Chapter 5

5.0 Efficiency
One of the greatest challenges facing the performance development engineer is the
minimization of fuel consumption. Having focused on the areas of reciprocator design,
air handling and combustion, it is now instructive to revisit the topic of fuel
consumption. The intent of this chapter is to identify the fundamental variables affecting
fuel consumption, and thus the levers available for its minimization.

5.1 The Fundamental Variables

Although the discussion of the preceding chapters has demonstrated a complex
interaction between many variables impacting the thermal efficiency of the engine, the
following sections will demonstrated that, for a 4-stroke reciprocating engine, all these
variables can be placed into one of three categorized:
1. those that alter the closed portion of the 4-stroke cycle
2. those that affect the open portion of the 4-stroke cycle
3. those that affect the rubbing friction and parasitics

All fuel economy changes can be explained in terms of one or more of these variables,
thus providing a concise approach to the assessment of an engine’s fuel economy or
thermal efficiency.

As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the main measure used to assess performance of a 4-

stroke diesel engine is the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Furthermore, it
was shown that the BSFC is just another way of expressing the thermal efficiency and
that these two quantities are inversely proportional as shown by:
Const  BHP 
 thermal    (5.1)
BSFC  LHV fuel * m
 fuel 

The question at hand is, what determines the efficiency of the engine? The first step in
answering this question is to get a better understanding of what the brake power
represents. So we expand BHP in the above equation definition in terms of torque and
speed to produce:

 T*N 
 thermal    (5.2)
 LHV fuel * m
 fuel 
Now, recall that we can express the torque (T) in terms of BMEP, which is a
displacement normalized torque. So, we now have:
  BMEP * D * N 
 thermal    (5.3)
 LHV fuel * m
 fuel 
Continuing to build upon this, we now recognize that, for a reciprocating engine, the
BMEP is the difference between the net indicated mean effective pressure (NIMEP) and
the friction mean effective pressure (FMEP). We also note that the NIMEP of a 4-stroke
reciprocating engine is the sum of the gross indicated mean effective pressure (GIMEP)
and the pumping mean effective pressure (PMEP). Using these definitions plus a bit of
algebraic manipulation we see that:
 BMEP * D * N   NIMEP   GIMEP 
 thermal   * *
 fuel   NIMEP   GIMEP 
 LHV fuel * m
 GIMEP * D * N   NIMEP   BMEP 
 thermal   * *
 LHV fuel * m  fuel   GIMEP   NIMEP 
 GIMEP * D * N   GIMEP  PMEP   BMEP 
 thermal   *  * (5.4)
 fuel  
 LHV fuel * m GIMEP   BMEP  FMEP 
With this regrouping of factors we can see (as stated at the beginning of the section) that
the thermal efficiency of a 4-stroke reciprocating engine is determined by three factors:
1. the efficiency of the compression-expansion strokes
2. the efficiency of the exhaust-intake strokes, and
3. the mechanical efficiency.

So, the equation above can be expressed as:

 thermal   closed *  open *  mechanical (5.5)
where:
GIMEP * D * N
 closed  (5.6)
LHV fuel * m
 fuel
NIMEP GIMEP  PMEP PMEP
 open    1 (5.7)
GIMEP GIMEP GIMEP
BMEP BMEP
 mechanical   (5.8)
NIMEP BMEP  FMEP

So, by studying each of these three elements we can begin to understand driving forces
behind the thermal efficiency of the engine system. The following sections discuss each
of these major contributors in detail.

5.2 Closed Cycle Efficiency

To understand the key factors that determine the closed cycle efficiency, we turn to the
thermodynamic system simulation TRANSENG. The starting point for this study is the
heat release rate diagram. The heat release rate diagram describes how much fuel is
burned at a given crank angle of the engine cycle. In other words, it is a way for us to
describe the entire combustion process. A "normal" rate shape, which typifies the burn
rates observed in modern 4-stroke direct-injected turbocharged and aftercooled diesel
engines is shown in Error: Reference source not found. These data were deduced from
experimental cylinder pressure measurements.

Impact of Heat Release Placement

4.5 18

4.0

Effective Expansion Ratio

Heat Release Rate [%/° C.A.]

16
Heat Release Rate
3.5
14
3.0
12
2.5
10
2.0
8
1.5
6
1.0
Expansion Ratio
0.5 4

0.0 2

-0.5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crank Angle [° C.A.]
HRRDIAG2

Figure 1 A Typical Heat Release Rate Diagram

data are then used by TRANSENG to and it is used to describe the combustion event
.each point and when is the description of fuel burning.

To study what affect the shape of the heat release rate diagram has on the efficiency of
the closed cycle, four distinctly different diagrams were use. These are shown in Error:
Reference source not found which contains:
1. a "normal" rate shape
2. a triangular rate shape
3. a rectangular rate shape, and
4. a half-sine wave rate shape

Each of these diagrams was used to conduct a timing swing and these data are shown in
These
 Heat Release Diagrams with Same Centroid
0.25

Heat Release Rate [%/° C.A.]

Normal HRR
0.20
Square HRR

Triangle HRR
0.15
Sine Wave HRR

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Crank Angle [ ° C.A.]

HRRDIAG0

Figure 2 Heat Release Diagrams Used For Study

At this point we define the Effective Expansion Ratio (ER eff) as:

EReff 
 hrr(  )* ER(  )* d (5.)
 hrr(  )* d
where:

These four heat release rate diagrams were used to conduct a parametric study with
TRANSENG to develop an understanding of closed cycle efficiency. A timing swing
was A series insight into the engine simulation program
shows

The apparent heat release diagram is shown in Figure 4-1. Optimizing the placement of
the heat release diagram (injection timing, and the heat release shape) is fundamental to
optimizing fuel economy. The objective behind this optimization is to maximize the
effective expansion ratio by releasing energy, and thus increasing cylinder pressure early
in the expansion stroke, when the greatest expansion ratio is available. But the question
remains how to break the problem down to its most fundamental level, and avoid trial-
and-error approaches to fuel economy optimization. The concept of the heat release
centroid will be helpful in achieving this goal. The heat release centroid is found by
taking the first moment of the heat release rate diagram with respect to the x-axis. For
any given heat release diagram the centroid can be calculated by integration of the heat
release as a function of time. Several theoretical heat release diagrams are shown in
Figure 4-2. Although each of these diagrams have very different rates of energy release,
and very different start-of-injection timings, they all have the same centroid. Timing
swings were done using each of these heat release rates to determine the optimum start-
of-injection timing (actually start-of-combustion) for minimum fuel consumption. This
is the variable usually being monitored in fuel consumption optimization efforts. For the
heat release diagrams shown in Figure 4-2 the results of the timing swings are shown in
Figure 4-3, in terms of indicated specific fuel consumption versus start-of-combustion
timing. Not surprisingly, the optimum start-of-combustion timing for these various heat
release rates is quite different. However, if these same timing swings are done, and the
resulting fuel consumption plotted as a function of the timing of the centroid of heat
release, it is found that all of these heat release rates result in the same optimum centroid
timing. This is shown in Figure 4-4. In fact, it has been found that virtually all engines
regardless of size, configuration, duty cycle or manufacturer have very nearly the same
optimum timing for the centroid of heat release. The optimum heat release centroid
timing varies slightly with engine speed between about seven and nine degrees after TDC
for virtually all engines.

For us to better understand how we get work from a cylinder, consider the normalized
log(P)-log(V) diagram shown in Figure 3 Normalized Log(P)-Log(V) Diagram (Case 1).
In this diagram the volume at TDC is 1 and the volume at BDC is 16, thus giving us a
compression ratio of 16:1. Starting from BDC we have some Amman of air in the
chamber and we compress the air along the lower line as we move up to TDC. At TDC
some amount of fuel energy is release thus increasing the cylinder pressure with constant
volume burning. Then the hot high pressure gases are expanded from TDC to BDC.
Recall that the amount of work we get from the reciprocator is calculated from
 P * dV

from that work is from BCjust after the intake stconsider the fact that the which
represents the giving
 Fuel Burning at Minimum Volume
100

50
Relative Pressure

10

5
TDC BDC

1 Effective Expansion Ratio = 16

0.5
0.8 1 2 8 16

Relative Volume

PVCASEL1

Figure 3 Normalized Log(P)-Log(V) Diagram (Case 1)

Fuel Burning at 2 X Minimum Volume

100

50
Relative Pressure

10

5
TDC BDC

1 Effective Expansion Ratio = 8

0.5
0.8 1 2 8 16

Relative Volume

PVCASEL2

Figure 4 Normalized Log(P)-Log(V) Diagram (Case 2)

In order to address the question of why the heat release centroid timing does not change
from one engine to another it is necessary to focus on the effective expansion ratio. The
expansion ratio of the engine is the ratio of volumes between that at the bottom of the
expansion stroke and that at the top of the expansion stroke. The effective expansion
ratio is that portion of the expansion ratio being utilized to do useful work. For the
purpose of this discussion it is the ratio of the maximum volume to that at the crank angle
location of the centroid of heat release. Looking at an ideal cycle with no heat transfer
losses, placing the centroid at TDC results in the maximum effective expansion ratio, and
thus the maximum useful work output. If the centroid of heat release is retarded from
TDC the effective expansion ratio is reduced, thus reducing the area enclosed by the
Pressure-Volume diagram, and the work output as shown in Figure 4-5. This analysis
would suggest that the optimum timing for the centroid of heat release would be TDC,
while the earlier analysis demonstrated that the optimum centroid timing was a few
degrees after TDC. The difference may be explained by the presence of heat transfer.
Energy losses due to heat transfer from the cylinder are increased as the centroid is
advanced, and the optimum centroid timing is thus determined by the trade-off between
maximizing the effective expansion ratio, and minimizing heat transfer losses. This is
further demonstrated in Figure 4-6, where timing swings are shown in terms of the heat
release centroid with and without heat transfer, for two different heat release diagrams.
Without heat transfer the optimum centroid timing is TDC, while with heat transfer it is
approximately seven degrees after TDC.

Two final observations should be made concerning closed-cycle thermal efficiency.

First, it should be intuitive that differences in heat transfer from one engine to another
would cause the optimum heat release centroid timing to shift. The fact that very little
shift is seen in practice suggests that heat transfer is somewhat of a given regardless of
engine design, and may not be as easily manipulated as is often thought. The second
observation may best be made by referring back to Figure 4-4. It should be noted that
although all of the heat release rates result in the same optimum centroid timing, they do
not result in the same fuel consumption. The heat release rates resulting in the shortest
heat release durations (see Figure 4-2), with energy release closely concentrated around
the centroid provide the lowest fuel consumption. Minimizing the duration of the heat
release remains a fundamental objective for optimized fuel consumption.

Before leaving the discussion of closed-cycle thermal efficiency the place of the
geometric compression ratio must be addressed. Figure 4-7 shows the effective
expansion ratio as a function of geometric compression ratio. At any given heat release
timing it should be apparent that the effective expansion ratio can be increased by
increasing the geometric compression ratio. This would suggest that for optimum fuel
economy the injection timing should be such that the heat release centroid timing is
optimized, and the geometric compression ratio raised as high as possible within
mechanical constraints on peak cylinder pressure.
5.3 Open-Cycle Thermal Efficiency
The discussion in Chapter 4 focused on the open portion of the four-stroke cycle -- the
intake and exhaust processes. Regarding the efficiency of the engine, we are now
concerned with the net work involved in these processes. More specifically, for the four-
stroke cycle, the net work exerted by the gas onto the piston during the exhaust and
intake strokes can e calculated from:
BDC int
Wpumping   PdV
BDCexh

where:

Wpumping = Pumping Work

If this quantity is normalizes by the engine displacement (per the discussion in Chapter
1), the pumping work can be rewriten as a mean effective pressure. Namely, the
pumping mean effective pressure (PMEP) is defined as:
BDC int
PdV
PMEP  
BDCexh
Disp

where:

As discussed under the closed cycle, the piston motion (and therefore the volume change)
is dictated by the slider-crank mechanism of the piston, rod and crank. So, once the
physical geometry of the engine is established, efforts to improve the work associated
with the intake and exhaust processes should focus on ways to manipulate the in-cylinder
pressures during the intake and exhaust strokes. on geometry is es, we do not have any
coour efforts to alter or improve the work during the gas echange process should focus
on our a in- shown
can be calculated as:

In the optimization of fuel consumption these pressures are the fundamental open-cycle
variables. Note that a one psi change in in-cylinder pressure during either the intake or
exhaust process will result in a direct one psi change in the mean effective pressure of the
engine. For a 200 psi bmep engine a one psi change results in one half percent change in
bmep, and thus fuel consumption. All of the variables important to the performance
development engineer during the intake and exhaust processes of the engine come down
to their impact on in-cylinder pressures. This is graphically represented in Error:
Reference source not found which shows the five (valve timing, turbocharger efficiency,
port and manifold design)

. The turbocharger design and resulting efficiency define the turbocharger work balance
shown in the figure, and thus the placement of the turbine inlet and compressor outlet
pressures relative to one another. The resulting in-cylinder pressures are dependent on
the turbocharger work balance plus the losses in the intake and exhaust manifolds and
ports, and across the valves, again as indicated in Figure 4-8.
 Open Cycle Performance is Determined
by the Management of Pressures
Power = Pressure * Rate of Volume Change

In-Cylinder Pressure

Exhaust Valve Pressure Drop

Exhaust Manifold Pressure Drop

Turbocharger Work Balance

Intake Manifold Pressure Drop

Intake Valve Pressure Drop

TDC Cylinder Volume BDC

PUMPING

Figure 5 Variables Affecting PMEP

As was mentioned at the outset of this section, a one psi change in either the intake or
exhaust pressure results directly in a one psi change in mean effective pressure. This
results in larger displacement engines being more sensitive to design changes which
impact open-cycle pressures, when being compared at the same power output. If two
engines of different displacement are producing the same power output the smaller
engine will operate at a higher mean effective pressure. Thus the one psi change will be
taken as a percentage of a larger number, resulting in a smaller impact.

Another way to look at this point is that the larger displacement engine displaces a
greater volume, and since work output is determined by the pressure acting over the
change in volume (PdV), the same pressure change acting over a greater displacement
results in a greater change in work output. This is further illustrated in Figure 4-9, where
the change in power output is plotted versus a net open-cycle pressure change for both a
ten and fourteen liter engine. For the same pressure change the horsepower change is 40
percent greater for the fourteen liter engine then for the ten liter engine.

Figure 4-10 shows the effects of turbocharger combined efficiency and turbine inlet
temperature on the turbocharger work balance (in terms of the difference between
compressor outlet pressure and turbine inlet pressure). Increasing either the turbocharger
efficiency or the turbine inlet temperature results in an improved turbocharger work
balance. Improving the turbocharger combined efficiency from 50 to 57 percent results
in a two to four psi improvement in the work balance, which for a 200 psi bmep engine
translates directly into a one to two percent improvement in fuel economy. It should
again be noted that this same efficiency improvement results in a smaller gain in fuel
economy as the bmep of an engine is increased. It should also be noted however that as
the compressor pressure ratio is increased (necessary for increased bmep) the effect on
the turbocharger work balance is generally negative. This is shown in Figure 4-11,
where the manifold pressure differential is plotted as a function of compressor pressure
ratio at a constant turbine inlet temperature and turbocharger combined efficiency. This
is a direct result of the increasing pressure differentials across both the compressor and
the turbine, and the losses associated with each unit. It becomes less of an effect as the
turbine inlet temperature is increased because the increased temperature allows a
reduction in the pressure ratio across the turbine for the same compressor pressure ratio.

Effect of Comp Pressure Ratio on P

Combined Efficiency= (comp)*(turb)*(shaft) = 50%
6
5
4
(Pcomp out - Pturb in) [psi]

Tturb = 1200 F
3
2
1
0
Tturb = 1100 F
-1
-2
-3
-4
Tturb = 900 F Tturb = 1000 F
-5
-6
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Compressor Pressure Ratio

TURBDP02

Figure 6 Effect of Turbocharger Comined Efficiency on P

 Effect of Turbine Inlet Temp. on P
Compressor Pressure Ratio = 2.30
6
5
4
(Pcomp out - Pturb in) [psi]

3 Combined
2 Efficiency
1
0
57%
-1
-2
-3
-4
50%
-5
-6
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Turbine Inlet Temperature [° F]

TURBDP03

Figure 7 Effect of Efficiency on DP

5.4 Mechanical Efficiency

This section is currently being writen
 Pressure Losses
N14 - 330 HP @ 1800 RPM - A/F=32
0.0

-0.5
Pressure Differential [psi]

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

-3.5
Intake Intake Exhaust Exhaust
Manifold Valves Valves Manifold
PRESSLOS

Figure 8

Air Handling Loss Summary

(for N14, 1 psi = 1.94 HP @ 1800 rpm)

Pressure Differential "Old" "New"

Turbocharger Work Balance -2.52 1.00
Intake Manifold -1.47 -0.60
Intake Valve -3.20 -2.80
Exhaust Valve -3.13 -2.70
Exhaust Manifold -1.80 -0.90
Total -12.12 -6.00

Figure 9
 Motoring Tear-Down Test
NTC350 S/N 10483428 Test Cell 201
35

30 Int & Exh Pipes

MEP Supplied by Dyno [psi]

Total Motoring
Friction Int & Exh Manifolds
25 (MMEP)

20 Cylinder Head

15
Mechanical
10 Friction Piston & Rings
(FMEP) Fuel Pump
Water Pump
5
Lube Pump
Crank & Cam
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Engine Speed [rev/min]

Figure 10 -

Lubrication Regimes

0.1

0.01

0.001

Hydrodynamic

(Dynamic viscosity)*(Speed)
(Load per unit area)
LUBEREG
Figure 11 -

5.5 Summary
This section will summary this chapter