feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 km small family petrol car with regular port injection
DESCRIPTION
Cranfield. university. Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 Km small family petrol car with regular port injection. Luis E. Arimany Supervisor : Matthew Harrison Supported by AVL, Austria. Objectives of the thesis. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
www.luisarimany.com
Feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 Km small family petrol car with
regular port injection
Luis E. Arimany
Supervisor : Matthew Harrison
Supported by AVL, Austria
www.luisarimany.com
Objectives of the thesis
• To use a structured approach to explore the feasibility of the 3 litre per 100 km fuel consumption car
• The project is focused in the alternative of a small gasoline engine with regular port injection
www.luisarimany.com
Thesis structure
• Why 3 litre per 100 km?
• How ?
• Problems ?
• Assume a car
• Design the engine
• Calculate fuel consumption
www.luisarimany.com
Why 3 litre / 100 Km?
• Global warming
• Agreements
• Economy CO2
www.luisarimany.com
Why 3 litre / 100 Km?
• Global warming
• Agreements
• Economy
• UNFCCC
• Kyoto Protocol
• 2153rd Council Meeting
www.luisarimany.com
Why 3 litre / 100 Km?
• Global warming
• Agreements
• Economy
• UNFCCC
• Kyoto Protocol
• 2153rd Council Meeting
www.luisarimany.com
www.luisarimany.com
How ?
• Low weight• Low rolling resistance• Low aerodynamic
drag• Redesign gears• Hybrid powertrain• Fuel cells
• Alternative fuels• EGR• Lean burn. GDI• Turbocharge• Variable valve timing• Variable lift timing• Camless
www.luisarimany.com
Problems of the 3 litre car target
• Technical problems
• Cost
• Customer expectation
• Drivability and NVH
www.luisarimany.com
Target of the project
• Gasoline engine– Cancer risk– Diesel pollutes more– “A litre of diesel is not a litre of gasoline”
• Small engine– Optimum bsfc– Less friction– Less weight and improve packaging
• Regular port injection
www.luisarimany.com
Assumed car
Main car parameters assumed
Mass 800 Kg
Drag coefficient 0.25
Frontal area 1.9 m2
Gear ratios Hyundai Atos
Tires 155/65 R14
Gears efficiency 0.95
www.luisarimany.com
Engine designed
www.luisarimany.com
Engine designed 2
Engine
N cylinders 3 Swept volume 600 cc
Bore 62 mm Stroke 65 mm
Con rod 113 mm AFR 14.5
Compression ratio 10.5
Valves Intake Exhaust
Number 2 Number 2 Diametre 23 mm Diametre 19 mm
Opening time 350º Opening
time 170º
Duration 220º Duration 220º Lift 10 mm Lift 10 mm
fmep
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
rpm
bar
www.luisarimany.com
bsfc
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
rpm
g/K
Wh
Boost resultsTorque and Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
rpm
Nm
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
W
www.luisarimany.com
bsfc
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
rpm
g/K
Wh
Boost resultsTorque and Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
rpm
Nm
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
W
www.luisarimany.com
Europeancycleprogram
• Why? Flexibility
• Calculates fuel consumption in ECE 15, EUDC and Combined
• Check engine capacity
• Sensitivity analysis
www.luisarimany.com
Results
• Importance of idle in the ECE and therefore in the Combined
• Importance of engine deactivation
Modelled vehicle.
Idle=1000 rpm
Modelled vehicle. Idle=800 rpm BASELINE
With idle engine
deactivation
ECE 5.28 4.99 3.48 EUDC 3.59 3.57 3.43
Combined 4.21 4.09 3.45
www.luisarimany.com
Results (2)
• Little change• Mass more sensitivity• Not possible to achieve 3 litre target with
only this strategy
Fuel consumption
3.85
3.9
3.95
4
4.05
4.1
4.15
4.2
4.25
-20 -10 0 10 20
% parametre change
L/1
00
Km mass
Cd
Frontal area
www.luisarimany.com
Validation of the results.
• 41.7 kW/ litre vs. 45 kW/litre
• 86.5 Nm/ litre vs. 90 Nm
• 243 g/kWh vs. 260
Torque and Power
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
rpm
Nm
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Wbsfc
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
rpm
g/K
Wh
www.luisarimany.com
Validation of the results. Comparison with MCC Smart
• 600 cc
• Turbocharged
• 6 gears
• Small
• 31% more power
• 34% more torque
• 19.8 % worst fuel economy
• 31% more power
• 34% more torque
• 19.8 % worst fuel economy
www.luisarimany.com
Conclusions
• Weight, drag coefficient and frontal area reductions is not enough
• Engine deactivation is compulsory. Care with cool down and not additional fuel consumption
• Although 3.45 l/100km, the 3 litre car is possible, but low performance.
600 cc, 28 kW and 55 Nm600 cc, 28 kW and 55 Nm• It would be
www.luisarimany.com
Work done
• Study of technologies which improve fuel economy
• Study of engine simulation, its advantages and its limitations
• Study valves and fmep• Design an engine• Write a fuel consumption program• Derive important conclusions
www.luisarimany.com
Any question?