Camshaft Lobe Design

Anugerah Pradana Mulya

Camshaft lobes are designed by starting with the lift curve, and working backwards to
determine the lobe shape that will produce the lift curve. For this reason, we need to learn a
bit more about lift curves before we can discuss how lobes are designed. The graph at right
shows the lift curve that was measured for a stock Triumph TR4 camshaft. For cam design,
not only is the lift curve important, but also several derivatives of the curve. The first
derivative of the lift (slope of lift curve) is the velocitymeasured in inches or mm per cam
degree. Of course, this is not a true velocity; however, if you multiply it by 6 times the
camshaft speed (in RPM) you get the true velocity in in/sec or mm/sec. The second
derivative of the lift curve (slope of velocity curve) is the acceleration in inches or mm per
degree2. The derivative of the acceleration is calledjerk. The derivative of jerk has several
different names, we prefersnap. We can keep going and define crackle and pop as
well. These higher derivatives become
increasingly esoteric. The most important
derivatives are the velocity, acceleration
and jerk. For a review of these concepts,
check Calculus 101.
The graph at left is a smoothed version of
the one above with four areas of the profile
indicated. Since this cam is symmetric,
only the left side is plotted. The portions
of the curve are: (1) constant velocity ramp,

(2) high acceleration flank, (3) low acceleration or near constant velocity flank, and (4)
nose. All cams will have nose and high acceleration flanks. Probably all cams since 1930
have had ramps, usually with constant velocity. Some cams have a low acceleration portion
on the flank to give a near constant velocity, while some do not have this feature.
There are constraints on many of the lift curve parameters. For a flat tappet cam, the
maximum velocity is limited by the diameter of the tappet. The maximum acceleration and
minimum acceleration are limited by the valve springs, contact stresses (radius of curvature)
and overall valve train compliance. Jerk also influences the valve train dynamics, but is of
lesser importance than acceleration. Our discussion of valve springs shows the importance of
acceleration. The discussion of valve train dynamicsshows the importance of acceleration
and jerk.
The drawing at the right shows a
cam lobe and lifter at 45 cam
degrees. The lift curve for this
particular cam shows a velocity of
0.00595
in/deg
at
this
position. Multiplying the velocity
by (180/) gives the radial point of
contact between the lifter and the
lobe, or 0.341 inches in this
example. This relationship between
the lifter and point of contact limits
the velocity for a flat lifter cam. A
safety factor is required to account
for edge chamfer and possible
misalignment and cock of the lifter,
so generally the velocity is limited
to:
v < (/180)(Rlifter - 0.025)
Roller cams do not have this limitation on velocity and that is their principal
advantage. However, roller cams impose heavy restrictions on acceleration in order to avoid
a lobe with convex flanks.
For a flat tappet cam, the radius of curvature is related to other cam parameters as follows:
Rc = Rb + L + a*(180/)2
where Rb is the base circle radius, L is lift and a is acceleration. The base circle and lift are
positive and their sum normally approximates the radius of the cam bearings. Acceleration is
positive on the flank and negative at the nose. The nose radius must be large enough to
prevent excessive contact stresses due to a small nose radius. This requirement indirectly
limits the magnitude of deceleration at the nose. The nose deceleration is also the most
important parameter determining the size of the valve springs.
The velocity, acceleration and deceleration rates, and jerk all have some approximate limiting
values. Positive acceleration and jerk do not have hard and fast limits, so valve train

dynamics or physical experimentation may be required to establish firm limits. For purposes
of lobe design we assume we know the limits and wish to design the best lobe within those
constraints.
The methods used to design cam profiles are often closely guarded company secrets. It
seems those that guard their methods most closely, like to refer to them only as
"modern". Most likely, they are using polynomial design methods that are over 60 years
old. Nevertheless, enough sketchy information is available to follow the general trends of
usage. The most popular methods for designing cam profiles has changed over the
years. The early design methods are discussed on the Cam Design Historypage, while
currently used methods are described here.
The most important deficiency of some of the early design methods is that they gave jump
discontinuities in acceleration, i.e. infinite jerk. Infinite jerk tends to trigger vibrations in the
valve train. Most engines prior to 1950, especially those in the US, were flatheads (side
valve, L head) and relatively slow turning, < 4500 RPM. A flathead valve train is very
stiff. Harmonic profiles with infinite jerk were not a problem with these engines. When
higher revving OHV engines appeared cam profiles with infinite jerk fell from favor (see Jerk
is it Important?).
After methods with infinite jerk were abandoned in the early 1950's, the most popular method
seems to have become methods based on incomplete polynomials. Although some might
refer to this as a "modern" design method, the idea has been around for more than 60 years.
(see Dudley). The equation below is typical of the type used by these methods.

Usually n = 2 or 3. 2a0 is the value for acceleration and 24a1 is the value for snap at = 0, so
inclusion of these parameters helps to provide a nose of proper shape. Some of the other
parameters are specified by endpoint conditions, while the others are chosen by the
designer. The exponents, c + id, are generally quite large, usually > 10. Typical values
might be 10, 12 and 14 or 12, 16, 18. We call this an incomplete polynomial, because unlike
a normal polynomial approximation, it skips intermediate values of the exponents. This
method has a number of deficiencies. It is difficult to use until the designer develops some
experience, because he is forced to choose design parameters, polynomial exponents, that
have no clear connection to the physical system. Consequently, imposing limits on velocity,
acceleration and jerk is difficult. The method does not provide enough flexibility in the
choice of shape. Despite these limitations, this method is still widely used, because it is
simple to apply.
More recently, splines have also been used to develop cam profiles. We were surprised to
learn that the earliest references for their use in cam design is in 1985 (see McCarthy and
Burns). Splines are the mathematical equivalent of a french curve. They provide almost
unlimited flexibility. In fact, as they are normally applied, they provide too much
flexibility. Splines represent the lift curve as a number of functions, usually polynomials,
that are pieced together. The designer divides the domain into subintervals by specifying a

series of "knots" at various cam angles. The profile is represented as a polynomial within
each subinterval. Depending on the order of the spline, various derivatives are matched at the
knots where two polynomials come together. For example, the simplest spline uses quadratic
polynomials, with first derivatives matched at the knots. A quadratic spline will have a
discontinuity in the second derivatives at the knots. This means velocity will be continuous,
but acceleration will have jumps at the knots, i.e. infinite jerk. A cubic spline (3rd degree)
has continuous second derivatives (acceleration) and a quartic spline (4th degree) has
continuous third derivatives (jerk). A quintic spline (5th degree) has continuous snap, etc.
Splines are a definite improvement over polynomial lift curves, but the normal method of
application is cumbersome for the designer. He has almost too much flexibility. He must
first select the number and location of the knots. Experience is required to make this
selection effectively. He must then assign values of the lift parameters at the knots. The
problem is inherently underspecified, i.e. there are more unknowns than equations or
specifications. It would be much better if the designer could just say "design a cam with the
following limits on lift, velocity, acceleration and jerk". We will outline how to do this.
However, we first describe an innovative method that has been forgotten.

The curves at the right are for aTriple Curve Contour as presented in 1934 (seeBouvy,
Turkish). This method can be classified as a spline method, although it has never been
described that way previously. It represents the lift curve by a combination of quadratic
splines and an harmonic nose. Consequently, for the quadratic intervals, the velocity is linear
and the acceleration is constant. An important feature is that it allows the designer to directly
impose constraints on the acceleration and velocity. A key difference between this and most
spline techniques is that the knot locations are determined during the calculation, they are not
preselected.
The Triple Curve method is conceptually quite simple. Assume the duration, maximum
velocity, acceleration and deceleration are given. The width of the acceleration flank and the
nose are calculated from the maximum velocity. The total width is specified by the duration,

so the width of the constant velocity flank is gotten by difference. This calculation will give
the maximum lift for the given set of constraints together with an harmonic nose. A constant
deceleration nose with the same deceleration limit will give slightly more lift, but a smaller
minimum radius of curvature and higher contact stresses. If the lift is constraining, then one
of the other constraints is relaxed. The method was described only for the case with a
constant velocity flank. If the duration is short or the tappet diameter is large there will be no
dwell at the maximum velocity, so a simple iterative solution is required to determine the
point of reversal in acceleration.
The Triple Curve method was used by Ford starting in the late 1940's (see History). The
curves at the above right are for the 1949-51 Mercury flathead V8 (designated as
8CM). Hollingsworth and Hodges describe the same method, but they called it KCARC. It
appears that Cosworth also used constant acceleration profiles.
The Triple Curve method meets almost all of our requirements, since it allows us to directly
specify constraints on velocity, acceleration and deceleration. Its only deficiency is that it has
infinite jerk at the knots. In a short paragraph at the end of his article in 1934, Bouvy gives a
brief description of an extension with finite jerk. He simply replaced the jumps in
acceleration by a blend region with linear acceleration or constant jerk. This extension to
cubic splines is conceptually
simple and it gives exactly the
characteristics we want, i.e.
the direct imposition of
constraints
on
velocity,
acceleration and jerk. This
representation also provides
the necessary smoothness
from
theoretical
considerations
(see
Norton). Unfortunately, the
method was not adopted by
others and was largely
forgotten until we developed it
independently in 2002. We
have extended and generalized
the method from that presented
by Bouvy. For example, if the
designer prefers an even
smoother curve, a blend
composed of two functions
with linear jerk can be used to
give a quartic spline and
continuous jerk. The curve
below left is the 1949 Mercury
8CM cam (above right),
modified with maximum jerk
constrained to 0.0004 (in/deg3)
using cubic splines. The curve
below right is the 8CM cam modified with quartic splines and maximum jerk of 0.0004.

Remember, the ideal cam would open and close instantaneously, and this method comes as
close as possible to that ideal given the specified constraints. To demonstrate, follow the
numbered areas on acceleration curve above left - (1) after leaving the opening ramp,
increase the acceleration as quickly as allowed by the constraint on jerk, (2) maintain the
acceleration at its maximum allowed value, (3), decrease the acceleration as quickly as
possible so the maximum velocity and zero acceleration are reached at the same point, (4)
maintain the velocity at its maximum value (zero acceleration), (5) decrease the acceleration
as quickly as possible to match the nose acceleration (deceleration) (6) decelerate as quickly
as permitted by the maximum deceleration constraint over a period to give zero velocity at
the nose. This approach will give the maximum lift and area for a given set of
constraints.
The maximum jerk of 0.0004 (in/deg3) used above is within the guidelines recommended
by Hollingsworth and Hodges. These curves with finite jerk were created with the same
0.050 duration as the original profile. The increased smoothness decreases the total lift by
only 0.0002 inches. However, the duration at 0.015 (seat-to-seat) increases from 240 degrees
to 244.3 and 248.6 degrees for cubic and quartic cams, respectively. This increased seat-toseat duration will have a negative impact on performance (see Cam Performance - Opening
Rate). We prefer the cubic spline method, since it provides the necessary smoothness, but
without creating a slow opening or low lift cam and a loss of performance. We believe
engine performance gains can be achieved using this design method with appropriate
smoothness, because most "performance" cams today are smoother than necessary (see Jerk
is it Important?).
The smoothed lift
curve
for
the
Triumph
TR4
(second figure from
top of the page) is
an example of a
more
complex
profile represented
with
quartic
splines. A quartic
spline
representation
is
used together with
an harmonic nose,
so
jerk
is
continuous.
The
figure at left is the same profile represented with cubic splines and an harmonic nose. The lift
for the cubic and quartic spline representations differs by a maximum of 0.00027 inches.
There are no visible differences in the other curves, except in the jerk and at the peak of
acceleration. Not surprisingly, valve train dynamic calculations with these two
representations give nearly identical results. The maximum jerk for these two profiles,
matched to the same cam, are 0.00011 and 0.00016 for the cubic and quartic representations,
respectively. We find that larger maximum jerks can be used with the quartic cams to
achieve the same valve train dynamics.

This spline method is so simple and effective it is surprising it has not been used
before. Our Opticam Software uses this design method with a choice of either cubic
(continuous acceleration) or quartic (continuous jerk) approximations. Although the method
is conceptually simple, the implementation was not. Difficulties arise when one or more
constraints is not effective, so one or more of the various regions disappear. For example, if
the tappet is large or the duration is short, there will be no dwell at maximum velocity. If the
jerk is small or the maximum acceleration constraint is large, there will be no dwell at
maximum acceleration. Disappearance of the dwell at maximum velocity can give rise to just
an inflection point in the acceleration curve, see theTriumph TR4 profile above for
example. The method is quite flexible. We have yet to find a measured profile that cannot be
accurately fit with this spline approximation.