss.
Furthermore, the reason for Fluid-B showed lower stabilized fluid
temperatures than Fluid-A is due to high efficiency (or low power
loss) of Fluid-B as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. The correlation between delta stabilized fluid temperature (A - B)
and delta power loss (A - B).
Numerical Study on Efficiency
An axle is a complicated mechanical assembly unit composed of
multiple components such as: hypoid gear, differential gears, tapered
roller bearings, etc. As such, it is valuable to understand about key
factors contributing to axle unit efficiency improvement to be used as
a helpful guide for axle unit design and axle fluid development.
For this part of the study, our focus was to establish an empirical
relationship between axle unit efficiency (or power loss), which is
defined as (input power - output power) / input power, and the
parameters that have shown considerable impact on power loss as
described in the previous sections: fluid viscosity, pinion speed and
pinion torque.
Lubricant parameter #1 (LP1) was defined as Kinematic viscosity
(cSt) * Pinion speed (rpm) / Pinion torque (Nm).
Figure 13 shows the % power loss versus LP1 relationship. But, we
could not see a good correlation there.
These data points include calculated kinematic viscosity values based
on bulk fluid temperature. Bulk fluid temperature would be different
than the fluid temperature in an around the gear contact, as a result
the calculated viscosity would be different than actual viscosity to
some extent.
Therefore, the impact of the kinematic viscosity of lubricant
parameter was adjusted as below.
• Lubricant parameter #2 (LP2) = KV0.7 * Pinion speed / Pinion
torque
• Lubricant parameter #3 (LP3) = KV0.25 * Pinion speed / Pinion
torque
• Lubricant parameter #4 (LP4) = Pinion speed / Pinion torque
It was found that reducing the impact of kinematic viscosity
improved the model fit to experimental data. LP3 (KV0.25) shows the
best model fit in this study [Figure 14, 15, 16].
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Figure 13. The correlation between LP1 and % power loss which is defined as Figure 16. The correlation between LP4 and % power loss.
(input power - output power) / input power * 100.
As shown in Figure 17, two optimized approximate lines for Fluid-A
and Fluid-B can be drawn and described as in below equations

• Fluid-A; y = exp (-0.50 Ln x + 0.35) + 0.050 x + 1.09

• Fluid-B; y = exp (-0.59 Ln x + 0.29) + 0.056 x + 0.93

Figure 14. The correlation between LP2 and % power loss.

Figure 15. The correlation between LP3 and % power loss.

Lastly, the regression curve fittings for Fluid-A and Fluid-B were
conducted based on Lubricant parameter #3 (LP3) model. Figure 17. The curve fit of % power loss against LP3.

Though it still requires more detailed data analysis, we could confirm

that the curved profile of Figure 17 is seemingly resembling the Stribeck
curve. The % power loss in the region of low lubricant parameter may
corresponds to the traction as shown in Figure 2 and 3 [4].
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Summary and Conclusion References

We conducted a fundamental study to understand how viscosity, EHD
friction and additive chemistry impact axle efficiency. The following
are the four significant findings:
1. The tailored SAE 75W-90 Fluid-B showed better efficiency
under a wide range of simulated driving conditions than SAE
85W-90 Fluids-A without compromising extreme pressure
performance.
2. Fluid-B showed 5 ∼ 10 °C lower stabilized fluid temperature in
the multiple driving conditions than Fluid-A.
3. Numerical study confirmed that the stabilized fluid temperature
was mainly affected by power loss.
4. When we use the lubricant parameter #3 (KV0.25 * Pinion speed
/ Pinion torque, LP3), we could confirm a good correlation
between LP3 and % power loss resembling the Stribeck curve.
1. Vinci, J., Grisso, B., Schenkenberger, C., Qureshi, F. et al.,
"Systematic Formulation of Efficient and Durable Axle
Lubricants for Light Trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles," SAE
Technical Paper 2004-01-3030, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-3030.
2. Smeeth, M., Spikes, H., Gunsel, S., “Boundary Film Formation
by Viscosity Index Improvers” Tribology Transactions, 39:3,
726-734,1996.
3. Barton, W., Payne, J., Baker, M., O'Connor, B. et al., "Impact of
Viscosity Modifiers on Gear Oil Efficiency and Durability," SAE
Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 5(1):470-479, 2012, doi:10.4271/2011-01-2128.
4. Barton, W., Knapton, D., Baker, M., Rose, A. et al., "Impact
of Viscosity Modifiers on Gear Oil Efficiency and Durability:
Part II," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 6(2):295-310, 2013,
doi:10.4271/2013-01-0299.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process
requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2016-01-0899