ringpak comparison of predicted
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
1/16
1
A COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED JOURNALBEARING PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
B.PlayfootRicardo Consulting Engineers Ltd.
The crankshaft bearings of a modern automotive engine have to operate under arduousloading conditions, often at high temperatures. Their reliable operation is dependant on acomplex interaction between hydrodynamic, structural and metallurgical effects. For theengine designer it is important to have easy to use proven analytical design tools to assist himin the task of designing suitable bearings. For many years Ricardo have used software basedon the Mobility method without necessarily going to the complexity of using an Elastro-hydrodynamic (EHD) model such as that used in the Ricardo program ORBIT. This articlepresents work originally performed by Ricardo and Leeds University to develop analytical toolsto predict the performance characteristics of journal bearings. In this original study the bearingloads were derived assuming the crankshaft and crankcase were rigid. This article reviews
the results of the original study and considers the effect of including the stiffness and dynamicbehaviour of the crankshaft. ENGDYN was used to predict the performance characteristicsand the results were compared with experimental data.
INTRODUCTION
The crankshaft bearings of a modern automotive engine have to operate under arduousloading conditions, often at high temperatures. Their reliable operation is dependant on acomplex interaction between hydrodynamic, structural and metallurgical effects.
The purpose of this study is to compare the predicted main bearing performance
characteristics from ENGDYN with experimental data.
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
RICARDO HYDRA ENGINE
The experimental data presented in this paper was collected during a research programcarried out by G.A.Clayton Ref.[1]. The experimental work was carried out at RicardoConsulting Engineers. A Ricardo Hydra single cylinder gasoline engine was used for the test,fitted with two fully grooved main bearings. Figure 1 shows a section through the engine. Thisengine has been specifically designed for research purposes and has several points that
make it particularly suitable for this type of work.
1. The engine has only one cylinder and hence the load sharing between the crankshaft mainbearings is greatly simplified.
2. The bearing housings and the crankcase are extremely rigid.3. The main bearings are fixed in rigid bearing housings, which, in turn fit into the crankcase.
They may be easily removed and this facilitates their instrumentation.
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
2/16
2
Figure 1 Section of the Ricardo Hydra
INSTRUMENTATION
For this study, the front main bearing was instrumented. The use of the front main bearingensures that the dynamic flywheel effects are minimised, therefore simplifying the bearing
loading. In the original engine design, the front main bearing was used to supply oil to thecrankshaft main bearing. The crankshaft was therefore modified to enable oil supply from therear main bearing. Measurements were taken of the following parameters.
1. Inlet oil temperature and pressure2. Engine speed3. Outlet oil temperature4. Bearing temperature at a number of locations5. Oil flow rate through the bearing6. Cylinder pressure
Temperature Measurement
Eight rows of four thermocouples were positioned so that the weld beads lay 0.5mm below thebearing surface. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the axial and angular locations of the K-type(Nickel-Chromium/Nickel-Aluminium) thermocouples, respectively. It can be seen from Figure2 that the axial positions 2 and 4 were equally spaced on the lands either side of the centralgroove. This enabled an assessment of the degree of bearing misalignment to be made,reflected as a difference in the temperature of the two lands. In addition, the bearing oil outlettemperature could be compared for both sides of the bearing at axial positions 0 and 01.
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
3/16
3
Figure 2 Axial Bearing Temperature Measurement
Figure 3 Angular Bearing Temperature Measurement
The ENGDYN model does not currently incorporate a bearing temperature gradient model. Inorder that the temperature gradient can be neglected, an effective bearing temperature must
HighestTemperatures
LowestTemperatures
Mid-RangeTemperatures
Mid-RangeTemperatures
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
4/16
4
be determined that enables the bearing performance to be accurately predicted. Claytonsstudy considered the following three ways of determining an effective bearing oil temperature.
1. Assume the oil outlet temperature2. An average of the thermocouple readings at angular positions 1, 5, 6 and 8. This provided
and average of the highest (8) and lowest (5) bearing temperatures, with an additionalweighting towards the middle range of bearing temperatures.
3. An average of the temperatures of the thermocouples at angular position 5. This gave aneffective temperature which is biased towards the lower end of the bearing temperaturerange.
Journal Orbit Measurement
Four proximity transducers were used to determine the journal centre orbit within the bearing.The axial position of the transducers relative to the crankshaft can be seen in Figure 2.
Oil Supply Circuit
Figure 4 shows a schematic representation of the oil supply from the engine sump to thebearing. The dotted line encircles the equipment that was added for the purpose of theexperimental investigation.
The supply pressure to the bearing was set by the position of the manually operated valve andwas measured using a dial gauge. To safeguard against accidentally starving the bearing ofoil a low pressure cut out was positioned as indicated.
Figure 4 - Schematic Representation of the Oil Supply System
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
5/16
5
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
During the tests, the influences of the oil supply pressure, engine speed and effective oiltemperature (and hence viscosity) on the oil flow rate through the bearing were investigated.Specific tests were undertaken to investigate:
1. The influence of the supply pressure in the oil flow rate for constant engine speeds.2. The effect of engine speed on the oil flow rate and oil temperature, for a constant supply
pressure.
For the purposes of this study, data is presented for just one engine oil, Rotella X30.
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
ENGDYN OVERVIEW
ENGDYN is a fully-coupled crankshaft, oil film and cylinder block dynamic simulation package.The program provides a number of solution techniques for predicting engine dynamics usingmodels of varying sophistication. The crank train and cylinder block models can be modelledas rigid, compliant or dynamic. In its simplest form, ENGDYN can be used to perform astatically determinate solution, whilst in its most sophisticated form it enables the time-domainresponse of the 3-dimensional crank train and cylinder block vibrations with non-linear oil filmsat each of the bearings.An ENGDYN model consists of two components, the crank train and the cylinder block. Thesecomponents are defined using models of varying degrees of accuracy dependent on the
application. Each model can be specified from a finite element model or as user definedlumped masses. ENGDYN reduces the finite element model into a simplified mass elasticsystem, calculating the system stiffness and distributing the mass at node points.
The input loads due to the reciprocating motion of the piston and connecting rod, the rotatingmotion of the connecting rod and the force due to cylinder pressure are applied to each crank-pin and cylinder of the engine. The reaction forces at each of the main journal bearings and atthe thrust bearing are calculated according to several solution options.
ENGDYN enables three solution types:
Statically Determinate The reactions at the main bearings are calculated assuming the
crankshaft is pin-jointed at each of the bearings. The journal orbits are calculated fromthese reactions using the Mobility Method.
Statically Indeterminate The crankshaft and cylinder block are assumed to be compliant.The reactions and journal orbits at each of the main journal bearings plus the quasi-staticdisplaced shape of the crankshaft (and cylinder block) are calculated using the MobilityMethod at each main bearing. This method accounts for load sharing between bearings.
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
6/16
6
Dynamic The crankshaft is assumed to be dynamic and includes the non-lineargyroscopic effects. The reactions and the journal orbits at each of the main journalbearings and the 3-dimensional vibratory behaviour of the crankshaft are calculated.
OIL FILM MODEL
The journal oil film model used by ENGDYN is a fully non-linear model based on methods byBooker and Kikuchi.
For radial motion (axis parallel to the bearing axis) of the shaft in the bearing, the oil film modelis based on the mobility method of Booker and using the short bearing approximation. In itsusual form, the method is used to determine the shaft eccentricity and attitude angle for aknown force. This is the procedure used for the quasi-static solution methods and for thedynamic solution when the cylinder block is compliant. However, when the cylinder block isrigid or dynamic the process is inverted so that the oil film load and its direction can bedetermined from a known shaft position and velocity.
For rotational motion (shaft axis tilting relative to the bearing axis) the short bearingapproximation is used to determine the stiffness and damping of the oil film. This is based onthe work of Kikuchi who modelled the oil film as a set of radial and rotational springs anddampers.
The instantaneous oil flow rate through the bearing and the power dissipated by the oil throughthe bearing action are calculated by ENGDYN for each journal bearing. These instantaneousvalues are integrated numerically to estimate the overall cyclic oil flow rate and power loss.
ENGDYN also offers the ability to perform solutions where the bearing oil temperature is
specified, or alternatively, calculated by performing a thermal balance. For the thermallybalanced solution, ENGDYN calculates the power loss at each angular position of the journalthen integrates for a complete engine cycle to calculate the total power loss in the bearing. Itis then assumed that this energy is used in heating the oil as it flows through the bearing. Theoil temperature is used to calculate the operating viscosity of the oil in the bearing. ENGDYNiterates until a converged solution is obtained.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
ENGDYN Model
A finite element model of the Hydra crankshaft was generated and read into ENGDYN. This isshown in Figure 5. The data properties for the equivalent reduced mass-elastic system werethen calculated by ENGDYN. The Hydra bearing housings and crankcase are extremely stiff,consequently a block model has not been incorporated in the analysis and is assumed to berigid. The main engine parameters are described in Appendix 1.
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
7/16
7
Figure 5 Finite Element Model of Crankshaft
For this study, all three solution types have been considered (statically determinate, statically
indeterminate and dynamic). Each successive solution level offers greater potential accuracybut with a corresponding computational overhead penalty. Since this study is concerned witha single cylinder Hydra engine, there is expected to be little difference between the staticallydeterminate and indeterminate solutions.
Analyses have been carried out using both set and thermally balanced bearing temperaturesolutions. For the specified temperature solution, the bearing oil temperature was set equal tothe experimentally measured bearing oil outlet temperature.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Figures 6 to 8 show the results of the determinate solution.
Figures 6a and 6c compare the effective temperatures measured by Clayton. This shows thatthe average temperature (Tave) is approximately 1.5% lower than the bearing outlettemperature (Tout) across the entire engine speed range. As previously discussed, theaveraged temperature at angular position 5 (T5) is at the lower end of the temperature range,and is lower than the outlet temperature by up to 5%.
A comparison of the ENGDYN predicted flow rates using these temperatures is shown inFigures 6b and 6d. As can be seen, the use of temperature T5enables a very good correlationbetween the experimental and predicted oil flow rates.
The oil temperature in the bearing rises rapidly across the bearing lands. The most restrictiveregion to oil flow is therefore likely to be close to the groove where the oil is cooler andtherefore more viscous. Consequently, the use of the lower effective oil temperature (T5)results in a better oil flow rate correlation.
However, the location of the lowest bearing temperature (T5) is largely dependant on thepresent geometry and loading conditions. Consequently, for the purposes of a thermallybalanced solution ENGDYN assumes the effective bearing temperature to be equal to theoutlet temperature. This approach allows a standard prediction approach to be maintained for
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
8/16
8
all bearings. For a realistic comparison between the thermally balanced and set temperaturesolutions this paper therefore uses Toutfor the set effective bearing temperature.
Bearing temperatures and oil flow rates were measured across the engine speed range for oilsupply temperatures of 55, 70, 85 and 95 oC. A comparison between the ENGDYN set oil
temperature and thermally balanced analyses using the determinate solution is made in Figure7 for all four bearing oil temperatures. It can be seen that the ENGDYN thermally balancedsolution slightly under predicts the oil flow rate at all supply temperatures and speeds. The settemperature solution over predicts the oil flow rate by an increasing magnitude of error withspeed. The maximum percentage error for each of the four temperatures using both solutiontypes is compared in Table 1.
Supply Temperature 55 70 85 95
Set Temperature -21.6% -14.4% -8.9% -6.3%Thermally Balanced -13.3% -12% -9.3% -7.9%
Table 1 Oil Flow Rate Percentage Error
As can be seen, the percentage error reduces with an increase in supply temperature. Themaximum error for the thermally balanced solution being only 13.3%.
Figure 8 compares the variation of predicted and measured oil flow rate with oil supplypressure at three engine speeds (1500, 2500 and 3500 rev/min), with the bearing temperaturespecified and using a thermally balanced solution. It can be seen that a good correlation isachieved with both solution types, particularly at the lower engine speeds. The largest errorsare 15% for the set temperature solution at 3500 rev/min and 2.4 bar oil supply pressure and21% at 2500 rev/min and 3.1 bar.
Figure 9 compares the predicted bearing temperatures and oil flow rates for both determinateand indeterminate analysis solutions. This shows both analyses produce very similar results,with the indeterminate solution being slightly more accurate across the engine speed range.An improvement in accuracy would be much more noticeable with the indeterminate solutionwhen analysing a multi-cylinder engine, where load sharing between the main bearingsbecomes apparent.
Figure 10 compares the results of the dynamic analysis using set temperature and thermallybalanced solutions with the experimental and determinate analysis results. This shows thatalthough the dynamic analysis thermal balance solution predicts a similar bearing oiltemperature to the determinate solution this analysis method under predicts the oil flow rate atall speeds and lower than that predicted by the determinate analysis. However, the slope ofthe curve for the dynamic analysis is more consistent with the experimental result than the
determinate analysis at all speeds. This result suggests, given that the predictedtemperatures are similar, that the predicted oil film is significantly different between the quasi-static and dynamic analyses. Figures 11 and 12 shows this to be the case. Figure 11compares the journal orbit for the dynamic and determinate analyses at 3000 rev/min with theoil supplied at 85oC. The orbit for the indeterminate analysis is very similar to the determinateresult and has not been presented for clarity. Figure 12 compares the maximum pressure andminimum film thickness for the oil for each of the three analyses against speed at the same oil
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
9/16
9
supply temperature. The larger minimum oil film thickness for the dynamic analysis isconsistent with the lower predicted oil flow rate shown in Figure 10.
SUMMARY
A good correlation between the determinate and indeterminate analyses and the experimentalresults has been presented. The results have shown that ENGDYN over-predicts the oil flowrate when the effective bearing oil temperature is specified. Likewise, with the thermallybalanced solution, ENGDYN under-predicts the oil flow rate at all engine speeds. TheENGDYN predicted bearing oil temperatures are generally lower than measured, thedifference increasing with engine speed. For the statically determinate analysis, very closeagreement is obtained between predicted and measured oil flow rates as the oil supplypressure is varied.
The results of the indeterminate analysis show a slight improvement in accuracy.
The dynamic analysis predicts lower oil flow rates than the quasi-static analyses but showssimilar trends to the experimental measurements. The predicted lower oil flow rates are due tothe larger oil film thickness predicted using this method.
REFERENCES
1. Engine Bearing Analysis and Design, G. A. Clayton, PhD Thesis, Department ofMechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, February 1990.
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
10/16
10
Figure 6 Comparison of Set Temperatures Determinate Solution
70oC Oil Supply Temperature, 3.103 bar
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Ra
te
(cm
3/s)
85oC Oil Supply Temperature, 3.103 bar
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Ra
te
(cm
3/s)
70oC Oil Supply Temperature, 3.103 bar
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
Bearing
Tempera
ture
(oC)
85oC Oil Supply Temperature, 3.103 bar
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
Bearing
Tempera
ture
(oC)
a
dc
b
1020
15
00
25
00
35
00
45
00
55
00
Experiment (Tout)
ENGDYN - Set Temperature (Tout)
ENGDYN - Set Temperature (T5)
ENGDYN - Set Temperature (Tave)
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
11/16
11
55oC Oil Flow Rate
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
55oC Oil Supply Temperature
5055
6065
70
7580
8590
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
Bearing
Temperature
(oC)
70oC Oil Flow Rate
56
789
101112131415
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
85oC Oil Flow Rate
89
101112131415161718
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
70oC Oil Supply Temperature
6065
707580859095
100105
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
Be
aringTemperature
(oC)
85oC Oil Supply Temperature
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
95oC Oil Flow Rate
12131415161718192021
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
95oC Oil Supply Temperature
90
95
100
105
110
115
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
4090
0 2000 4000 6000
ENGDYN - Set Temperature
ENGDYN - Thermally BalancedExperimental
Supply Temp
Figure 7 Comparison of Thermally Balanced and Set Bearing Temperatures for DeterminateSolution (3.103 bar Oil Supply Pressure).
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
12/16
12
Figure 8 Relationship between Oil Supply Pressure and Flow Rate (Determinate Solution
1500 rev/min, 100oC Oil Temp out
Set Temperature
02468
101214161820
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
2500 rev/min, 80oC Oil Temp out
Set Temperature
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
3500 rev/min, 80oC Oil Temp out
Set Temperature
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(
cm3/s)
1500 rev/min, 100oC Oil Temp out
Thermally Balanced
02468
101214161820
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
3500 rev/min, 80oC Oil Temp out
Thermally Balanced
0
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
2500 rev/min, 80oC Oil Temp out
Thermally Balanced
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4
Oil Supply Pressure (bar)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
020
0 5
ENGDYN
Experimental
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
13/16
13
70oC Oil Flow Rate
56789
10111213
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed ( rev/min)
O
ilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
85oC Oil Flow Rate
89
10111213141516
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed ( rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
70oC Oil Supply Temperature
6065
707580859095
100105
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
85oC Oil Supply Temperature
6065707580859095
100105110
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
55oC Oil Flow Rate
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
55oC Oil Supply Temperature
50556065
70
75808590
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingT
emperature
(
oC)
95oC Oil Flow Rate
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm3/s)
95oC Oil Supply Temperature
90
95
100
105
110
115
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
1415161718
0 5000
ENGDYN -IndeterminateENGDYN - Determinate
Experimental
Figure 9 Comparison of Indeterminate and Determinate Solutions(3.103 bar Oil SupplyPressure).
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
14/16
14
70oC Oil Flow Rate
56789
10111213
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
85oC Oil Flow Rate
89
10111213141516
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
70oC Oil Supply Temperature
6065
707580859095
100105
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed ( rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
85oC Oil Supply Temperature
6065707580859095
100105110
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
55oC Oil Flow Rate
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlowR
ate(cm
3/s)
55oC Oil Supply Temperature
5055606570
75808590
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingT
emperature
(
oC)
95oC Oil Flow Rate
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
OilFlow
Rate(cm
3/s)
95oC Oil Supply Temperature
90
95
100
105
110
115
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500Engine Speed (rev/min)
BearingTemperature
(oC)
95oC Oil Flow Rate
121314151617181920
150
0
250
0
350
0
450
0
550
0
Engine Speed (rev/min)
ENGDYN - Dynamic (balanced)
ENGDYN - Dynamic (set)
Experiment
ENGDYN - Determinate
Figure 10 Comparison of Determinate and Dynamic Solutions (3.103 bar Oil SupplyPressure)
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
15/16
15
Figure 11 - Comparison of Journal Orbits at 3000 rev/min (85O
C Oil Supply Temperature,3.103 bar Oil Supply Pressure))
0
10
20
30
40
50
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
MaximumF
ilmP
ressure(MPa)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500
Engine Speed (rev/min)
MinimumF
ilmT
hickness(microns)
05
10
1500
4500
Determinate
Indeterminate
Dynamic
Figure 12 Comparison of Oil Film Pressure and Thickness (85OC Oil Supply Temperature,3.103 bar Oil Supply Pressure)
-
8/13/2019 Ringpak Comparison of Predicted
16/16
16
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 1 - Ricardo Hydra TestEngine Data
UnitsEngine
Bore mm 85.7Stroke mm 88.9
Piston
Mass kg 0.3566
Connecting Rod
Length mm 0.158Mass kg 0.9162Inertia about c.g. kgm2 5.08E-03
Big end to c.g. distance mm 52.67
Flywheel
Mass kg 31.2Inertia XX kgm2 0.45
Main Bearings
Length mm 27.96Diameter mm 57.139Radial Clearance mm 0.044Groove Width mm 5.4Feed Type - Full Groove
Pin Bearings
Length mm 20Diameter mm 47.66Radial Clearance mm 0.03
Feed Type - Oil HoleOil Hole Diameter mm 6Oil Hole Angular Position deg 25
Crankshaft
Material - Steel
Table 1 Engine Parameters