Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 930988

Combustion and Performance Characteristics

of a Low Heat Rejection Engine

Ernest Schwarz, Michael Reid, Walter Bryzik, and Eugene

Danielson
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command

The Engineering Society

For Advancing Mobility
International Congress and Exposition
Land Sea Air and Space®
Detroit, Michigan
INTERNATIONAL March 1-5, 1993
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (412)776-4841 Fax:(412)776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

The appearance of the ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE's consent
that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients.
This consent is given on the condition however, that the copier pay a $5.00 per article
copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 27
Congress, St., Salem, MA 01970 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying
such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for
creating new collective works, or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of
publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction
Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted

SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE

All SAE papers, standards, and selected
books are abstracted and indexed in the
SAE Global Mobility Database.

No part of this publication may by reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval

system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1993 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is
published in SAE transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part,
contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication

through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed
manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Activity Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
Combustion and Performance Characteristics
of a Low Heat Rejection Engine
Ernest Schwarz, Michael Reid, Walter Bryzik, and Eugene Danielson
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to investigate
combustion and performance characteristics for an
advanced class of diesel engines which support
future Army ground propulsion requirements of
improved thermal efficiency, reduced system size
and weight, and enhanced mobility. Advanced
ground vehicle engine research represents a critical
building block for future Army vehicles. Unique
technology driven engines are essential to the
development of compact, high-power density
ground propulsion systems.
Through an in-house analysis of technical
opportunities in the vehicle ground propulsion area,
a number of dramatic payoffs have been identified
as being
930988
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command
achievable. These payoffs require significant
advances in various areas such as: optimized
combustion, heat release phasing, and fluid flow/
fuel spray interaction. These areas have been
analyzed in a fundamental manner relative to
conventional and low heat rejection "adiabatic"
engines. Of particular note, in the research being
reported here complex interacting mechanisms
within the low heat rejection (LHR) class of engine
were seen to be extremely sensitive to heat release
phasing and its breakdown between premixed and
diffusion combustion. Small parameter changes can
significantly enhance or degrade engine
performance depending upon characteristics such
as engine
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
2 930988
geometry, heat transfer, and fluid flow/chemical
kinetic phasing interactions. These sensitivities are
not nearly as great in conventional water cooled
engines.
Studies to date reveal that while chemical
kinetics form a critical dominance in a
conventionally cooled engine, an LHR engine is
more critically affected by mixing controlled
phenomena. The LHR engine combination of 1)
shortened ignition delay, and 2) diffusion mixing
limitations, is responsible for producing longer heat
release periods in non-optimized LHR engines.
Experimental results to fundamentally understand
and improve this characteristic will be presented.
INTRODUCTION
Advanced low heat rejection (LHR) diesel
engines offer dramatic opportunities for quantum
improvements within future Army ground vehicles.
An early evidence of this opportunity is seen in
TACOM programs by viewing the new upgraded
M109 Howitzer and Paladin engine as well as the
Advanced Integrated Propulsion System main battle
tank engine which use LHR technology.
Within the LHR engine concept, the diesel
combustion chamber is insulated using high
temperature materials on engine components such
as pistons, cylinder head, valves, cylinder liner and
exhaust ports (1, 2). Additional power and improved
efficiency derived from this concept occur because
thermal energy normally lost to the cooling water
and exhaust gas is potentially converted to useful
power. By greatly reducing lost energy and
essentially eliminating the need for a conventional
cooling system, (i.e. all water is removed and
strategic oil cooling employed in some advanced
designs) this engine system will dramatically
improve overall performance and could potentially
result in a 50% reduction in volume and 30% in
weight for the entire propulsion system
(i.e., engine, cooling system, air intake system,
exhaust system and fuel system including fuel
quantities). Such an engine would have great
positive impact particularly upon military tactical and
combat vehicles. Elimination of the engine cooling
system including cooling fans, radiators, hoses and
shrouds would produce a quantum jump in reliability
and maintainability. The engine would not be
sensitive to conventional cooling damage and
extreme environmental conditions. Specific weight
reductions allow improved vehicle response, while
specific volume reductions allow reduced armor
cover requirements and improved survivability
characteristics. Because of high temperature engine
operation, quieter combustion and improved
multifuel characteristics are possible. With this
engine concept, the entire philosophy of combat
vehicle design becomes far less restrictive as
concerns regarding satisfactory locations of cooling
grilles, passages, and associated equipment are
eliminated. Cost of the engine is expected to be
equal or less than its cooled counterpart since water
pump, seals, hoses and costly water jackets would
be eliminated.
In order to maximize this
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
930988
combustion and performance. From the in-cylinder
pressure data, heat release rates were calculated
and evaluated for a matrix of engine operating
parameters and design configurations.
Combustion and performance data generated
through this effort will also be used to improve
in-house diesel cycle simulation codes. The current
technical approach in these simulation codes is to
use correlated results from experimental data.
Predictions of internal operating conditions and
performance of watercooled diesel engines are very
good, however, predictions for LHR engines are in
question. Actual LHR heat release data will be used
to improve burning rate subroutines within the
simulation to more accurately predict engine
performance particularly for the case of LHR
engines. Fundamental understanding (with
experimental verification) in these areas is essential
if future engine performance optimization is to be
achieved.
TEST ENGINE
A single cylinder research version of the
Cummins VT-903 Bradley Fighting Vehicle engine
was used in this overall effort. The engine, was
made by cutting the block of a standard V-8 and
leaving only two cylinders at the flywheel end. Only
one cylinder is active while the other has a slipper
piston which does no work but is used for balancing.
The front end of the engine, the crank, cam, cylinder
head and fuel injection system were modified
accordingly to match the singlecylinder
3
configuration. The VT-903 engine is currently used
in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M2, and is
representative of high output diesels used for
combat vehicle applications. Engine specifications
are provided in Table 1. This engine is configured
so that cooling of the head alone is possible thereby
simulating low heat rejection or minimum cooled
operation.
Table 1. - VT-903 SINGLE CYLINDER RESEARCH
ENGINE SPECIFICATION
TYPE 4 CYCLE DI DIESEL
BORE 140 MM
STROKE 121 MM
DISPLACEMENT 1.85 L
RATED SPEED 2600 RPM
COMPRESSION RATIO 13.9
RATED BMEP 1172 KPA
NO. OF VALVES 4
INJECTORS CUMMINS PT
A ductile iron piston was used for the standard
cooled engine configuration. Two different pistons
were fabricated for LHR minimum cooled tests. The
first of these was a 1.016 mm thick plasma sprayed
zirconia coated ductile iron piston and the second,
the same except that the surface was impregnated
with chrome oxide which acted as a seal coat.
Precautions were taken to ensure that the insulated
test pistons had the same compression ratio as that
of the baseline case which was 13.9. The test
pistons are illustrated in Figure 1.
A synthetic, polyester lubricant, Stauffer SDL-1
was employed throughout all engine tests. This
lubricant has been extensively used during Army
and other LHR engine developments proving its
adequacy for the temperature ranges encountered
during these tests. standard diesel fuel
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

4 930988

was used for all tests using a specification of Engine test cell support systems for air, fuel,
VVF-800, DF-2. cooling and oil systems were installed for maximum
flow and temperature control flexibility. Thus, the
engine operating conditions could be governed to
accurately simulate those of a turbocharged,
aftercooled engine within a combat vehicle
application. This control of engine subsystems also
provided the capability to perform parametric
analyses to determine operating effects on
performance and heat release. External air was
Fig. 1 - Test Pistons used to simulate turbocharged conditions.
Maximum capability for charge air pressure with this
TEST INSTALLATION system is 620 kPA Intake air was heated with a
127,000 kW/hr triple pass heater system so that
The V-903 research engine was installed in Cell
7, at the U.S. Army TACOM, Propulsion Systems temperatures could be equivalent to aftercooled air
Division, Building 212 test facility. The engine was temperatures. Intake pressure was controlled with a
coupled to a Pohl eddy current dynamometer with a regulator and exhaust back pressure maintained
93 kW absorption capability. This dynamometer set-
with an electrically controlled butterfly valve, thus
up also had an induction motoring section (22 kW)
for engine starting and friction testing. Figure 2 permitting an intake to exhaust manifold pressure
illustrates the engine installation along with ratio of one to be maintained throughout the testing.
accompanying support equipment. A Digalog Corp. This condition is representative of turbocharged
system was used for dynamometer speed and load
diesel engine applications. Cooling and lubrication
control and a load cell used for torque
measurement. systems were designed and installed which
permitted accurate control of temperatures via
pneumatic controllers. Flow rates could be
controlled with pump bypass circuits. Coolant and
lubricant circuits used shell and tube heat
exchangers and steam heating was employed in
order to facilitate bringing these fluids up to
temperature without relying on engine heat. A
Cummins PT injector was used in the research
engine. Because the engine had no drive for an
Fig. 2 - Test Installation engine mounted PT pump,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

930988 5
a variable speed fuel pump was employed. The TEST OPERATING CONDTIONS
fuelling circuit was equipped with a small needle A test matrix for the ductile and insulated piston
valve bypassing the pump output allowing fine cases is given in Table 2. The engine was run at
pressure adjustment. Fuel rate is controlled in a PT 1600, 2100 and 2600 RPM at 50% and 100% load
levels for each speed. Torque levels for the baseline
system via rail pressure control. Course fuelling was
correspond to equivalent values of the V-8 engine at
accomplished via adjustment of the pump speed. a 373 kW rating. Coolant, lubricant and intake
manifold temperatures were varied to determine
their effect on engine overall performance and heat
Low speed data was acquired with a Fluke
release. Two insulative piston cases were originally
system. The engine was fully instrumented for planned to be run in the head cooled only
temperature, pressure, speed, load and flow data. configuration, however, only one insulated piston
Fifty channels were employed for low speed data case was run and reported in this paper.
Henceforth, this set of runs will be referred to as the
acquisition. Air, coolant, and lubricant flows were
LHR case.
measured with turbine flowmeters. An Elwood
Table 2 - Test Matrix
system was used for fuel consumption
BASELINE DUCTILE IRON (A)
measurement. High speed combustion data was
SPEED LOAD COOLANT TEMP CHARGE AIR TEMP OIL TEMP
acquired using a PEI Inc., PC based data (RPM) (%) (°C) (°C) (°C)
acquisition hardware and analyzed using PEI Inc. 1600 100 96 107 121
1600 100 96 60 121
ECA 892 matched software. Heat release analysis 1600 50 96 107 121
2100 100 96 107 121
was also conducted offline using a modified Krieger 2100 100 96 6O 121
2100 50 96 107 121
2600 100 96 107 121
Borman model developed at the University of 2600 100 96 60 121
2600 50 96 107 121
Wisconsin with TACOM funding. The high speed
LHR II - INSULATED PISTON (ZIRCONIA)
system was used to record crank-angle resolved
SPEED LOAD COOLANT TEMP CHARGE AIR TEMP OIL TEMP
data to include cylinder pressure and fuel injector (RPM) (%) (°C) (°C) (°C)
1600 100 96 107 121
link load for the injection timing event. This system 1600 100 121 107 121
1600 100 121 60 121
has four analog input channels with a sampling rate 1600 100 149 107 149
1600 100 149 60 149
of 125K samples per second. All high speed data 1600 50 121 107 121
2100 100 96 107 121
was taken over 100 cycles for each steady state 2100 100 121 107 121
2100 100 121 60 121
operation point and ensemble averaged in order to 2100 100 149 107 149
2100 100 149 60 149
provide a basis for statistically meaningful analysis. 2100 50 121 107 121
2600 100 96 107 121
A Kistler 7061 piezo-electric transducer was 2600 100 121 107 121
2600 100 121 60 121
2600 100 149 107 149
employed for cylinder pressure measurement and 2600 100 149 60 149
2600 50 121 107 121
BEI precision optical encoder with .2 CA degree
Engine airflow and air to fuel ratio operating
resolution for marking and timing.
conditions
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
6 930988
are illustrated in Figure 3 for full load watercooled
baseline tests. For all subsequent LHR tests the fuel
rate was held constant and the airflow rate adjusted
via intake manifold pressure to match the baseline
case air to fuel ratios. Thus torque is made the
dependent variable. This same method was used
for the part load cases, although higher air to fuel
ratios were run at these conditions which is
representative of standard direct injected diesel
engines. An intake to exhaust manifold pressure
ratio of one was maintained for most test cases.
Where this condition could not be achieved,
baseline and LHR case ratios were made equivalent
and thus noted.
Fig. 3 - Airflow & A/F vs RPM Full Load
THERMAL STATE OF THE TEST
ENGINE
Estimates of temperatures across the firedeck
were made using a thermal finite element analysis.
A large scale, high resolution mesh with over 50,000
nodes was developed to model the firedeck section
of the head. Figs. 4 and 5 present the isotherms
across the firedeck for both the fully cooled and the
LHR conditions.
These temperatures are for a full power condition.
Figure 6 shows temperature variation between
valve bridge regions within the firedeck. The
estimated fully cooled peak temperatures agree well
with those measured on another V-903 single
cylinder engine (6) previously tested. On the basis
of this agreement, it is assumed that the LHR
isotherms are quite representative of actual
temperatures. This means that the LHR head is
operating at temperatures ranging from about 66°C
to 93°C hotter than the fully cooled engine’s head.
At these elevated temperatures material selection
could be a critical issue since the yield strength of
grey iron begins to rapidly deteriorate above
approximately 316°C. It would not be difficult to
envision a potential yield condition in the partially
cooled head.
The elevated temperatures are also seen in the
liner which has no jacket cooling. Figure 7 presents
a comparison of temperatures from prior engine
testing (6) in the cylinder liner at the top ring
reversal location. Here the LHR liner is operating at
temperatures about 93°C to 121°C higher
(depending on engine speed) than the liner in the
fully cooled engine. Again, material selection may
need to be carefully addressed in order to obtain
long engine life particularly where lower heat
rejection levels are sought. The coated ductile iron
piston thermal data reported for the partially cooled
configuration in (6), indicates a maximum piston cap
temperature of 757°C, a substrate metal
temperature of 399°C, top ring groove
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
930988
Fig. 4 - VT903 Fully Cooled Head
Temperatures
Fig. 6 - Maximum Temperature On
Firedeck (Bridge Areas)
temperature of 327°C and maximum pin bore
temperature of 160°C. Operating conditions in the
current test program were similar to those reported
in (6). Piston temperatures would be expected to be
approximately 93°C cooler for the fully cooled
configuration. This assumption is based on the
general range of temperature differentials already
established for the firedeck and liner. As with these
other components, the piston material selection
and/or coatings need to be carefully addressed.
Finally, the difference in specific heat rejection to
coolant between the engines should be mentioned.
The fully
7
Fig. 5 - LHR903 Minimum Cooled Head
Temperatures
Fig. 7 - Fully Cooled vs LHR
Liner Temperature
cooled engine in a multicylinder configuration has a
specific heat rejection of 0.58 kW/kW while the LHR
engine had measured values (6) in the range of
0.40 to 0.45 kW/kW dependent upon oil sump,
coolant and charge air temperatures. This is
considered a substantial decrease in heat rejection
and allows for smaller cooling systems or less
cooling fan parasitic losses.
COMBUSTION RESULTS
Pressure time histories, as well as injection
timing events were recorded for all test points. From
these histories,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
8 930988
heat release rates were analytically determined.
Pressure and heat release information are used to
analyze the combustion process providing insight
into the overall performance of the engine. Changes
in combustion between the standard water cooled
configuration and minimum cooled, ceramic coated
piston configuration were readily apparent upon
analysis of these diagrams.
Heat release diagrams for 1600, 2100 and 2600
rpm are provided in Figures 8 through 13. Within
each particular figure, baseline and LHR cases are
compared. All data for the LHR is at full load, 149°C
coolant and 149°C oil temperatures. The first
diagram in each rpm sequence for the LHR case is
for a charge air temperature of 107°C and the
second 60°C.
These heat release profiles are of the shape
characteristic typically seen for quiescent or limited
swirl direct injected diesel engines. Moving across
these diagrams from left to right, one first
encounters the premixed burning peak and then the
diffusion burning peak. The diffusion burn portion for
all these curves is the predominant mode of
combustion. Analyzing these diagrams reveals
some general trends given as follows: 1) the
premixed burning peak decreases with increasing
engine speed for a constant intake manifold
temperature, 2) the premixed burning peak and
burning portion is always greater at a given speed
when intake manifold temperature in lower, 3) for
the ceramic minimum cooled case, the premixed
burning peak is always less
than the conventional fully cooled engine with the
difference being more at the low speed and very
small at the high speed.
Further analysis of the heat release diagrams
indicates a difference in beginning of ignition
between the baseline and LHR case with the LHR
ignition beginning one to three crank angle degrees
earlier than in the conventional engine’s case. The
static injection timing for the Cummins PT injection
system was fixed for all test runs. Initiation of
injection with this injection system is a function of
static timing and amount of fuel in the injector. The
same amount of fuel was injected in the PT system
comparative cases. It has been noted on previous
TACOM LHR development program efforts that the
engines overhead may become so hot that the
injector link may thermally grow causing an advance
in injection timing. This was particularly true for the
case of uncooled engines. It should be remembered
that testing in this case was conducted with a
cooled head. In this effort the injector link was strain
gauged to determine approximate initiation of
injection. The data revealed no appreciable change
in start of injection, therefore, the ignition phase shift
displayed appears to be attributed to a change in
ignition delay rather than any dynamic injection
change. This makes sense as the higher
temperatures encountered at time of injection would
lead to a shorter ignition delay period and would
also lead to a decreased premix fraction as was
indicated in virtually all the heat release diagrams
for
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

930988 9

Fig. 8 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON Fig. 9 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON

Fig. 10 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON Fig. 11 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON

Fig. 12 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON Fig. 13 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISON

 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

10 930988

the full load conditions.
Half load heat release comparisons were made
for 1600, 2100 and 2600 rpm. Coolant temperature
was 121°C, oil temperature was 121°C and charge
air temperature 107°C for the LHR. Trend
comparisons are not as dramatic as for the full load
cases, however, they do tend to follow in that the
premixed differences are more apparent at the
lower speeds with less premixed burning for the
LHR case. Burning duration was longer for the LHR
at all speeds.
Heat release summary data for full load and half
load is given in Tables 3 and 4. Included in these
summaries are the peak cylinder pressures, the
peak premixed heat release rate, peak diffusion
heat release rate (peak for overall cycle) and the
heat release duration.
The heat release duration in crank angle
degrees is calculated as the portion of the cycle
from where .5% to .95% of the cumulative net heat
release occurred. This summary data provides
insight into how engine performance is affected by
these parameters. As discussed previously, the
premixed burning fraction was generally less for the
LHR cases except at 2600 rpm full and half load for
the hotter 107°C intake manifold temperature
conditions in which instances they were equal. In all
cases the heat release duration was greater for the
LHR cases. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 14.
The heat release duration increased as a function of
speed for these full load runs.

Table 3 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISONS - FULL LOAD

149°C COOLANT, 149°C OIL

INTAKE PEAK CYL PEAK PREMIXED PEAK DIFFUSION HEAT RELEASE

SPEED MANIFOLD PRESSURE NET HR RATE NET HR RATE DURATION
CASE (RPM) TEMP (°C) (kPA) (J/CA) (J/CA) (CA)

CERAMIC 2600 107 11424 42.203 144.545 69.4

BASELINE 2600 107 10873 42.203 148.765 62.2

CERAMIC 2600 60 9935 77.020 138.215 70.4

BASELINE 2600 60 10045 85.461 143.490 66.6

CERAMIC 2100 107 8983 35.872 142.435 65.4

BASELINE 2100 107 9032 45.368 142.435 61.2

CERAMIC 2100 60 8556 64.360 138.215 67.2

BASELINE 2100 60 8749 91.791 144.545 64.0

CERAMIC 1600 107 7205 33.762 121.334 65.8

BASELINE 1600 107 7653 55.919 131.884 64.0

CERAMIC 1600 60 7411 75.965 125.554 68.2

BASELINE 1600 60 7542 111.838 132.939 63.2

Table 4 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISONS - HALF LOAD

121°C COOLANT, 121°C OIL

INTAKE PEAK CYL PEAK PREMIXED PEAK DIFFUSION HEAT RELEASE

SPEED MANIFOLD PRESSURE NET HR RATE NET HR RATE DURATION
CASE (RPM) TEMP (°C) (kPA) (J/CA) (J/CA) (CA)

CERAMIC 2600 107 6032 35.872 106.563 61.4

BASELINE 2600 107 6839 34.817 100.232 56.2

CERAMIC 2100 107 5150 58.029 99.177 60.6

BASELINE 2100 107 5488 60.139 97.067 57.8

CERAMIC 1600 107 4619 50.643 92.847 59.2

BASELINE 1600 107 4695 59.064 100.232 52.8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
930988
Fig. 14 - HEAT RELEASE DURATION
The premixed burn and heat release duration data
is in agreement with findings of Alkidas (7),
Gatowski (8), Dickey (9), Morel (10), Assanis (3)
and others who have conducted high temperature
direct injected diesel engine experimentation.
Of extreme interest is peak cylinder pressure
data as this plays a very important role in the fuel
consumption numbers to be presented later. A full
load peak cylinder pressure comparison is
displayed in Figure 15 for constant 107°C manifold
temperature. From Figure 15 and Table 3, cylinder
pressure data indicates: 1) at 1600 rpm, LHR
pressures are
Fig. 15 - CYLINDER PRESSURE COMPARISON
11
lower than the baseline, 2) at 2100 rpm, LHR
pressures are about the same as the baseline, and
3) at 2600 rpm, LHR pressures are approximately
equal at 60°C intake manifold temperatures but
greater than the baseline at the 107°C intake. Part
load peak cylinder pressures as depicted in Table 4
were lower at all engine speeds for the LHR case.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
LHR full and part load engine performance data
summaries are presented in Tables 5 and 6
respectively. Performance parameters include net
indicated mean effective pressures and net
indicated fuel consumption. These net indicated
values are summations of the working and pumping
loop mean effective pressures and fuel
consumptions as calculated from the cycle pressure
volume diagrams. Other relevant performance data
includes intake pressures from which volumetric
efficiencies can be calculated and the engine’s
exhaust temperatures.
As seen from the full load performance data, the
LHR engine suffered a loss in volumetric efficiency
as extra boost was required to maintain the constant
air fuel ratio of the baseline. This difference was
less than 6.77 kPA for all instances. Other
researchers had experienced more severe losses
for engines of this type with uncooled heads (11) but
volumetric efficiency (based on intake manifold
temperatures) could be regained (10) as intake air
temperatures are increased. This particular V-903,
LHR engine did not experience much loss in
volumetric efficiency as the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

12 930988
Table 5 - PERFORMANCE COMPARISON - FULL LOAD
149 °C COOLANT, 149 °C OIL

INTAKE INTAKE EXHAUST

SPEED MANIFOLD MANIFOLD MANIFOLD NIMEP NSIFC
CASE (RPM) TEMP (°C) PRESS(kPA) TEMP (°C) (kPA) (KG/KW-HR)

CERAMIC 2600 107 225.44 747 1435.49 0.209

BASELINE 2600 107 219.92 684 1396.19 0.215

CERAMIC 2600 60 189.57 711 1346.55 0.209

BASELINE 2600 60 187.50 683 1357.58 0.207

CERAMIC 2100 107 184.05 711 1301.73 0.199

BASELINE 2100 107 179.24 669 1297.59 0.200

CERAMIC 2100 60 163.39 699 1258.29 0.207

BASELINE 2100 60 157.87 662 1339.65 0.195

CERAMIC 1600 107 148.21 711 1116.95 0.215

BASELINE 1600 107 144.76 679 1183.83 0.203

CERAMIC 1600 60 134.43 724 1167.28 0.213

BASELINE 1600 60 131.69 668 1212.79 0.206

Table 6 - HEAT RELEASE COMPARISONS - HALF LOAD

121°C COOLANT, 121°C OIL

INTAKE INTAKE EXHAUST

SPEED MANIFOLD MANIFOLD MANIFOLD NIMEP NSIFC
CASE (RPM) TEMP (°C) PRESS(kPA) TEMP (°C) (kPA) (KG/KW-HR)
CERAMIC 2600 107 163.35 558 728.09 0.220
BASELINE 2600 107 163.39 548 730.15 0.220

CERAMIC 2100 107 131.69 548 663.96 0.213

BASELINE 2100 107 131.69 537 739.81 0.191

CERAMIC 1600 107 122.71 494 606.05 0.212

BASELINE 1600 107 121.32 479 644.66 0.196

heads were still being cooled. All exhaust
temperatures were higher for the LHR case with the
highest difference of 45°C being experienced at the
2600 rpm, 107°C intake, manifold point. Once again
other researchers have seen higher exhaust
temperature differences (8) where less cooling and
more in-cylinder surface insulation were employed.
The fuel consumption comparison data is more
clearly depicted in Figures 16 through 19. Figure 16
(full load, 107°C intake air) illustrates that the
specific fuel consumption for the LHR engine was,
poorer at 1600 rpm, about equivalent to the baseline
at 2100 rpm and better at 2600 rpm. At the time of
the 2600 rpm run the author had some doubts about
the data generated and consequently, re-ran that
point at a later time but the same
results were obtained. The trend of better fuel
consumption with the higher in-cylinder
temperatures and at the higher speeds is confirmed
by examining Figures 17, 18 and 19 at the 2600 rpm
points. Looking back at the combustion data
presented earlier, the higher peak cylinder
pressures encountered at the higher engine speeds
and the less variation in the premixed burn for the
LHR case would seem to substantiate why fuel
consumption is better at the 2600 rpm rated speed
condition. This was also borne out in Figure 19
where at 2600 rpm, the indicated specific fuel
consumption improved as a function of increased
head coolant temperature. Data presented in (5)
done by Ricardo ITI and Purdue University on an
engine with a similar type combustion chamber
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
930988
Fig. 16 - COMPARISONS - FULL LOAD
Fig. 18 - COMPARISONS - HALF LOAD
showed poorer ISFC at low speeds and better at
high speeds, high loads for their LHR case as well.
Data illustrated in Figure 18 which is a half load
case once again shows improved performance at
the 2600 rpm point, although here the LHR only
matched the baseline fuel consumption. It should be
noted, however, that this particular point is
questionable as it was during this day’s running that
the piston experienced ceramic coating failure. The
effect of blowby on heat release and performance is
clearly expounded in (7) with severe blowby levels
reported for LHR engines. Crankcase pressure
13
Fig. 17 - COMPARISONS - FULL LOAD
Fig. 19 - COOLANT COMPARISONS
was monitored throughout all the testing reported
here. Crankcase pressures were lower for all LHR
test cases. Since this engine configuration had no
liner cooling, piston/liner clearances were likely to
have tightened up with resultant lower blowby
particularly at the higher engine speeds. This, along
with the ignition advance experienced could explain
why cylinder pressures were higher for the LHR at
the 2600 rpm point.
CERAMIC COATING DURABILITY
After each day’s test runs,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
14
the cylinder pressure transducer was removed from
the engine and the piston coating and bore
examined to determine their condition because of
concerns regarding the harsh operating
environment of the engine. The plasma sprayed
zirconia coating lasted approximately 60-hours
before the coating began to spall from the ductile
iron substrate. Upon engine teardown and piston
examination, 50% of the coating was missing. All
runs on that day were not reported within this write-
up except for the 2600 half load point as previously
noted.
Upon failure of the plasma sprayed zirconia
piston, a chrome oxide seal coated zirconia piston
was installed to determine whether piston surface
conditions may effect combustion via fuel
absorption into, and evaporation and burning of fuel
out of the coating during the cycle. The hypothesis
that this may be causing extended heat release
durations in LHR engine has been presented by
several experimenters and appears plausible.
Unfortunately, this coating failed after a little more
than one hour of test time with no relevant data
collected. Upon closer inspection, 30% of the
coating had delaminated from the center of the
piston dome. It is the intent to investigate piston
coating surface effects (porous vs. non-porous
coatings) on combustion in LHR engines at some
later date.
SUMMARY
For the particular LHR engine tested, whose
configuration consisted of head cooling, no liner
930988
cooling and Zirconia coated piston, test results are
summarized as follows:
1) Combustion diagram analysis revealed that
ignition delay was shorter, premixed fraction was
less and heat release duration greater for the LHR
engine. The volumetric efficiency was less for the
LHR engine however, differences where not
substantial (3% or less). Exhaust temperatures
were greater in all LHR cases.
2) LHR engine performance results were mixed.
Generally, at full load conditions the indicated
specific fuel consumption was better (3%) at the
high speed conditions and worse (5%) at the low
speed conditions for the highest coolant, oil and
intake manifold temperature test conditions. This
corresponds directly with the higher instantaneous
peak combustion pressures measured at the high
speed conditions. Also as the head coolant
temperatures were increased at the rated 2600 rpm
condition, the trend indicated better fuel
consumption. Part load data indicated equal specific
fuel consumption at 2600 rpm and lower fuel
economies (5% and 8%) at the low and mid speeds
respectively.
3) TACOM finite element analysis predicted a 93°C
higher peak temperature in general across the head
firedeck for the LHR engine. The peak temperature
was 434°C between the exhaust valves. Previous
test work showed an increase of 121°C for the liner
top ring reversal temperature and 93°C for the
piston dome in an LHR engine.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017
930988
CONCLUSIONS
1) Improved mixing of fuel and air is required in
order to permit low heat rejection combustion to be
optimized. More specifically, improved time phasing
of premixed and diffusion burning must be
accomplished if a desirable fundamental cycle heat
release is to be derived. Fuel injection systems with
rate shaping capability should be tryed to improve
this situation. In order that the true overall
advantages of low heat rejection diesel engines be
met, continued combustion optimization of these
systems must be pursued.
2) Heat release in LHR engines exhibit a far greater
sensitivity to small changes than in normally cooled
engines.
3) While experimentation verification is required
hypotheses which identify the importance of seal
coats on porous ceramic coatings to reduce cyclic
thermal inertia appear to be plausible.
4) The thermal state of the test engine in-cylinder
components, even at modest LHR conditions must
be carefully analyzed at the higher temperature
conditions in order to obtain acceptable
performance, and structural and tribological
integrity.
5) Continued use of fundamental combustion data
such as generated within this paper, provide an
indispensable ingredient for improving
state-of-the-art burning laws within diesel cycle
simulation programs.
15
REFERENCES
1) Bryzik, W., and Kamo, R., "TACOM/Cummins
Adiabatic Engine Program," SAE Paper 830314,
SAE Trans. Vol 92, 1983.
2) Bryzik, W., and Kamo, R., "TACOM/Cummins
Adiabatic Engine Program," SAE Paper 840428,
Feb 1984.
3) Assanis, D., Wiese, K., Schwarz, E., and Bryzik,
W., "The Effects of Ceramic Coatings on Diesel
Engine Performance and Exhaust Emissions," SAE
Paper 910460, Feb 1991.
4) Reddy, C. S., Domingo, N., and Graves, R. L.,
"Low Heat Rejection Engine Research Status:
Where Do We Go from Here?" SAE Paper 900620,
Feb 1990.
5) Borman, G. L., Farrell, P. V., Foster, D. E.,
Martin, J. K., and Myers, P. S., "Development of a
Modular Transient Cycle Analysis Program for the
Adiabatic Diesel and Other Compound Diesel
Engines," University of Wisconsin, TACOM,
RDT&E, Technical Report No 13558, pp. 57-71,
June 1991.
6) Brands, M., Hoenhe, J., and Moore, C., "TACOM
Adiabatic Engine Program Review," 4 Oct 1984.
7) Alkidas, A.C., "Performance and Emission
Achievements with an Uncooled, Heavy Duty Single
Cylinder Diesel Engine," SAE 890144, Feb 1989.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tsinghua University, Sunday, October 01, 2017

16 930988

8) Gatowski, J. A., "Evaluation of a Selectively

Cooled, Single Cylinder, 0.5 L Diesel Engine," SAE
900693, Feb 1990.

9) Dickey, D. W., "The Effect of Insulated

Combustion Chamber Surfaces on Direct Injected
Diesel Engine Performance, Emissions and
Combustion," SAE 890292, Feb 1989.

10) Morel, T., Wahiduzzaman, S., and Fort, E. F.,

"Heat Transfer Experiments in an Insulated Diesel,"
SAE 880186, Feb 1988.

11) Woods, M., Schwarz, E., and Bryzik, W., "Heat

Rejection from High Output Adiabatic Diesel
Engine," SAE 920541, Feb 1992.