; !8
97#$%&'()*+,./0123456R]:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ\TUVWXYZ[^xw`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvyz{~}Root Entry F }CompObjbWordDocument*ObjectPoolgg
!"#$%&'()*,/2456789:;<=>?ADFGHIJKLMNOPQ
FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.6; ; L
;
FMicrosoft WordArt 2.0MSWordArt.2MSWordArt.2; ; ܥe3 eMjKgFD^ZZZZZZZO߉AT`Z68ZZZZZZZZZZZZȆPZZEZ
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
Inline FiveCylinder Engine
2.5 Liter TwoStroke
ME 428
Instructor: Dr. Raghu Echempati
Hank Jones
May 1, 1995
Introduction
Identification of Need
Echempati Automobile Company needs a preliminary design and analysis report for a twostroke inline fivecylinder internal combustion engine with a displacement of 2.5 liters
Background Information
Echempati Automobile Company (EAC) is a multinational corporation specializing in the development of experimental automobile technology. One of its main programs involves research into the next generation of internal combustion engines. This program requires that all engines considered for development be created from the ground up. This strategy is used to insure that all possible attributes of a new engine are considered. The result of this approach is a very openended design process where literally anything is possible. Designers are told to be creative in their thinking but mindful of the realities of cost constraints, aesthetics, and size limitations. Even the ethical consequences of the design must be considered, so that there is no inclination to produce a very powerful engine at the expense of safety to the consumer.
Echempati Auto is currently designing a concept car that will be a test bed for a wide variety of new technologies. Many different engines are being considered for use as the powerplant for this vehicle. Richton Motor Works was asked to provide a preliminary design and analysis for EAC for a twostroke inline fivecylinder engine to be used in the concept car. The auto designers have determined that an engine with a 2.5 liters displacement should provide ample power for this application. The twostroke cycle was selected for its better powertoweight ratio. Because this will initially be a oneofakind concept car, the common twostroke drawbacks of higher pollution levels and poor fuel economy compared to a fourstroke cycle were ignored. However, the carmaker believes that the simplicity of the twostroke design will be economically attractive for possible production. Consequently, Echempati Auto has almost completed new electronic mechanisms that will actually reduce fuel consumption and pollution lower than current fourstroke engines through such advanced technologies as compressed air scavenging of the cylinders.
Because so many types of engine configurations are possible, EAC requested that Richton Motor Works analyze only a fivecylinder inline arrangement. Other configurations such as vee, opposed, and radial will be considered and studied in the future. Echempati Auto suggested that the fivecylinder inline be studied due to its simplicity and relative obscurity. The constraints for the design as well as the important data to be obtained were set by EAC.
The most important constraint, other than the given displacement, was that the forces acting on the vehicle chassis be as small as possible. The use of this engine as the powerplant for a technology test bed requires a very smooth ride. The fragile experimental electronics that Echempati Auto will be testing cannot withstand a great deal of vibration or other forces. Consequently, almost all other constraints were ignored for this design. The only exception was the overall size of the cylinder block. Due to the experimental nature of the car, a very generous limit of one cubic meter was set by EAC. The auto designers, to increase the robustness of the design, have incorporated a very large engine compartment into the overall design. As a result, large conrodtocrank length (L / R) ratios could be used, as well as large boretostroke (B / S) ratios. Large L / R ratios result in smoother acceleration functions and large B / S ratios reduce the amount of inertia forces on the engine. Richton Motor Works was also asked to ensure that all factors of safety were greater than two.
The most important data to be obtained from the preliminary design and analysis was the amount of forces and moments acting on the chassis. As explained in the previous paragraph, Echempati Auto wishes to have as little vibration caused by the engine as possible. The extent of these vibrationcausing elements had to be determined so that the twostroke inline fivecylinder could be compared to other 2.5 liter engines with different cylinder and stroke configurations.
As a result of the research, design, and evaluation performed by the Richton Motor Works, an engine with a bore of 10 centimeters, an L / R ratio of 4.5, total length of 72 centimeters, and an approximate height of 25 centimeters was suggested to Echempati Automobile Company. As an alternative, an engine with a bore of 10 centimeters, an L / R ratio of 4.0, total length of 72 centimeters, and an approximate height of 22 centimeters was also suggested. Both of these engines meet the design constraints set by EAC. The derivation and optimization of these two engines is described in the remainder of this report. Complete drawings of the engine configurations as well as plots of the forces and moments are given at the conclusion of the report. Stress analysis was performed on vital parts of the engine and is shown in Appendix A. Specific hand calculations are shown in Appendix B.
Goal Statement
Design and analyze two twostroke inline fivecylinder engines with 2.5 liter displacements that minimize the forces and moments acting on the chassis of a vehicle.
Design Considerations
Appendix C contains the basic iterative steps followed in this design process. The following paragraphs describe this process in the order given in the appendix. The spreadsheet referred to in the following procedure is shown and described in Appendix D. This spreadsheet was devised by programmers at Richton Motor Works but will be passed on to Echempati Auto for use in future work.
This step was probably the easiest. The specifications set by EAC that the engine be a fivecylinder twostroke engine with a 2.5 liter displacement were placed in the proper positions on the spreadsheet.
Using a wide variety of references, the basic properties of the materials to be used in the engine were determined and placed in the spreadsheet. 355T6 aluminum was found to be the most appropriate piston material, with a density of 2800 kilograms per cubic meter. For the connecting rod, crankshaft, and wristpin, AISI 4340 steel with a density of 7700 kilograms per cubic meter and a yield strength of 8.8E8 Pascals was chosen.
One of the more arbitrarily performed steps, this early stage required the engine designers to approximate many of the dimensions of the engine. All of the values found in this step were the result of previous experience rather than any set formula. If, near the end of the design process, stress analysis revealed that any of these dimensions were unsafe, the design would return to this step. Although this may not seem to be an efficient use of time, an iterative process is vital to a completely safe and effective design. In any case, the most important dimension, crankshaft diameter, was set at an initial value of 4 centimeters. For simplicity in the later calculations, this was also set as the diameter of the crankpin. The diameter of the wristpin, another important dimension that affects not only the strength of the wristpin but the equivalent weight of the piston, was set at 2.5 centimeters. The thickness of the solid piston head, known as piston head depth and shown in Figure 1, was given an initial value of 1 centimeter. The hollow part of the piston below the head was given a wall thickness of 0.5 centimeters and a length of 4 centimeters. The crank was assumed to have a rectangular threecentimeterbyfourcentimeter crosssection.
Four different bore sizes of 8, 9, 10, and 11 centimeters were chosen to be one of the variables in this design. These values were chosen so that boretostroke ratios ranging from approximately 0.75 to 2.0 could be tested. Conrodtocrank length ratios of 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5 were used to test the middle range of acceptable L / R ratios. Higher ratios, as stated earlier, result in smoother acceleration functions for the engine but also longer connecting rods. This extra length translates into larger engines that can conceivably be much too big for the available space. These values were placed in the appropriate places on the spreadsheet.
Using the information provided by the spreadsheet, the first possible combination of bore size and L / R ratio was entered into the ENGINE program. The important values taken from the spreadsheet, other than those previously given, were equivalent piston mass, conrod mass, and throw mass. The mass of the crank was considered to be concentrated at onehalf the crank radius. The mass of the connecting rod was considered to be concentrated at onethird of the length from the crank end.
Using the ENGINE program, the characteristics of the engine were calculated at a midrange speed of 3400 rpm. This speed was chosen because this is anticipated to be the typical running speed of the engine. The engine was then balanced using the mass, radius, and angle provided by ENGINE. These default values were used to achieve comparability between different engine configurations.
The delta phase angle for this engine of 72( was determined by the formula for phase angle, EMBED Equation.2 , where n is the number of cylinders. This delta phase angle maximizes the cancellation of the inertia forces. Applied to these five cylinders, this resulted in phase angles of 0(, 72(, 144(, 216(, and 288(. The firing order was then initially set as 14325. This order seemed to be the best distribution of alternating forces and would allow the intake manifold to recharge between cycles. To achieve even firing, the delta phase angle of 72( for evenly spaced power pulses was calculated using the formula for a two stroke engine, EMBED Equation.2 . This resulted in power stroke angles for cylinders one through five as 0(, 216(, 144(, 72(, and 288(, respectively. Other firing orders such as 12345 and 13524 were tried, but the shaking moments were much greater for these arrangements.
The Assemble feature of the ENGINE program was used with the values found in Step 7. The distance between cylinders of 11 centimeters was taken from the spreadsheet.
All possible outputs were recorded. The inertia torque, primary and secondary shaking force, and shaking torque were all found to be zero everywhere. Gas force, gas torque, and forces on the main bearing, crankpin, and wristpin were not zero. This result should be expected, as these characteristics will be present in any motor. In fact, if any of these values was zero everywhere, the engine would not function. The only other nonzero value was the total moment acting on the engine.
With the help of a consultant who specializes in evaluating the effects of engine forces, the most important of these nonzero values were determined and were weighed on a scale from zero to ten, with the sum of the weights equal to one. For this engine, the total torque was given a weight of 0.40, the shaking moment a weight of 0.35, and the main bearing force a weight of 0.25.
The ENGINE program was run for the twelve possibilities on the spreadsheet. Each configuration was calculated, balanced, and assembled. Different masses were used for each case, but for consistency the default values were used when balancing. The same phase angles, firing order, and power angles were used in each assembly. The values of maximum total torque, maximum shaking moment, and maximum force on the main bearing were recorded for each configuration.
The values recorded in Step 11 were normalized and placed into a decision matrix using the appropriate weights. This matrix is shown in Appendix E. The values were normalized so that major changes in important values could not be masked by a combination of minor changes.
The two engines with the smallest total values were both had L / R values of 4.5 and bores of 10 and 11 centimeters. The third smallest total belonged to a configuration of 4.0 L / R and a 10centimeter bore. So that two more different configurations could be studied, the iterations with 10centimeter bores and L / R ratios of 4.0 and 4.5 were chosen. These engines, as determined by the decision matrix, should have the least normalized amount of adverse effects. The boretostroke ratios for both engines is 1.571, slightly higher than the normal B / S ratio for internal combustion engines. The large space constraints for this engine allow this ratio to be a higher number.
The characteristics of these engines were checked against the constraints. As the decision matrix showed, these engines minimize the forces and moments acting on a vehicle. The lengths of the connecting rod and crank were a maximum of 14.3 and 3.2 centimeters, respectively. These dimensions should not create an engine that will violate the cubic meter limit for engine size set by Echempati Auto.
These two final engines were input into the ENGINE program again and saved onto disk. Standard values were recorded for all outputs of the ENGINE program so that base points could be established for optimization of the engine.
The engines were overbalanced by adding extra mass to the defaults given by ENGINE. This change lowered the shaking moment, but added to it a horizontal component. Overbalancing also increased the main bearing force. The engines were then underbalanced by lowering the balancing mass. This increased the shaking moment but decreased the main bearing force. Changing the radius of the balancing mass had the same affect as changing the mass. The angle of the balancing mass was then tried at many different angles, and changes were noted in the main bearing force and the friction torque. Changes in the location_860189514FggOle
PIC
LMETA") &@ w6c=
$Jd5'6DSS
\yPS3r&Gft^ZT,a9?XohUV;f^"O~q6h;v^minn@W qqM;&KrfJ.8a1x[`_KI
!07DFH}DXBQ87$ ph>,v9)deWy&;=BpkZV[?"/JuhX< ^_+WE[b_c^KF+&9 iT5H>th68pI
s/<p#SV[u#%l(:TjBmR~TIpiN>,_i
*<^Z!!`"2#
~
O
<
zV"rjYNJ??$
w
R
+
t'
r
S 1 z x Z 8 q. e Ds5&oZXBX>J/* /S;Gi? = GB Cw
s
~
s&`GZURRQ$RlXuYeg
rA
^
<2OWRY]Tq(4+j#{ r
g
U~
R;
NHIQpT4dt{f
QP
L X A U
= Y
J
e"
yC
Q
d
:
P
Y%vDNMb
:
m
/7,t+(vpzl
AD[]a%aVNDp,$* [9T7]]28Fi+P\v(l=:]y
V*s0H^Nq~+uVy(;#7rsm>T6]r!~Z2HDwhJ.#ZLlc/vleUC@@68C zeG1sv?/Kio]RA6>E1w1x/..{LW% }A@x=L}j!<h?d*pXFQ]uG#
5A&`,q7<LpB~lXD/`5 [1vd)5E;MU`dftlqm7?/svR'Y!rWi8tCZ(od[ Qy!19WW}BHS^#XphS}
E 4sV
8pXd@&O$;Uq
&'5DDMjAD$c8WeOKuER*0rI`YFG,WO@ob'Yzz,gO^tZ_xz_1Hbxxb>,z
,^1IFOcut>5ib3gFX[F( C
0MW;cgM56U"#uv v4wx%8%"Q_+khv*49QDUDEFC>%S +^
(
egak]r25LNrRRG?5aL*xE(sNN28FZ
AMg].+NsjG
d!9O?bowfGj,y(cd^/E'NcoK#xt95hY;K=]Tz g]VFm411')4kV8"dg0 <Zv`NC2'/6"h"i l=xH}n21iq .=n[}Y0UxaIm7BNfv8&2Qb(=a3o]I5~ Q&
w
L
"g
U
&6,>FQUWe]b^(0 dmmgCqJ cHZ)e4K`UuLB j"*HHn3r9mrDOIawvYD
n6%dGq)waIU1@,X+w; CompObj
ZObjInfoContents lInternal
WordArt MOTORBookman Old Style 2d ; ; L!c0;
FMicrosoft WordArt 2.0MSWordArt.2MSWordArt.2; of the crank center of gravity had no effect, but changing the location of the connecting rod center of gravity did affect the total moment, main bearing force, and friction torque. The nature and extent of these changes were recorded.
The expert on engine forces was again consulted regarding the effects of the changes noted above. From this advice, priority was placed on minimizing the horizontal component of the shaking moment, lowering the shaking moment, lowering the main bearing force, and, finally, lowering the friction torque.
Through trial and error, and using the trends found during Step 16, the engines were optimized. The only change made to the default values set by the ENGINE program was the movement of the balancing mass from 180 degrees to 0 degrees. This was the best combination of reduction in main bearing force and friction torque. The shaking moment was not reduced because any reduction caused an increase in its horizontal component, the most unacceptable result of optimization. This result was unwanted because any horizontal component would require another balancing arrangement to counteract the new moment component. After the optimization had been completed, flywheels were added through the ENGINE program. This greatly reduced the fluctuations in the total torque. Hand calculation of the flywheel is shown in Appendix E.
As shown in Appendix A, stress analysis was performed on various parts in the engine using data from the ENGINE program output for the pin forces. All output given for the two engines are given in Appendix F. Bending and shear stresses on the wristpin and crankpin, bending and torsion stresses on the crankshaft, and buckling and compression stresses on the connecting rod were determined. In all cases, the factor of safety exceeded the value of two set by Echempati Auto.
If the stress analysis had indicated that any of the parts could fail, or that merely the factor of safety was lower than the value set by Echempati Auto, the dimensions of the appropriate part(s) would have to have been changed. If this had been the case, the design process would have returned to Step 3. However, all stress calculations revealed that the initial guesses were close enough to be permanently set.
Hand calculation of the shaking forces and moments at one position of the crankshaft were performed and are shown in Appendix B. These values are the same as the values found by the ENGINE program, shown at the end of the appendix.
Conclusions
As requested by Echempati Automobile Company, Richton Motor Works has provided a preliminary design and analysis of two twostroke inline fivecylinder engines with displacements of 2.5 liters. The main characteristics of these engines are given in Table 1 below. Scale drawings of the basic dimensions of these two final designs are shown in Figures 2 and 3. These figures verify that the designs are within the space constraints defined by EAC. As stated earlier, these two engines minimize vibrationcausing forces and moments created by an engine. However, some primary and secondary shaking moments still remain. The effects of the moments can be reduced through the addition of gearing arrangements that produce balancing couples. This balancing should be the next step in the design of these engines. After all balancing has been accomplished and the final results are approved by the automobile designers and test engineers, detailed design of the engine may begin. If any further questions are raised during this process, Richton Motor Works will be glad to provide assistance.
Table 1. Engine Specifications
Design NumberOneTwoBore (inches)3.9373.937LengthtoRadius Ratio4.54.0Stroke (inches)2.5062.506BoretoStroke Ratio1.5711.571Crank Length (inches)1.2531.253Connecting Rod Length (inches)5.6395.013Equivalent Piston Mass (kg)0.7650.765Connecting Rod Mass (kg)0.3390.302Throw Mass (kg)1.5521.552Crankshaft Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crankpin Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crank Dimensions (cm)3.0 x 4.03.0 x 4.0Wristpin Diameter (cm)2.52.5Piston Head Depth (cm)1.01.0Piston Wall Thickness (cm)0.50.5Total Piston Length (cm)5.05.0Piston Material355 T6 Aluminum 355 T6 Aluminum Crankshaft & Conrod MaterialAISI 4340 SteelAISI 4340 SteelMaximum Shaking Moment (Nm)621.8671.9Average Total Torque820.6828.6Maximum Main Bearing Force (N)2315723319
Appendix A
Stress Analysis
Appendix B
Hand Calculations
Appendix E
Flywheel Calculation
Figure 1  Piston
Figure 2  4.0, 10
Figure 3  4.5, 10
Appendix F
ENGINE Program Output
The ENGINE program referred to throughout this report is ENGINE  Version 5.2, a program for the Mechanical Dynamic Analysis of Internal Combustion Engines, copyright 1991 and 1992. The program was written by Robert L. Norton of the Worchester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix contains plots and other information obtained from this program. The plots concerning Design One are given first, followed by plots concerning Design Two. The order of the plots is as follows:
Engine data
Balancing information (shaking forces and moments)
Phase angles
Firing arrangement
Power strokes in cylinder order
Power strokes in firing order
Total shaking moment
Force on main bearing
Force on crankpin
Force on wristpin
Gas force
Gas torque (Equivalent to total torque for this engine)
Friction torque
There are no plots for shaking force, shaking torque, or inertia torque because these characteristics have values of zero at all times.
Appendix D
Spreadsheet and Description
The spreadsheet used in this experiment is shown on the following two pages. It was designed by Richton Motor Works and was run on Quattro for Windows 5.0. This appendix contains a brief description of the origins of the various elements of the spreadsheet. The elements are described in an order as if the two pages were placed next to each other, proceeding from left to right. Other than the exceptions noted below, all dimensions are in SI units and are shown on the spreadsheet. Starting at the top lefthand corner of the first page,
The crankshaft diameter, wristpin diameter, piston wall thickness, piston head depth, and piston collar length are constants set by the designer.
The aluminum and steel densities are constants set by the designer. The steel position is used for the crankshaft, connecting rod, and wristpin. The aluminum position is used for the piston only.
The displacement and number of cylinders are constants set by the designer. From these values, the displacement per cylinder is determined.
The gas pressure and factor of safety are constants set by the designer.
The crank dimensions and connecting rod yield strength are constants set by the designer.
The bore sizes are constants set by the designer. The total area is the area of the piston head taken from the bore size.
The part length is the length of either a crankshaft or crankpin segment. It is determined from the bore size and a distance between cylinder walls of three centimeters.
The piston to piston distance is twice the bore size plus the distance between cylinders.
The shaft volume is the volume of the crankshaft and crankpin combined.
The bore  wall thickness is used for other calculations.
The area to be removed is the inside area of the hollow part of the piston.
Piston top volume is the volume of the solid piston head.
Piston bottom volume is the volume of the piston collar.
Piston total volume is the total of the previous two columns.
The wristpin volume is determined from the bore and constant diameter.
The wristpin mass is determined by the steel density and the wristpin volume.
The equivalent piston mass is the sum of the piston and wristpin masses.
The stroke is determined from the displacement and piston area.
The B / S ratio is the ratio of bore to stroke.
This is the radius of the crank determined as half the stroke.
The gas force is determined from the area of the piston and the gas pressure.
The connecting rod crosssectional area is determined using the given factor of safety, the gas force, and the yield stress of steel.
The L / R ratio is a constant set by the designer of the length of the connecting rod to the length of the crank.
The conrod length is determined from the radius and the L / R ratio.
The conrod volume is found using its length and area previously found.
Using the steel density and conrod volume, the conrod mass is found.
The throw mass is found from the throw volume and the density of steel.
Mass m2a is the equivalent mass of the throw concentrated at the end of the crank, or onehalf the mass of the throw.
Mass m3a is the equivalent mass of the conrod concentrated at the end of the crank, or twothirds the mass of the connecting rod.
Mass m3b is the equivalent mass of the conrod concentrated at the piston, or onethird the mass of the connecting rod.
Mass @ A is the sum of the m2a and m3a masses.
Mass @ B is the sum of the piston and m3b masses.
The next five columns restate previously found values in inch dimensions.
The crank volume is determined from the crank length and the given dimensions.
The throw volume is the sum of the crank volume and shaft volume.
The third and fourth rows are repetitions of the second with different L / R ratios.
Appendix C
Engine Design Iterative Process
Determine the given values for the engine
Put pertinent information at top of ENGINE spreadsheet
Approximate the dimensions of the engine and place in spreadsheet
Decide trial bore sizes and L / R ratios and place in spreadsheet
Input values from spreadsheet for first combination into ENGINE program
Using ENGINE, calculate at middle rpm and balance using default values
Determine initial values for the phase angle, firing angles, and firing order for the engine
Assemble engine with values found in Step 7
Plot every possible output. Record which ones are always zero and which ones are not
With the help of outside sources, determine which values are most important and weigh them on a scale from zero to ten, with the sum of the weights equal to one
Run the ENGINE program for all possibilities on the spreadsheet. Calculate, balance, and assemble engine each time. Write down important values (from Step 10) for each arrangement
Normalize values and place into a decision matrix using weights from Step 10
Take the two engines that have the smallest total values, for these two should have the least normalized amount of adverse effects
Make sure these engines comply with all constraints
Put these engines back into ENGINE program
Try changing balance radius, balance angle, balance mass, firing order, crank angles, and any other input. Note in tabular form the effects of these changes
With the help of outside sources, determine which of these changes are good, which are bad, and which are the best combinations
Through trial and error, optimize your engines and add a flywheel
Do stress analysis on various parts, using data from the ENGINE program output regarding the pin forces given under Print or PlotBending and shear on wristpinBending and shear on crankpinTorsion and bending on crankshaft (Assume that the shaft has seized)Buckling and compression on connecting rod
If any of the parts could fail, increase the size of the appropriate part(s) and return to Step 3
Perform calculations by hand for the shaking forces and moments at one position and compare to the values found by the ENGINE program
Design NumberOneTwoBore (inches)3.9373.937LengthtoRadius Ratio4.54.0Stroke (inches)2.5062.506BoretoStroke Ratio1.5711.571Crank Length (inches)1.2531.253Connecting Rod Length (inches)5.6395.013Equivalent Piston Mass (kg)0.7650.765Connecting Rod Mass (kg)0.3390.302Throw Mass (kg)1.5521.552Crankshaft Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crankpin Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crank Dimensions (cm)3.0 x 4.03.0 x 4.0Wristpin Diameter (cm)2.52.5Piston Head Depth (cm)1.01.0Piston Wall Thickness (cm)0.50.5Total Piston Length (cm)5.05.0Piston Material355 T6 Aluminum 355 T6 Aluminum Crankshaft & Conrod MaterialAISI 4340 SteelAISI 4340 SteelMaximum Shaking Moment (Nm)621.8671.9Average Total Torque820.6828.6Maximum Main Bearing Force (N)2315723319
b; _860189547FggOle
PIC
LMETAS!cnF RF
8=.}*,9TLxc~
4_zV'/=MZbLet>H%K8K89e
e
//?MHKKKKAF\4mppmf~ZmJa2Z
XX
r
V%]'9 x.r
rN$%IIX'X[dr1@H'KIKIKKH?1pc[XX$Ug=[!
p
c\
[/
X \ g ye 9
?z?Cy @ p !
G
1~

!
'^yD.r_=
q
X
b ~* iM,jIU&V
p,,UXB 6
p
8J_g$HkkXLX[c
q
vf[XXJJX XZam{/=GJKJKKHB
7&e
e
/
=GkKkKKI
D'
:3
):
=
=
:
4
}(
m
aZXX`$.:BNQulY,;uv@rv6?/FKK%F=9N$W[[WIw rx_.lQ882[ 33sTD$cgzMud9Mm1=cY1qL~PhM+pT=S+# S4lU(~+Vr4
[ [ ZX[fy[5 ?{X,f4Z*<GMKG=*8^\Hp/eDve[ZXZXd$0;otoeR[+X
X
XXUZ:`$p
559N2^>qEK;;KPKHA3td[YX;X;8=S6p%92GWP~SPH9!%Eet?P4St<SSz<5
SS}f}z
o*dFU_Bt,q?]2N$%rVD7/O>t<$DNvRzc882}c'_$["o=v?^j4p8
{ :\.wI3}v)]$%]0~}}[('O}kSB2858B_Sj<c%V(Wd;
);LEIEq;))oCi:d$0O~ {O{<99&4=o@<@O<1 ; CompObj41>0>/,14,14/&/1>h>>2424ZObjInfoContentsnInternal; WordArt RICHTONBookman Old Style 2d!c; ; L
z;
FMicrosoft WordArt 2.0MSWord_860189571n)MicroSoft (c) 1941>0>omFgg6n Ole
PIC
LMETA_(.
> t0:
$LL@N{PRUXJ]afmsQ{ Ui'"n8.mV)(Wwj^6LJWYuNA'W:>?]ntTM3 yxmj}%Q6GZlHy
;iuqsn_MUC8%'& :ZmN * K
B
Xdq
t)
HDnD0)*01{'_F,$
)m
=
[
y
5_<^*Pxi[=)84
hG
q
)
A
#I6C_FF
N
Tw(
q
vt Cp x~i'Q5l:XFE1PabzC(CMeW@7X&q~KAL28p %:=LJTxqu&0Pf0zEfq#M@c]v~gh.=4l8?>9n5hjO?D;Fhz<+>UGY~khPt6Q))S
o]0E;gT+&pl%b_<"N8A`/E9~V5$s<Aqd\Ng;n;4,,P+R+..349A>RAJKU\c1n3oh1bgoL{dUP>/~F"
N4!a8P<]jjW,GsEnnehnJs`Ih/c4e5lUU&MS%ok}Q8DBHxm 93pXK]I{,~jshXK3?*.OEc(96
}oo68F`j=p?zIP%Twmke$]VUYUOJHH1F:FkKNQ]_&q=yk&1=Wqt$wvrbS>,4
itoa'*?Lhs3sGZnk+Otu( + 7
8
$jn'YGh

0
R 5N;xK04Y&EK&d)"05;[?CD#*S5@\2<~JNW=]chJmpsWvvvmspmh4c]WU=x&0EQ}niWt8]7\LLFC@^<S;`PQxpi_BWRTI><9#L
;[paE)g"pVwIkMF7,&SC%&w/F6@8
BJSh[2binsVw {~$$# Q ~ o S
92
^
4e^E%
1>*Dfh.3O
t
J
Y);LiZgtz~,A
Z
}vldPV1Z+_w
I
U
xy
P
*
$D_d5
_
3
8
@ =
K
y
y
o
Y
U
G>3;N6v63245;8f;==K
<
9
450+ !s
7Ng%F!zhjRP/1'h``?j
p
bX+mu1Dp+~hJYs>)sH<K\weToOBHLLWX2ahmnuvLvvt/pjhKiQBKg,\N qwg*oE0vl*.Ya
(M
O
v
J
T

f
P
5
`
`r
:X
A
a L 91 G R$J$iIf*<D4..1bL
%STpnFD FKy=F{}zussr
u(wHeH"[DgillfcC
B7%HcxM;7=Wun5I!1<YguvX_5!B[oc^7!H5Bs9:p3Ql.S}!r
e
 S?!~$^nJ; E q z M
;
D
~
FZFZ&=3+~w m&,
;
?
$w
6p
L
J
= g F ( 7 jnT>jh4CHV`A`4deeaR_GUQD=/w TA6pc7+PQzIvRY;/NC^~<*.6fvH @ 6 f t c [ / = oY `F A #U5m]#M(
*^/PAKVkq[Y* 2]$$==1?lACFI;NqRW^dBlvt}FZt_ )^GHh[O'=;HJf?2H+/0N_ettEt>v$srji^[nyB'u8K]p9j,Z~zfbd_P>F4)
+Kw^
?< 3 I
U
be95_~5!
!
"l
P
7
^ . L j &
P
z

O
qAiZL.)%Y8bx2
:'
4
P7
7
?{E
h
b ge4a~ioZBm&pz]+I76"ARSk44>VH1(Ibro<2=28p
+.=;Eibpf!A
W!k6Wb>1TNgoXY.%])x0/*_&Y[@t05,7Yku/F8Jo\YAe'B Dy`Nw!6,qXE
a]SP{?)s2Q
6*oG&d}2{tbUM?X,_,%AC$%*2/C2~;<FMT"_$`Ypqw"SX`{=lUFA/w o7?%R)AN[[H8d6__VY_;dQ{}:Y T%V&]FF>D`\~nB)539i^*$
aI<N:lzzvo[dYI7(t
D
4
h 7'1)3;DYL#SZ_dGhlop$$Bo{`D*#
O
{
v
%
V
O
6
y
"/
5
W
Y
z

v
x
y
$
@
u
e;
J
,
=
ZK
X
e
ko
w
2
K
{
n
g]
UA
G"
K
Phq:vFijA
z
5
P
U
&
u

P $ )1. < xj j ` J F 8
/$
,?
'g
'
$
#
%&,)W,..<*%&
!u
d
(?Xw7pkY[CA
"Y
t
Q
Q
0
[a
S
v
I
^f"5aoY;Jd/wd9<MprqhVE`@39==HI#RY^_fg=gg~e a
[
Y
r
<Z
B
3
<vXtMwp?bhXp`6!g]
J
wR
>@gx;EmWA&Q Qc +I 2 q
R=*"8C$JZ:W5r%"Sz=DEat_v757<jtw.v7lnktfddcfh9mVrs~9L5XZ]]WT43(9Tit>,(.Hf_&u:"JXfgIrP&
3L`uzTO(9p&3d*+a$B]rDnc}VmDv0qoO_;,6byvk>
, 5 o 7K
7K
.
$
o
h
^
, 0 } h 'a = ; .Xusr7([_tE/[Y%49GsQ2Q%UVVRCP8FB5. hE 2r'qtaT(ABk:gCJ, ?~q4Oo 'Wxg91'WeTL .`JQ72}F&^Ns>
sO A2<G\bsLJ#qN
#; CompObj>h>>ExSt>t68Tt68ZObjInfoContentsnInternalArt.2MSWordArt.2; ; WordArt WORKSBookman Old Style 2d
; ; LU
El; _860593307D1>0>#FggOle
PIC
L
META&&&&&&&&&&***!E5226.*5662*67F76. %&U
Ev8 D .1` & &MathType. Symbol
2
`>Df Times New RomanSy2
inertia>pbI>>bTimes New Roman 2
JnSymbol 2
`= 2
mtTimes New RomanSy2
mB360
&
"System
FMicrosoft Equation 2.0DS EquationEquation.2; ; 4`/@o?o?
Dfinertia
=360n0CompObj5555A2....7666666*6!!!!!!2!!!!+Z)&ObjInfo"Equation Native ._860594225%Fg };tA@;Ole :>0>
0PIC
$'1LMETA3CompObj&(@Z; LgEl; gEn8 o .1@&&MathType
Symbol
2
`>Df Times New RomanSy2
two>p2
strokeW>IppbTimes New Roman 2
n Symbol 2
o{Symbol 2
`= 2
m@
Times New Roman2
m360
&
"System;
FMicrosoft Equation 2.0DS EquationEquation.2; ; 4`/@o?o?
Dftwostroke
=360n
Oh+'0 Dh
@d ObjInfo4)FBEquation Native CSummaryInformation(E$META")dLVLVLVL(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOT!5Cylinder Inline Design ProjectME 428Henry Lee Jones, IIHenry Lee Jones, II@)>@VJ@nP
C@4Microsoft Word 6.0 17;$%;<=>?@VWXY^yz%((4(5(H(I(J(K(()))
))))Ŀ
uDK3eKuDK3acvKJUZU^UZ^c^c(]^c(]^c4]^c8
uDsE3KuDsE3acvK
uDksE3KuDksE3acvK
uDJsE3KuDJsE3acvKuD^;)))
**h*i**}*~************CC@HWHbbgg6gKjLjMjijuVcc^VZ
uD1K3eKuD1K3acvKuDJ!?Z[\]^zc+$%ij8!h$S&'y+",./`1r2 567: <]?;ABCCCCHHH?H@H!
h4h.$@HNHRHVHWHeHkHqHrHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIII IK]KcKiKjKkKwKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLLLL)L*L Nl(
JIJJl
I" N
NNINVNiNNNNNNNO8OHOIOOOOOORRvSTLTT!UU&VnVVV!
h4h!
h4h. V.WgWWW:XXXX2YYZxZZ[I[[\\]/]a]]]>^^^^^^^^$_f_!
h4h.!
h4h!f___7```aaqbbAcucc>dde.ffgggggggggg1g5g!!!!!!!!KK
B.B.B
h4h.!
h4h.5g6gDgJgPgQghglgpgqgggggggggggggggggh!h'h(hAhGhMhNh^hdh.BK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.Kl
Il(
JIIJIJI#dhjhkhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiii3i7i;i?@AB$;=?VX4%H%J%h''~'Mg:::::EHenry Lee Jones, II.C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\EPROJECT\EPATI\ENGINE.DOC@HP DeskJet 500LPT1:HPDSKJETHP DeskJet 500
DLf!,,9VdHP DeskJet 500
DLf!,,9Vd
#f#f``#f#fDTimes New RomanSymbol&ArialBook Antiqua"VhEEP
C P
C $` 5Cylinder Inline Design ProjectME 428Henry Lee Jones, IIHenry Lee Jones, II; Root Entry F
CompObjbWordDocument*ObjectPoolgg}w\78
9#$%&'()*+,./0123456]:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKTUVWXYZ[x`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvz{~ObjInfo4)FBEquation Native CSummaryInformation(E$META")
!"#$%&'()*,/2456789:;<=>?ADFGHIJKLMNOPQ18;
FMicrosoft Equation 2.0DS EquationEquation.2; ; 4`/@o?o?
Dftwostroke
=360n
Oh+'0 Dh
@d *@<@(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOT!5Cylinder Inline Design ProjectME 428Henry Lee Jones, IIHenry Lee Jones, II@)>@@P
C@N*Microsoft Word 6.0 9]<;>?@@@EEE?E@ENEREWEeEkErEEEEEEEEEEEEEFF FH]HcHjHwHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIII)I*I K
KKIKVKiKKKKKKKL8LHLILLLLLOOvPQLQQ!RR&SnSSS.TgTTT:UUUU2VVWxWWXIXXYYZ/ZaZZZ>[[[[[[[$\f\\\7]]]^^q__A`u``>aab.cddd1d6dDdJdQdhdldqddddddddddddde!e(eAeGeNe^edekeeeeeeeeeeeeefff3f7f?@ABD$;=?VX4%H%J%h''~'h:::::EHenry Lee Jones, II.C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\EPROJECT\EPATI\ENGINE.DOC@HP DeskJet 500LPT1:HPDSKJETHP DeskJet 500
DLf!,,9VdHP DeskJet 500
DLf!,,9VddgdgdgdgJgKgQgggghh1hwhhhhhijjjpjjjj k2kPkkkKjkDTimes New RomanSymbol&ArialBook Antiqua"VhEEP
C P
C $` 5Cylinder Inline Design ProjectME 428Henry Lee Jones, IIHenry Lee Jones, II; ܥe3 eMjh
LDd^ 'GZT`e68edVjE
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
EMBED MSWordArt.2 \s
Inline FiveCylinder Engine
2.5 Liter TwoStroke
ME 428
Instructor: Dr. Raghu Echempati
Hank Jones
May 1, 1995
Introduction
Identification of Need
Echempati Automobile Company needs a preliminary design and analysis report for a twostroke inline fivecylinder internal combustion engine with a displacement of 2.5 liters
Background Information
Echempati Automobile Company (EAC) is a multinational corporation specializing in the development of experimental automobile technology. One of its main programs involves research into the next generation of internal combustion engines. This program requires that all engines considered for development be created from the ground up. This strategy is used to insure that all possible attributes of a new engine are considered. The result of this approach is a very openended design process where literally anything is possible. Designers are told to be creative in their thinking but mindful of the realities of cost constraints, aesthetics, and size limitations. Even the ethical consequences of the design must be considered, so that there is no inclination to produce a very powerful engine at the expense of safety to the consumer.
Echempati Auto is currently designing a concept car that will be a test bed for a wide variety of new technologies. Many different engines are being considered for use as the powerplant for this vehicle. Richton Motor Works was asked to provide a preliminary design and analysis for EAC for a twostroke inline fivecylinder engine to be used in the concept car. The auto designers have determined that an engine with a 2.5 liters displacement should provide ample power for this application. The twostroke cycle was selected for its better powertoweight ratio. Because this will initially be a oneofakind concept car, the common twostroke drawbacks of higher pollution levels and poor fuel economy compared to a fourstroke cycle were ignored. However, the carmaker believes that the simplicity of the twostroke design will be economically attractive for possible production. Consequently, Echempati Auto has almost completed new electronic mechanisms that will actually reduce fuel consumption and pollution lower than current fourstroke engines through such advanced technologies as compressed air scavenging of the cylinders.
Because so many types of engine configurations are possible, EAC requested that Richton Motor Works analyze only a fivecylinder inline arrangement. Other configurations such as vee, opposed, and radial will be considered and studied in the future. Echempati Auto suggested that the fivecylinder inline be studied due to its simplicity and relative obscurity. The constraints for the design as well as the important data to be obtained were set by EAC.
The most important constraint, other than the given displacement, was that the forces acting on the vehicle chassis be as small as possible. The use of this engine as the powerplant for a technology test bed requires a very smooth ride. The fragile experimental electronics that Echempati Auto will be testing cannot withstand a great deal of vibration or other forces. Consequently, almost all other constrailculate at middle rpm and balance using default values
Determine initial values for the phase angle, firing angles, and firing order for the engine
Assemble engine with values found in Step 7
Plot every possible output. Record which ones are always zero and which ones are not
With the help of outside sources, determine which values are most important and weigh them on a scale from zero to ten, with the sum of the weights equal to one
Run the ENGINE program for all possibilities on the spreadsheet. Calculate, balance, and assemble engine each time. Write down important values (from Step 10) for each arrangement
Normalize values and place into a decision matrix using weights from Step 10
Take the two engines that have the smallest total values, for these two should have the least normalized amount of adverse effects
Make sure these engines comply with all constraints
Put these engines back into ENGINE program
Try changing balance radius, balance angle, balance mass, firing order, crank angles, and any other input. Note in tabular form the effects of these changes
With the help of outside sources, determine which of these changes are good, which are bad, and which are the best combinations
Through trial and error, optimize your engines and add a flywheel
Do stress analysis on various parts, using data from the ENGINE program output regarding the pin forces given under Print or PlotBending and shear on wristpinBending and shear on crankpinTorsion and bending on crankshaft (Assume that the shaft has seized)Buckling and compression on connecting rod
If any of the parts could fail, increase the size of the appropriate part(s) and return to Step 3
Perform calculations by hand for the shaking forces and moments at one position and compare to the values found by the ENGINE program
Design NumberOneTwoBore (inches)3.9373.937LengthtoRadius Ratio4.54.0Stroke (inches)2.5062.506BoretoStroke Ratio1.5711.571Crank Length (inches)1.2531.253Connecting Rod Length (inches)5.6395.013Equivalent Piston Mass (kg)0.7650.765Connecting Rod Mass (kg)0.3390.302Throw Mass (kg)1.5521.552Crankshaft Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crankpin Diameter (cm)4.04.0Crank Dimensions (cm)3.0 x 4.03.0 x 4.0Wristpin Diameter (cm)2.52.5Piston Head Depth (cm)1.01.0Piston Wall Thickness (cm)0.50.5Total Piston Length (cm)5.05.0Piston Material355 T6 Aluminum 355 T6 Aluminum Crankshaft & Conrod MaterialAISI 4340 SteelAISI 4340 SteelMaximum Shaking Moment (Nm)621.8671.9Average Total Torque820.6828.6Maximum Main Bearing Force (N)2315723319
b
Problem Definition
Openended project  best result, not a particular result, is desired
Member Characteristics
Mass Determination
Center of Gravity
Moment of Inertia
Dynamic Analysis
No Inertia Forces or Torques
No balance needed for shaking forces
None possible for shaking moment
Firing Order
Other orders created greater forces and moments
$%;<=>?@VWXY^yz%((4(5(H(I(J(K(()))
))))Ŀ
uDK3eKuDK3acvKJUZU^UZ^c^c(]^c(]^c4]^c8
uDsE3KuDsE3acvK
uDksE3KuDksE3acvK
uDJsE3KuDJsE3acvKuD^;)))
**h*i**}*~************CC@HWHbbgg6gKjLjMjijjjpjjjj k2kPkkkkkkc$uVcc^VZ
uD1K3eKuD1K3acvKuDJ.5g6gDgJgPgQghglgpgqgggggggggggggggggh!h'h(hAhGhMhNh^hdh.BK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.K.K.KK
K.Kl
Il(
JIIJIJI#dhjhkhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiii3i7i;i?@ABkkkhk!!!!!!!!! !
!!!
_88&3@lHILxW[dKgh
VA E
?Z[\]^z c$%ij8h!S#$y(")+,`.r/ 2347CompObj5555A2....7666666*6!!!!!!2!!!!+Z)&ObjInfo"Equation Native ._860594225%Fg };tA@;_860593307D1>0>#FggOle
PIC
L
META&&&&&&&&&&***!E5226.*5662*67F76. %&_860189571n)MicroSoft (c) 1941>0>omFgg6n Ole
PIC
LMETA_(._860189547FggOle
PIC
LMETAS_860189514FggOle
PIC
LMETA")