This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Thermodynamic Benefits of Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engines
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published September 13, 2011 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
A detailed thermodynamic analysis was performed to demonstrate the fundamental efficiency advantage of an opposed-piston two-stroke engine over a standard four-stroke engine. Three engine configurations were considered: a baseline six-cylinder four-stroke engine, a hypothetical three-cylinder opposed-piston four-stroke engine, and a three-cylinder opposed-piston two-stroke engine. The bore and stroke per piston were held constant for all engine configurations to minimize any potential differences in friction. The closed-cycle performance of the engine configurations were compared using a custom analysis tool that allowed the sources of thermal efficiency differences to be identified and quantified. The simulation results showed that combining the opposed-piston architecture with the two-stroke cycle increased the indicated thermal efficiency through a combination of three effects: reduced heat transfer because the opposed-piston architecture creates a more favorable combustion chamber area/volume ratio, increased ratio of specific heats because of leaner operating conditions made possible by the two-stroke cycle, and decreased combustion duration achievable at the fixed maximum pressure rise rate because of the lower energy release density of the two-stroke engine. When averaged over a representative engine cycle, the opposed-piston two-stroke engine had 10.4% lower indicated-specific fuel consumption than the four-stroke engine.
In a second analysis, the closed-cycle simulation was extended to a engine system model to estimate the pumping work required to achieve the operating conditions needed to reach a specified NOx emissions rate. Because the opposed-piston two-stroke engine has inherently lower peak in-cylinder temperatures than the four-stroke engine, lower intake pressure was required to meet the NOx emissions constraint and as a result lower pumping work was needed. At the simulated condition considered, the opposed-piston two-stroke engine had approximately 9.0% lower brake-specific fuel consumption than the four-stroke engine.
CitationHerold, R., Wahl, M., Regner, G., Lemke, J. et al., "Thermodynamic Benefits of Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-2216, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-2216.
- Pirault, J.-P. and Flint, M., “Opposed Piston Engines: Evolution, Use, and Future Applications”, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, ISBN 978-0-7680-1800-4, 2009, doi:10.4271/R-378.
- Barsanti, E. and Matteucci, F., “Motore a Pistoni Contrapposti”, Piedmont Patent 700, July 26, 1858.
- Barsanti, E. and Matteucci, F., “Improved Apparatus for Obtaining Motive Power from Explosive Compounds”, Great Britain Patent 3270, December 31, 1861.
- Junkers, H., “Cylinder of Internal-Combustion Engines and Other Similar Machines”, U.S. Patent 1 231 903, July 3, 1917.
- Junkers, H., “Engine”, U.S. Patent 2 031 318, February 18, 1936.
- Heywood, J.B., “Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals”, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-07-028637-X, 1988.
- TIAX, LLC, “Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles”, Report to the National Academy of Sciences, 2009.
- Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles”, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., ISBN 0-309-14983-5, 2010.
- DeRaad, S., Fulton, B., Gryglak, A., Hallgren, B., et al., “The New Ford 6.7L V-8 Turbocharged Diesel Engine,” SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-1101, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-1101.
- Cummins, Inc., “Cummins Every Time - On-Highway - Medium-Duty Truck - EPA 2010 ISB6.7”, http://cumminsengines.com/every/applications/medium_duty_trucks/EPA_2010_ISB67_MDT.page, March 2010.
- Navistar, Inc., “MaxxForce 7 | Commercial Engine | Diesel Engine”, http://maxxforce.com/Application/on-highway/Engine/MaxxForce_7, March 2010.
- Schweitzer, P.H., “Scavenging of Two-Stroke Cycle Diesel Engines”, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1949.
- DieselNet, “Heavy-Duty Supplemental Emissions Test (SET)”, http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/set.php, March 2010.
- Taylor, C.F., “The Internal-Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice - Volume 1: Thermodynamics, Fluid Flow, Performance”, pg. 232, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN 978-0262700269, 1985.
- Regner, G., Herold, R. E., Wahl, M. H., Dion, E., Redon, F., Johnson, D., Callahan, B. J., and McIntyre, S., “The Achates Power Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engine: Performance and Emissions Results in a Medium-Duty Application”, SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-2221, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-2221.
- McBride, B.J., Zehe, M.J., Gordon, S., “NASA Glenn Coefficients for Calculating Thermodynamic Properties of Individual Species”, NASA/TP - 2002-211556, 2002.