2.

61 Internal Combustion Engines

Design Project Solution

Here is a possible solution for the design problem.

1. Base Engine

Table 1 below summarizes the main parameters of the base engine

Table 1 Base Engine Summary

Displacement (m3) 11

Cylinders 6

Bore (m) 0.1326

Stroke (m) 0.1326

Compression Ratio 18

Connecting Rod Length (m) 0.3315

Bmep @ max torque (kPa) 895

Bmep @ max power (kPa) 835

Maximum torque (N-m) 783

Maximum power (kW) 173

Maximum engine speed at
2261
maximum power(RPM)

There are two possible methods to size the engine, and they should be consistent with
each other:

Method 1:
η mη f ,iη v (N )Vd QHV ρ a ,oφ (F / A)stoich
P= (1)
2

Method 2:
Assume a bmep based on practical limits and fuel-air cycle charts, and solve for the
power output:

P=
(bmep )(Vd )(N ) (2)
2000
Using the first method, we must determine η m , η f ,i , η v , ρ a ,o , φ , N

Calculate Engine Speed (N)

S p max
N= find L (3)
2L

Assume B ~ L, so

Vd = (6 cylinders )
(πB )L = (6πL )
2 3
(4)
4 4

1 1
 4V  3  4(0.011)  3
L= d  =  = 0.1326m
 6π   6π 

so:

10m/s
N= = 37.71revs / sec, or 2260 RPM
2(0.1326)

Determine φ, and ηf,i

Chose rc=18 (maybe a bit high), and φ=0.7 (smoke limit, maximum possible fuel we can
get in per mass of air). Using Fuel-air cycle results (Fig. 5-9, Heywood p. 182), then ηf,i=
0.575. Applying a correction factor of around 80%, actual ηf,i= 46%. The correction
factor can be between 80% and 85%; For this case, I chose 80% so that Method 1, and 2,
as explained above, are consistent with each other.

Determine IMEP
For phi=0.7, and rc=0.8, we get

imep
= 10.5 so imep = (P1 )(10.5) , (5)
Pi

Note that Pi is not atmospheric pressure. At WOT, there is a pressure loss in the intake
system, due to frictional losses that scale with speed. Pi will be less than atmospheric.
Likewise, the exhaust pressure (Pe) is not atmospheric; a higher than atmospheric
pressure is needed to pump the gases through the exhaust system. Once the gases leave
the exhaust system and reach ambient conditions, they will expand to atmospheric
pressure. Additionally, depending on the opening timing of the exhaust valves, the gases
might exit at a higher pressure than what is required to overcome the pumping loss in the
exhaust system. To get an idea, of the value of Pi, look at Figure 13-13 in the text
(Heywood P. 725). For a piston speed of 10 m/s,

pmep = (Pe - Pi) = 0.4 x ( S p) 2 = 0.4(10) 2 = 40 (6)

Now allocate this pumping loss between Pe and Pi. At high speeds around 18% of the
loss is on the intake side, and the remaining 82% on the exhaust side. This will be
consistent with volumetric efficiency as explained below. So:

Pi= 101 kPa – 0.18(40 kPa) = 93.8 kPa

Pe=101 kPa + 0.82(40 kPa) = 133.8 kPa

We can now calculate an imep:

imep = (93.8 kPa )(10.5) = 984.9kPa

Determine Mechanical Efficiency ηm

 imep − tfmep  tfmep

η m =   = 1 − ; (7)
 imep  imep

where
tfmpe = total friction mep = fmep (rubbing friction and auxiliary mep) + pmep

From figure 13-7 (Heywood p 722), fmep for a fired engine at 2260 rpm ≈ 140 kPa. So

tfmpe = (140 + 40)kPa = 180kPa; and

180
ηm = 1 − = 81.7%
985

Determine Volumetric Efficiency and ρ a ,o

Using figure 6-8 (Heywood p. 217), assume a volumetric efficiency of 90% for a piston
speed of 10 m/s. Note that this volumetric efficiency measures the efficiency of the
entire intake system. Also note that we have chosen the right pressure loss allocation for
the intake system (as calculated in the imep section), consistent with volumetric
efficiency. The air density ρ a ,o , is just calculated from ideal gas law, at ambient
conditions. The value is 1.17 kg/m3
Fuel-to-Air Ratio & Heating Value
From table D.4 in the text (Heywood p. 915) we get the stoichiometric Fuel-to-Air ratio
of gasoline as 0.0697, and its heating value of 43.2 MJ/kg

Power calculation
With the estimates for each value, we can now calculate the power

P=
( )
(0.817)(0.46)(0.90)(37.7 m / sec)(0.011m )(43.2e3kJ / kg ) 1.17 kg / m 3 (0.7)(0.0697)
2

P = 173kW

We also use method 2 to check for consistency. Rearranging equation 2.19b (Heywood
p50), we get:

P=
(bmep )(Vd )(N ) = (805 kPa )(11 dm3)(37.7rev / sec ) = 167 kW
2000 2000

the methods are close

For low loads, follow the same procedure, with lower pumping loss, due to lower speed
(see figure 13-13, Heywood), and lower rubbing and auxiliary friction (see figure 13-7
Heywood); additionally, the allocation of pressure losses is different, and must be
consistent with volumetric efficiency.

2. Boost, Turbo-machinery and Intercooler

Boost pressure:
To find the boost pressure required, we use equation 1, and replace the volumetric
efficiency for the entire inlet system with the volumetric efficiency for the valves only
( η v ~ 94%). We also replace the ambient air density with the air density right before the
valves, ρ a ,i . This density can be determined from the ideal gas law, knowing the pressure
(which is approximately cylinder pressure divided by volumetric efficiency), and the
temperature (about the same as the cylinder temperature). Thus, we can vary the cylinder
pressure until we get the required power level, as defined by equation 1.

ηmη f ,iηv (N )Vd QHV ρ a ,iφ (F / A)stoich

P=
2

Note that as we vary the cylinder pressure, and consequently the density, the mechanical
efficiency (as defined by equation 7 above) will also change because the pumping loss
will change.
Pmep= Pexhaust - Pintake

Thus the solution to this problem is iterative, and can easily be done with a spreadsheet.
After varying the cylinder pressure, determining the corresponding air density at the
valves through the ideal gas law, and calculating the mechanical efficiency, we get the
following target power:

P=
(
(0.918)(0.46)(0.944)(37.7 m / sec)(0.011m )(43.2e3kJ / kg ) 2.065kg / m 3 (0.7)(0.0697) )
2

P = 360kW

For this case the pressure that gives a density of 2.065 is 176 kPa, as dictated by the ideal
gas law:

 8.314kJ / kmoleK 
( )
Pcylinder = ρ a ,i ( beforevalves ) RT( beforevalves ) *η v _ valves = 2.065kg / m 3  (314 K )(0.944)
 28.97kg / kmole 

which gives Pcylinder=176 kPa. The pressure that must come out of the compressor is
approximately:

Pcylinder 176kPa
Pcomp = = = 186kPa
ηv 0.944

Thus the desired boost is 85 kPa. That is we have to compress 85 kPa above
atmospheric. Note that to relate pressure before the valves, and after the valves, as a first
approximation I have used the volumetric efficiency.

Turbo-machinery
Knowing the desired boost, the turbo-machinery can now be sized to generate the
required pressure. This is done using the insentropic relationships for the compressor and
turbine. First we must size the compressor by finding the work required to compress the
gas to the desired pressure. Second, we must size the turbine to produce the work that
drives the compressor.

To determine the amount of work that is required to compress the gas we do an energy
balance assuming an adiabatic compressor:

Wc = m& C p (T2 a − T1 ) (8)

where,

T2a= Actual compressor exit temperature

T1= Compressor inlet temperature (300K)
We calculate T2a using the compressor efficiency, and isentropic relationships:

T2 s − T1
T2 a = + T1 (9)
ηc
and:
 1−γ 
 
 P   γ 
T2 s = T1  1  (10)
 P2 

T1, P1, P2, γ, and ηc are all known, so T2a, and consequently the compressor work can
be calculated.

Knowing the compressor work, we now size the turbine using the following equations:
W
Wt = c (11)
ηm
where η m is the mechanical efficiency for the turbine and compressor system. 95% is
reasonable estimate for this number
W
T5 a = T4 − t (12)
Cp
where:
T5a=Actual turbine exhaust temperature
T4 = Turbine inlet temperature (engine exhaust, given at 900K)

To find the required turbine pressure ratio:

 γ 
 
P4 T   1−γ 
= Pr =  5 s  (13)
P5  T4 

where:

T5 a − T4
T5 s = + T4 (14)
ηt

Thus, enough equations for enough unknowns. Values for the temperatures, pressures,
and compressor work, are show in table 2.

Intercooler
Adding an intercooler to lower the intake temperature, will increase the density of the
gas, and consequently decrease the required boost, as reflected in table 2. For a given
pressure rise we get a higher change in density (due to lower gas temperatures going into
the engine). To size the intercooler you can select a coolant, and based on adequate
estimates for inlet and outlet coolant temperatures, you can determine the required mass
flow-rate that is needed to achieve a certain temperature change in the air. You must use
the definition for heat exchanger to determine the allowed change in air temperature:
For the coolant I used water (Cp=4.2 kJ/kg K), and assumed that it goes in at 300 K, and
I want it to leave at 380 K.

To find the exit temperature of the air, and to determine the required flow rate of water, I
use the definition for heat exchanger effectiveness in conjunction with an energy balance:

For effectiveness we have:

m& Cp coolant ,or air (Tin − Tout ) coolant or air

ε=
m& Cp min (Tin − Tout _ max )

and for the energy balance we have:

(m& Cp∆T )coolant = −(m& Cp∆T )air

For this case, I chose the air and water to have about the same capacitance (mCp). Using
the effectiveness equation I can solve for Tout air. Note that the capacitances will cancel
out in the equation, and the maximum change in temperature occurs when Tout air=
Twater in, thus:

(Tin − Tout ) airr

ε= ⇒ Tair _ out = Tair _ in − ε (Tair _ in − Twater _ in )
(Tin _ air − Twater _ in )

Assuming, water temperature increases from 300 to 357, then Tair in is 314 K. Values
for the heat exchanger temperatures and flow-rates are also shown in table 2.

Figure 1
Schematic of Turbocharged Engine with Intercooler

2 3

Heat Exchanger Engine

7 6
4

compressor turbine

1 5
 Table 2
Turbocharged Engine with Intercooler: Operating Parameters
No intercooling With intercooling
State Temperature (K) Pressure (kPa) Temperature (K) Pressure (kPa)
1 300 101 300 101
2 401 233 372 186
3 401 233 314 186
4 900 223 900 188
5 801 127 833 127
6 N/A N/A 101 300
7 N/A N/A 101 380

Work Compressor 40 kW Work Compressor 29 kW

Intercooler
m_dot water 0..097 kg/sec
m_dot air 0.404 kg/sec

3. Brake Efficiency

At half maximum speed, and full load at that speed, I kept the same boost, but lowered
the fmep, per figure 13-7 in the text. The BSFC came out to be 188 g/kw-hr. This
number is actually quite good for industry standards. Other people perhaps got lower
(around 175), however, as I previously explained, I was more conservative in my
efficiency estimate from fuel air cycle tables, to be consistent with different ways of
calculating power. My calculation is shown below:

m& f ( g / hr ) 0.010078kg / sec(3600 sec/ hr )(1000 g / kg )

bsfc = = = 188 g / kW − hr
Power (kW ) 193

Note that if we directly use break engine efficiency, we should get the same answer:

1 1 1
bsfc = = = = 188 g / kW − hr
η f ,b (QHV ) η mη f ,i (QHV ) 0.96(0.460)(43.2)

Ways to decrease bsfc include raising compression ratio, and reducing frictional losses.

4. Emissions – NOx
 Figure 2
Schematic of Turbocharged Engine with Intercooler

2 3 4 Inter-
Inter-
Engine cooler
cooler Venturi/
Mixer

compressor turbine

1 6

The schematic shows how EGR will be driven from the engine. There are a few ways of
doing this; one way is to use a Venturi system, as shown above. Another way is to
optimize the system so that the pressures at the air and EGR intersection are about the
same. It is necessary for these pressures to be equal, otherwise there will be backflow in
the direction of lower pressure. Overall, however, the addition of EGR will impact the
fuel economy of the engine. This is the price that we must pay to have lower emissions.

The first step of this problem is to define the amount of EGR that is needed to meet EPA
emissions levels. The emissions requirements along with their safety levels are shown in
table 3 below.

Table 3
Hit in Fuel
NOx safety NOx Safegy
NOx Standard Timing (CA economy
Engine Mode target g/bkW- target g/bkW- EGR
g/bhp-hr from TDC) (percentage
hr hr
points)
25% max
torque, 1600 2.50 1.75 2.35 24% 1 2%
rpm

Maximum
2.50 1.75 2.35 24% 0.5 2%
power
Using the figures provided, there are various possibilities for selecting EGR, depending
on the hit on fuel economy. Figure 3 below is an example that shows that there is a range
of timings and EGR levels that will give the proper amount of NOx

Figure 3
Acceptable operating area for low load

Must operate
below dashed
line

Once EGR has been calculated, the loss in engine efficiency can be assessed, as well as
the required boost. Again this is an iterative process. There are many variables affecting
engine power, and they are all related as well, thus at least a spreadsheet must be setup.
For example, boost affects engine power, but it also affects mechanical efficiency, which
in turn affects engine power, thus all these variables must be connected when solving the
system.

One important implication of adding EGR, is that the pressure in the cylinder chamber
must increase if we are to maintain constant mass of fresh fuel and air; this is what we
should desire if we are to maintain the same power output from the engine as the case
without EGR.

The total pressure is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of air and the EGR:
PT = Pair + PEGR

Assuming the molecular weights of both Air and EGR are about the same, then the mole
fraction is approximately equal to the mass fraction of each mixture, and PT can be
expressed as:

Pair
PT =
1 − EGR

Additionally, since there is a pressure loss of around 16 to 20 kPa associated with the
venturi, a higher boost is still needed. To reach the target power output, a total boost of
194 kPa is required, for total pressure of 295 kPa. This is a high boost, higher than
industry standard for this size engines. Perhaps a more practical boost is 150 kPa (PT
=251 kPa), or less. However this limits the maximum power to 310 kW. If you
recognized the practical limitations, this is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Table 4
With intercooling
State Temperature (K) Pressure (kPa)
1 300 101
2 434 295
3 327 295
4 349 279
5 990 241
6 864 121
7 438 241

Table 5
Mass flowrate
Intercooler Tin (K) Tout (K)
(kg/sec)
EGR 0.171 300 380
Compressor 0.131 300 380
 5. Emissions Particulates
(a) The particulate emissions corresponding to the chosen EGR level, can be obtained
from the data provided (PM levels vs injection timing for various EGR fractions). At
24% EGR, the PM coming out of the engine is approximately 0.2 g/bkW-hr

(b) To size the trap, use the space velocity that will minimize the volume of the trap, in
this case 28,000 hr-1. This is evident from the relationship for space velocity:

V&
= Space _ velocity
V

where V& is the volume flow-rate of the gases going through the trap, and V is the volume
of the trap. For a smaller trap volume we get a higher space velocity.

Solving for the volume of the trap we get

V&
V=
Space _ velocity

Using the ideal gas law to solve for V&

(m& air + m& fuel + m& egr ) RTexhaust
V& = = 1.10m 3 / sec
Pexhaust

Solving for Volume

1.10m 3 / sec
V= = 0.141m 3 = 141 L
28,000 / 3600 sec

Values used are shown in table 6 below

Table 6
Volume
Mdot_air&fuel Mdot_egr Space Velocity Trap Volume
Texhaust (K) Pexhaust (kPa) flowrate
(kg/sec) (kg/sec) (1/sec) (L)
(m3/sec)
0.43 0.10 864.74 121.00 7.78 1.10 140.87

As shown in figure 4 of SAE 2003-01-0047, The maximum pressure loss through the
trap, at a space velocity of 28,000/hr, is 6 kPa. This is a very small percentage of the
total exhaust pressure (~2.5%), and the effect on turbo-machinery is small.
 6. 2007 Emissions requirements

Using the same safety factor as in part 6, the table below shows the new emissions that
must be met:

Table 7

NOx
NOx NOx safety Current Required PM PM safety PM Safegy Current Required
Safegy
Standard target Engine out efficiency Standard target target Engine out Efficiency
target
g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bkW-hr (catalytic) g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bkW-hr g/bkW-hr (trap)
g/bkW-hr

0.2000 0.1400 0.1879 2.3490 0.9200 0.0100 0.0050 0.0067 0.2000 0.966

Where catalytic converter efficiency is defined as:

m& pollu tan t , out

ηcat = 1 −
m& pollu tan t ,in

As shown in table 7, a catalytic converter with 92% efficiency will be needed to meet
2007 NOx emissions requirements.

The required particulate trap efficiency is fairly high (97%) but the trap presented in the
Ford paper seems to have efficiencies of around 99%, so it should work fine for 2007
emissions requirements.