SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The Mira supercomputer at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility helped Argonne researchers model what happens inside an engine when you use gasoline in a diesel engine. Engineers are exploring this type of combustion as a sustainable transportation option because it may be more efficient than traditional gasoline combustion engines but produce less soot than diesel.
Diesel piston-bowl shape is a key design parameter that affects spray-wall interactions and turbulent flow development, and in turn affects the engine’s thermal efficiency and emissions. It is hypothesized that thermal efficiency can be improved by enhancing squish-region vortices as they are hypothesized to promote fuel-air mixing, leading to faster heat-release rates. However, the strength and longevity of these vortices decrease with advanced injection timings for typical stepped-lip (SL) piston geometries. Dimple stepped-lip (DSL) pistons enhance vortex formation at early injection timings. Previous engine experiments with such a bowl show 1.4% thermal efficiency gains over an SL piston. However, soot was increased dramatically [SAE 2022-01-0400]. In a previous study, a new DSL bowl was designed using non-combusting computational fluid dynamic simulations. This improved DSL bowl is predicted to promote stronger, more rotationally energetic vortices than the baseline DSL piston: it employs shallower, narrower, and steeper-curved dimples that are placed further out into the squish region. In the current experimental study, this improved bowl is tested in a medium-duty diesel engine and compared against the SL piston over an injection timing sweep at low-load and part-load operating conditions. No substantial thermal efficiency gains are achieved at the early injection timing with the improved DSL design, but soot emissions are lowered by 45% relative to the production SL piston, likely due to improved air utilization and soot oxidation. However, these benefits are lost at late injection timings, where the DSL piston renders a lower thermal efficiency than that of the SL piston. Energy balance analyses show higher wall heat transfer with the DSL piston than with the SL piston despite a 1.3% reduction in the piston surface area. Vortex enhancement may not necessarily lead to improved efficiency as more energetic squish-region vortices can lead to higher convective heat transfer losses.
The original project proposal submitted from NovaTorque Inc (NovaTorque) in 2016 was to improve the existing motor with 95% efficiency by reducing the losses by 21% to achieve 96%. A few months after the proposal was submitted, NovaTorque lost funding and went out of business. The assets of NovaTorque were then acquired by Regal Beloit Corporation (“Regal Beloit” or “Regal”). When the NovaTorque proposal was selected, the project was transferred to Regal Beloit. Once we had production samples from the new Regal production line, they were tested at the Regal Beloit test lab in Wausau, WI. The original NovaTorque motor had an efficiency of 95%, but when the technology was transferred to Regal Beloit, there were multiple manufacturing improvements made, even though the basic electromagnetic design did not change. The test results in Wausau showed that the motors made at the Regal Beloit plant had an efficiency of 96%. Since the goal of the project was to reduce the losses by 21%, a new efficiency target of 96.8% became the project objective. In the first budget period, motors were tested to get the baseline performance. We then used FEA modeling with ANSYS Maxwell to model the existing motor to get correlation between the FEA simulations and the actual test results. Once the model was validated, we evaluated some changes that could be made to the stator to reduce the losses and improve efficiency without changing the rotor or stator housing, keeping the modifications easy to implement. The changes were primarily in the area of making the stator axially shorter and adding Soft Magnetic Composite (SMC) tooth tips. In the second budget period, we proceeded to design and build the new stator that was identified above and identified additional improvements in the process that included a stator machining modification and the use of rectangular wire. When we actually built the motor, the choice of rectangular wire turned out to be a problem. The wire was made by squishing round wire to get the rectangular shape, which caused work hardening, making the wire too stiff to make the desired coils. We shifted to annealed square wire which was better, but we still could not maintain the proper coil envelope. The result was that we had reduced cross section area for stator laminations. We also had to have a radial offset resulting in a radial misalignment between the stator and rotor because of the oversized coils. After the motor was completed, it was shipped to Texas A&M University for testing. With the loss of flux from these issues, the measured motor efficiency was only 96.3%. The primary focus of this motor was to make sure our FEA simulation model predicted the measured losses and overall efficiency, this we moved on to the FEA simulation. The FEA simulations of the motor “as built” with misalignments had good correlation with the test results, so the next step was to use that model to optimize the design of the motor for a final build. This time we considered changes to the stator and rotor and also minor changes to the housing diameter. In the third budget period, we did the detailed design and construction of the final prototypes. The final prototypes had a slight increase in the stator diameter to fit in a standard Regal Beloit housing. We shortened the stator and use more layers of wire in the coils. We also increased the cone angle of the rotor and stator from the original 110 degrees to 130 degrees to get some additional efficiency and optimized the stator cross section. The predicted efficiency from the FEA simulations was 96.9%. When completed, the motors were tested. We were a little short of reaching our target efficiency goal of 96.8%. We were only able to get to 96.7% efficiency. While it may be possible with additional iterations in designs and future builds to gain that additional 0.1%, we believe that we are close to the best we can achieve from a practical viewpoint, and additional iterations would be more work than the potential gains would be worth. No other motor in this class can even reach the 96% that we started with.