Tour Engine moves its opposed-cylinder split-cycle engine to beta prototype; coupling a compression ratio of 8:1 with expansion ratio of 16:1 for increased efficiency
12 October 2011
|
|
| Drawing of the split-cycle TourEngine beta prototype. Click to enlarge. |
Tour Engine Inc., the developer of a novel opposed-cylinder split-cycle engine, presented details of its new beta prototype at last week’s DOE Directions in Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research (DEER) conference in Detroit. At the 2010 DEER event, Dr. Oded Tour, CEO and co-founder (and son of Hugo Tour, inventor and co-founder and former Lt. Col. in the Israeli Air Force) had reported on the design and mechanical feasibility of its operating alpha prototype.
The new beta prototype, developed with the support of the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures, advances the engine design. The first stage of the new Tour engine is a symmetrical design (compression and expansion cylinders of the same size). The second stage exploits an asymmetric design: the compression cylinder (cold cylinder) has a volume of 95 cm3 and compression ratio of 8:1, while the expansion (hot cylinder) has an expansion volume of 190 cm3 and an expansion ratio of 16:1.
A simulation by an independent consultant (verified separately by a major OEM) suggests that the TourEngine with such a 2:1 volume ratio between expansion and compression could yield brake thermal efficiency (BTE) of 50.6%, while increasing the volumetric ratio to 3:1 could push that up to 55.6%.
Tour also described new crossover valve designs with increased actuation speed and control.
Background. The premise of a split-cycle engine is that the segregation of the intake and compression stroke in one cylinder, and the combustion and expansion stroke in another, coupled cylinder, provides a thermodynamic advantage enabling engines to be designed to be more efficient than an engine that combines all four strokes in the same cylinder.
In his talk at the 2011 DEER conference, GM Vice President of Global Research and Development Dr. Alan Taub noted that split-cycle engine technology “really looks promising”, and said that his company is putting on a “major thrust” in its R&D laboratory to see if it can get split-cycle technology “moving”. (Earlier post.)
...we may finally be entering the era where the demand for fuel efficiency will be allowing us to break away from what has become the standard architecture of our engines, and in particular the idea of separating the compression and the combustion (expansion) cylinders, into a dual stage engine. People have talked about it, a lot of people are starting to build prototypes in this, and the driving force is clear: we can see very dramatic improvements in efficiency by going to the DCDE [Discrete Compression Discrete Expansion] architecture. It takes mass, it takes cost, it takes complexity, but giving those kind of efficiency improvements, it is definitely something we need to explore further.
—Alan Taub at DEER 2011
Most split-cycle designs use a gas crossover passage (e.g., Scuderi, earlier post) or intermediate chamber (e.g., Zajac, earlier post) to connect the cylinder pairs.
Tour Engine contends that such a configuration—discrete cylinders linked by a connecting mechanism—introduces several drawbacks that outweigh the potential benefits: significant energy losses are incurred during the transfer of the compressed working fluid from the compression cylinder to the combustion cylinder; a higher compression ratio (e.g., >20:1) is required to allow the efficient multi-stage transfer of the working fluid resulting in elevated friction losses; and a disadvantageous “dead volume” is introduced into the design that holds compressed working fluid within the connecting tube that does not participate in the combustion stage.
Unlike regular IC engines that intake, compress, ignite at the end of compression, and expand a specific volume of working fluid without interruption, other split-cycles expand working fluid that was inducted and compressed several cycles preceding the current expansion stroke. Therefore, Tour argues, they essentially split the engine into a compressor that is coupled via a connecting tube to a combustor with a piston that runs away from the incoming compressed charge.
|
|
| Cartoon of the TourEngine. Click to enlarge. |
The TourEngine design concept. The TourEngine configuration directly couples the two opposing cylinders. A single crossover valve controls the charge flow between the two cylinders—a valve that is large enough in cross-section not to be a bottleneck and thin enough in profile to ensure minimal dead volume.
The crossover valve enables the execution of an integrated cycle: the inducted working fluid is compressed and combusted as part of a single cycle, thereby avoiding piston runaway.
|
|
| Theoretical p-V representation of TourEngine split cycle. The blue line represents the cold (intake/compression) cylinder; red, the hot (combustion and expansion). Click to enlarge. |
The TourEngine is designed to operate using conventional realistic compression ratios (8:1 to 20:1 depending upon fuel type and the use of SI or CI cycle), and is designed to fire at the end of the compression process—while the crossover valve remains open—very similarly to conventional engines but retaining the split-cycle thermodynamic advantages:
As intake and compression occur in a separate cylinder that is relatively cold, less cooling is needed. Simulations indicate a 15% efficiency increase.
Increasing the combustion cylinder volume to enable the combusted gas to expand further, and to convert the heat energy to kinetic energy more fully, reduces exhaust loss. Simulations indicate a 33% efficiency increase.
As the cold cylinder reaches half compression, the crossover valve is closed and the hot cylinder is near the end of exhaust. The two crankshafts are mechanically coupled, with the expansion piston leading with a 40 ° phase lag.
Tour Engine is making an effort to minimize dead space (e.g., completely venting the exhaust), as exemplified in the cartoons below by the cone-shaped protuberances in the pistons. (In advanced implementations of the engine, the design will be such that there will be no need for such cones, Oded Tour remarked.)
At 3/4 compression, and the end of exhaust, the valve begins to open; there is no clearance in the TourEngine design. At 4/5 compression, the valve is open and the charge is being transferred to the combustion cylinder. Fuel injection begins, and experiences robust turbulence and swirling.
At maximum compression (minimum volume) the crossover valve is open, the charge is half transferred, and combustion begins. Firing with an open crossover valve allows the TourEngine to follow the conventional 4-stroke cycle thermodynamics, but on a split-cycle platform. (The disadvantage is a small efficiency penalty associated with pressure acting on the compression piston.) With complete charge transfer, the crossover valve closes; combustion continues in the hot cylinder.
|
|
| |
| Maximum compression, half transfer, combustion begins. Click to enlarge. | Complete transfer, 1/4 of expansion. Click to enlarge. |
The crossover valve. The crossover valve is a critical enabler for the Tour design; it must be able to open to allow the compressed charge transfer and then immediately close (on the order of 30–50 crankshaft degrees) and transfer the charge with minimal resistance. In other words, the valve needs to be large enough in cross-section not to be a bottleneck.
It also must be thin enough in profile to ensure minimal dead volume; dead volume on the compression side prevents full transfer of the compressed working fluid, while dead volume on the expansion side reduces volumetric efficiency and decreases the phase lag for a given compression ratio, which will require even faster valve actuation and therefore will be more challenging. And, it must be able to withstand a high-temperature environment.
|
|
| Measured p-V with electromagnetic crossover valve and a 1:1 expansion to compression volumetric ratio. Click to enlarge. |
For the alpha prototype, Tour used a spring-loaded crossover valve. The company is now working with an electromagnetic crossover valve that is actuated by compression (open) and combustion (close). The electromagnetic force serves only to hinge the crossover valve at the close position. At the right timing, charge forces open or close the valve.
Tour says that the valve—which is of low mass design (and low inertia) features ultrafast actuation (<1 ms) and at 2000 rpm can open fully over 2–6 ° crankshaft angle.
The company is also working on several mechanically actuated crossover valves. These mechanical crossover valves will mainly be actuated by engine forces: compression will open the valve and combustion will close the valve. The mechanical elements will time and control the actuation.
Emissions. Tour projects a significant reduction in CO2 emissions due to higher engine efficiency, along with a substantial reduction in criteria pollutants (NOx, HC, CO). A higher piston velocity at peak combustion reduces peak temperature, leading to a projected reduction in NOx. With the hot combustor burning all the fuel and inducing complete oxidation of CO to CO2, Tour says, there will be reductions in HC and CO, although the company has no estimates as yet.
The company is in discussions with several leading OEMs who are investing internal resources and considering joint development, according to Oded Tour.
Resources
US Patent 7,516,723: Double piston cycle engine
US Patent 7,383,797: Double piston cycle engine
US Patent application US 2010/0186689 A1: Interstage Valve In Double Piston Cycle Engine
Breakthroughs appear regularly about every decades with this type of higher efficiency ICE but none have been mass produced. Will this be one more?
Posted by: HarveyD | 12 October 2011 at 09:58 AM
Yeah - why is that HarveyD? It seems almost like it is a scam.
Posted by: ejj | 12 October 2011 at 10:23 AM
To understand why no engine like this has ever been mass produced, simply look at the first image captioned "Drawing of the split-cycle TourEngine beta prototype". What they have drawn is the equivalent of a two cylinder engine (one power stroke per revolution). The engine is much larger and more complex than a standard V-Twin, and will therefore be heavier, more expensive, less reliable, and take up more space in the engine compartment. I doubt we will ever see this engine in production.
Posted by: Allen | 12 October 2011 at 11:21 AM
Thermodynamically, there is little difference from Otto-cycle engine or Diesel-cycle engine.
The 15% theoretical gain from cooler compression cylinder is partially offset by the unaccounted-for loss from the cross-over valve. Some heat will invariably be transferred from the hot cylinder to the cold cylinder, so the 15% theoretical gain will be less, minus the real-world loss from the cross-over valve.
The 33% gain from the use of larger expansion cylinder can be duplicated by current Diesel engines by the use of turbo-compounder, or to a less extent in Petrol engine by Atkinson cycle with 15% gain in efficiency.
The reliability of the cross-over valve is critical in the commercial viability of this concept. Once this is proven, there will be additional efficiency advantage of the the split-cycle concept in load leveling with compressed air storage.
Still, this is not a complete substitution for electric hybrid, since the low-load efficiency of the electric drive train is unbeatable by any piston engine.
A down-size ICE-atkinson engine with a strong electric hybrid component in a HEV can offer very high efficiency as well as offering the opportunity to turn into a PHEV with only a battery size away, opening the door to petroleum independency.
Have we forgotten about the 57% indicated efficiency of PPC concept using Diesel-type of engine from the Lund University, or similar efficiency from Reactivity-control combustion by Prof. Rolf Reitz of Univ. of Wisconsin?
That, in conjunction with a strong electric hybrid drive train, will get us to as close to theretical efficiency of ICE operation as we can get!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 12 October 2011 at 11:30 AM
The reason I suggest there might be a scam with all of these opposed piston engine companies is because it seems like there are stories on GCC regularly touting research results and claims by the companies but no has an engine in a vehicle they can show off. Step 1: Make some bold claims, Step 2: show some fancy data, Step 3: generate some interest & get venture capital funding...when the money starts to run out, repeat steps 1-3...and you never have to actually produce a working engine for the world to see and test!
Posted by: ejj | 12 October 2011 at 04:16 PM
When I first saw the Scuderi split cycle engine I had the following thoughts. The hot cylinder is effectively a two-stroke direct injection engine. The compression (or cold) cylinder seems to have the same function as a roots type supercharger in a two-stroke diesel engine. Why not use a roots type compressor instead of a piston in a cylinder? It seems that a roots type supercharger would have less frictional losses than a piston in a cylinder? Perhaps timing is the issue but if the engine were constructed of more than one cylinder it seems that a roots compressor would work well. I'm no expert in thermodynamics. I hope someone who is an expert can explain this to me.
Posted by: Eschewo | 13 October 2011 at 03:57 AM
Roots-type supercharger delivers pressure ratio of 2-3 max, and it has relatively poor thermal efficiency (isentropic efficiency) in comparison to twin-screw supercharger. Scuderi compression cylinder is expected to deliver as high a pressure ratios 30:1, similar to the pressure ratio of an Otto-cycle engine.
In two-stroke Otto-engine, the piston further compresses the charge prior to ignition. In Split-cycle engines, the power cylinder does not compress the charge, but only burns a pre-compressed charge and expands.
Supercharger or turbocharger can be used in conjunction with Scuderi or with the Tour engine to further increase power.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 13 October 2011 at 07:42 AM
thanks for the info Mr. Pham.
Posted by: Eschewo | 13 October 2011 at 11:58 AM
Don't forget, as the ICE engine evolves and clings to a diminishing cost/benfit ratio (lower cost, better MPG) over hybrids and BEVs, this type engine must provide better efficiency without too much cost, weight and complexity.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 14 October 2011 at 09:32 AM
Apart from simplicity, volume and weight, a conventional 2-cycle or 4-cycle engine has the advantage of not having a hot cylinder which is constantly exposed to very high temperatures...
Posted by: globi | 17 October 2011 at 05:37 AM
A hot cylinder which doesn't have to compress an air/fuel charge without pre-ignition can use ceramic inserts in the head and piston crown to eliminate most cooling demands and increase thermal efficiency and EGT (which in turn improves energy recovery in a turbocharger or TIGERS).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 20 October 2011 at 06:48 PM