See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338431073

Design analysis and control of the V2-6 Stirling engine

Conference Paper · May 2018

CITATION READS

1 932

3 authors:

Stefan Larsson Peter Bertil Platell

Maston AB RANOTOR AB
7 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adhemar Araoz
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modeling and simulation of micro-scale polygeneration plant fuelled on organic residues in Bolivia View project

Solar multimode inverter system with energy storage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefan Larsson on 07 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design analysis and control of the V2-6 Stirling engine

Joseph Araoz a, *, Peter Platell band Stefan Larsson-Mastonstråle c

a
Universidad Mayor de San Simón (UMSS), Cochabamba, Bolivia
b
Inresol AB, Hasselgatan 5, Gävle, Sweden
cb
Inresol AB, Hasselgatan 5, City, Gävle, Sweden
*Joseph Araoz: araoz@kth.se

Keywords: Optimization, Thermodynamics, SAGE, Numerical Model, Design

ABSTRACT
The design of Stirling requires a deep understanding of the complex interactions
between the dynamics of the mechanical components, and the thermodynamics of the
working fluid. This study used a simulation tool to develop a mathematical model that
could reflect the mentioned interactions. The model was then used for a simulation
based study of an engine prototype. In this study, the effect of different design and
operational parameters over the engine performance were stablished, with special
attention to the effect of the pressures at the different working spaces and at the buffer
space of the prototype. A detailed analysis for gas leakages and its relations with the
pressures levels were also presented. The parametric analysis was the basis to set an
optimization routine. Two different optimization goals were compared, and this allowed
to determine two different sets of optimal design points. The first goal maximized the
net power output of the engine to a value of 4760 W with an efficiency of 48.60%. The
second maximized the engine efficiency to 54.8% with a power of 2230 W.

1. INTRODUCTION

Stirling engines are characterized by the closed regenerative thermodynamic cycle that
governs their operation. This closed cycle imposes a strict requirement for the
dynamics of the working fluid, since unlike other thermodynamic cycles, it is the same
fluid that undergoes the cyclic expansion, compression, heating and cooling.
Furthermore, the dynamics of the gas should interact harmonically with the pistons,
and displacer mechanisms to achieve stable operations. For these reasons, the
development of Stirling engines requires a deep understanding of its components and
their interactions, which involves an integral analysis of different phenomena. These
phenomena include the thermodynamics of the working fluid, the heat transfer in the
different heat exchangers, the interaction of the mechanical components, and the
inertia effect of flywheels for the case of kinematic type SE.

The complexity of the engine operation has given rise to different analysis techniques,
which can be categorized according to Dyson et al [1] into zero order; approximate,
first order; decoupled, second order; nodal analysis, third order; and recently
multidimensional analysis, fourth order.

Among the described techniques, second order have been probed suitable for the
performance analysis of different engines, as it is reported by Formosa [2], Cheng and
Yu [3], Mehdizadeh [4], and Parlak et al [5]. However, the level of accuracy in this
approach must be improved by including empirical correlations for the decoupled
evaluation of different energy losses. In this sense, the third order techniques

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: ; Fax: ; E-mail address:

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
characterized by coupling the evaluation of the energy losses within the governing
equations, represent an improvement for the analysis of the interactions between the
engine components. The works of Filkenstein [6],Urielli [7], Schock[8], Gedeon [9], Tew
et al [10], Organ [11], and Larsson[12] have contributed with the development of these
techniques.

The analysis techniques have been used for the design assessment of various Stirling
engines. Some prototype examples are the engines developed by Strauss [13],
Timouni [14], Cinar [15], Féniès [16], Duan [17], Damirchi[18], and Yang [19] . Other
studies are focused on the performance analysis of different parameters. For example
the effect of operational variables, such as the working gas temperatures, and the type
of working fluid were studied by Bert et al[20]. The influence of the operational
frequency, compression ratios, and pressure levels were reported by Strauss [13],
Timouni[21,22], Tew[23], Garcia[24], Paul [25], and Cheng[26]. The design of the heat
exchangers was studied by Scollo [27], and Kuosa[28]. The geometry of the kinematic
mechanism was analyzed by Cheng[3,26], and Karabulut[29], and the effect of the
regenerator design was studied in detail by Andersen [30], Gheith[31] and Costa [32].

The mentioned studies promoted the SE development, and in some cases guided the
design of new prototypes. However, there is still the need for understanding the effect
of additional variables. In the case of kinematic engines, the effect of the buffer space
at different pressure levels, the flywheel Inertia, and the dynamics of the crank
mechanism requires to be integrated into the analysis. Furthermore, the design of the
control system should also be included to give a more complete design assessment.
This work aims to integrate these additional variables by developing a mathematical
model using the commercial software SAGE[9], which is based on a third order
analysis. The model developed aims to reflect the V2-6 engine operation, and then
through a series of simulation guide the design towards the efficiency and power
improvement of the engine.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

The methodology follows a numerical approach. First a mathematical model for the
V2-6 engine was developed using the commercial software SAGE. The model was
then used for the simulation under certain operational conditions, and the results were
compared with experimental measurements for the model validation. This was an
iterative process with the model improvement on every stage. After the validation, the
model was used for the analysis of different variables that influenced the engine,
considering the power output and efficiency as performance indicators. The analysis
allowed to identify optimal design parameters, which serve as guidelines for the engine
improvement.

3. THEORY/CALCULATION
3.1 ENGINE DESCRIPTION

The V2-6 engine is a gamma type kinematic prototype developed by Inresol AB.
Figure1 shows a picture of the engine, together with a scheme of the different engine
spaces. The engine has the expansion and compressions spaces connected by the
transfer tube and the series of heat exchangers, heater, regenerator and cooler.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 Figure 1: V2-6 Stirling engine with a scheme of the different spaces

3.2 THE STIRLING ENGINE MODEL

SAGE [9] allows the use of different components with their corresponding governing
equations to build an overall Stirling engine model. Figure 2 shows the components
used to model the V2-6 Stirling engine.

Figure 2:Stirling engine model in SAGE

The model for the crank mechanism consists on a common flywheel where two
linkages are attached through torque connectors TGt 12 and TGt 4, one for the
displacer and the other for the power piston, as shown in Figure 1. Physically the
flywheel behaves as a constant torque drive wheel, and it handles the rotational inertia
of the crank-system. The model solves three main state variables ϴ, ϴd and ϴdd,
corresponding to the rotation angle, angular velocity, and angular acceleration. The
main equation for the flywheel model is based on Newton’s equation of motion,
Equation 1.
𝑇 = 𝐼𝜃%% (1)
The kinematic linkages implement the math required to convert the flywheel rotary
motion into a back and forth reciprocating movement. The linkages relate the angular
Torque and the Forces with the energy conservation principle shown in Equation 2.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 𝑇𝜃 = 𝐹𝑥 (2)
The reciprocators model the piston and the displacer with their movements governed
by Newton’s equation of motion.
𝐹 = 𝑚𝑥 (3)
The Forces acting on the reciprocators come from three different kind of sources. The
pressure forces from the working fluid (PGT16 over the piston and PGT 17 over the
displacer). The forces from the rotary motion (FGT 7 and FGT 15), and the forces from
the pressure at the buffer space (PGt 21). The buffer pressure is modelled by a circuit
consisting on a generic cylinder, one tube, and another generic cylinder. This aims to
represent the variation of the gas at the buffer space when the power piston moves up
and down. The generic cylinders represent variable volume spaces, and the tubes
bundle is the constant volume region of the buffer space. The pressure at the buffer
space is set by the source (ρ23). This pressure might differ from the initial charged
pressure (ρ9), which models the initial pressure level of the working fluid inside the
working spaces.

The gas circuit models the fluid dynamics of the working fluid when following the back
and forth cycle from the expansion space to the compression space, passing thorough
the heater-regenerator-cooler-and the transfer tube. Figure 3 shows the details of the
gas circuit model.

Figure 3: Details for the gas circuit model

The equations that govern the gas dynamics are the one dimensional Navier Stokes,
Equations 4-6. These are applied to the different type of working spaces, which
include: Variable volume spaces (Compression and Expansion), tubular spaces
(transfer tube, cooler tubes, and heater tubes), and the annular canister that contains
the regenerator.

*+, *+/,
Continuity + =0 (4)
*- *0

*+/, */+/, *2
Momentum + + 𝐴 − 𝐹5 𝐴 = 0 (5)
*- *0 *0

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 *+6, *, * /+6,8/2,89
Energy +𝑃 + − 𝑄; = 0 (6)
*- *- *0

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A base case simulation is defined with the operating conditions shown in Table 1.
These conditions correspond also to experimental tests performed with the engine.
Geometric parameters of the actual engine are also shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Operating Conditions

Charged Pressure 25 bar
Buffer Presure 29 bar
Frequency 10 Hz
Temperature at the wall of the Cooler 300 K
Temperature at the wall of the Heater 1023 K
Temperature at the wall of the Expansion Space 1023 K
Temperature at the wall of the Compression Space 300 K

Table 2: Geometric Parameters

Power Cylinder Diameter 8.75 cm
Power Cylinder Stroke 7.5 cm
Swept Volume Compression Space 450.7 cm3
Displacer Cylinder Diameter 9.8 cm
Displacer Cylinder Stroke 7.5 cm
Swept Volume Expansion Space 565.3 cm3
Tubes in Heater 34
Length of Heater Tubes 39.2 cm
Diameter of Heater Tubes 6 mm
Tubes in Cooler 231
Length of Cooler Tubes 9.71 cm
Diameter of Transfer Tube 2.5 cm
Length of Transfer Tube 16.3 cm
Regenerator Length 6.5 cm
Regenerator External Diameter 1.40 cm
Regenerator Internal Diameter 1 cm
Regenerator Porosity 0.91

4.1 PRESSURE AND VOLUME VARIATION

Measurements at the compression, and the buffer space were taken to analyse the
pressure and volume variation. Figure 4 shows the variation of the volume at the
compression space. The numerical simulations agree with the experimental data for
volume variation, and thus reflects well the dynamics of the piston movement.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 7,00E-04

6,00E-04

5,00E-04
Volume (m3)
4,00E-04

3,00E-04 Simulation

2,00E-04 Experimental

1,00E-04

0,00E+00
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1

Time (s)
Figure 4: Experimental and numerical results for the variation of the volume at compression space

The variation of the Pressures at the compression space, and at the buffer space are
shown in Figure 5. The frequency for the pressure fluctuation at the compression
space is well captured by the simulation model. However, the amplitude of these
changes is slightly overestimated. Regarding the pressure at the buffer space, the
simulation model estimates an almost constant value, closer to the average of the data
from the experimental measurements.

Considering the complexity of the fluid dynamics at the different spaces, the results
obtained with the model are considered acceptable for the design analysis. However,
a slightly overestimated power output is expected.

40,0000

35,0000

30,0000
Pressure (bar)

Pcomp Experimental
25,0000
Pbuff Experimental

Pbuff Simulation
20,0000
PComp Simulation

15,0000

10,0000
0,0000 0,1000 0,2000 0,3000

Time (s)
Figure 5: Experimental and numerical results for the pressures at the compression and at the buffer spaces

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
4.2. PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS

The model allowed to identify the parameters that influence the engine operation. The
results for the parameters with higher influence are discussed in this section. For this
analysis the power output and the efficiency were used as performance indicators.

Inertia of the Flywheel

The flywheel inertia allows the stabilization of the angular velocity, working as an
energy storage system that compensates the energy variation during the cycle. Figure
6 shows the simulation results at different levels of flywheel Inertia, when the pressures
at the working spaces, and at the buffer space are initially set at 8 bar. It is important
to highlight, that for these simulations the pressure was set lower than the operating
pressure shown in Table 1. The value was not set arbitrarily, but it was found from the
fact that when setting low moments of Inertia, and higher pressures, the simulation
could not converge. This problem does not only reflect a numerical error, but mainly
the difficulty that the engine would have to stabilize the angular velocity when big forces
are drastically changing during the cycle. Figure 6 reflects this problem, showing that
the efficiency and the power output differ considerably between operations at low and
high levels of inertia. In fact, the efficiency and power output increase with higher
moments of inertia. However, when the values are higher than I=0.5 kg m2 this positive
influence is almost insignificant. This allows to identify an optimal range for the level of
Inertia, around I=0.3 - 0.5 kg m2 at this pressure level.

1400 0,55

1300
0,5

1200
Power (W)

0,45
Efficiency

1100
Power
0,4
1000 Efficiency

0,35
900

800 0,3
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Moment of Inertia (kgm2)

Figure 6: Variation of Power and Efficiency at different Moment of Inertia, Pch=Pbuff = 8bar.

Charged pressure and buffer pressure

The previous analysis showed the relevance of the flywheel to balance a determined
pressure. This section complements this analysis, by including a variation on the
pressures at the buffer and at the working spaces. It is assumed that both pressures
are initially equal Pbuff=Pcharged.

Figure 7 shows the variation of the power and the efficiency when the Inertia is fixed
at two different values, I=0.4 kg m2 and I=0.2 kg m2, and the pressures at the buffer

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
and working spaces vary from 8 bar to 40 bar. The results for both levels of inertia
show a raise on the power output, and a slight decrease on the efficiency when the
pressures are increased. The order of magnitude for the power increment is much
higher than the efficiency variation, which gives a net positive effect of operating for
higher pressures. It is also important to notice that the higher level of Inertia improved
the performance as it was discussed previously.

0,55
7800

6800 0,5

5800
0,45
Power (W)

Efficiency
4800 Power Inertia 0.4
0,4
3800 Power Inertia 0.2

0,35 Efficiency Inertia 0.4

2800 Efficiency Inertia 0.2
0,3
1800

800 0,25
0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (bar)

Figure 7: Power and Efficiency at different buffer and working space pressures .

Leakage through the gap space in the compression space at different pressures

Operating at higher pressures requires better sealings. For this reason, a gas leakage
through an annular gap from the compression space to the buffer space was included
in the model. Figure 8 shows the effect that different gap sizes have on the power
output. The initial pressure was set at a medium level Pch=15 bar, and the influence
of varying the pressure at the buffer space was also studied.

Figure 8 allows to quantify the great influence of gas leakages. The power difference
reaches around 400 W for less than 0.04 mm variation in gaps. Figure 8 also reflects
the relevance of the buffer pressure to reduce the power losses. The higher the buffer
pressure, the lower the effect of the leakage. This is even more relevant when the gaps
are bigger. This last point is very reasonable, since the pressure difference is one the
main drivers for the leakage.

The results shown in Figure 9 aim to complement the previous analysis by increasing
the charged Pressure to a level of Pch= 25 bar. At this high pressure, the increment of
the buffer pressure still reduces the effect of the leakages. However, when the gaps
are bigger, there is a limit around Pbuff=34 bar. At this point additional increments on
the buffer pressure start to show a negative effect on the power output.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 2200

2150

2100

2050
Power (W)
2000

1950

1900

1850

1800
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Buffer Pressure (bar)

Gap 0.01 mm Gap 0.0126 mm Gap 0.0159 mm

Gap 0.02 mm Gap 0.0252 mm Gap 0.0318 mm

Gap 0.04 mm Gap 0.05 mm

Figure 8: Variation of the power output with gap leakages at different buffer pressures and at initial
Pch=15 bar

3500

3450

3400

3350
Power (W)

3300

3250

3200

3150

3100

3050
8 13 18 23 28 33 38
Buffer Pressure (bar)

Gap 0.01 mm Gap 0.0138 mm Gap 0.0190 mm

Gap 0.0263 mm Gap 0.0362 mm

Figure 9: Variation of the power output with gap leakages at different buffer pressures and at initial
Pch=25 bar

The preceding leakage analysis considered very small sizes for the gaps. Figure 10
shows the results for bigger gap sizes, and operating at three different levels of
pressure. This analysis considers that the level of the pressure at the buffer space is

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
slightly higher than the initial charged pressure, a conclusion that was obtained on the
previous section. Considering these conditions, the power losses are in the order of
2000 W. This negative effect is even larger at higher pressures.

4000

3500

3000

2500
Power (W)

2000 P 10 bar

1500 P 15 bar

1000 P 25 bar

500

0
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3
Gap length (mm)

Figure 10: Variation of the power output with big gap leakages at three different levels of pressure

Regenerator Length and Porosity

The regenerator is a critical heat exchanger, since the thermal performance of the
engine largely depends on this component. Figure 11 supports this claim by showing
the influence that changing the length of this component have on the engine
performance. Figure 11 also reflects a compromise between a positive increment of
the engine efficiency but a reduced power output, when increasing the regenerator
length.
3500 0,6

3400 0,5

3300 0,4
Power (W)

Efficiency

Power
3200 0,3
Efficiency

3100 0,2

3000 0,1

2900 0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Regenerator Length(m)

Figure 11:Power output and engine efficiency at different regenerator lengths.

In addition to the regenerator’s length, the porosity of the material is another important
parameter. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the results for the variation of the power

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
output and the efficiency when the porosity and the length of the regenerator are
changed.

Figure 12 shows two different effects when increasing the length of the regenerator.
The first one is a positive power increment at porosity levels higher than 0.75.
However, this positive increment has an upper limit and when the length reaches this
point the increment is almost negligible. For example following the curve at a porosity
of 0.98, this limit is around L=0.04 m. The second effect is at lower porosity values,
below 0.75. For these cases the increment of the regenerator length decreases greatly
the power ouput, which is explained by the increased pressure drop at these porosity
levels. Figure 13 complements the analysis by showing a similar effect on the engine
efficiency. The efficiency also increases at high porosity values, but the upper limit for
the efficiency is located at higher lengths. The decline on efficiency is also present,
when the length is increased with low porosity materials.

4000

3500
Porosity 0.9
3000 Porosity 0.8

2500 Porosity 0.635

Power (W)

Porosity 0.95
2000
Porosity 0.75
1500 Porosity 0.98

1000 Porosity 0.85

Porosity 0.93
500

0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Regenerator Length(m)
Figure 12: Variation of the power output when changing the porosity and the length of the regenerator

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 0,6

0,5
Porosity 0.9

Porosity 0.8
0,4
Porosity 0.635
Efficiency

Porosity 0.95
0,3
Porosity 0.75

Porosity 0.98
0,2
Porosity 0.85

Porosity 0.93
0,1

0
0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1
Regenerator Length(m)
Figure 13: Variation of the efficiency when changing the porosity and the length of the regenerator

Heater Length

Figure 14 shows the increment in power output and efficiency when increasing the
length of the heater. This effect is positive until reaching a certain length, around
L=0.15 m for this case. Beyond this point, increasing the heater length slightly reduces
the power output and the effect on the efficiency is almost negligible. The positive
effect is explained by a higher heat transfer due an increased heat transfer area, and
the negative effect is due to the increased pressure drop and dead volume. It is
important to mention that the analysis is based in a model that does not consider the
external heat transfer mechanism. In fact, the model assumes constant temperatures
at the walls of the heat exchangers. Despite of these limitations, the analysis reflects
the great influence on the performance, for example the difference in power outputs
are in the order of 2000 W.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 4000,00 0,60

3500,00 Power
0,50
3000,00 Efficiency
0,40
2500,00
Power (W)

Efficiency
2000,00 0,30

1500,00
0,20
1000,00
0,10
500,00

0,00 0,00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Heater Length (m)

Figure 14: Variation of the Power output and the efficiency with the heater length

Cooler Length

The analysis for the cooler heat exchanger has the same limitations as in the heater
case, the temperatures at the cooler walls are assumed constant. However, the cooling
fluid is usually water, and thus the external exchange phenomena is characterized by
high heat transfer coefficients. Under these assumptions, the variation of the power
and efficiency are shown in Figure 15. It can be noticed that increasing the cooler
length presents a positive effect on both power output and efficiency, but an upper limit
is also identified. Beyond certain length, L=0.05 m at the power output curve, the power
decreases drastically. Similarly, beyond the length L=0.08 m at the efficiency curve,
the efficiency starts to decrease. It is important to highlight that effect of changing the
cooler length is lower than the effect of changing the heater length, for example the
order for the power variation is around 200W, which is ten times lower than the 2000W
identified in the heater analysis.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 3600 0,51

3550 0,505
3500
0,5
Power (W)

Efficiency
3450
Power
0,495
3400
0,49
3350

3300 0,485

3250 0,48
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2
Cooler Length (m)
Figure 15: Variation of the Power output and the efficiency with the cooler length

Transfer Tube

The transfer tube is important for the V2-6 design, since allows the flow of the gas from
the hot side to the cool side of the engine. Figure 16 shows that changing the length
of this tube does not affect much the engine efficiency, but it does slightly affect the
power output. According to the results, a shorter tube should be preferred. This
because the flow through this tube represents pressure drops. However, as seen in
Figure 1, the sizing of this tube depends more on geometrical restrictions imposed by
the size of the other spaces.

3650 0,55
3600 0,5

3550 0,45
0,4
3500
Power (W)

Efficiency

0,35 Power
3450
0,3 Efficiency
3400
0,25
3350 0,2
3300 0,15
3250 0,1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3
Tube Length (m)
Figure 16:Variation of the Power output and the efficiency with the length of the transfer tube

4.3 Engine Optimization

The parametric analysis allowed to define the ranges for which the different variables
should be changed. This information was used to set an optimization analysis in SAGE.
Two optimization problems were considered, one with the objective to maximize the

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
net power, and the other with the objective to maximize the efficiency. The optimization
problem with the constraints was set as below.

𝑂𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 ∶
1: 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
2: 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠 ∶
0.3𝑁𝑚W ≤ 𝐼 ≤ 0.6 𝑁𝑚W
20 𝑏𝑎𝑟 ≤ 𝑃Z[ ≤ 30 𝑏𝑎𝑟
20 𝑏𝑎𝑟 ≤ 𝑃\/]] ≤ 30 𝑏𝑎𝑟
0.01 𝑚 ≤ 𝐿_6`6a ≤ 0.06 𝑚
0.75 ≤ 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 ≤ 1
0.10 𝑚 ≤ 𝐿[6d-6_ ≤ 0.40 𝑚
0.05 𝑚 ≤ 𝐿Zffg6_ ≤ 0.2 𝑚

Table 3 shows the optimal values obtained with the SAGE optimization tool, and the
set of values selected by using the parametric analysis. As mentioned above, two
optimization objectives were considered. According to Table 3, the optimal set of
parameters largely differ between both cases. Comparing both cases, the highest
power is obtained operating at high pressures, with a short and less porous
regenerator, and the lengths of the heater and of the cooler are also slightly shorter
than in the efficiency optimization case. The difference in power output between both
cases is around 2000 W, which reflects a very large expense for a slight increment on
the efficiency. For this reason, the set of parameters that maximize the power might
be preferred. On the other hand, the results obtained with the parametric analysis
present an alternative set of parameters with reasonable levels of power output and
efficiency.

Table 3: Optimal values for the different parameters

Variable Maximum Power Maximum Efficiency Parametric
Analysis
Net Power 4760 W 2230 W 3421 W
Efficiency 0.4860 0.5480 0.5068
Inertia 0.6 kg m2 0.6 kg m2 0.4 kg m2
Pch 30 bar 20 bar 25 bar
Pbuff 30 bar 30 bar 25 bar
Lregen 0.0156 m 0.06 m 0.0325 m
Porosity 0.83 0.90 0.90
Lheater 0.20 m 0.253 m 0.39 m
Lcooler 0.052 m 0.053 0.097 m

4.4 The control System

The stirling engine have a permanent magnet motor/generator connected to the

crank shaft that produce a 3-phase voltage output at ca 170Hz at nominal rpm. Power
is extracted via an active rectifier IGBT circuit with variable frequency control and
regenerative drive. The system level diagram is presented in figure 17.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 Figure 17. The stirling engine power electronics and engine control system

The electric power generated by the engine is stored in a Battery module as DC

current, and there is a grid inverter connected to the DC-bus from the Battery and
Motor inverter.
The main application software controls the engine power generation via control of
the burner (or other heat source), the engine working gas pressure, and the speed of
the engine is controlled by the amount of regenerative braking applied by the Motor
controller at any given moment. Battery charging and thermal heating output is
controlled by a series of state machine control parameters, described in the flow chart
in figure 18.
Controlling the amount of Regenerative Braking is done by varying the back
electromotive force (BEMF) in the motor/generator stator winding. The BEMF, for any
supply voltage there is a speed at which the motor will draw no current at all. The ratio
of BEMF/RPM is a constant. Provided that the motor speed can be measured, and in
this case the speed and rotation of the motor/generator is measured by sensorless
control where the stator windings are used as a sensor coil or “resolver” coil.

The controller can compute the motor's BEMF to do any of the following:
1- Match the motor's BEMF voltage, in which case the motor neither accelerates nor
brakes.
2- Exceed the motor's BEMF voltage, in which case the motor will accelerate
3- Be lower than the motor's BEMF voltage, in which case the motor will brake and
regenerate current.

The greater the difference between the motor's BEMF and the controller's output
voltage, the stronger the regeneration and braking will be. Assuming that the battery
level will remain fairly constant, a simplified approximation of the above theory can be
done by figuring the ratio of the controller's power output PWM level and the resulting
speed at that level. This is used to add crank shaft speed control via the power

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
generator during the regenerative breaking, as a “virtual” flywheel on top of the
mechanical flywheel mass.

Figure 18. The stirling engine system application level function flow chart

5. CONCLUSIONS

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
This article analyses in detail the influence of different parameters on a gamma type
Stirling engine. The proposed model integrated the mechanical and thermal dynamics
of the engine, which was important to study the engine within a complete system
perspective.

The optimization methodology first required a parametric analysis that allowed to

recognize the individual effect of different variables. From this analysis, the following
points were identified:
- The importance of a flywheel with an adequate moment of Inertia, which must balance the
changes on the pressure forces during the engine operation.
- The proportional increment of the power output when operating at higher pressures.
- The great influence of gas leakages through the gaps spaces, even at very small lengths.
- The importance of the buffer pressure for reducing the negative effect of gas leakages and
its relevance to balance the pressure variation in the working spaces. This allowed to
identify the need to maintain buffer pressures slightly higher than the pressures at the
working spaces.
- The need for an adequate sizing of the different heat exchangers, different curves that map
the performance of the engine at different sizing conditions were generated.

The optimization problem exploited the system analysis perspective by reflecting the
interrelation of the different parameters, which was slightly lost during the parametric
study. Two objective functions were set, the first one aimed to maximize the power
output and the second aimed to maximize the engine efficiency. The optimal set of
parameters for both cases were determined, and these differed in the variables that
determined the levels of pressure, and the regenerator design. From the optimization
analysis, it is suggested that the design of the engine should be guided towards the
power output optimization. Since according to the results, slight increments on
efficiency reduced largely the power output. Therefore, an engine with a higher power
output and a reasonable efficiency should be preferred.

ACKNOWLEGEMENT
The authors acknowledge the company Inresol AB for all the support and cooperation
during the study.

REFERENCES
[1] R.C. Tew, R.W. Dyson, S.D. Wilson, R. Demko, Overview 2004 of NASA-Stirling
Convertor CFD Model Development and Regenerator R & D Efforts, (2004).
[2] F. Formosa, G. Despesse, Analytical model for Stirling cycle machine design, Energy
Convers. Manag. 51 (2010) 1855–1863.
[3] C.-H. Cheng, Y.-J. Yu, Dynamic simulation of a beta-type Stirling engine with cam-drive
mechanism via the combination of the thermodynamic and dynamic models, Renew.
Energy. 36 (2011) 714–725.
[4] N. Seraj Mehdizadeh, P. Stouffs, Simulation of a Martini Displacer Free Piston Stirling
Engine for Electric Power Generation, Int. J. Thermodyn. 3 (n.d.) 27–34.
[5] N. Parlak, A. Wagner, M. Elsner, H.S. Soyhan, Thermodynamic analysis of a gamma
type Stirling engine in non-ideal adiabatic conditions, Renew. Energy. 34 (2009) 266–
273.
[6] T. Finkelstein, Computer analysis of Stirling engines, Adv. Cryog. Eng.; (United States).
20 (1975). http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6744801
(accessed May 16, 2013).

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
[7] I. Urieli, C.J. Rallis, D.M. Berchowitz, Computer simulation of Stirling cycle machines,
12th Intersoc. Energy Convers. Eng. Conf. -1 (1977) 1512–1521.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977iece.conf.1512U (accessed May 16, 2013).
[8] A. Schock, Nodal analysis of Stirling cycle devices, Intersoc. Energy Convers. Eng.
Conf. 3 (1978) 1771–1779.
[9] D. Gedeon, Sage - Object-oriented software for Stirling machine design, in: Intersoc.
Energy Convers. Eng. Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.
doi:doi:10.2514/6.1994-4106.
[10] R.C.. J. Tew, L.G. Thieme, D. Miao, Initial comparison of single cylinder Stirling engine
computer model predictions with test results, (1979).
[11] A.J. Organ, Gas dynamics of the temperature- determined Stirling cycle, Arch. J. Mech.
Eng. Sci. 1959-1982 (vols 1-23). 23 (1981) 207–216.
[12] V.H. Larson, Characteristic dynamic energy equations for Stirling cycle analysis, Proc.,
Intersoc. Energy Convers. Eng. Conf.; (United States). 2 (1981).
[13] J.M. Strauss, R.T. Dobson, Evaluation of a second order simulation for Sterling engine
design and optimisation, Energy South. Africa. 21 (2010) 17–29.
[14] Y. Timoumi, I. Tlili, S. Ben Nasrallah, Design and performance optimization of GPU-3
Stirling engines, Energy. 33 (2008) 1100–1114.
[15] C. Çinar, H. Karabulut, Manufacturing and testing of a gamma type Stirling engine,
Renew. Energy. 30 (2005) 57–66. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.04.007.
[16] G. Féniès, F. Formosa, J. Ramousse, A. Badel, Double acting Stirling engine: Modeling,
experiments and optimization, Appl. Energy. 159 (2015) 350–361.
[17] C. Duan, C. Sun, S. Shu, G. Ding, C. Jing, J. Chang, Similarity design and experimental
investigation of a beta-type Stirling engine with a rhombic drive mechanism, Int. J.
Energy Res. 39 (2015) 191–201.
[18] H. Damirchi, G. Najafi, S. Alizadehnia, B. Ghobadian, T. Yusaf, R. Mamat, Design,
Fabrication and Evaluation of Gamma-Type Stirling Engine to Produce Electricity from
Biomass for the Micro-CHP System, Energy Procedia. 75 (2015) 137–143.
[19] T. Li, D. Tang, Z. Li, J. Du, T. Zhou, Y. Jia, Development and test of a Stirling engine
driven by waste gases for the micro-CHP system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 33-34 (2012) 119–
123.
[20] J. Bert, D. Chrenko, T. Sophy, L. Le Moyne, F. Sirot, Simulation, experimental validation
and kinematic optimization of a Stirling engine using air and helium, Energy. 78 (2014)
701–712.
[21] Y. Timoumi, I. Tlili, S. Ben Nasrallah, Performance optimization of Stirling engines,
Renew. Energy. 33 (2008) 2134–2144.
[22] I. Tlili, Y. Timoumi, S.B. Nasrallah, Thermodynamic analysis of the Stirling heat engine
with regenerative losses and internal irreversibilities, Int. J. Engine Res. 9 (2008) 45–
56.
[23] R.C. Tew, K. Jefferies, D. Miao, U.S.D. of E.D. of T.E. Conservation, L.R. Center, A
Stirling Engine Computer Model for Performance Calculations (Google eBook),
Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Solar Applications, Division of
Transportation Energy Conservation, 1978.
[24] D. García, M. a. González, J.I. Prieto, S. Herrero, S. López, I. Mesonero, et al.,
Characterization of the power and efficiency of Stirling engine subsystems, Appl.
Energy. 121 (2014) 51–63.
[25] C.J. Paul, A. Engeda, Modeling a complete Stirling engine, Energy. 80 (2015) 85–97.
[26] C.H. Cheng, H.S. Yang, Optimization of geometrical parameters for Stirling engines
based on theoretical analysis, Appl. Energy. 92 (2012) 395–405.
[27] L.S. Scollo, P.E. Valdez, S.R. Santamarina, M.R. Chini, J.H. Barón, Twin cylinder alpha
stirling engine combined model and prototype redesign, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 38
(2013) 1988–1996.
[28] M. Kuosa, J. Kaikko, L. Koskelainen, The impact of heat exchanger fouling on the
optimum operation and maintenance of the Stirling engine, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007)
1671–1676.

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.
 [29] H. Karabulut, F. Aksoy, E. Öztürk, Thermodynamic analysis of a type Stirling engine
with a displacer driving mechanism by means of a lever, Renew. Energy. 34 (2009)
202–208.
[30] S.K. Andersen, H. Carlsen, P.G. Thomsen, Numerical study on optimal Stirling engine
regenerator matrix designs taking into account the effects of matrix temperature
oscillations, Energy Convers. Manag. 47 (2006) 894–908.
[31] R. Gheith, F. Aloui, S. Ben Nasrallah, Determination of adequate regenerator for a
Gamma-type Stirling engine, Appl. Energy. 139 (2015) 272–280.
[32] S.-C. Costa, M. Tutar, I. Barreno, J.-A. Esnaola, H. Barrutia, D. García, et al.,
Experimental and numerical flow investigation of Stirling engine regenerator, Energy.
72 (2014) 800–812.

NOMENCLATURE

A= cross sectional area (m2) θ = angle (deg)

F=Force (N) θd = angular derivative (deg/s)
Fi = Fricction Forces (N) θdd =angular second derivative (deg/s2)
I = Flyweel Moment of Inertia (kg m2) θ = angular velocity
L= Length (m) ρ = density (kg/m3)
P= Pressure (Pa)
Pbuff= Pressure at buffer space(bar)
Pch= Charged pressure(bar)
Q k = Heat flow per unit of length (W/m)
T = Torque (Nm)
e= specific total energy (W/kg)
m= Mass (kg)
q=heat flux
t = time (s)
u= velocity in x direction (m/s)
x = x direction
𝑥= velocity (m/s)
𝑥= acceleration (m/s2)

Copyright © 2018 by ISEC International Stirling Engine Committee. All right reserved.

View publication stats