Absolutely right. This is what Cambgrinder and I were chatting about and a prolem to which I don't yet have an answer. My best guess is that it is a level of detail far beyond th eneeds of most, necessary only if you need to get numbers dead nuts for engineering purposes. Who else needs to know every pulse in every cycle along the entire rev range?

But you can use this tool to generate approximations, as the pressure and compression averages that result across discrete engine configurations can be assumed to similar.

That's my take, at least :p

Andy,

Of course you are right-- and cylinder pressure is determined with instrumentation. The value of this exercise is that it sets a benchmark for comparison among various compression ratios and camshafts, which helps when you're trying to figure out what to build.

For example, consider the 2,5 short stroke example I posted above. The low-compression 2,7 pistons result in a fairly low compression motor which is complemented by the early intake valve closing point and low overlap of the 911T cams. With the calculator, now we have a way to mix and match camshaft profile with static compression.

How about an engine that used 911T pistons, an offset bored small end bushing and a set of low-lift, low-overlap cams for a high dynamic compression ratio? The possibilities are interesting and this is another tool to compare them. Which is why Kenik set it up to compare multiple configurations-- and it's easy enough for the seasoned excel hacker to replicate the bore, stroke and rod information for each assumed case below.

Of course you have to know the VE to go all the way, but that requires another layer of analysis.

Detonation occurs when the intake charge becomes unstable due to excess energy and turbulence pre-igniting the mixture. Compression only has an indirect relationship to detonation since it can be mitigated using methods like water/methanol injection or intercooling and nitrous oxide injection which cool the intake charge.

You need to cool the charge more to manage the heat higher compression imparts, thus the relationship between compression and detonation. Make sense?

You are correct on your assessments of VE, though. VEs do play a factor, but again this spreadsheet is to get close, not perfect. We are still working on “perfect”. :D

In case folks are wondering, this where the spreadsheet gets fun.

The Supercup 102s on 9.5:1 pistons result in a pretty low DCR...or do they? Let's compare to a common motor we all have confidence in, say a 9.5:1 static CR, DC40 cammed engine, which, BTW, has a DCR of 7.23:1. Whoa!

You immediately see that the SuperCup 102s make a half point more dynamic CR than the DC40s, so you should actually drop the Supercup 102 motor to a static CR of 8.8:1 to get the same dynamic CR as the motor w/ DC40s.

You soon find that by matching the dynamic CR of an unknown config to a known config, you can draw a compression correlation between the two in terms of what the ignition requirements will be.

Are we having fun yet?

And we will always be far from perfect. ;)

I see this as an extremely useful tool. One thing to note is related to a fixed engine displacement/static compression ratio while changing the cam configuration. I found it useful to compare the offset of increasing duration and lift while offsetting the compression loss by widening the lobe centers. This would allow a relatively low compression motor to breath better and have high rpm torque.

I am sure that air density gradients, mass flow and ultimately air column momentum can be figured as part of the exercise. There just might be a few pieces of the puzzle missing before going that far.

This is good stuff!

To look more closely at John's question, here is a comparison of all OEM Porsche cams that were used for 2 liter applications, stock or race, on a 911S spec motor:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c7...EM_2L_cams.jpg

Interesting, no? What would be more interesting would be to alter the engine config to the cam and see if static CR normalizes at a constant, by configuration.

Here is the data for dynamic CR for multiple engine configs, by cam:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c7...f_positive.jpg

Most interesting is the fact that the 10.3:1 static CR motors needed twin plugs, the rest, did not. This is an interesting kink in the theory that you can draw these comparisons.

My only guess is that the 100% VE of the race motors at high RPM results in extreme cylinder filling, leading to much higher pressures at high RPM. This only reinforces my desire to get VE data integrated into this model to map the entire rev range.

Not so simple. Ugh.

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion even though I agree with the math (BTW I used an 81 bore for my own calculation).

Across the board the engines with high-overlap racing cams have lower static compression ratios. So are you proposing that one could increase the static CR of a 906-cammed motor to something like 14:1 (I'm just making that number up, I already closed the sheet) to increase the dynamic CR to match that of the lowly 911T? It seems that that comparison doesn't take into consideration the volumetric efficiency of the 906 cam (totally disregarding ports and intake and exhaust diameters for the moment)

Also, the cool thing about the Supercup is the derivative of lift-- the modern lobe shape gets the valve to full lift earlier than a Solex and holds it there for more area under the curve, which isn't captured in the first-order duration spec.

None of which is intended to diminish the tool whatsoever, thanks for putting in the time and effort. I'll add what data I can from the little white books.

Agreed 100%, John. See above. :)

BTW, my calcualted cam timings don't match the numbers in Bruce Anderson's book, at all. When I enter his number manually, they don't make sense either.

The work continues...

Kenikh - great looking spreadsheet - well done

Some light reading for you from Bosch on engine simulation. Might help you further your spreadsheet development.

Regards
John

You're calculating dynamic compression correctly, but unfortunately dynamic compression is of limited use for calculating detonation. And calculating VE data requires making an engine sim, which is a huge undertaking. In the absence of real VE data, however, I think you might be able to make this model more useful for calculating detonation without making it impossibly complex.

One half step that might be to replace the advertised Intake Close Angle (a static value) with an "effective" intake close angle, which might be something like (ICA- RPM/100). This would attempt to approximate the fact that at high engine speed the intake closes so quickly that the air in the cylinder doesn't have time to escape ABDC before the valve closes, leading to a higher VE.

Applying this to formula to your RSR motor above, for example, would give you an "effective" compression ratio of 10.19:1 at 6000 rpm (sounds like it needs twin plugs). Compare this with the T motor at 8.57:1 at the same engine speed, which we know doesn't need twin plugs. Thus while this might not be the right formula an is imperfect, something along these lines might give a better indication of cylinder pressures without the complexity of a full engine sim. Run a calculation like this every 1000 rpm and generate a table and you'd get some idea of both what the peak effective compression is and where each cam makes power.

Just a thought. Good luck...

This is good logic, but Jamie Novak and I are working on actually creating VE calculations using some generalizations aout Porsche 911 intake systems that can be applied toward port and intake dimensions. Nothing too crazy, but should get us closer.

The more I look into it, the more it seems that we are going to end up with a poor man's engine sim package, albeit built in Excel. :)

That would certainly be better. You'll drive it from an estimated cam profile? I've used a number of engine sims with varying success, but one hopes making something specific to the 911 motor should be both easier and more accurate.

As a side note I'm also wondering how significant a variable the intercooler is on a turbo motor- in theory it allows you to get to a given compression with a lower air temperature than normally aspirated because you can remove the heat generated during some of the compression. This may well be more than canceled out by other factors, however- perhaps your model will suggest if that's the case.

Looking forward to your next revision. Good stuff.

Intake & exhaust design and tunning can add a supper charger effect at some points and the effectively increase compression.

Also, restrictions in the intake or exaust might effectivly limmit CR. To small of ports, restrictive air filter, low lift cam...

...And in some cases can produce a pressure less then ambient, or at least less then the pressure at the open exhaust valve which can reduce torque (and by definition HP), or even cause reversion at certain RPMs.

Philip Smiths "The Scientific Design of Exhausts and Intake Systems" is the bible on that subject as far as I know. It's also quite readable. It would be interesting to see someone hook up a 911 engine to the Morrison Multi-Point Indicator that he describes in his book. Think of it as an oscilloscope for pressure at multiple points in the intake and exhaust systems.

Huge! I have the calcs figured out on this one, too. Haven't added it yet.

At what RPM is the DCR being calculated in this?

I suspect DCR is a calculated value based on instant 100% valve opening at at given time and instant 100% closing at a given time with air fill responding instantly. If the intake valve is closing at 15 deg BTDC it reduces the DCR geometrically for doing so even though at a given rpm the phasing will treat it as if it was closed past TDC.

However, most of this is way over my head.

Then we have the supper charging effect that is a result of the mass and movement of air flow that effects the true CR also.

Thus, I am guessing it would take some very hight level math to calc this. The testing the actually combustion chamber pressures or backing into it from the TQ curve might be the only way to get there.

Thus, we might add a cam that we think lowers the DCR by one point and think we can get away with bumping the CR by one point to find we get ourselves in trouble.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat6.gif

My understanding is the DCR is the maximum compression ratio obtained by the 'ram-air' effect of the intake (or lack thereof for an N/A car) minus losses from time spent with valves open and the piston compressing the chamber volume. Is this right??

I *think* the valve closing instantaneously does not matter--I believe this "adjustment" is captured in Kenik's model for whatever cam you use, because it is taking into account the degrees of the opening. Instanteously is also not really useful because even if the cam "dropped off" there would still be some time for the valve to spring back to closed.

I think what you are trying to do is think about the cylinder pressure as a function of RPM...kind of like what I was asking about if the DCR changes as a function of the RPM or not. Either way I think you could do that with just calculus, provided you have data.

Interesting stuff to play around with but I seem to be confused with your statement. When I widen the lobe centers on any particular cam with the spreadsheet, dynamic compression goes down . My mind tells me that as overlap is reduced by widening the lobes, the affect should show dynamic compression going up, not down. What am I missing?