Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM
2009-01-0174
Rankine Cycle for Waste Heat Recovery of IC Engines
J. Ringler, M. Seifert, V. Guyotot and W. Hbner
Copyright 2009 SAE International
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with an analysis of the potential of the
Rankine cycle as an additional power generation
process, which uses the waste heat of a car engine. A
review of different heat recovery technologies leads to
the identification of the steam process as a favorable
solution for automotive applications.
Two basic configurations (exhaust gas only; exhaust gas
plus coolant) are selected from numerous illustrated
Rankine cycle layouts for a detailed evaluation of heat
recovery based on a four-cylinder internal combustion
engine (ICE). Furthermore, the impact of different
working fluids is studied. A parametric analysis of the
efficiency of two selected systems is accomplished with
the Dymola simulation tool, followed by a direct
comparison between both configurations for different
engine technologies and vehicle speeds.
Finally, test bench measurements of the applied engine
coupled with a heat recovery device are carried out. It
can be demonstrated that waste heat recovery can
produce an additional power output of about 10% at
typical highway cruising speeds.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years the automobile industry has made great
progress in improving engine efficiency. So far, the
corresponding R&D activities have mainly focused on the
optimization of fuel/air mixture preparation and the
combustion process [1; 2]. Nevertheless, todays engine
SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1
BMW Group Research and Technology
efficiency is reaching its technical limit and will not be
sufficient enough to meet future fuel economy targets
without additional measures.
Electrical hybrid concepts are one well-known approach
[3]. A relatively new perspective is to take a closer look at
the "periphery" around the engine with all its units for
converting energy. The application of an optimized
energy management system can also contribute to the
reduction of fuel consumption [4]. But what about the
biggest and, as yet, untapped source of energy in the
car: engine waste heat? Even modern combustion
engines achieve a maximum efficiency of approximately
40%. Hence, at least 60% of the energy in the fuel is lost
via exhaust gas and engine coolant. In this study the
issue of heat recovery of combustion engines is
addressed for automotive applications.
REVIEW ON HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Several physical effects can be used to recover energy
from the waste heat of a combustion engine (Figure 1).
The utilization of the waste energy is the first determining
key factor for the overall efficiency of each technology
illustrated. While turbo-machines (e.g. turbochargers)
can only use pressure gradients and/or kinetic energy
fractions of the exhaust gas, other technologies are
tapping the much bigger amount: waste heat (Figure 1).
67
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

Gear In addition to the heat utilization, the efficiency of the

Energy
process itself plays an important role. Turbo-machines

Mech.
Auxillaries
and thermo-chemical technologies are not considered,
Driving Resistances because their efficiency benefits are strongly linked to
the combustion engine and, hence, hard to assess.
Furthermore, turbo-machines, and in particular
Energy

turbochargers, can be applied in combination with the

thermal processes illustrated in Figure 1. Current
efficiencies of thermo-electrical devices are lower than
those of thermo-dynamic processes, but future material
development could offer the chance to efficiently
generate electrical power directly on-board [5]. The two
remaining thermo-dynamic processes (Joule, Rankine)
are well-established in gas and steam cogeneration
plants. Due to its better efficiency the steam cycle is
Kinetic + used for lower temperature levels (300-900C) as found
Pressure Exhaust Coolant in the exhaust gas of an IC engine. To summarize the
Exhaust Energy Energy Rankine steam cycle can be identified as a favorable
automotive application

approach for the recuperation of waste heat.

Complexity for

Acoustic 2-Loop- POSSIBLE SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS OF THE

Stirling Rankine
RANKINE STEAM CYCLE
1-Loop-
Joule Rankine (B)
Catalytic 1-Loop- As shown in Figure 2 the underlying ideal Rankine steam
Rankine (A) cycle can be divided into four processes, each
Combined
associated with a change of state of the working fluid:
Turbines Seebeck
Process 1-2: The isentropic compression of the
liquid working fluid.
Turbine
Process 2-3: The isobaric heating, evaporation and
Heat utilization superheating of the medium (23) Qmed,in by
Turbo-machines
supplying the thermal loss energy.
Thermo-dynamic Thermo-chemical
Process 3-4: The isentropic expansion of the
Thermo-electric Thermo-acoustic
vaporous medium (34) in an expansion machine,
Figure 1 Energy utilization vs. complexity of different generating mechanical power.
heat recovery systems Process 4-1: The isobaric condensation of the
medium back into the liquid phase (41) along with
dissipation of heat Qmed,out into the environment.
The differences in the thermal processes in heat
utilization are mainly caused by the ability to use the
temperature difference. Chemical reactions have to run
within a required temperature range (>400500C) and
can therefore only utilize heat above this temperature
level. Due to the process management, the realization of
a high heat input is much more critical for devices based
on the thermo-acoustic effect or the Stirling cycle. The T [K]
heat transfer by gas-to-gas of the Joule process and by 3
gas-to-material of a thermoelectric device makes the Tsuperheating Wt,exp
heat utilization for a given heat exchanger surface more h3
Qmed,in ~
difficult in comparison to the evaporation procedure of a Tmed,in
Rankine cycle. Moreover, the latter approach offers the 2
h2 Tevap. 4
possibility to recover the released heat of both the Wt,pump Tcond.
 ~ h4
Tmed,out
exhaust gas and the coolant system. In general, system 1 4s
h1 Qmed,out
complexity (e.g. size, weight, system integration) is
increasing with growing heat utilization. But the
complexity of some technologies (Stirling, thermo- s [kJ/(kg K)]
acoustic) is disproportionally high in comparison to the
heat recovery achievable for automotive applications. For
this reason these systems are excluded in the following
evaluation.

Figure 2 Fundamentals of the Rankine cycle

68 SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM
Assuming an ideal process, the thermal efficiency of the
Rankine process is as follows:
Rankine, ideal =
W t, exp W t, pump
=
(h3 h4 ) ( h2 h1 )
Q med, in (h3 h2 )
~ E.
Qmed, out Tmed, out
Rankine, ideal = 1 = 1 ~
Qmed, in Tmed, in
The thermal efficiency as given in equation (1) gauges
the extent to which energy input to the working fluid
passing through the heat exchanger is converted to the
net work output. The values for technical work of the
pump (W t,pump) and the expander (W t,exp) can be
calculated from the differences in the enthalpy of the
working fluid (Figure 2), whereas Qmed,in gives the heat
transferred from the loss energy of the engine to the
process (23). The thermal efficiency can be also
expressed in terms of heat transfers as shown in
equation (2) where Qmed,out gives tthe heat released
during the condensation process (41). As illustrated in
Figure 2 the mean lower and upper process temperature
~ ~
correspond to Tmed ,out and Tmed ,in , respectively.
Based on this fundamental cycle, various designs can be
identified to recover engine waste heat. These con-
figurations differ in the utilization of the heat source
(coolant system and/or exhaust gas) and the number of
system components (e.g. heat exchangers, expanders),
as well as in the number of separate loops (Figure 3). In
a dual or multiple loop system the working fluid of each
sub-system is not exchanged. For example, layout 1
illustrates a dual-loop apparatus which combines a high
temperature (HT) loop and a low temperature (LT) loop.
The HT loop only recovers the heat of the exhaust gas.
The LT loop recovers the residual HT heat, the coolant
heat and the remaining exhaust gas heat. The two
separate loops are coupled with a heat exchanger.
Information on this configuration can be found in [6]
where, besides the additional power, other automotive
aspects such as the geometrical integration in a
passenger car are also discussed.
A complete system evaluation of all the configurations
displayed, including the package requirements as well as
cost effectiveness would exceed the framework of this
paper. Hence, in order to access the potential of heat
recovery for automotive application we will only focus on
the additional power. Furthermore, the evaluation is
restricted to two basic single loop systems which are
studied in detail in the following section:
System A: Utilization only of exhaust gas
System B: Utilization of exhaust gas and coolant
SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1
E.
System A
E.
C. E.
1
2
(1)
System B
C.
7 3
System C. E.
Configurations
(2)
C. E. 6 4
5
C.
E.
C.
E.: Exhaust
C.: Coolant
Figure 3 Conceivable designs for the heat recovery of the
engine waste heat with steam cycles
Using the example of the two selected system
configurations the role of the heat source as well as the
impact of the operating parameters on the heat recovery
potential were analyzed. The presented simulations,
calculations and experimental investigations were
performed for the most common engine design, a four-
cylinder engine with a stoichiometric combustion [2].
WASTE HEAT FLOWS
For every Rankine cycle knowledge of the temperature
level of the heat sources is essential for the selection of
a working fluid and the optimization of the operating
conditions. Hence, the temperature of the coolant and
exhaust is needed. Furthermore, the ratio of the corres-
ponding heat flows is required for the comparison of the
net output of system A and B. This ratio is given by:
Q coolant
q= (3)
Q
exhaust
Test bench measurements of heat flows were carried out
for the studied engine. First, the temperature level of the
coolant was raised to ~115C and kept constant in order
to optimize the utilization of this heat source. It is
important to point out that no negative effects on the
engine efficiency could be observed. The exhaust gas
temperature sensors were positioned behind the catalyst,
where the inlet of the exhaust gas heat exchanger was
placed. Figure 4 shows the measured data together with
the road resistance curve for the top gear. Changing the
vehicle speed from 45 to 80 mph causes the exhaust
gas temperature to increase from ~500 to ~800C. As
indicated by the isolines, engine load has also a
significant influence on the temperature level of the
exhaust gas. Nevertheless, the road resistance curve for
the top gear will be the focus in the following evaluation,
bearing in mind that heat flows might be very different for
highly dynamic driving profiles.
69
 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM


SCREENING AND SELECTION OF THE
 WORKING FLUID



  In a Rankine steam cycle, the working fluid, which is

   

 repeatedly vaporized, expanded and re-condensed,




plays a key role in determining the potential as well as
   the cost effectiveness of a heat recovery system. The
  work output of a steam process for a given process
 
 temperature gradient differs significantly for various
  
  
 
 working fluids. The technical work of the expansion is
  
  
 given by the difference in the enthalpies of the working

 fluid entering and leaving the expansion machine, as



shown in equation (1). In order to optimize the work
 output for a given temperature gradient, the evaporation
         enthalpy should be as high as possible. Water exhibits

    the highest evaporation enthalpy (~2250 kJ/kg), followed
Figure 4 Exhaust gas temperatures in the gasoline by alcohols (methanol ~1100 kJ/kg, ethanol ~820 kJ/kg).
engine map Methanol was dismissed a priori, due to its known health
risks. Other organic substances such as toluene have
Figure 5 shows the heat flows for various vehicle speeds much lower evaporation heat levels (~350 kJ/kg). Based
(45, 55, 70 and 80 mph). For velocities between 45 and on the evaporation enthalpy, one would expect water to
80 mph, the exhaust gas heat flow ranges between ~5 to be the preferred working fluid for any heat recovery
~30 kW. At the same time, the coolant heat flow rises system based on the Rankine steam process. However,
from ~9 to ~20 kW. It is obvious that with increased in most real world applications the utilization of waste
driving speed more power is needed, which in turn will heat is limited by technical restrictions (maximum and/or
result in higher waste heat flows. However, it is minimum pressure).
interesting to note that the ratio of the heat flows
changes significantly with the driving speed. The ratio Having a future economically feasible heat recovery
lines in Figure 5 indicate that at ~55 mph the waste heats system in mind, the operating conditions were
have a ratio close to 1:1, whereas at lower speeds the constrained as follows. The minimum condensation level
coolant, and at higher speeds the exhaust gas, is set at 70C. Note that in any Rankine heat recovery
dominates as a heat source. application the largest fraction of the utilized heat has to
be relieved into the ambient air. In order to limit the effort
50 for safety measures, to reduce material costs and to
1.5

1 avoid contamination through leakages the maximum

q=
q=

temperature was limited to 300C and the minimum and

maximum pressures were restricted to 0.7 and 10 bar,
40 respectively. Furthermore, the maximum evaporation
temperature for system B is limited by the temperature of
the coolant (T~115C). Since a positive temperature
difference is needed to transfer the heat and to ensure
Q coolant [kW]

30 the cooling of the engine, the corresponding evaporation

temperature (Tevap,B) was set to be ~110C. Figure 6
shows how the limits discussed restrict the temperature
.5
20
80 mph q=0 gradient which can be used for heat utilization.
Considering the minimum pressure of 0.7 bar the
70 mph
condensation temperature had to be raised for water
55 mph (Tcond,H2O~90C) and toluene (Tcond,PhCH3 ~100C) for both
10 45 mph systems, as indicated by the diamond symbols. The
triangle symbols indicate the constant upper temperature
level for all fluids in case of system B. Restricting the
upper pressure for system A leads to the highest
0 evaporation temperature for toluene (Tevap,A,PhCH3~220C),
0 10 20 30 40 50 followed by water (Tevap,A,H2O~180C) and ethanol
Qexhaust [kW] (Tevap,A,EtOH~150C). Using these constraints the potential
Figure 5 Heat flows Q und 
Q at different vehicle
of the selected working fluids can be validated by
coolant exhaust applying equation (1).
cruising speeds

70 SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

For system A water delivers the highest thermal rates and requires larger heat exchanger surfaces. This
efficiency whereas for system B ethanol is the preferable has negative effects on the size and net output of the
working fluid. Other organic substances such as toluene system. Furthermore, most organic compounds such as
provided significantly lower outputs for both systems and alcohol are not very stable at temperatures above 200-
are therefore not considered further. Note that a detailed 300C. In addition, alcohol is critical in terms of safety
quantitative analysis is given in the next section. and environmental aspects. Ethanol is a flammable liquid
and at ambient temperature it can form explosive vapors.
240 Hence, special safety measures have to be applied. With
Condensation (both systems)
respect to material compatibility, alcohol is also a
220 Evaporation (system A) problematic substance. Water, on the other hand, has
Evaporation (system B)
other disadvantages. It acts highly corrosively as a
200
superheated vapor and its freezing point is not as low as
180 desired for an automotive application. To summarize,
from the evaluated working fluids (water, alcohols and
160 further organic substances) water is the preferable
Temperature [C]

working fluid for system A whereas for system B an

140 alcohol (e.g. ethanol) would be the right choice.
120 Limitation by
Tcoolant for
100
system B PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS

80 Limitation by
A simulation model was developed with the tool Dymola
Tcond. for in order to compare alternative heat recovery systems
both systems
60 based on the Rankine cycle for different engine types.
Minimum pressure Maximum pressure The modeling work was carried out in the Modelica ([7])
40 for both systems for system A programming language. The interface of the simulation
20
tool for the system configuration chosen in this study is
0,1 1 10 100 shown in Figure 7.
Evaporation pressure [bar]

Ethanol (EtOH) Water (H2O) Toluene (PhCH3)

Figure 6 Process temperature and pressure for system A

and B for different working fluids

So far the ability to perform work by a working fluid has

been the focus of this paper. However, with respect to a
future automotive application, further aspects have to be
considered.The preferred working fluids, water and
ethanol, are discussed in the following section using the
criteria listed in Table 1.

Requirement Impact on Water Ethanol

High expansion
Ideal system efficiency + -
work output
High enthalpy of System size
Required pumping power 2250kJ/kg 820kJ/kg
vaporization
System durability
Thermal stability Range of application
+ -

Compliance with car Figure 7 Simulation interface configured for system A

Low freezing point application: antifreeze request
0C -114C
and B
Environment aspects Waste disposal + 0
Material choice
Material compatibility Cost and weight 0 - As shown in Figure 2 the process consists of the
Explosion protection following key components: the expander, the pump and
Safety due to critical flashpoint N.A 16.6C the condenser, as well as the two heat exchangers.
Since the coolant heat exchanger can be virtually
Price (/l) Costs + -
deactivated, system A and B can be simulated using the
same simulation program. Each component was
Table 1 Comparison of working fluids physically treated as a control volume with four inlet and
outlet variables. The three in- and output variables,
System size and weight are always important issues in temperature, pressure and mass flow define the
automotive applications. Ethanol, with its lower thermodynamic state of the working fluid up- and
evaporation heat level, has significant higher circulation downstream of the control volume.

SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1 71

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

Furthermore, the fourth variable refers to the energy 250 40

240 26 (+3.25)
transfer (input/output: heat transfer; heat losses; 230
30
25
technical work) for each component. All these 220 24 (+3.5)
20
parameters are linked via the thermodynamic properties 210
22 (+3.65)
200 15

Evaporation temperature [C]

of the working fluid. Note that chemical data of any

Water
190 20 (+3.75)*
working fluid can be integrated. This approach allowed a 180 10

Evaporation pressure [bar]

18 (+4)*
significant reduction of the complexity in the steam 170 8
16 (+4.25)* 6
process model. 160
5
150
14 (+4.35)* 4
140
12 (+4.5)* 3
130
Using the simulation tool a parametric analysis was 10 (+4.75)* 2
120
8 (+5)*
conducted to investigate the influence of operating 110 6 (+5.25)*
conditions and the properties of the heat source on the 100 1

system performance of an ideal system. All relevant 120

4
12 (-5)*
process variables are illustrated in Figure 2. As shown in 115

Ethanol
equation (2), the thermal efficiency is given by the ratio of 110
11 (-5)*
3
the provided and dissipated heat. In other words, the 10 (-5)*
105
best efficiency is achieved when heat input is kept to the 9 (-5)*
highest possible and heat output to the lowest possible 100 2.2
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
temperature level. This relationship is illustrated in S
Superheating temperatureC[C]
Figure 8 where the thermal efficiency for both working
fluids is plotted in the relevant evaporation pressure Figure 8 Thermal efficiency ( Rankine, ideal) of a water
range. The upper plot of Figure 8 shows the increase of Rankine process as a function of evaporation
the Rankine,ideal with evaporation temperature (pressure) and superheating temperature.
for system A. Constraining the operating evaporation - Upper plot: water for Tcond.=90C
(*number in brackets give the absolute
pressure of water to 0.7-10 bar as illustrated in Figure 6
increment for Tcond.=70C).
Rankine,ideal will lead to ~19% as indicated by the thick line - Lower plot: ethanol for Tcond.=70C
in Figure 8. This value increases by ~4% (number in (*number in brackets give the absolute
brackets) if no lower pressure limit is applied. Note that increment for Tcond.=90C)
the values in the brackets give the absolute efficiency
increase when the condensation temperature was set to
70C (corresponding condensation pressure 0.3 bar). At To summarize, the thermal efficiency is mainly
a temperature of ~110C (indicated by dotted lines), determined by the evaporation and condensation
which corresponds to fixed evaporation level of temperature. For system B in particular, the realizable
system B, the efficiency is only about 6%, and hence condensation temperature level plays a significant role.
considerably lower than for ethanol (~10.5%), which is
displayed in the lower plot. This finding is consistent with So far the focus has been on the evaporation
the results concerning the potential of the working fluids. temperature and its effect on the thermal efficiency of a
As pointed out in the working fluid section, system B can Rankine process. Hence the next question to be
use only a small temperature gradient; thus reducing the addressed is how the selected evaporation temperature
heat utilization by increasing the condensation influences the ideal power output of the system. The
temperature has great impact on the efficiency as shown ideal power output for system A and B is given by the
in Figure 8 lower plot. Enhancing the lower temperature following expressions:
from 70C to 90C decreases the efficiency by 5%
(number in brackets). The thermal efficiency of both Pideal , A = Q exhaust Rankine, ideal, A ( A ) (4)
systems can be slightly increased when the working fluid Pideal , B = Q exhaust Rankine, ideal , B ( B + q) (5)
is superheated. Although not very obvious in Figure 8 the
the isolines are steeper for water than for ethanol. Hence
superheating has a greater impact on the efficiency of where A and B is the heat recovery efficiency of the
water. This is due to the stronger intermolecular exhaust heat exchanger for system A and B. No heat
attraction forces caused by hydrogen bonds. Increasing recovery coefficient is given in equation (5) for the
the working fluid superheating temperature from 200 to energy released from the coolant because engine
300C will raise the absolute efficiency value by ~1% for coolant mass flow is arranged as a closed loop.
water and ~0.3% for ethanol. The effect is more Therefore, assuming no heat losses, the heat recovery
significant at lower than at higher evaporation pressures. efficiency is 1.
Nevertheless the effect is rather small.

72 SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

290
In contrast, the exhaust gas energy refers to ambient 280
conditions, but the exhaust leaves the heat exchanger at 270
50
260
a much higher temperature level. The transferred heat

Evaporation temperature [C]

250 40

Evaporation pressure [bar]

Evaporation pressure [bar]
for the exhaust gas is determined by the difference of the 240
 30
230 
cooled exhaust gas temperature (Texhaust,in) and the 220 
25

temperature of the exhaust gas leaving the heat 210

 20
200 15
exchanger (Texhaust,out). Texhaust,out in turn depends on the 190 ne 


Li
evaporation and superheating temperature. Hence is a 180
170 um
 10
8
im 
function of Tevap, Tsuperheating and Texhaust,in in equation (6). 160 pt 
6
O 5
150  4
140  3
130 

120  2
Qmed, in 

= = f (Tevap., Tsuperheating , Texhaust,in )
110 
(6) 100 1
Qexhaust 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Exhaust gas temperature [C]

As regards superheating, it was set to a maximum of
300C if not limited by the exhaust gas temperature.
For system B, with its fixed evaporation temperature of
110C, the heat recovery efficiency B increases with the
exhaust gas temperature. The higher the difference
between evaporation temperature and exhaust gas
temperature the more heat can be recovered and hence
the power output also rises. As regards system A, the
relationship is somewhat more complicated. On the one
hand, an increasing evaporation temperature raises the
thermal efficiency; on the other hand it decreases the
transferred heat (A) into the system. Depending on the
exhaust gas temperature, an optimum evaporation
temperature can be found. Figure 9 shows the ideal
system efficiency as a function of evaporation and
exhaust gas temperatures for the working fluid water.
The data is plotted for a lower pressure level of 0.7 bar.
First of all, the focus is on how the exhaust gas
temperature influences the system efficiency when the
evaporation temperature is kept constant. Increasing the
exhaust gas temperature from 200 to 800C causes the
efficiency to increase from ~5 to ~18% at an evaporation
pressure level of 10 bar. This trend is due to the
increased heat recovery efficiency, as already pointed
out for system B.
Following the system efficiency for a given exhaust gas
temperature the following trend can be observed in
Figure 9. For a given exhaust gas temperature, the
system efficiency increases with increasing evaporation
temperature up to a temperature which corresponds to
the maximum efficiency. A further increase in the
evaporation temperature causes the product
Rankine,ideal A to become lower. Hence, an ideal
evaporation temperature can be found for a given
exhaust gas temperature which is indicated by the black
line (optimum line) in Figure 9. It is interesting to note
that the ideal evaporation temperature rises with the
exhaust gas temperature. For exhaust gas temperatures
above 400C, the optimum evaporation is found outside
the data range, as indicated by the dashed line. In this
context it is important to point out that a restriction of the
operating pressure due to technical limitations will
decrease the system efficiency, in particular at higher
exhaust gas temperatures.
Rankine,idealA) of a water
Figure 9 System efficiency (
Rankine process (system A) as a function of
evaporation and exhaust gas temperature at
Tcond.=90C
SYSTEM COMPARISON
The analysis in the above section demonstrates how the
process parameters of a Rankine cycle can be
optimized. It also reveals how the technical constraints of
the operating conditions can restrict the system
performance. For system A, the upper and lower
pressure limit (in other words the pressure ratio of the
expander) is the key parameter. With respect to
system B, the realization of a low condensation
temperature and the corresponding low pressure is the
main challenge. Hence, the setting of the operating
range has a significant impact on the simulation results
for the following evaluation of both systems. Based on
the process limitations already presented, the minimum
pressure was set to 0.7 bar, corresponding to a
condensation temperature of 90C for system A and
70C for system B (Figure 6). As regards the upper
pressure of system A, the optimum value was chosen as
long as it did not exceed the maximum pressure limit of
10 bar. For system B, the evaporation was kept constant
at 3 bar (corresponding to Tevap.=110C). Superheating
was limited to 300C for both setups.
Using these parameter settings the ratio of the ideal
power output for system A and B (Pideal,B/Pideal,A) can be
calculated based on equation (4) and (5). The ratio
(Pideal,B/Pideal,A) is a function of q, Rankine and which, in
turn, depends on the exhaust gas temperature.
Pideal , B Rankine, ideal , B ( B + q)
= (7)
Pideal , A Rankine, ideal , A A
Hence, in Figure 10 the power ratio is plotted as a
function of exhaust gas temperature (TIN) and q. The
plotted data can be interpreted as follows: The fat isoline
which separates the plot in two sections corresponds to
a ratio of 1. Above this line system B yields higher
outputs, whereas system A shows the higher potential
below this line. An increasing deviation from the 1:1 ratio
line will result in a steadily growing difference in power

SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1 73

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

output between the two systems. The isolines also reveal Hence the simulation results presented cannot be
a second trend. For a given waste heat ratio q, the interpreted as a general recommendation regarding a
relative potential of system A increases with the exhaust preference for either system at a definite vehicle speed.
gas temperature, which is due to the enhanced heat The results rather demonstrate that the simulation tool
recovery efficiency. can be used in order to compare different heat recovery
setups based on the Rankine cycle for any given engine
1,50
type.
45 mph
RESULTS OF TEST BENCH MEASUREMENTS

system B
1,25
The presented experiments were mainly carried out on
55 mph an engine test bench.
1,00
q [-]

Figure 11 illustrates a four-cylinder engine, which is

system A
0,75
70 mph equipped with a dual-loop system (see configuration 1 in
80 mph Figure 3) in such a test environment.

0,50

0,25
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Exhaust gas temperature [C]

Figure 10 Power output ratios

The next question is how Figure 10 can be interpreted in

terms of vehicle speed. Generally, one would expect
system A to have a higher potential at higher velocities
(associated with a larger waste heat fraction in the
exhaust at high temperature level), while the opposite
should be the case at lower velocities (associated with
larger waste heat fraction in the coolant and lower
exhaust gas temperatures).
Figure 11 Dual-Loop configuration on test bench
This is consistent with the simulation results for our
engine application. Plotting the heat flow data discussed The underlying two loops can be separated with slight
above reveals that system B would be the preferred heat modifications to this assembly. The two subsystems
recovery system in the speed range of 45 to 55 mph, but correspond to the setup of systems A and B. The
at higher speeds of 70 and 80 mph system A yields a previous analysis indicated that system B is more
higher output. At around 65 mph, where the road favorable than system A for typical highway cruising
resistance curve intersects the 1:1 power ratio, both speeds (4570 mph) in combination with the engine type
systems have comparable potential. In this context it is used. For this reason the experimental data focuses on
important to point out that other engine types may have this configuration.
very different waste heat properties for the same vehicle
speed. Hence the position and shape of the road Besides the limiting factors under ideal conditions, as
resistance curve in Figure 10 would be changed. At the discussed in the previous section, further losses occur in
same vehicle speed a turbo charged engine would have the real process:
a reduced exhaust gas temperature associated with a Heat losses by radiation (conduction and
lower fraction of waste heat in the exhaust gas. Hence convection)
the road resistance curve is relocated towards lower TIN
and q, as illustrated in area I. Combustion processes, Real heat transfer from coolant/exhaust gas to
such as diesel or stratified gasoline, can enhance this working fluid
trend even further, as indicated by the also displayed Pressure losses
area II. Things get even more complicated when the Auxiliary losses (real pumping, sensors, etc.)
temperature of the coolant is altered. Note that the
progression of the 1:1 ratio critically depends on the Real expansion (friction of expander + non-
realizable engine coolant temperature. A higher isentropic expansion)
temperature level would shift this line to lower q ratios,
whereas the opposite would be the case for lower
temperatures.

74 SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM


To minimize the heat losses, the apparatus is insulated

50
in critical areas (e.g., the exhaust pipe downstream of Padd [%]

kW


40
kW
catalysts, the heat exchanger, expander, tubes upstream

30
kW

of the pump and downstream of the expander).

20k

   

W
Moreover, components which are relevant for the drop in 

system pressure (e.g. tubing, inlet and outlet of 


expander) are optimized.
 

As depicted in Figure 12 operation of the engine in  

10


combination with system B produces an additional power


kW


net output of between 0.7-2 kW at relevant stationary


loads for highway cruising (45-70 mph). In a wide  5k
W

  
operating range these values correspond to 65-70% of 
 
the ideal power output for the chosen operating 
        
conditions (Tevap.=110C, Tsuperheating300C and 
   
Tcond.=70C). However, a visible decrease to 50% occurs
Figure 13 Relative additional power net output for
at relatively high loads. The losses are mainly caused by
system B in the engine map.
the non-ideal expansion and the heat transfer
- Grey area Padd [%]
performance, which starts to drop especially at higher - Isolines refer to the engine power
mass flows in the exhaust. - Different driving profile indicated by thick
lines (solid line: road resistance curve,
dotted line: acceleration,
dashed line: deceleration)
5
x% Pideal 100%
4,5 Additional power outputs amounting to 10% of the engine
Test bench measurements 90%
4 80%
power could be provided close to the road resistance
Expander power [kW]

3,5 curve. At higher engine loads this value decreases

70%
somewhat to about 8%, whereas lower engine loads are
3 60% associated with significant higher potential (up to 15%).
2,5 50% This is mainly due to the fact that the engine becomes
2 more efficient at higher load. Another interesting result is
40%
the fact that the additional power measured is relatively
1,5 30%
constant along the road resistance curve. This trend can
1 20% be explained by the reduced system efficiency at higher
0,5 10% velocities (80 mph) as mentioned above. Hence, plotting
the same data for an ideal system would show an
0
increased system performance in this operating range.
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Velocity [mph]
Nevertheless, the operation of the present hardware
setup of system B at typical highway velocities (45-
Figure 12 Real power net output of system B in 80 mph) leads to a considerable increase in efficiency.
comparison to the ideal system performance
CONCLUSIONS

The measurements performed provide the data basis to
implement efficiency maps of each system component in
the simulation tool. After this calibration the model can
be used to evaluate different heat recovery setups
depending on engine type, system layout and working
fluid, as well as the operating parameters.
So far the focus has been on the real power output. In
the following, the additional relative power gain provided
by the recuperation of waste heat will be discussed.
Figure 13 shows the measured relative power net output
of system B in the engine map (grey field). The plotted
data covers most conditions relevant for highway
cruising: constant-speed driving (indicated by the road
resistance curve) and dynamic engine operation
(acceleration: dotted line; deceleration: dashed line).
Different heat recovery technologies were reviewed and
compared from an automotive perspective. The Rankine
steam cycle is identified as a favorable approach for the
recuperation of waste heat and is studied in detail in this
paper. Feasible designs for the recovery of engine waste
heat using the steam cycle were illustrated. Two basic
single-loop systems (system A: exhaust gas only and
system B: exhaust gas plus coolant) were discussed in
detail to provide a fundamental analysis of heat recovery
technology based on a Rankine cycle.
A thermodynamic investigation revealed that water would
be a preferable working fluid for system A, which uses
exhaust gas as a high temperature level heat source
(T>300C). However, for system B, which uses a low-
temperature heat source in addition (T~100C), such as
the coolant, an alcohol (e.g. Ethanol) would be the right
choice.

SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1 75

 Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by the University of Texas Libraries, Wednesday, April 16, 2014 04:06:18 AM

A simulation model was developed in order to evaluate CONTACT

the two alternative systems for different engine types. A
parametric analysis was conducted with this tool in order Juergen Ringler, BMW Forschung und Technik GmbH,
to investigate the effects of the determining thermo- email: Juergen.Ringler@bmw.de
dynamic parameters on the system performance.
System B shows a higher potential at typical highway Marco Seifert, BMW Forschung und Technik GmbH,
speeds (45-70 mph) for the engine type chosen
email: Marco.Seifert@bmw.de
(4-cylinder, stoichiometric combustion) and operating
conditions. Nevertheless, this cannot be interpreted as a
Vianney Guyotot, BMW Forschung und Technik GmbH,
general recommendation. Heat source parameters,
which are deeply influenced by engine type and load email: Vianney.Guyotot@bmw.de
profile, as well as operating parameters, which are
limited by technical constraints (pressure level, ambient Walter Huebner, BMW Forschung und Technik GmbH,
temperature), have significant effects on the net power email: Walter.Huebner@bmw.de
output. Based on the simulation results, test bench
results for system B are discussed in detail. Under
relevant stationary conditions, additional power outputs DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
between 0.7-2 kW could be demonstrated. This
corresponds to an increase in engine performance in the
Symbol Designation Usual Unit
range of 10% close to the road resistance curve for the
top gear. Hence the operation of the Rankine cycle 
Q heat flow kW
system presented leads to a remarkable increase in fuel efficiency %
efficiency. A further important step has been taken in the
h specific enthalpy kJ/kg
introduction of waste heat recovery systems in
automotive applications. T temperature C
P power kW
p pressure bar
REFERENCES
heat recovery efficiency %
s entropy kJ/kg.K
1. Langen, P., Missy, S., Schwarz, C., Schuenemann,
E., New BMW 6- and 4-cylinder petrol engines with Wt technical work kWh
high precision injection and stratified combustion, Q heat kJ
presented at the 28th Internationales Wiener
Abbreviation Designation
Motorensymposium, 2007.
cond. condensation
2. Liebl, J., Klting, M., Poggel, J., Missy, S. (2001). Der
evap. evaporation
neue BMW Vierzylinder-Ottomotor mit Valvetronic,
MTZ Journal, 62(6). exp expander
3. Gschel, B., Einsatzmglichkeiten fr Hybridantriebe in input
th
in BMW Fahrzeugen, presented at the 25 out output
Internationales Wiener Motorensymposium, 2004. q waste heat ratio
4. Liebl, J., Eder, A., Wrmemanagement: ein Beitrag th heat recovery system with exhaust
system A
zu BMW Efficient Dynamics, presented at the 6 gas only
Tagung Wrmemanagement des Kraftfahrzeugs, heat recovery system exhaust gas
system B
Haus der Technik Berlin, 2008. plus coolant
5. Treffinger, P., Hfele, Ch., Weiler, T., Eder, A., H2O water
Richter, R., Mazar, B., Energierckgewinnung durch EtOH ethanol
Wandlung von Abwrme in Nutzenergie (Recovery of PhCH3 toluene
energy through conversion of waste heat), presented add additional
at VDI Tagung, 2008. IC internal combustion
6. Freymann, R., Strobl, W., Obieglo, A. (2008). The med working fluid
Turbosteamer: A system introducing the principle of
cogeneration in automotive applications, MTZ
Journal, 69(5).
7. Introduction to physical modeling with Modelica,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Tiller, M., 2001.

76 SAE Int. J. Engines | Volume 2 | Issue 1