Thermodynamic Benefits of Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engines
Date Published: 2011-09-13
Paper Number:2011-01-2216
DOI: 10.4271/2011-01-2216
Citation:
Herold, R., Wahl, M., Regner, G., Lemke, J. et al., "Thermodynamic Benefits of Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-2216, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-2216.
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.
Purchase more technical papers and save! With TechSelect,
you decide what SAE Technical Papers you need, when you need them, and how much you want to pay.
Learn more >
