Crankcase oil heating...thought exercise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,699
Location
'Stralia
Been kicked around a fair bit the last few weeks over the "raging fire" versus viscous drag, so came up today with a thought exercise to present here...only posting it to get it out of other threads, and discussion on it's own. I've posted the two pics here that show heat flows within a crankshaft at a couple of different RPM in a fairly small 4 cylinder engine. Now to the boundaries of the thought exercise. Piston undercrown temperature - 250C... I chose this temperature, and also chose how it's applied...It's assumed that all of the oil that hits the piston undercrown is heated to that temperature. Logic for it is that engines last a long time, and if the oil WAS in fact getting to those temperatures, it would be leaving deposits (and the ones I've pulled apart show some for sure)...but if the deposits became serious, then they would get thicker, and more insulating, and you would end up with a runaway thermal failure well before the engine got "old". 250 is NOACK temperature, and 100C above where RAT considers that thermal breakdown is occurring...could raise it to TEOST, but will keep it there for the time being. Engine that these diagrammes were from didn't have squirters, the oil on the piston underside was all sprayed up there by the action of the big-end bearing. Jaguar ran some tests with glass sides sumps, and found that the big ends produced a "sheet" of oil on either side as the oil was flung out of either side. I've assumed (for the thought exercise) that the oil flow from the big end ends up in two different directions, either aimed 100% at the piston underside, or 100% away, and these are 50:50...obviously not that case, as I could have assumed 4 90 degree sectors, with three of them not aimed in general at the piston... My way gives the most oil even remotely possible to be aimed squarely at the piston undercrown, and heated to 250C. Will take density at 15C to be 890Kg/m^3, and themal capacity at 2.2KJ/KgK. 4,000 RPM case, there's 2.38cc/sec issuing from the big end, at 145C, so taking into account my envelope, 1.19cc/sec...density at 145C is therefore 800. Thats 0.95 grammes per second. 105C delta T means that the thermal capacity of that oil stream is 220W. Remember, that's assuming that fully half of the big end oil ends up directly cooling the piston underside...the real answer is obviously a little bit (or a lot bit) smaller...and the total of 1 main and 1 big end is already 255W in the example. And we haven't even considered the cam bearings, they'll be a lower contributor as they are running half speed. We haven't considered piston and ring friction either, which are oft measured at 3-4 times bearing friction, but I've taken the assumption that ALL of that is conducted to the cooling system through the liner. Try the 6.000RPM example now. Half the oil flow is 1.86cc/sec, and at 187C, has a density of 768KG/m^3...that's 1.43 grammes per second hitting the piston underside, and can increase it's temperature by 63C to get to the 250C (arbitrary) limit. That's 200W versus 570W+ for a main and a big end in the test engine. Obviously my limit on oil temperature at 250C is arbitrary, and could be higher... * bit clearly, piston underside deposits become piston crowm overheaters and piston failures would ensue...bump the temps up to 300C, and you get 323 and 355W respectively. * but if you want to do that, you need to reduce the oil flow from my arbitrary 50% also. * and consider also that I assumed that the full volume of that oil was heated to the undercrown temperature I discounted piston and ring friction, even 'though these are multiples of bearing friction Ricardo Paper, see page 12. These largely go into the coolant, and are certainly there during the warmup phase, generating heat through oil drag that heats the metal and coolant. In this testing of an aircooled engine shielding the piston underside from the oil and crankcase vapors only added 15F (8C) to the piston temperature, while going from an SAE 30 to SAE60 oil increased piston temperature by 20F (11C)
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,699
Location
'Stralia
Have notified mods to please move...dunno what I did for it to be here in fuel and fuel adds.
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,699
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
the evaporated oil becomes a fuel/additive... so it's 10% right wink
LOL, nice one...that was certainly running through my head that surface area and temperature could do that to a lube.
 

CT8

Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
15,365
Location
Idaho
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
the evaporated oil becomes a fuel/additive... so it's 10% right wink
Natural ucl !
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
6,147
Location
Kalifornia Kollective
Piston heat is not conducted (much) by flung oil. Sure, some goes to help pistons cool. But most piston cooling is via the skirt conducting to the cylinder wall (liner)and to the cooling system. Temps have been shown to be higher on short skirt racing pistons fitted to more loosely bored engines (to accept additional piston expansion). That's why they often have ceramic coatings to reject combustion heat and keep it out of the crown. Marine, truck, rail engines all run long skirts to have as much area to conduct as possible (in part, the other reasons are stability in the bore, etc.). OEM's mostly run cast pistons fitted tighter to conduct heat well over a longer expected engine life. The way to prove this in your mind is to use a 2-stroke gas motor. No flung oil to cool the piston. It all has to go out the cylinder wall and even that is partly cut away with transfer ports. What does not go into the wall and fin (air cooled), has to be absorbed into the incoming charge and that is tricky. Even in a 2-stroke, the pistons can last a long time with minimal deposits under the crown smile In your motor, oil may be the transfer agent, but it's likely piston skirt to oil to cylinder wall ...
 
Last edited:

Shannow

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,699
Location
'Stralia
BrocLuno, I agree with you, and that's what most of the papers (including on piston cooling) say. http://www.riken.co.jp/english/pistonring/technology/conductivity.html Am trying to help some of the posters through their issues with viscous shear versus heat transfer through the piston to the oil...been accused of always posting others' work, so did my own mental model for a change, hopefully to help them through their issues. Here's a paper expressly on piston cooling modelling and testing http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6213&context=etd This is piston heat flow (calculated from the model) with and without cooling jets on a Chrysler 2L engine.
Code:
                                   Without jet  With jet
Total heat into the piston              (W)1600       1670
Heat dissipation through piston rings   (W)1020(64%)  1138(68%)
Heat dissipation through piston pin     (W)451(28%)   ~0(0%)
Heat dissipation through inner surface  (W)129(8%)    530(32%)

Table 6.1: Heat dissipation through different parts of the piston with and without jet
He concludes.
Quote:
The amount of heat dissipation through the inner shell of the piston is four times larger in the case of the cooling jet in comparison with the no jet case. This is attributed to the high heat transfer coefficient associated with the cooling jet
Quote:
The amount of heat dissipation through the piston rings is comparable for both cases. In addition, the heat dissipation from the inner shell of the piston with the cooling jet is comparable to the heat dissipation through the piston pin and the connecting rod with no oil jet. In other words, the heat source inside the crankcase is comparable for both cases. Therefore, a high rise in the temperature of the oil in the oil sumpis not expected. More investigation is required in the future to verify and generalize this outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top