2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[63l8qrrfy6]

Have to disagree with you there Tommy about throwing away the benefits of DI because of the benefit offset of the reasons I said.
Preheating the fuel, I wish, as its an immense help for combustion, but no because the mixture temperature is very cold prior to compression (probably chemists here that can explain latent heat and all that) even at 12K rpm worth of air speed.

This question of lean FAR, a few people have mentioned it and I suppose they are "considering' that for efficiency/economy reasons, but my view is it just cannot produce the power as well as the other associated problems like knock. What am i missing here?

And regarding non-homogenised areas or a version of stratified chamber mix, from what i know it is very difficult to create and maintain repeatedly, in other words not applicable. What am i missing here?

Predictive modeling, it's what let's you inject different types of fuel at the same time and not destroy the engine.

https://www.sae.org/publications/techni ... 1-01-0363/

Thanks for that. All such papers are appreciated.
We design machine, build dyno and develop different engine types on the smallest (least resources imaginable, hence coming to this forum to learn) and (externally) use GTPower for 3D thermodynamic simulation. But being mechanics and machinists we lack the science, having recognised the limitations of 'suck it and see'.
We are grey hairs and a lot of our thinking is from practical experience starting in the 70's, real skin in the game
Having associates who have some science and big time resources the opinion on stratified charges is not good and seems to be much more theoretical than practical for racing.
But I am regularly wrong

GTPower doesn't do any '3D thermodynamics'. It is a 1D unsteady flow solver.
Yes it does have a pre-processor that can discretize 3D geometry into 1D but that's all.

Sadly even car manufacturers lack the resources to get this to work on their own. Large petrochemical companies are the only ones with enough super computers to do the type of computer modeling required.

Not really, you'd be hard pressed to find a decent automotive company that does not have a reasonably-sized HPC cluster.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ johnny c

afaik
the forum consensus says induction pressure ('boost') is 4 bar and so the mean AFR will be 2 lambda

this is heat dilution ie the heat is spread over 2x the traditional amount of air without real stratification
so the temp in-cylinder is much lower so the heat taken by coolant is very much lower
so the heat remaining in-cylinder (in the much greater gas mass) is much higher

this is a recipe that is giving F1 and some NG-fuelled stationary engines unprecedented (for SI) efficiency
by maintaining the combustion efficiency of this lean mixture via a prechamber firing non-lean mixture
and providing the compressor and turbine are outstandingly efficient


this used by gg on P864 Honda thread to derive a peak pressure before ignition of 220 bar and temp of OMG degrees
I guess he assumed 4:1 compressor action and 18:1 in-cylinder compression (I haven't tried to check assumptions)
of course we know that in-cylinder compression starts with IV closure

MY POINT ?
what if F1 uses late IV closure ?? (ie Atkinson emulation as Prius does) - or even early IV closure ?
the assumptions about 2x lambda AFR don't hold

[johnny comelately]

I wouldn't say you're wrong, given the amount of time and effort to get flame ignition working is beyond people like you and me. I'm used to installing and tuning turbo kits, rebuilding heads, or engine swaps. I still don't know what any engine manufacturer is doing exactly, but I do know the computer modeling has come a LONG way since the publishing of that SAE paper. Sadly even car manufacturers lack the resources to get this to work on their own. Large petrochemical companies are the only ones with enough super computers to do the type of computer modeling required.

We have flame ignition working perfectly for the last maybe 8 years. I posted somewhere else one of the early drawings, maybe in the Ferrari engine threads. Amazingly not a comment??
Other companies that do simulations are Ricardo (there own software), Ansys all wanting a kings ransom, and there are several universities around the world like Delft in the Netherlands, Prague Tech Uni, one in Milan etc etc.
Sort of as an aside, I always hoped these forums would be collaborative as they are a perfect format. Thank you for your reply, It's good to 'see' what others do.

[johnny comelately]

Predictive modeling, it's what let's you inject different types of fuel at the same time and not destroy the engine.

https://www.sae.org/publications/techni ... 1-01-0363/

Thanks for that. All such papers are appreciated.
We design machine, build dyno and develop different engine types on the smallest (least resources imaginable, hence coming to this forum to learn) and (externally) use GTPower for 3D thermodynamic simulation. But being mechanics and machinists we lack the science, having recognised the limitations of 'suck it and see'.
We are grey hairs and a lot of our thinking is from practical experience starting in the 70's, real skin in the game
Having associates who have some science and big time resources the opinion on stratified charges is not good and seems to be much more theoretical than practical for racing.
But I am regularly wrong

GTPower doesn't do any '3D thermodynamics'. It is a 1D unsteady flow solver.
Yes it does have a pre-processor that can discretize 3D geometry into 1D but that's all.

Sadly even car manufacturers lack the resources to get this to work on their own. Large petrochemical companies are the only ones with enough super computers to do the type of computer modeling required.

Not really, you'd be hard pressed to find a decent automotive company that does not have a reasonably-sized HPC cluster.

Gday Mudflap, I always understood 1D to be the layout and formulas associated with that.
We have had done several thermodynamic simulations stemming from our 3D models and it needs 3D to calculate flow etc, now i know you will run rings around me about the exact definition but 3D it is in my mind. Maybe we are arguing about something immaterial anyway.
From their website:

Fusion of 1D and 3D simulation in one tool
Imports solid models from CAD to create 1D and 3D models
Performs embedded 3D CFD and 3D FE thermal/structural modeling with all boundary conditions provided by the simulated surrounding complete system

[johnny comelately]

@ johnny c

afaik
the forum consensus says induction pressure ('boost') is 4 bar and so the mean AFR will be 2 lambda

this is heat dilution ie the heat is spread over 2x the traditional amount of air without real stratification
so the temp in-cylinder is much lower so the heat taken by coolant is very much lower
so the heat remaining in-cylinder (in the much greater gas mass) is much higher

this is a recipe that is giving F1 and some NG-fuelled stationary engines unprecedented (for SI) efficiency
by maintaining the combustion efficiency of this lean mixture via a prechamber firing non-lean mixture
and providing the compressor and turbine are outstandingly efficient


this used by gg on P864 Honda thread to derive a peak pressure before ignition of 220 bar and temp of OMG degrees
I guess he assumed 4:1 compressor action and 18:1 in-cylinder compression (I haven't tried to check assumptions)
of course we know that in-cylinder compression starts with IV closure

MY POINT ?
what if F1 uses late IV closure ?? (ie Atkinson emulation as Prius does) - or even early IV closure ?
the assumptions about 2x lambda AFR don't hold

Just on the last paragraph, we found the best IV closing time to be relatively early compared to NA engines.
the starting point was the coincidence between the port pressure and boost pressure.
I will have to ponder your other comments as I am a bit slow with those subjects.

[63l8qrrfy6]

Thanks for that. All such papers are appreciated.
We design machine, build dyno and develop different engine types on the smallest (least resources imaginable, hence coming to this forum to learn) and (externally) use GTPower for 3D thermodynamic simulation. But being mechanics and machinists we lack the science, having recognised the limitations of 'suck it and see'.
We are grey hairs and a lot of our thinking is from practical experience starting in the 70's, real skin in the game
Having associates who have some science and big time resources the opinion on stratified charges is not good and seems to be much more theoretical than practical for racing.
But I am regularly wrong

GTPower doesn't do any '3D thermodynamics'. It is a 1D unsteady flow solver.
Yes it does have a pre-processor that can discretize 3D geometry into 1D but that's all.

Sadly even car manufacturers lack the resources to get this to work on their own. Large petrochemical companies are the only ones with enough super computers to do the type of computer modeling required.

Not really, you'd be hard pressed to find a decent automotive company that does not have a reasonably-sized HPC cluster.

Gday Mudflap, I always understood 1D to be the layout and formulas associated with that.
We have had done several thermodynamic simulations stemming from our 3D models and it needs 3D to calculate flow etc, now i know you will run rings around me about the exact definition but 3D it is in my mind. Maybe we are arguing about something immaterial anyway.
From their website:

Fusion of 1D and 3D simulation in one tool
Imports solid models from CAD to create 1D and 3D models
Performs embedded 3D CFD and 3D FE thermal/structural modeling with all boundary conditions provided by the simulated surrounding complete system

You are probably reading the description for the entire GT Suite which indeed has 3D FE/CFD and MBD capabilities.
For example I have used GT Crank and you can bring in a condensed 3D FE mesh of the crankshaft and solve the dynamic system in time domain.

Although I do not use GT Power, I work closely with performance engineers who do. They couple proper 3D models produced in either AVL fire or Star CD to GT Power. Then stuff I don't understand happens and they give me pressures, convective heat transfer coefficients and film temperatures to design pistons and cylinder heads!

[johnny comelately]

GTPower doesn't do any '3D thermodynamics'. It is a 1D unsteady flow solver.
Yes it does have a pre-processor that can discretize 3D geometry into 1D but that's all.



Not really, you'd be hard pressed to find a decent automotive company that does not have a reasonably-sized HPC cluster.

Gday Mudflap, I always understood 1D to be the layout and formulas associated with that.
We have had done several thermodynamic simulations stemming from our 3D models and it needs 3D to calculate flow etc, now i know you will run rings around me about the exact definition but 3D it is in my mind. Maybe we are arguing about something immaterial anyway.
From their website:

Fusion of 1D and 3D simulation in one tool
Imports solid models from CAD to create 1D and 3D models
Performs embedded 3D CFD and 3D FE thermal/structural modeling with all boundary conditions provided by the simulated surrounding complete system

You are probably reading the description for the entire GT Suite which indeed has 3D FE/CFD and MBD capabilities.
For example I have used GT Crank and you can bring in a condensed 3D FE mesh of the crankshaft and solve the dynamic system in time domain.

Although I do not use GT Power, I work closely with performance engineers who do. They couple proper 3D models produced in either AVL fire or Star CD to GT Power. Then stuff I don't understand happens and they give me pressures, convective heat transfer coefficients and film temperatures to design pistons and cylinder heads!

OK, fascinating. I will have to ponder all this, but thank you.
Do you study combustion boundary layer behaviour with these? or is that combustion chamber boundary layer a boundary (pardon the double use) condition setting (like in CFD)
You can see a little knowledge is dangerous in my case

[63l8qrrfy6]

I am not quite sure what you are asking.
The film conditions are required for several things in the 'mechanical' world such as piston/head/block/valve thermo-mechanical analysis, heat rejection to oil and coolant, transient thermal head seal behaviour etc. These are typically outputs of the 3D simulations. There are however other bits that only GT Power can generate such as pressure and temperature profiles in intake and exhaust manifolds.

[johnny comelately]

I am not quite sure what you are asking.
The film conditions are required for several things in the 'mechanical' world such as piston/head/block/valve thermo-mechanical analysis, heat rejection to oil and coolant, transient thermal head seal behaviour etc. These are typically outputs of the 3D simulations. There are however other bits that only GT Power can generate such as pressure and temperature profiles in intake and exhaust manifolds.

OK, my question is regarding the flame quench boundary layer

[63l8qrrfy6]

I am not quite sure what you are asking.
The film conditions are required for several things in the 'mechanical' world such as piston/head/block/valve thermo-mechanical analysis, heat rejection to oil and coolant, transient thermal head seal behaviour etc. These are typically outputs of the 3D simulations. There are however other bits that only GT Power can generate such as pressure and temperature profiles in intake and exhaust manifolds.

OK, my question is regarding the flame quench boundary layer

That would be adressed in the 3D part of the simulations, so definitely not GT Power

[godlameroso]

What about fuel species propagation, radical formation and decay, chain reactions, mixability at different parts of the chain reaction, reactivity gradients of species in regards to pressure, vaporization rates, electrical conductivity/ionization potential of intermediate species, volatility of intermediates? There's over 10^6 reactions that occur during combustion of fuel, and understanding these reactions IMO matters more than all the thermodynamics which is already well studied. I've said it countless times, it's this stuff that engine manufacturers can't model on their own, they just don't have the resources or incentive to do this kind of research. What makes it more difficult is the fact that if you try to brute force calculate all the reaction parameters you'll be integrating and deriving hundreds of thousands of differential equations, your computer will time out the request each and every time, there's simply too much to calculate with the tools currently available.

[johnny comelately]

What about fuel species propagation, radical formation and decay, chain reactions, mixability at different parts of the chain reaction, reactivity gradients of species in regards to pressure, vaporization rates, electrical conductivity/ionization potential of intermediate species, volatility of intermediates? There's over 10^6 reactions that occur during combustion of fuel, and understanding these reactions IMO matters more than all the thermodynamics which is already well studied. I've said it countless times, it's this stuff that engine manufacturers can't model on their own, they just don't have the resources or incentive to do this kind of research. What makes it more difficult is the fact that if you try to brute force calculate all the reaction parameters you'll be integrating and deriving hundreds of thousands of differential equations, your computer will time out the request each and every time, there's simply too much to calculate with the tools currently available.

This may be not applicable but "they" do correlate with actual test data which allows more reliable prediction

[godlameroso]

What about fuel species propagation, radical formation and decay, chain reactions, mixability at different parts of the chain reaction, reactivity gradients of species in regards to pressure, vaporization rates, electrical conductivity/ionization potential of intermediate species, volatility of intermediates? There's over 10^6 reactions that occur during combustion of fuel, and understanding these reactions IMO matters more than all the thermodynamics which is already well studied. I've said it countless times, it's this stuff that engine manufacturers can't model on their own, they just don't have the resources or incentive to do this kind of research. What makes it more difficult is the fact that if you try to brute force calculate all the reaction parameters you'll be integrating and deriving hundreds of thousands of differential equations, your computer will time out the request each and every time, there's simply too much to calculate with the tools currently available.

This may be not applicable but "they" do correlate with actual test data which allows more reliable prediction

Absolutely, in fact the research has gotten to the point that the large fuel companies have very detailed and accurate predictive models for the fuels they're giving the engine manufacturers. These models can still be improved, knowing how the fuel combusts lets you time your spark ignition, your MGU-H induced back pressure, and fuel delivery all the more precisely. In the end is efficiency not coming from a more precise combustion process? It's this precision that lets you get closer to pre-ignition without, well, pre-ignition, and ensures combustion stability at low equivalence ratios.

[Tommy Cookers]

to me you seem to imply that the fuel companies do all this to help the design and development of engines but ......
sit on their gentlemanly hands and ...... do nothing to design and develop fuels for special purposes like F1 ??

[godlameroso]

How much can you do to the fuel? Sure you have some leeway with the bio-feedstock. But don't you need refineries to make the fuel? Petronas has 5 refineries world wide maybe? How can they be ahead of Shell or Exxon who each have at least as many refineries in the U.S. alone?