Reciprocating weight in an engine

  • Thread starter Thread starter negativegeforce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engine Weight
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the effective weight of a rod/piston assembly in an engine at varying RPMs. Participants explore the mathematical modeling of forces involved, particularly focusing on the dynamics of acceleration and the implications of different RPMs on perceived weight. The conversation includes technical details and potential discrepancies in calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about the accuracy of ARP's equations, noting an implausibly high weight calculation at 1000 RPM.
  • Another participant calculates the force at 2000 RPM to be approximately 254 N, suggesting that the weight should be expressed in Newtons rather than kilograms.
  • Concerns are raised about the non-constant acceleration in simple harmonic motion, with one participant speculating that this could lead to an adjustment factor of pi/2 affecting the maximum force calculation.
  • A participant provides a formula for acceleration, calculating a maximum acceleration of 500 m/sec at 1000 RPM, which implies a perceived weight increase at higher RPMs.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the nature of piston acceleration, distinguishing between linear acceleration along the motion axis and radial acceleration at the crankshaft.
  • Another participant notes that the accelerations at top dead center (TDC) and bottom dead center (BDC) involve the combination of two radial accelerations, suggesting a complexity in the calculations that may not have been fully addressed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the accuracy of the original calculations or the implications of the physics involved. Multiple competing views on the calculations and interpretations of acceleration remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the original equations, including assumptions about acceleration and the context of the formulas provided. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity of the forces involved, particularly in relation to simple harmonic motion and the dynamics of the engine components.

negativegeforce
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have been working on a small problem for a little while, and I so happen to find this forum. I was wondering if anyone can point me to the right direction with this.

I am trying to calculate very accurately how much the rod/piston assembly in an engine will weigh at a given RPM. I have been studying ARP's (Automotive Racing Products) equations from their website, but the numbers do not sound correct at all ( 228,742 kilo's @ 1000RPM? ). So I am kind of skeptical about their math or the way I am doing it.

this is the equation and graph
http://www.arp-bolts.com/Tech/T0_FastenerEng/T0_Images/FOSTERP1A-c.jpg
http://www.arp-bolts.com/Tech/T0_FastenerEng/T0_Images/P1-CHARTS.jpg

My thoughts about this is that the piston and rod are not changing direction instantly, but the rod slowly changes direction in about a 180 degree rotation of the crankshaft, but the change peaks at the bottom and top of the strokes. So I believe there has to be a much more detailed math to describe this.

I have an excel sheet i made that has all the work already there. So if anyone could take a look at it and steer me in the right direction with this, that would be cool.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
There are 3600 seconds in a minute (acceleration is expressed in terms of m/s) and the answer is in Newtons, not kg. Via f=ma, 1kg=9.8N. So I calculate an answer of about 254N (1/3600th of 915,000) at 2000 rpm. I did calculate that from scratch and then compare/cross-check with your calculation, btw, so I'm pretty sure of the answer.

There is an additional issue of the acceleration not being constant in simple harmonic motion. I can't quite get my head around it, but I think that makes the answer off by a factor of pi/2, meaning the maximum force would be about 400 N. I'm not certain of that, though.
 
If the position is A cos omega t, the acceleration is -omega^2 A cos omega t.

for your piston A = 0.0455 m.
A speed of 1000 rpm = 2 pi * 1000 / 60 radians/sec = 105 radians/sec

So the max acceleration of the piston at 1000 RPM is 500 m/sec or about 50 g.

So your piston will "weigh" 50 times more at 1000 RPM that at 0 RPM. The weight goes up as speed squared, so at 10000 RPM it "weighs" 5000 times as much as at 0 RPM.

An acceleration of 5000G in a rotating machine is quite a believable number - for example jet engine rotors go well beyond that G level.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
There are 3600 seconds in a minute (acceleration is expressed in terms of m/s)

Oops ... that might explain why you got a rather small force.
 
Piston acceleration is a linear acceleration along the axis of motion as opposed to the radial acceleration seen on the crankshaft.

Attached is what I've used in the past for this. Hope that helps.
 

Attachments

Q_Goest said:
Piston acceleration is a linear acceleration along the axis of motion as opposed to the radial acceleration seen on the crankshaft.

Sure, but the accelerations at TDC and BDC are the sum and difference of two radial acclerations (the crank and the conrod - each with a different angular velocity because of the different radii) so the accelerations are the same order of magnitude as simple harmonic motion.

I thought the OP was questioning the big numbers, rather than the details of the calcs. THe formula in the first URL doesn't mean much, taken out of context.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K