SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2001-01-0669

Characterization of the Dynamic Response of

a Cylinder Deactivation Valvetrain System
Quan Zheng
Delphi Automotive Systems

Reprinted From: Variable Valve Actuation 2001

(SP–1599)

SAE 2001 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 5-8, 2001

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Characterization of the Dynamic Response of a Cylinder
Deactivation Valvetrain System
Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a theoretical and experimental study
of a cylinder deactivation valvetrain system for the
integration into an Engine Management System (EMS).
A control-oriented lumped parameter model of the
deactivation valvetrain system is developed and
implemented using Matlab/Simulink, and validated by
experimental data. Through simulation and experimental
data analysis, the effect of operating conditions on the
dynamic response is captured and characterized, over a
wide range of operating conditions. The algorithm
provides a basis for the calibration of the deactivation
hardware. The generic characterization of the dynamic
response can simplify the calibration parameters for the
implementation in engine management systems.
INTRODUCTION
Automobile manufacturers and suppliers have been
looking for new technologies to improve fuel economy.
Cylinder deactivation is one of the technologies that
improve fuel economy, the objective of which is to
reduce engine pumping losses under certain vehicle
operating conditions. Mercedes-Benz is the most recent
automotive manufacturer to offer cylinder deactivation,
which is also called cylinder cut-out [1]. Prior systems
such as Cadillac V-8-6-4 and Mitsubishi MIVEC were
impeded by deficiencies in the caliber of engine controls
available at that time. Other manufacturers and suppliers
have been working on different cylinder deactivation
systems in order to meet the stringent CAFE (Corporate
Average Fuel Economy) requirements in the US.
Delphi Automotive Systems has developed valvetrain
systems for the application of cylinder deactivation
technology. Hardware for the cylinder deactivation
system exists for both individual cylinder control mode or
complete bank control mode. An OHV (Over Head
Valve) V8 cam-in-block (pushrod), 2-valve-per-cylinder
1
2001-01-0669
Quan Zheng
Delphi Automotive Systems
valvetrain engine is used as a test engine for the
deactivation mechanism. Cylinder selection for
deactivation is determined by engine firing order and the
desire to keep an even firing order in the deactivated
mode. This results in two cylinders from each bank
being selected for activation/deactivation.
In bank control mode both cylinders of each bank are
switched at the same time. In cylinder control mode,
each cylinder is switched independently. Cylinder
control mode requires four control valves compared to
two control valves for bank control mode. The operating
window for cylinder control mode (intake valve opening
to exhaust valve opening of a cylinder) is 180 crank
degrees greater than the operating window for bank
control mode (intake valve opening of one cylinder to
exhaust valve opening of the second cylinder). This
virtual doubling of the switching window for individual
cylinder control permits mode switching at higher RPM
and increases robustness to variation.
ALGORITHM PURPOSE
One critical aspect of integrating this valvetrain system
into vehicles is the characterization of the deactivation
valvetrain performance over a wide range of vehicle
operating conditions. Therefore, the cylinder deactivation
hardware dynamic model based control algorithm has
been developed to characterize the dynamic response of
the deactivation hardware system. Proper understanding
and characterization of the hardware system can aid the
EMS control algorithm design for cylinder deactivation,
and provide a basis for system calibration and
robustness enhancement.
Figure 1 shows the diagram of the cylinder deactivation
hardware system model structure. The control algorithm
for cylinder deactivation issues the solenoid actuation
command, Vsol. There are three subsystems in this
deactivation hardware system: solenoid valves, hydraulic
subsystem, and the lifter locking pin mechanism. When
the solenoid valve in the system is energized, the engine
oil pressure increases in the control port. At the same
time, the lifters are in continuous contact with the
camshaft. When a lifter is on the cam base circle, the
locking pins inside that lifter are free to move. If the
control port is pressurized while in this state, then the
pressure force acts on the pins, de-coupling the
camshaft from the valves.
For EMS control purposes, it is crucial to know the
dynamic responses of the deactivation hardware system
in order to coordinate the deactivation hardware control
with other engine control functions. Specifically, the total
actuation time is critical for proper design and control of
the EMS deactivation system. The total actuation time
consists of three elements: the solenoid plunger
response time, the hydraulic subsystem response time
and the lifter locking pin mechanical response time.
Characterization of the total actuation time is not easily
achieved given the fact that laboratory testing cannot
encompass every possible engine operating condition.
Therefore, one objective of this study is to develop a
high fidelity, yet simple enough analytical model in order
to characterize the dynamic behavior of the deactivation
hardware system. This physical model can provide
guidance in calibrating the deactivation timing and
improving robustness of the system.
MODEL OF CYLINDER DEACTIVATON
HARDWARE SYSTEM
As mentioned earlier, two types of cylinder deactivation
systems have been developed, i.e. bank control and
individual cylinder control. These two systems have
been implemented in the test engine, where 4 cylinders
are deactivated under certain operating conditions. In
the following section, the details of the dynamic model of
the deactivation hardware system for individual cylinder
Engine
Cylinder
Deactivation
Hardware
ECU Cylinder Deactivation hardware
dynamic model
Cylinder Vsol Solenoid Xsp
Deactivation system
Control model
Estimated control port pressure
Estimated locking pin motion
Figure 1 Diagram of cylinder deactivation hardware model
2
control are given. This model can also be modified easily
to represent the dynamic response of a bank control
deactivation hardware system.
Figure 2 shows the fluid network model of the individual
cylinder control deactivation hardware system. A 3-way
normally closed direct current ON/OFF solenoid valve
controls cylinder deactivation. The common port of the
control valve is connected via an oil gallery to a pair of
spring-biased locking pins inside the valve lifter (a
simplified sketch is shown in Figure 4 later). The
common port is then switched to engine oil pressure for
deactivation (valve energized) or to engine sump for
activation (valve de-energized). Lost motion between
the camshaft and the engine valve occurs when engine
oil pressure is applied to the spring-biased locking pins
inside the lifter, de-coupling the camshaft from the
engine valve.
The locking pins inside the deactivation lifter are
designed to change states only on the base circle of the
camshaft. It is desirable to control the switching
sequence of the valves cylinder-by-cylinder and to
complete the transition between V8 and V4 modes within
one engine cycle. These requirements define the
switching window of the base circle, the size of which is
dependent on the number of cylinders switched at the
same time, the cam profile and the firing order of the
engine. As the exhaust valve must deactivate/re-
activate first, the switching must occur after the intake
event begins but before the exhaust event commences.
For this specific application, the deactivated cylinders
are 1, 4, 6 and 7. Therefore, the control volumes in the
model are labeled with 1, 4, 6 and 7 as subscripts
respectively. For other applications, the diagram can be
easily modified to represent the specific design. The 3-
way ON/OFF solenoid in each control port is
represented by a switch.
Supply
pressure
Hydraulic Pc Lifter
system locking pin
model model
The control volumes are filled through orifices labeled X sp Solenoid spool motion
with asc1 , representing the orifice area. When the X pin Locking pin motion
solenoid is energized, the corresponding control volume
A block diagram representation of the cylinder
is connected to the supply oil gallery through an orifice
deactivation hardware system model is shown in Figure
with area asc 2 . The locking pin motion is determined by 3. The lumped parameter model derivation is given
two input factors: one is the control pressure, the other is below.
the corresponding cam position. The locking pins can
only move when the roller sits on the base circle of the
cam. Therefore, the pin motion is governed by both time SOLENOID SUBSYSTEM
domain factors such as pressure characteristics at the
control port, and the crank angle domain factor such as A typical solenoid consists of a plunger, a spring, a coil,
crank position. The symbols used in the diagram and and a pole piece. The plunger dynamics can be
then later in the model equations are as follows: represented by Equation (1).
asc1 Control volume charge orifice ⋅⋅ ⋅
msp ⋅ x sp + Bsp ⋅ x sp + K sp ⋅ xsp = FEMF − Ff − Fpreload (1)
asc 2 Solenoid opening area when it is energized
act Control volume to tank orifice when the solenoid Solenoid electric circuit:
is de-energized
∂i ∂L( x ) dx
v = R ⋅ i (t ) + L(x ) + i (t )
th
Pci , Pi i cylinder control port pressure ⋅ (2)
∂t ∂x dt
Ps , Psupply Supply pressure
th
Vi i control volume
Vsol Solenoid excitation voltage

Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

lifter 7 lifter 7 lifter 1 lifter 1

Psupply

asc1 asc1
V7 Vsupply V1
asc2 asc2
P7 Solenoid 6 Solenoid 4 P1
act
act
asc2 P6 P4 asc2
asc1 asc1
Solenoid 7 V6 V4 Solenoid 1
act
act

Intake Exhaust Intake Exhaust

lifter 6 lifter 6 lifter 4 lifter 4

Figure 2 Cylinder Deactivation Hardware Fluid Network Model

Tcoil air_ratio Ps Toil

Vsol Xsp Pc Xpin

Gsol(s) Gh(s) Gp(s)

Solenoid Hydraulic Lifter pin

subsystem subsystem subsystem

Figure 3 Block diagram of deactivation hardware model

3
 2(Ps1 − Pc1 ) (6)
Electro-Magnetic-Force: Qsc1 = Cq ⋅ asc1 ⋅
ρ
2 µ 0πN 2 i 2 (3)
FEMF =
2(Ps1 − Pc1 )
⋅ u (t − t sol1 )
2
 4 x sp lg  Qsc 2 = Cq ⋅ asc 2 ⋅ (7)
 +  ρ
 d d + lg 
 
V1 = V10 + a pin ⋅ x pin _ in ⋅ u (t − t1in ) + a pin ⋅ x pin _ ex ⋅ u (t − t1ex )
where
(8)
msp is the mass of solenoid plunger
where
Bsp is the damping coefficient of solenoid plunger
K sp is the spring coefficient of solenoid plunger
Ps1 is the supply pressure at the control volume 1,
spring assuming equal to Ps
FEMF is the electro-magnetic force u is a step function, i.e.
0 t < t sol1
Ff is the fluid force u (t − t sol1 ) =  (9)
1 t ≥ t sol1
Fpreload is the solenoid spring preload
t sol1 is the time instant when solenoid 1 is energized
R is the solenoid coil resistance
i is the solenoid coil current t1in is the time instant when the intake lifter 1 sits on the
L is the solenoid coil inductance cam base circle, and is a function of crank timing
v is the solenoid coil excitation voltage t1ex is the time instant when the exhaust lifter 1 sits on
µ0 is the air permeability the cam base circle, and is a function of crank
timing
d is the diameter of solenoid plunger
βe is the equivalent bulk modulus of the engine oil.
lg is the air gap
Assuming the air in the engine oil is homogeneous,
xsp is the solenoid plunger displacement then the equivalent bulk modulus can be calculated
N is the solenoid coil turns by [2]:
1 1 1 (10)
= +υ
βe βf βg
If the design parameters are given, the dynamic
response of the solenoid can be characterized by the where β f is the bulk modulus of the engine oil, β g is
above equations. For any given solenoid, the dynamic
the adiabatic bulk modulus, which is 1.4P for air. υ is
response of the solenoid can be identified by step
the air ratio, i.e. the ratio of air volume to the total
response tests and frequency response tests. One
volume.
critical aspect for the system implementation of cylinder
deactivation is that the design parameters change with Qleak is the leakage flow, and is given by [3]
operating conditions such as temperature. The coil
Qleak =
(Crad )3 ⋅ ∆P ⋅ dm ⋅ π (11)
temperature can be approximated by oil temperature. If
12 µ m ⋅ l
ignoring the fluid force effect, the solenoid plunger
response time can be characterized by: where
Crad is the radial clearance
∆t sol = f1 (v, Toil ) (4) dm
is the ratio of clearance’s mean diameter to the land
l
HYDRAULIC SUBSYSTEM length
µm is the mean absolute viscosity
The hydraulic subsystem can be modeled with various
complexities. In this study, lumped-parameter modeling If assuming the supply oil gallery has uniform pressure
analysis is used. Supply pressure Ps is measured and as Ps , then equation (8) can be modified as follows to
thus can be treated as input to the hydraulic subsystem take into account the pressure fluctuation as a result of
model. The flow continuity equation for control volume 1 intake and exhaust lifter locking pins moving at different
can be written as: time instants.

dV1 (t ) V1 (t ) dP1 (5)

Qsc1 + Qsc 2 − Qleak = + ⋅
dt β e dt

4
 V1 = V10 + a pin ⋅ ∑x ipin _ in ⋅ u (t − tiin ) level, is called the locking pin response time ∆t p , which
i =1, 4 , 6 , 7
can be characterized by:
∑ xipin _ ex ⋅ u (t − t jex )
(10)
+ a pin ⋅
j =1, 4 , 6 , 7 ∆t p = f 3 (Pc , Toil ) (18)

The time it takes for the control pressure to rise to a Further simplification of equation (17) is achieved by
critical pressure level (determined by design criteria) is ignoring the higher order dynamics. Experimental
the hydraulic system response time ∆t h , which can be results are compared with a zero-order, a first-order and
characterized by: a second-order model. The comparison indicated that a
zero-order model is good enough to represent the
∆t h = f 2 (Ps , Toil ) (11)
system dynamic behavior. Details of the comparison are
presented in the next section.

The total response time of the deactivation hardware

LOCKING PIN MECHANICAL SUBSYSTEM system is then defined as:

The lifter locking pins are a mass-spring-damper system Q = ∆t sol + ∆t h + ∆t p (19)

as shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4(b), the dynamic
equations of the two pins are derived below:

 ⋅⋅ ⋅
 m pin ⋅ x1 + B pin ⋅ x1 + K pin ⋅ (x1 + x2 ) = F1 (12)
 ⋅⋅ ⋅
m pin ⋅ x2 + B pin ⋅ x2 + K pin ⋅ (x1 + x2 ) = F2

Kpin
The transfer functions relating x1 and x2 to the input
mpin
forces F1 and F2 are as follows: Pc

x1 (s ) =
(m pin )
s 2 + B pins + K pin ⋅ F1 ( s) − K pin ⋅ F2 ( s) (13)
m s + 2 B pinm pin s 3 + B pin
2
pin
4 2
(
+ 2 K pinm pin s 2 + 2 K pin B pin )

x2 (s ) =
(m pin )
s 2 + B pin s + K pin ⋅ F2 ( s ) − K pin ⋅ F1 ( s ) (14) xpin

m s + 2 B pin m pin s + B
2
pin
4 3
( 2
pin )
+ 2 K pin m pin s + 2 K pin B pin
2

(a)
F1 = Pc ⋅ a pin − Fpreload (15)
F2 = (Pc ⋅ a pin − Fpreload ) ⋅ u (t − T )
Kpin
(16)
mpin
F1 F2
where Fpreload is the pin spring preload, T is the time
delay between pressure forces F1 and F2, and s is the
−Ts
≈ 1.
x1 x2
Laplace operator. If T is small enough, then e
Then the pin motion equations are simplified as:
(b)
x1 (s ) = − x2 (s ) = ⋅ F1 (s )
1 (17)
m pin s 2 + B pin s + 2 K pin Figure 4 (a) Locking pin mechanism (b) Locking pin
model diagram
Equation (17) indicates that if the fluid enters the left
hand side of the pin fast enough, i.e. the fluid force SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
acting on both pins simultaneously, the double pin spring
system can be modeled by a simplified one pin system
with twice the equivalent spring constant. The cylinder deactivation hardware model is developed
in Matlab/Simulink environment. Laboratory and vehicle
The time it takes for the pins to move to the full travel data were taken to validate the simulation model. In this
point (determined by the design criteria) from the time section, sample results of bank control and individual
when the control pressure rises to the critical pressure cylinder control simulation and test data, and pin motion
model validations are presented.

5
BANK CONTROL Comparison of simulation and experimental results

350
Pc1 (measured)

In the bank control configuration, a two-stage pilot- 300

operated spool valve is used. The system model for this
configuration is similar to that derived in the previous 250

section for the individual cylinder control case. The

P ressure (kPa)
Supply
modeling details are ignored here. The simulation model 200 pressure
(measured)
for bank control cylinder deactivation hardware system is
150
validated via vehicle test results as shown in Figure 5.
Pc1 (simulated)
100
Comparison of experimental and simulation results
350
50

300
0

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

250 Time (s)

Supply pressure
P ressure (kPa)

(Experimental)
200
Figure 6 Comparison of simulation and experimental
Common pressure
150
(Simulation) results
Common pressure
(Experimental)
Simulation results with aeration effect
100

P (experimental) Supply pressure (simulation input)

c ommon 300
50
P (experimental)
s upply
P (simulation)
c ommon
0 250
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Time (second)
200
P ressure (kPa)

Pc1

Figure 5 Bank control: comparison of simulation and 150

0.05%
air Pc1 (10% air)
experimental data Pc1 (5% air)

100
Pc1 (2% air)

INDIVIDUAL CYLINDER CONTROL Pc1 (1% air)

50

Figure 6 shows sample simulation results together with 0

0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
bench test results for cylinder control mode. As shown in Time (s)
the figure, the simulation result for the control pressure
Pc1 is very close to the measured pressure. In the Figure 7 Sample simulation results of aeration effect
simulation, the supply pressure test data is used as input
to the simulation. The comparison indicates that the
simulation model captures the dominant dynamics of the PIN MOTION MODEL VALIDATION
deactivation hardware system, and the model can be
used in EMS algorithm design for cylinder deactivation. It is very difficult to measure the pin motions (inside the
lifters) directly. Therefore, a piston–spring fixture was set
Figure 7 shows the simulation results assuming various up in order to validate the pin motion model separately.
levels of air entrainment in the hydraulic system. Air The pressure applied to the pin is controlled, as well as
entrainment is difficult or expensive to measure. But its the oil temperature.
effect can be detrimental for the system implementation.
With 10% air entrained in the system, the hydraulic Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the comparisons of
response time slows down dramatically. This effect has simulation and experimental results of the pin motions
to be considered during system implementation to avoid under different operating conditions. The simulation
hardware damage. The algorithm provides an analytical results match the experimental results well. However,
tool to quantify the air-entrainment effect, and aid the this validation is not ideal. Better instrumentation is
EMS deactivation algorithm development. needed to validate the pin motion models. It is also
important to note that the parameters selected for the pin
fixture have to represent the real pin-spring design.

6
 Case1: 30C, 207 kPa pressure hardware system, as well as a basis for integration into
Pin position (mm)
3 EMS algorithm design. Through model analysis, the
variation of the dynamic response of the hardware
2
system under a wide range of engine operating
1 conditions can be captured and characterized, which in
Simulation
Experiment
turn aids the EMS algorithm design. In addition, the
0 analytical model development method presented in this
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
paper is rather generic and can be easily adapted to
Case2: 30C, 448 kPa pressure
3
other applications with similar configurations.
Pin position (mm)

2 Future work includes validating the aeration effect

prediction, pin motion model validation with better
1
Simulation
instrumentation and real-time implementation of the
0
Experiment algorithm.
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time (second)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figure 8 Pin motion model validation: 30 °C
The author acknowledges gratefully the technical and
Case3: 120C, 297 kPa pressure testing support of Delphi engineering teams at Technical
3 Center Rochester and Technical Center Brighton,
especially James P. Waters, Daniel P. O’Neill, Peter H.
Pin position (mm)

2
Maehling and Shireen Smith for valuable input on the
1
technical content of the paper, David Troiani and Mark
Simulation
Experiment
Lott for extensive test support. The author also would
0 like to thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Case4: 120C, 448 kPa pressure

3 CONTACT
Pin position (mm)

Dr. Quan Zheng is a project engineer at Delphi

1
Simulation Automotive Systems, Technical Center Brighton, 12501
0
Experiment
E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116. Email:
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
quan.zheng@delphiauto.com
Time (second)

Figure 9 Pin motion model validation: 120 °C REFERENCES

1. Jost, K., “Mercedes-Benz launches cylinder cutout,”

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK Automotive Engineering International, January
1999, pp. 38-39.
This paper presents theoretical and experimental study 2. Merritt, H. E., “Hydraulic Control Systems,” John
of the dynamic response of a cylinder deactivation Wiley & Sons, 1967.
hardware system. The dynamic response is 3. Yeaple, F., “Fluid Power Design Handbook,” Third
characterized by a physical model. Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1996.

The model provides an analytical tool for understanding

the dynamic response of the cylinder deactivation