Search Results

This paper presents results of an analytical comparison between two alternative versions of a crankshaft for a 2.2L gasoline engine. The first version had 8 counterweights and a bay balance factor of 80.3%. The second had 4 (larger) counterweights giving a bay balance factor of 56.6% and a crankshaft mass reduction of 1.42 kg. The results presented in this paper relate to the main bearings in terms of specific loads, oil film thickness and shaft tilt angle under full load and no load conditions across the speed range. Torsional vibration analysis and crankshaft stress analysis were also performed but the results are not presented here. The differences in bearing force and oil film thickness were very small and the only major difference in terms of shaft tilt angle occurred at Mains 2 and 4 (increase of ∼ 20% compared with 8 counterweight version).

Fuel consumption, and the physical behaviours behind it, have never been of greater interest to the automotive engineering community. The enormous design, development and infrastructure investment involved with a new engine family which will be in production for many years demands significant review of the base engine fundamental architecture. Future CO2 challenges are pushing car manufacturers to consider alternative engine configurations. As a result, a wide range of diesel engine architectures are available in production, particularly in the 1.4 to 1.6 L passenger car market, including variations in cylinder size, number of valves per cylinder, and bore:stroke (B/S) ratio. In addition, the 3 cylinder engine has entered the market in growing numbers, despite its historic NVH concerns. Ricardo has performed a generic architecture study for a midsize displacement engine in order to assess the pros and cons of each engine configuration.

Rolling element bearings are known to give reduced friction losses when compared to the hydrodynamic bearings typically used to support the crankshaft in multi-cylinder engines. This paper describes the design, manufacturing and testing of a modified 4 cylinder light duty Diesel production engine with rolling element bearings applied at the crankshaft main bearings in view of CO2 emission reduction. Selection of the most suitable type of roller bearings for this specific application was made. Technology development through multi-body dynamic simulation and component testing was done to assess the effect on rolling elements performance due to the key challenges inherent to such bearing solution: high instantaneous combustion load, lubrication with low viscosity and contaminated oil, and the cracking process to split the bearing outer raceway.

The authors have published SAE paper 2008-01-0088 on the analytical comparison between 4 and 8 counterweight crankshafts for an I4 gasoline engine. This paper showed that for a particular design of a 4 counterweight crankshaft, the differences in bearing force and oil film thickness were very small and the only major difference in terms of bearing shaft tilt angle occurred at mains 2 and 4 (increase of ∼20% compared with 8 counterweight version). The 4 counterweight crankshaft has a significant mass advantage as it was 1.42kg lighter than the 8 counterweight crankshaft. This new paper addresses the testing performed to validate the analysis results in bearing durability by subjecting the engine to a mixture of high speed and general durability cycles. A comparison was made on the bearing conditions after running a total of 100 hours through prescribed durability cycles on a gasoline engine with both 4 and 8 counterweight crankshafts.