P&E Development - JLR Lecture 2011

Gasoline Base Engine Development for
Performance and Fuel Economy
Matthew McAllister – Jaguar Land Rover Gasoline Engines
Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 1

Introduction

Contents
• The Development Process

• Performance Theory
• Fuel Consumption Theory
• Development Tools
• Summary

The Development Process

“How does base engine design & development fit into the
company structure?”
Vehicle
Body&Exterior Chassis Interior Systems Powertrain Electrical
Systems Transmissions Base Engines Calibration
Design
Development

Responsibilities
Engine Design
• Design components on CAD
• Manage all aspects of component delivery (suppliers, cost,
weight, manufacture, package)
Engine Development
• Manage all aspects of verifying design of components &
systems
• Focus on function and attributes

The System Engineering “V”

Start Job1
Vehicle Level
System Level
Component Level
Define Design Verify

System Engineering – DEFINE

• Set targets at customer level and then cascade down to
component level
e.g. Customer level target: 0-60mph < 6.2sec
Vehicle Level 0-60mph time
System Level Vehicle Aero Tractive Effort Vehicle Mass Traction
Sub-system
T/M FDR T/M Efficiency Engine Torque
Level
Displacement
Component Engine Technology

Level
Compression Ratio
Int & Exh System

System Engineering - DESIGN

Design Guidelines
Corporate/Legal Requirements
Manufacturing Requirements
Recycling Requirements
Component Attribute Targets

(from cascade)
Cost & Weight Targets
Packaging Constraints New Design

Quality & Durability Targets

System Engineering – VERIFICATION

Vehicle Level
Durability
Hot/Cold Climate
Performance/NVH
CAE
System Level
1-D Engine simulation
Engine dynamometer testing
NVH CAE
Component Level
Rig Testing
Component CAE (e.g.
FEA/CFD)
The System Engineering “V”

Start Job1
Vehicle Level
System Level
Component Level
Define Design Verify

Build Phases
Design
Optimise Manufacture
Verify
1. Mule Demonstrator (often reworked/modified existing

hardware)
2. Attribute Demonstrators (first dedicated prototypes, non

production process)
3. Confirmation Prototype (final prototypes, should be

production process & off production tool)
4. Production Verification (off production line at production

rate)

Base Engine P&E

P&E Attributes
Engine P&E
Incorporates:
•Engine Performance
•Engine Fuel Consumption (Economy)
•Engine Emissions
P&E typically considered separate to Mechanical or NVH

Development and in some companies part of Calibration
department

P&E Attributes
Performance & Fuel Consumption Challenge
Source: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - SEC(2007) 1723

Performance Theory
Possible Scenario
• Existing engine with following specification:
-2.6L V6 – 180bhp
-Fixed intake manifold
-Intake variable cam timing
-10:1 compression ratio
-6000rev/min peak power speed
• What is required to increase power to 200bhp without

increasing displacement?

Performance Theory
η fuelconversion ×ηvolumetric × N × Vd × QHV × ρ air × ( F / A)

Power =
2

Performance Theory
Air Mass Trapped
Volumetric Efficiency
(manifold & port ∆P, tuning) Fuel-Air Ratio
Intake System Losses
η fuelconversion ×ηvolumetric × N × Vd × QHV × ρ air × ( F / A)

Power =
2
Thermal efficiency Engine Speed Displacement Fuel Energy

Heat losses
Mechanical losses
Pumping losses
Mixing
Ignition efficiency

Performance Theory
Displacement 700
600
• Power ~ proportional to displacement 500
Power [hp]
400
• Often easiest way of achieving power 300
increase but increases fuel economy, 200
engine mass and package requirements 100

0
• Can limit maximum engine speeds 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement [litres]
Engine Speed
European Gasoline Engines 2007
• Power is “rate of doing work”, therefore 120
Specific Power [hp/L]

proportional to engine speed 100
80
• Requires changes to engine design to 60

40
ensure volumetric efficiency does not drop 20
0
• Can involve significant costs to achieve 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Max Power Speed [rev/min]
durability European Gasoline Engines 2007

Performance Theory
Intake losses Performance vs Intake Loss
208
typical family car

206
204
Power [bhp]
High performance
202
200
198
196
AIS CFD 194

10 20 30 40 50 60
Intake Loss [mbar]
• Minimize losses – rule of thumb: 1.2% power / 10mbar

intake ∆P increase
• Minimize detrimental tuning effects as a result of layout

Performance Theory
Volumetric Efficiency - ∆P
∆ R/D
• Minimize pressure losses (throttle
sizing, manifold runner R/D, R
D
manifold detail design, managing
interfaces, surface finish, port
design, valve design, valve seat
design)
Port flow
Throttle ∆P (CFD) 1.0
0.8
Flow Coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Valve Lift/Diameter

Performance Theory
Volumetric Efficiency – Intake Tuning
• Objective: maximise mass of air trapped at specific
speeds or across speed range by harnessing wave and
inertial tuning effects Depression Wave
PLENUM
Runner
• WAVE tuning –
dependent on intake cam Cylinder
Reflected Pressure Wave
period & runner length PLENUM
Runner
Cylinder
• Inertia tuning – inertia of air column in runner/port continues

charging process past piston BDC - dependent on runner
diameter, volume and intake valve closing time

Performance Theory
Typical production I4 performance curve…

150% 250
130% 200
Volumetric Efficiency [%]
Closed Valve Tuning
Torque [Nm]
110% 150
Secondary Tuning
90% Primary tuning 100
70% 50
50% 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Engine Speed [rev/min]

Performance Theory
Volumetric Efficiency – Optimum Runner Lengths

• Theoretical optimum runner length vs engine speed:
2500
Intake Length
Optimum Runner Length [mm]
2000 Exhaust Length
1500
1000
500
0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Performance Theory
Volumetric Efficiency – Exhaust Tuning
• Objective: maximise extraction of residuals by harnessing
wave tuning effects in exhaust / minimise negative tuning
effects between cylinders
• Limited opportunity in modern passenger vehicles as
design is dominated by emissions requirements (catalyst)
and under-bonnet package Log Manifold
Blow-down pulse
4:2:1 Manifold
Collector
Cylinder
Reflected extraction wave
Collector
Cylinder

Performance Theory
Fuel Air Ratio (1/AFR)
• Maximum performance at ~12:1-13:1 AFR (Power
Enrichment)
• AFR settings at higher engine speeds generally dictated
by component (e.g. exhaust valves, turbine, catalyst)
protection requirements
PE - AFR~13:1 0%
% Performance degradation
-1%
Load
-2%
λ=1 (AFR~14.6:1) -3%
(for max. catalyst eff.)

-4%
10 11 12 13 14 15
AFR
Engine speed
Performance Theory
Thermal Efficiency
Friction:
• At max power speed friction is
approximately 15% of brake power
• 10% reduction in friction 1.5%
increase in power Typical SI engine heat
• Not only contact friction – need to balance at peak power
consider windage / inter-bay breathing Ambient
7%
Heat losses: Coolant/oil
Brake power
28%
• At max power ~22% of fuel energy lost 15%
in heat transfer to air/oil/coolant

• 10% reduction in heat loss 8%
increase in power (!) Exhaust
enthalpy
50%

Performance Theory
Thermal Efficiency
Exhaust Back Pressure – 3 effects:
1.Increases pumping work to expel charge
2.Reduces amount of fresh charge induced
3.Increases knock sensitivity (ignition retard from optimum)
Performance vs Exhaust Back Pressure
208
family car
206
Power [bhp]
204 High performance

202
200
198
196
194
200 300 400 500
Exhaust Back Pressure [mbar]

Performance Theory
Thermal Efficiency
420
Ignition Efficiency:
400
Torque [Nm]
• Objective – operate ignition 380
at MBT (Maximum advance for 360 MBT
Best Torque) DBL
340
• Good resistance to 30 20 10 0
detonation (detail chamber Ignition [°btdc]
design, head cooling)
W OT
• Key parameters:
Load
compression ratio & fuel RON
Knock limited IGN MBT IGN
(trade-off with fuel economy)
Engine speed
Performance Theory
Robustness…
• It is not enough simply to demonstrate performance under
ideal homologation conditions (low temperature, high RON
fuel, best build condition)
• Also need to consider
worst case…
• Need to understand
sensitivities to these
parameters and ensure
adequate performance
under all conditions to
avoid customer
complaints

Performance Theory
Back to performance optimisation scenario …

• 200bhp = 11% increase
• Increasing engine speed to 6600rev/min at constant
volumetric efficiency would deliver ~10% = 198bhp
• Increasing compression ratio to 11:1 would deliver ~2-3% =
4bhp = 202bhp (providing engine is not knock limited)
• To deliver good volumetric efficiency at higher engine
speed will require re-optimised runner length
• May need to consider variable geometry manifold to not
sacrifice too much low speed performance

Performance Theory

•2.6L, 180BHP
280
240
200
Torque [Nm]
160
120 BASELINE
80
40
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Performance Theory

•2.6L, 198/202BHP – but poor driveability
280
240
200
Torque [Nm]
160 BASELINE
INCR ENG SPD
120 INCR CR
80
40
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Performance Theory

•2.6L, 202BHP – Optimised Torque Curve
280
240
BASELINE
200
Torque [Nm]
INCR ENG SPD

160
120 INCR CR
80 TWIN STAGE
MANIFOLD
40
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Fuel Consumption Theory
Fuel economy break-down
Gross Efficiency
Fuel required to generate GIMEP
Log P
Pumping work
Fuel “lost” to pumping work
exhaust
Pumping work
PMEP
induction
Friction work
Fuel “lost” to friction work
Log V
Net IMEP = GIMEP + PMEP (-ve) Brake work
BMEP = Net IMEP - FMEP
Maximize Gross Efficiency (1) 10%
• Maximize compression
change in BSFC
8%
6%
ratio (trade-off with low 4%
speed / low RON / high 2%
0% Theory
air temp performance) -2% Reality
-4%
9:1 10:1 11:1 12:1 13:1 14:1
Compression Ratio
3%
Change in η thermal
2%
• Minimize heat transfer 1%
(surface to volume ratio, 0%
charge motion, coolant -1%
-2%
temperature) -3%
0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10
Bore/Stroke Ratio

Maximize Gross Efficiency (2)
• Ensure complete burn (good atomisation, complete mixing)
• Ensure optimum spark efficiency (resistance to knock, fast

burn, correct calibration)
40%
Increase in Fuel
Consumption
30% MBT
(opt eff)
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40
Ignition Timing [°btdc]

Minimize Pumping
Pumping Reduction Routes:
1.Charge dilution (stratified DI / lean
Log P
homogeneous / EGR)
2.Reduction of trapped volume (very
early or very late intake valve closing) PMEP
New MAP
3.“Down-sizing”
Old MAP
Log V
With all these approaches the volume of trapped air is

reduced requiring the manifold pressure (MAP) to be raised,
i.e. throttle to be opened further, to recover the lost mass
This reduces the pumping work
Dilution by air (Stratified Direct Injection)

Example: MB 3.5L V6 DI
• Significant fuel economy potential 5-15% depending on

engine size/application
• BUT major emissions compliance challenge involving
complex and expensive after-treatment system (maybe not
possible beyond EU5 in Europe and ever in US?)
• Benefit diminishes significantly for smaller engines

Reduction of trapped volume

Example – BMW Valvetronic
• Pumping benefit achieved by virtue of controlling load

(mass trapped) through variable valve lift/duration instead
of throttle
• Limited fuel economy benefit (2-5%) due to reduced
combustion efficiency - particularly at light load (effective
compression ratio reduced, poor charge motion)
• Expensive technology and major manufacturing challenge
Minimize Friction
• Typical friction break-down vs engine speed for SI engine:
Friction Break-down 100% Valvetrain
80%
Coolant Pump +
60%
Unloaded Alternator
Oil pump
40%
Piston group & con-rod
20% bearings
0% Crankshaft
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
• For drive-cycle fuel economy (below 3000rev/min) focus

should be on reduction of valvetrain and piston friction
• A 10% reduction in piston friction could reduce part load fuel
consumption by ~1%
Based on fuel consumption theory just presented what are the two main
reasons for the improved fuel consumption of Diesel vs. Gasoline
engines?
1) Higher Compression Ratio (no knock limitation)
Diesel
Gasoline
7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
Compression Ratio
Each symbol represents up to 3 observations.
2) Minimized pumping work (load control through level of dilution with air,
qualitative vs. quantitative load control)
Application of Fuel Consumption Theory

Fuel Consumption – CO2 challenge for
manufacturers
How to make vehicles that comply with the EU Legislative framework:

• From 2012 to 2019 a vehicle mass based CO2 limit will be applied to all new
vehicles.
• How to address this in a cost effective manner, whilst maintaining key
vehicle attributes?
Options available:
• Vehicle level optimisation for increased efficiency:
• Advances predominantly aimed at reducing weight and aerodynamic
drag.
•Powertrain level:
• Mild or micro hybrid technologies.
• Full hybridisation.
• Technologies aimed at reduced friction, pumping and increased
combustion efficiency.
Gasoline engines downsizing and boosting – focus of our paper.

Fuel Consumption – Downsizing and Boosting
•Presented at IMechE Internal Combustion Engines: Performance, Fuel &

Emissions Conference - Dec 09
•Paper title: Future gasoline engine downsizing technologies – C02 improvements
and engine design considerations. Authors: M.J.McAllister & D.J.Buckley.
• Downsizing - The principle behind this approach is to de-throttle

the engine to reduce pumping work by making the displacement
and/or number of cylinders smaller.
• Boosting – provides a means of increasing the specific

performance of the downsized engine, thus maintaining the power
and torque of the engine it replaces, typically with a supercharger,
turbocharger or combined boosting systems.
Gasoline engine downsizing and boosting offers manufacturers

significant CO2 reductions without major vehicle modifications such
as those required by full hybrid technologies.

Fuel Consumption – Challenges of downsizing
• Robust DI combustion system.

• An advanced boosting system.
• Emissions countermeasures.
• Effective integration of downsized engines with complementary CO2
reduction strategies.
• Refinement.
• Customer acceptance of smaller engines.
The above challenges are considerable due to competing

attributes. Customer acceptance is a problem that requires more
than just an engineering solution!

Fuel Consumption – CO2 benefits of engine
downsizing
25
2.4L I4
2L I4
20
% CO 2 reduction
Deviation from the
15 trend line is due to
BMEP resolution in
10 3L V6 the fuel map analysis
4L V8
5 3.5L V6
SC
TC
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Level of Downsizing [%]
• For a >10% CO2 benefit a significant level of downsizing is necessary

(35%) requiring a change in architecture, i.e. V6 vs. V8 or I4 vs. V6.
• A moderate level of downsizing (e.g. 4.5L SC vs. 5L NA) does not yield
a meaningful CO2 benefit (<3%).
• Difference between boosting systems is small compared to overall
downsizing effect so other factors will be decisive (e.g. transient
response, emissions etc.).
P&E Development Tools

Overview
P&E Specific Tools
Level Virtual Real

Vehicle • Vehicle performance and FE • Drive cycle FE and emissions
simulation testing
• Performance testing
Engine • 1-Dimensional Gas Exchange • Single-cylinder engine testing
Modelling • Multi-cylinder engine testing
• Combustion Modelling
Component • CFD flow modelling • Flow bench testing
• Friction modelling

CAE
Steady State CFD – Port Flow
• Allows detailed “desktop” optimisation of port design for
flow / charge motion prior to evaluation on flow bench test
Pressure
Inlet
Bell Mouth
Valve
Seats
Ports
Chamber
& Tube
Pressure Outlet

CAE
Steady State CFD – Intercooler Flow Distribution

CAE
1-D Simulation
• 1-D Simulation (Ricardo WAVE) used to analyze the
dynamics of pressure waves, mass flows, and energy
losses in the engine intake and exhaust
• Engine intake & exhaust geometry broken down into 1-
dimensional components (ducts and junctions)
• Mass, momentum and energy conservation equations
solved for each sub-volume to obtain solution
• Used to predict key engine operating characteristics, e.g.
volumetric efficiency, torque, mass flows, etc.

CAE
WAVE 1-D model – SC V8

Catalyst
A-bank
SC & IC B-Bank Exhaust System
Airbox B-bank
Exhaust Manifold
CAE
WAVE 1-D vs Test Data Correlation
WAVE model
Test Data
Torque
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000


CAE
Advantage of 1-D simulation

1. Time – possible to run multiple simulations 24/7
2. Cost – conducting engine testing is expensive (test facility, tester,
engineer, fuel, maintenance), 1-D simulation only requires 1 engineer
and 1 PC
3. In-depth understanding – with 1-D simulation detailed
information of pressures, temperatures, mass flows, etc. is available
throughout the engine and at every point in the cycle
Disadvantages
1. Need for correlation to existing test data
2. Model does not always behave like real engine
3. 1-D approximation of complex 3-D geometries

Testing
Engine Dynamometer
• Durability & functional testing
• Steady state & transient dynamometers
• High/low temperature capabilities

Testing
Typical dynamometer instrumentation
1. Thermocouples e.g. coolant, oil, intake air temperature
2. Pressure transducers e.g. oil gallery, boost pressure
3. Fuel flow (mass/volumetric) used to infer air mass flow
4. Emissions analyser O2, CO, CO2, HC, NOx
5. Smoke meter (Diesel, GDI)
6. Fluid flow meters e.g. engine or intercooler coolant flow
7. Combustion analyser used to measure cylinder
pressures and calculate IMEP, PMEP, burn data
8. EMS break out equipment to control engine settings
9. Automated testing controller to schedule automated
testing and interface with dyno & EMS
10. Knock monitoring equipment audio/visual
Testing
Key Challenges
• Maximum utilisation of dynamometers – expensive
investment
• Efficient processing of (ever) increasing quantities of test
data – up to 250 data channels per test point
• Increased use of design of experiments and data
modelling
• Increased use of automated testing
• Increased awareness of the statistical nature of test data

Testing
Rapid Prototype Parts

> key technology in enabling
reduced development time
• SLA – Stereolithography
– 3D CAD model is converted into a series of
2D slices (~0.1mm thick). Laser cures
photosensitive resin in a tank layer by layer
• Laser Sintering
– Similar principal to SLA but very thin layers
of heat fusible powder are repeatedly
deposited. Laser sinters the fresh powder
to form a new layer.
• Applications: intake manifolds, air
induction systems, moulds for casting,
etc.
Summary

Summary
Overview
• Methodology used in vehicle/engine development –
System Engineering “V”
• Fundamental performance and fuel consumption theory
• Overview of tools used in development
Future Challenges
• Dramatic fuel consumption / CO2 reduction required
• More stringent emissions legislation
• Higher performance (?)
• Reduced development time
• Lower cost (?)

225 mph Bonneville Speed Record
BonnevilleMaster.mov

2010 Jaguar XK GT2
Thank You

P&E Development - JLR Lecture 2011

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

P&E Development - JLR Lecture 2011

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gasoline Base Engine Development for

Performance and Fuel Economy

Matthew McAllister – Jaguar Land Rover Gasoline Engines

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 1

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 2

• The Development Process

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 3

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 4

Body&Exterior Chassis Interior Systems Powertrain Electrical

Systems Transmissions Base Engines Calibration

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 5

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 6

The System Engineering “V”

Define Design Verify

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 7

System Engineering – DEFINE

System Level Vehicle Aero Tractive Effort Vehicle Mass Traction

Component Engine Technology

Int & Exh System

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 8

System Engineering - DESIGN

Component Attribute Targets

Cost & Weight Targets

Packaging Constraints New Design

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 9

System Engineering – VERIFICATION

The System Engineering “V”

Define Design Verify

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 11

1. Mule Demonstrator (often reworked/modified existing

2. Attribute Demonstrators (first dedicated prototypes, non

3. Confirmation Prototype (final prototypes, should be

4. Production Verification (off production line at production

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 12

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 13

P&E typically considered separate to Mechanical or NVH

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 14

Source: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - SEC(2007) 1723

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 15

• What is required to increase power to 200bhp without

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 16

η fuelconversion ×ηvolumetric × N × Vd × QHV × ρ air × ( F / A)

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 17

η fuelconversion ×ηvolumetric × N × Vd × QHV × ρ air × ( F / A)

Thermal efficiency Engine Speed Displacement Fuel Energy

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 18

engine mass and package requirements 100

• Power is “rate of doing work”, therefore 120

Specific Power [hp/L]

• Requires changes to engine design to 60

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 19

typical family car

AIS CFD 194

• Minimize losses – rule of thumb: 1.2% power / 10mbar

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 20

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 21

• Inertia tuning – inertia of air column in runner/port continues

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 22

Typical production I4 performance curve…

Closed Valve Tuning

Birmingham University Lecture - 2011 23

Volumetric Efficiency – Optimum Runner Lengths