Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
James Meyer
303-887-2032, jmeyer@prvperformance.com
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 3
References .................................................................................................................................... 11
PRV Induction 3
Abstract
PRV Performance has been developing the proposed system for five years, and a recent on-road test
indicated that the gasoline engine vehicle could achieve 58 mpg for a 204-mile round trip with an
average speed of 65 mph. Recently, the Obama Administration declared that vehicles must reach an
average of 35.5 mpg before 2016. PRV technology will enable troubled US automakers to produce
cars and trucks to meet the new fuel/emission standards with little or no expense to retool their
factories, making it imperative to bring this proposed technology to market. The engine
performance improvement using the proposed system is derived from four attributes of a PRV
PRV Induction 5
induction system:
PRV induction improves fuel economy. First, PRV fuel induction substantially reduces piston
pumping losses. With a conventional manifold, pumping losses account for 16 to 40% of an
engine’s efficiency loss under normal cruising conditions because the air intake is at vacuum
pressure (Heywood, 1988; Ferguson and Kirkpatrick, 2001). The air intake plenum of a PRV is
never under vacuum and consequently, the piston pulls initially against full ambient (or turbo)
pressure. Fuel efficiency is substantially improved because the wasted work of pulling against a
vacuum is eliminated. Second, PRV induction vaporizes the fuel before the engine whereas a
conventional manifold does not fully vaporized fuel until the compression stroke. The compression
work used to vaporize fuel is eliminated with PRV induction. Third, the cooler, denser charge
reduces the friction loss across the intake valves thereby further reducing pumping loss.
Engine power output is increased. Engine power is directly proportional to air flow capacity.
PRV induction vaporizes fuel upstream of the engine by injecting fuel directly into the high-
velocity air stream at the low-pressure throat of the Venturi. By conservation of energy, the latent
heat of the fuel is transferred into a cooled fuel/air mixture. Since a higher mixture flow rate is
enabled with a cooled charge, the specific power output of the engine is increased. The cooler
(higher density) charge allows the engine to produce more torque and horsepower.
PRV induction reduces exhaust emission of CO2, CO and unburned hydrocarbons. A
conventional fuel injection system sprays droplets into the cylinder. Some of the droplets impinge
on the cylinder walls. Those impinged droplets become entrained into crevices in the cylinder wall,
resulting in incomplete combustion of the fuel and the generation of CO and unburned
hydrocarbons. CO2 reduction is accomplished by improving fuel economy.
PRV induction will deliver an even greater benefit for ethanol-fueled engines than gasoline-
fueled engines. The power increase has been demonstrated on a dynamometer with a gasoline-
fueled engine. PRV will use the higher latent heat of ethanol to provide additional charge cooling
and in turn, a greater percentage increase in power relative to a conventional manifold.
2.0 Background
Figure 3: PRV Induction Manifold, Venturi 1 Cut-away Figure 4: PRV Cut-away View
The pressure profile of a PRV induction system is entirely different for two reasons. First,
the PRV intake pressure is always ambient (or turbocharger discharge) pressure. Second, when the
cylinder valve closes, air from the plenum can flow around the pintle, equalizing the Venturi
discharge pressure with the plenum. There is plenty of time for this to happen because inlet valves
spend at least twice as long closed as open. Third, in comparison with a butterfly throttle which is as
obstructive as one could imagine, the PRV is as streamlined as possible.
The throttle control fluid mechanics of a conventional throttle plate and PRV induction
system are entirely different, contributing to the improved fuel economy performance derived from
PRV. Throttle control with PRV is accomplished by the limitation of sonic velocity at the throat.
The velocity at the throat of the Venturi is determined by the speed of the piston and the annular or
area between the pintle and Venturi. Initially, the piston moves slowly and air easily flows through
the streamlined Venturi. However, as the piston accelerates away, at some point the air flow
through the Venturi will approach sonic velocity. At sonic velocity, the pressure in the intake duct
can no longer influence the flow through the Venturi. The Venturi is said to be choked -- and in this
way, the streamlined PRV controls the power of the engine.
The throttle control of the conventional throttle plate is accomplished by non-recoverable
frictional loss of the butterfly valve. Consequently, the piston is pulling against full vacuum for the
entire down stroke, resulting in substantially higher pumping losses than PRV induction.
The intake pressure from PRV induction pulsates to reduce pumping losses whereas a
conventional manifold operates at a steady, but low, pressure (Figures 5 and 6). The streamlined
convergent-divergent Venturi nozzle accelerates airflow as the throat is approached and decelerates
airflow in the divergent section. Concurrently, as the air slows down, the pressure increases. The
pressure recovery process is governed by the conservation of energy as described by Bernoulli’s
principal (Perry & Chilton, 1973, pp. 5-18). The pressure recovery attribute of PRV improves the
piston-pressure history and, consequently, reduces pumping loss.
PRV Induction 7
Figure 5: typical P-V diagram Figure 6: Cylinder pressure comparison of a PRV and a
for a four-stroke engine with a conventional manifold while cruising; data from Honda
conventional intake manifold. D15B engine at 2300 rpm at 5700 feet of elevation.
The fuel injector is aligned with the throat of the Venturi where the air velocity is at the
maximum and the air pressure is at the minimum, thereby thoroughly vaporizing and mixing fuel
into the air stream. The fact that the Venturi throat is the low pressure point is counter-intuitive, but
consistent with the conservation of energy. The expansion of the vaporized fuel in the Venturi
pushes the fuel/air mixture into the engine, thereby improving torque and fuel economy.
Assuming that the exhaust manifold pressure is about 1 inch of mercury above atmospheric
pressure, an intake and exhaust pumping loss of approximately 7 hp can be calculated,
which equals 0.072 of the total fuel supply. While this number is not absolutely accurate it
does illustrate the importance of the loss. At 50 mph road load the pumping losses almost
40% of the engine brake power. (Hilliard and Springer, 1984).
Blackmore and Thomas (1977) write, "... pumping loss varies from 3.5% at wide-open
throttle (WOT) to nearly 100% for a full throttled idling engine". Accordingly, the pumping loss for
a compact U.S. 10:1 compression-ratio car cruising at 40 mph is about 16% (Blackmore & Thomas,
1977). Pumping loss is highly dependent on the throttle position in the specific engine design. In
any case, most of the pumping loss is recovered by PRV induction.
Figure 7 compares the in-cylinder pressure of a conventional manifold to a PRV induction
system. When the intake valve opens on a conventional manifold, the cylinder pulls air from a
plenum under vacuum. In contrast, the PRV plenum is constantly at ambient pressure. The bottom-
dead-center cylinder pressures are identical for both intake systems because the engine torque is
dependent on the amount of mixture at the end of the intake cycle. Since the pressure trace is much
higher for PRV induction, there is a cumulative saving of work by the piston. The work saving is
reflected in the fuel economy improvement demonstrated by early PRV prototypes.
The benefits of using PRV induction can be further expanded for a turbocharged engine.
During cruise, the conventional manifold will exhibit the same pressure profile. The profile does not
change because the pressure at bottom dead center must be the same. Consequently, the plenum
pressure must also be the same. The pressure differential between the turbocharger and plenum
pressure is regulated by the throttle. In contrast, the PRV plenum pressure is set directly by the
PRV Induction 8
turbocharger (Figure 7). The PRV induction system combined with the turbocharger will require
even less work to be done by the piston to draw the charge into the engine, implying an even greater
fuel efficiency gain.
Individual throttle plates are much less effective for reducing pumping loss for two reasons.
First, individual throttle plates preclude mixing and vaporizing fuel upstream of the engine and,
consequently, the charge cooling effect is lost. Second, a throttle plate obstructs flow whereas the
Venturi enhances flow. Although the manifold pressure will be the same as a PRV induction
system, the in-cylinder pressure profile of PRV is much better than a throttle plate. Figure 7
illustrates the difference in pressure profile of a conventional manifold, individual throttle plate and
PRV induction.
Figure 7: cylinder pressure of a conventional manifold versus individual throttle plates and PRV
induction; normally aspirated engine (conventional manifold data from Taylor, 1985, p. 345, PRV
data from prototype measurement).
Taylor elaborates on fuel evaporation in his highly acclaimed book, The Internal
Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice. Specifically, Taylor writes that although some of the
fuel is vaporized from heat transfer with the cylinder wall, evaporation is seldom complete before
the intake valve closes (Taylor, 1985, p. 185). Consequently, the efficiency is lost because work is
required to evaporate fuel.
References
Blackmore, D. R., & Thomas, A. (1977). Fuel economy of the gasoline engine. New York: John
Wiley &, Inc.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy news. (2008, March 12). US ethanol production totaled
6.48 billion gallons in 2007. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11633.
Energy Information Administration. (2009, February 1). 1 (Petroleum Basic Statistics). Retrieved
April 13, 2009, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html.
Environmental Protection Agency. Fuel economy of motor vehicles. 40 CFR 600.
Ferguson, C. R., & Kirkpatrick, A. T. (2001). Internal combustion engines – applied
thermosciences. New York: Wiley.
Gold, A. What it is, how it works. Retrieved from about.com:
http://cars.about.com/od/thingsyouneedtoknow/a/directinjection.htm.
Heywood, J. B. (1988). Internal combustion engine fundamentals. McGraw-Hill.
Hilliard, J. C., & Springer, G. S. (1984). Fuel economy and road vehicles powered by spark ignition
engines. New York, New York: Plenum publishing.
Kelly, K. M. (2009, April 1). Ricardo's ethanol boosted direct injection. Automotive Design &
Production, 121(4), 13.
Meyer, J. M. E. A. (2005, March 22). US patent 6,868,830 (U. S. Patent & T. Office, Eds.).
6.868,830.
Perry & Chilton. (1973). Chemical engineer's handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stress Engineering Services Inc. Venturi mixer. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from Process Technology
Group: http://www.processinnovation.com/venturi.html.
Taylor, C. F. (1985). The internal combustion engine in theory and practice. Cambridge MA: MIT
press.
US Department of Energy. Alternative fuels and advanced vehicles data center. Retrieved April 26,
2009, from US Department of Energy: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/.