Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S0196890415010985 Main
1 s2.0 S0196890415010985 Main
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The research in the field of internal combustion engines is currently driven by the needs of decreasing
Received 25 September 2015 fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, while fulfilling the increasingly stringent pollutant emissions reg-
Accepted 5 December 2015 ulations. In this framework, this research work focuses on describing a methodology for optimizing the
Available online 28 December 2015
combustion system of Compression Ignition (CI) engines, by combining Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) modeling, and the statistical Design of Experiments (DOE) technique known as Response Surface
Keywords: Method (RSM). As a key aspect, in addition to the definition of the optimum set of values for the input
Diesel engine
parameters, this methodology is extremely useful to gain knowledge on the cause/effect relationships
CFD model
Engine optimization
between the input and output parameters under investigation.
Engine efficiency This methodology is applied in two sequential studies to the optimization of the combustion system of
Emissions control a 4-cylinder 4-stroke Medium Duty Direct Injection (DI) CI engine, minimizing the fuel consumption
while fulfilling the emission limits in terms of NOx and soot. The first study targeted four optimization
parameters related to the engine hardware including piston bowl geometry, injector nozzle configuration
and mean swirl number (MSN) induced by the intake manifold design. After the analysis of the results,
the second study extended to six parameters, limiting the optimization of the engine hardware to the
bowl geometry, but including the key air management and injection settings. For both studies, the sim-
ulation plans were defined following a Central Composite Design (CCD), providing 25 and 77 simulations
respectively.
The results confirmed the limited benefits, in terms of fuel consumption, around 2%, with constant NOx
emission achieved when optimizing the engine hardware, while keeping air management and injection
settings. Thus, including air management and injection settings in the optimization is mandatory to sig-
nificantly decrease the fuel consumption, by around 5%, while keeping the emission limits.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.010
0196-8904/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 213
Nomenclature
oil ternary blend ratios also for controlling emissions. This experi- parameters to optimize what leads to simple geometries defined
mental approach has been widely applied also to the analysis and by 1 or 2 parameters. Gafoor and Gupta [11] optimized a bowl
optimization of advanced combustion concepts. Genzale et al. [3] geometry defined by a single parameter together with the swirl
measured how the emissions are affected by the chamber geome- by simulating 35 combinations of them. However, when talking
try operating with the low temperature combustion (LTC) concept. about highly accurate results the amount of iterations required
Benajes et al. [4] investigated the potential of the piston geometry by these evolutive methods to obtain the real optimum (not just
to improve the results provided by the Reactivity Controlled Com- a local optimum) are possibly unpredictable and even unaccept-
pression Ignition (RCCI) concept in terms of combustion efficiency able due to the large initial population needed to obtain accurate
and emissions. However, the experimental optimization of param- results [16,17]. Even with the micro-genetic algorithm that
eters related to the engine hardware, such as the combustion requires populations of only 5 individuals, the number of simula-
chamber or the injector geometry is costly in terms of time and tions required to reach the optimum is not comparable with RSM
resources since it involves piston or injector manufacturing and methods. Yun and Reitz [14] needed 120 iteration for 4 control
assembling, together with weeks or even months of intensive parameters and Kim et al. [15] needed 150 iterations for 5 param-
testing. eters compared to 25 and 43 simulations required for a 4 and 5
Recently, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is gaining relia- parameters RSM. As a result, these evolutive methods demand
bility in predicting emissions and combustion characteristics by many resources in terms of CPU and time, especially when simulat-
using properly calibrated and validated models. Then, CFD model- ing 3D combustion chambers for industrial purposes where that
ing is a very interesting alternative compared to the experimental increase in the number of simulations implies months. In addition,
approach especially for the optimization of the engine hardware as previously commented, the exact number of iterations required
due to its lower requirements in terms of time and resources. Thus, for a genetic algorithm optimization is unknown forehand since
it is worth to develop an optimization methodology based on CFD the termination point is arbitrary in order to assure not obtaining
modeling suitable for not only defining the optimum engine hard- a local optimum from the process, so the number of iterations
ware/settings configuration, but also to identify qualitatively and increases drastically.
quantitatively the most relevant effects of the variables to be opti- Traditionally, evolutive methods have been the preferred option
mized (inputs). to carry out a CFD optimization of ICE, and particularly Compres-
Different studies have been carried out using evolutive methods sion Ignition (CI) engines. As an alternative, the non-evolutive
with really encouraging results related to optimum geometries methods provide a predefined number of iterations that increases
[5,6] or injection and air management settings [710,12]. These with the number of inputs, but for a number of inputs ranging
results confirm the suitability of genetic algorithms to find the between 4 and 6 the total time cost is still lower than that provided
optimum engine configuration (hardware and/or settings), and by the genetic algorithms, and different studies applying non-
how the increasing computational power decreases the time cost evolutive methods have proven their potential. The high reliability
of combustion chamber optimization until reasonable values. and accuracy in the results that the non-evolutive Response Sur-
Without these methods, optimization can be carried out by simply face Methods (RSM) provide in a CFD optimization is shown in
discretizing the variables and performing CFD calculation on every those studies [18,19,21]. Compared to the evolutive methods, the
combination of them, nonetheless, this limits the amount of RSM allows to obtain trends and results in any region of the chosen
214 J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229
Table 1 5
Engine main characteristics. Original bowl
Bezier control points
Engine data 0 Bezier curve fit
Max torque 550 N m (14002200 rpm) Modified bowl #1
Height [mm]
Max power 128 kW (2200 rpm) -5 Modified bowl #2
Combustion chamber Re-entrant
Bore stroke (mm) 96 102
Bowl width (mm) 62.4
-10
Unitary displacement (cm3) 738.3
Connecting rod length (mm) 154.5 -15
Geometric compression ratio () 15.5
Nozzle hole number 9
-20
0 10 20 30 40
Table 2
Engine operating conditions.
Width [mm]
Operating conditions Fig. 1. Bowl geometry profiles: the original bowl with the Bezier polynomial and
control points and two examples of newly-generated bowl.
Speed (rpm) 1200 1600 1800
Fuel mass (kg/s) 2.71e4 9.36e4 1.50e3
IMEP (bar) 6.5 16.2 24.9
EGR (%) 17.7 13 11.3 following this methodology provided much more information
Global equivalence ratio () 0.6 0.73 0.75 and accuracy than a similar optimization using evolutive methods
Intake temperature (K) 324.9 313.15 318.9 limited to the same number of simulations.
Boost pressure (bar) 1.15 2.28 3
MSN () 2 2 2
2. Experimental tools
optimization region with the optimized configuration. Those 2.1. Engine characteristics
trends can be also obtained using a genetic algorithm after carrying
out further post-processing activities, but even in this case the The experimental data required for the calibration and valida-
accuracy is lower than that provided by RSM due to the random- tion of the CFD model was obtained from a 4-cylinder 4-stroke
ness of the training points. Finally, the RSM method has been even Medium Duty Direct Injection (DI) CI engine, equipped with a
applied for other applications as the vehicle on board control of the common-rail injection system. Table 1 contains the main engine
engine settings to optimize the combustion process [20]. characteristic, while Table 2 shows the key settings for the refer-
In this framework, the research work reported in the present ence operating condition.
paper focuses on describing and applying a new methodology for
optimizing the combustion system of CI engines based on the 2.2. Test cell characteristics
RSM approach. The optimization process carried out in this paper
is divided in 2 stages, the first one optimizes 4 inputs (2 related The engine is assembled into a fully instrumented test cell. An
to the combustion chamber geometry, swirl number and nozzle external compressor provides the intake air (oil and water-free)
included angle (NA)), with results in 25 simulations and the second required to simulate boost conditions, while the exhaust backpres-
one considers 6 inputs (2 related to the combustion chamber sure is reproduced and controlled by means of a throttle valve
geometry, 2 related to injection settings and 2 related to air man- placed in the exhaust line after the exhaust settling chamber.
agement settings), with results in 77 simulations. From the consid- The experimental facility also includes a high pressure EGR system,
erations in this paper, it can be deducted that results generated designed to provide arbitrary levels of cooled EGR.
Table 3
Accuracy of the instrumentation used in this work.
Table 4
Cylinder thermodynamic conditions at IVC & combustion chamber mean wall temperatures.
Speed PIVC mIVC TIVC YO2 YN2 YCO2 YH2O Twpis Twliner Twhead
(rpm) (bar) (g) (K) (%) (%) (%) (%) (K) (K) (K)
1200 1.62 0.86 407 19.88 76 2.85 1.26 425.3 380.1 415.8
1600 3.48 1.77 425 20.06 76.04 2.7 1.2 507.4 406.8 496.8
1800 4.67 2.33 434 20.2 76.07 2.58 1.14 551.9 425.9 546
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 215
60 50
50
Injection rate [g/s]
10 10
Measured injection profile (1350 bar) Measured injection profile (1200bar)
Adjusted profile New generated profile (1200bar)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [ms] Time [ms]
(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) Reference injection profile at 1300 bar and adjusted curve with Bezier curves. (b) New generated profile with the 0D model at 1200 bar and the experimental data
for 1200 bar.
The test cell is equipped with a dedicated air and fuel flow Table 5
meters, and a set of temperature and pressure sensors to assure Ranges for the input factors for the optimization Stage 1 DOE of 4 parameters.
the proper operation of the system. Data of O2, CO, CO2, HC, NOx, d/B () K () Swirl (MSN) NA (deg)
N2O and Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) rate is measured with a Ref 0.57 0.14 2 148
state-of-the-art exhaust gas analyzer, while Smoke emissions in min 0.53 0 0.5 140
Filter Smoke Number (FSN) units are measured by a Smokemeter max 0.63 0.2 2.5 156
connected to the exhaust line. Instantaneous high frequency sig-
nals such as cylinder pressure, pressures at the intake and exhaust
ports and energizing current of the injector are sampled with a res- Table 6
olution of 0.2 crank angle degree (degree to top dead center). Cylin- Ranges for the input factors for the optimization Stage 2 DOE of 6 parameters.
der pressure is measured using a state-of-the-art piezoelectric Geometry Air manag. Injection
sensor. Detailed data of the instrumentation used in this work is
d/B () K () P2 (bar) EGR (%) IP (bar) SoIm (deg a TDC)
Ref 0.57 0.14 2.28 13 1230 359.5
B min 0.53 0 2.28 13 1200 355.5
max 0.63 0.2 2.48 23 1600 361.546
d
DOE 4p
0.2 DOE 6p 155
Reference
NA [deg]
150
K [-]
0.1
145
0 140
0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.6 0.62 0.64 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
dB [-] Swirl [MSN]
20
358
18
16 360
14
12 362
2.3 2.4 2.5 1200 1400 1600
P2 [bar] IP [bar]
Fig. 5. Combinations input parameters for Stages 1 and 2.
60 200
Cylinder pressure [bar]
Exp Exp
CFD 150 CFD
HRR [J/cad]
40
100
50
20
0
0 -50
340 360 380 400 420 440 340 360 380 400 420 440
Crank angle [deg a TDC] Crank angle [deg a TDC]
Smoke [FSN]
ISFC [g/kWh]
10 40 0.4
IMEP [bar]
NOx [g/h]
200
5 100 20 0.2
0 0 0 0
ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD
Fig. 6. Experimental vs CFD results with the reference combustion system at 1200 rpm.
the experimental cylinder pressure signal by means of the in-house The fuel discharge produces a pressure increase inside the tube,
combustion analysis software (CALMEC) [22,23]. This 0- which is proportional to the increase in fuel mass. The rate of this
Dimensional model simplifies the phenomena occurring inside pressure increase corresponds to the injection rate. A pressure sen-
the engine cylinder, so it does not provide any information related sor detects this pressure increase, and an acquisition and display
to local thermochemical conditions. However, the instantaneous system further processes the recorded data for further use.
evolution of the energy released by the progress of the combustion
can be obtained with accuracy by resolving the first law of thermo-
dynamics taking the combustion chamber as the control volume 3. Modeling tools
independently from the local conditions where this energy is being
released. The section below describes the experimental and theoretical
tools used to carry out the research. This brief description focuses
only on their most relevant characteristics.
2.3. Injection rate test rig
Measurements of injection rate were carried out with an Injec- 3.1. CFD model
tion Discharge Rate Curve Indicator (IRDCI) commercial system.
The device makes it possible to display and record the data that The StarCD code version 4.18 [25] was used to perform the CFD
describe the chronological sequence of an individual fuel injection simulations of the engine combustion system. The axisymmetry of
event. The measuring principle used is the Bosch method [24], the combustion chamber allow us to create a sector mesh compris-
which consists of a fuel injector that injects into a fuel-filled mea- ing 131,360 cells at BDC with periodic boundary conditions after
suring tube. performing a grid convergence study. Each case was calculated as
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 217
150 200
HRR [J/cad]
100
100
50
50
0
0 -50
340 360 380 400 420 440 340 360 380 400 420 440
Crank angle [deg a TDC] Crank angle [deg a TDC]
Smoke [FSN]
ISFC [g/kWh]
20 400 0.1
IMEP [bar]
NOx [g/h]
200
10 100 200 0.05
0 0 0 0
ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD
Fig. 7. Experimental vs CFD results with the reference combustion system at 1600 rpm.
150 200
Cylinder pressure [bar]
Exp Exp
CFD 150 CFD
HRR [J/cad]
100
100
50
50
0
0 -50
340 360 380 400 420 440 340 360 380 400 420 440
Crank angle [deg a TDC] Crank angle [deg a TDC]
ISFC [g/kWh]
Smoke [FSN]
40 400 0.5
IMEP [bar]
NOx [g/h]
200
20 100 200
0 0 0 0
ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD ExpCFD
Fig. 8. Experimental vs CFD results with the reference combustion system at 1800 rpm.
a closed cycle combustion, this is from the closure of the inlet from Angelberger [33] in order to account for wall heat transfer.
valves to the opening of the exhaust valves (from 246.8 to 463 An implicit scheme was used for time discretization, while diver-
aTDC with the TDC at 360). The simulations were calculated with gence terms used the second order Monotone Advection and
12 cores each with an average time cost of 36 h per simulation. Reconstruction Scheme (MARS) [25]. Velocitypressure coupling
The combustion model was the ECFM-3z from IFP [26]. Con- was solved by means of a Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of Oper-
cerning pollutants, NOx were calculated using the extended Zel- ators (PISO) algorithm [34]. The reference values used for the
dovich (thermal) mechanism, where source terms were obtained boundary and initial conditions are shown in Table 4.
from a flamelet library [27]. A two-step Hiroyasu-like model was These reference values could not be kept constant for all the
used for soot formation and oxidation [28]. simulations due to having EGR and boost pressure as optimization
Concerning the physical sub-models, the diesel spray was sim- parameters, what has a huge impact on the air composition and
ulated with the standard Droplet Discrete Model available in thermodynamic conditions and therefore, they were accordingly
StarCD. Spray atomization and break-up were simulated by means adjusted in each simulation, assuming constant volumetric effi-
of the HuhGosman [29] and ReitzDiwakar [30] models, respec- ciency and TIVC. In a similar way, the calculation of the high pres-
tively. Diesel fuel physical properties were given by the DF1 fuel sure loop IMEP in the post-processing is affected by these
surrogate [31]. variations. The IMEP of the closed cycle can only be compared
In these simulations, turbulent flow was modeled by means of against experimental data in relative values, so in order to compare
the RNG ke model [32], with wall-functions based on the model in absolute values, the pressure profiles from bottom dead center
218 J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229
ISFC [g/kWh]
Changing d/B only 210
430 Reference-CFD
420 S1 Opt1
200
410 S1 Opt2
400 190
390
0.56 0.58 0.6 0.56 0.58 0.6
d/B [-] d/B [-]
1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
150
100 0
0.56 0.58 0.6 0.56 0.58 0.6
d/B [-] d/B [-]
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
RSM results
Changing K only
ISFC [g/kWh]
210
430 Reference-CFD
420 S1 Opt1
200
410 S1 Opt2
400 190
390
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.15
K [-] K [-]
1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
150
100 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.15
K [-] K [-]
Fig. 9. Effect of d/B (top) and K (bottom) on key combustion, emissions and performance parameters. Reference engine levels are included as red lines. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
(BDC) to intake valve closing (IVC) and from Exhaust Valve Open- The Bezier line and control points used to adjust the original
ing (EVO) to BDC were taken directly from experimental results, bowl can be seen in the figure and it is noticeable how the adjusted
and adjusted in each simulation according to the corresponding profile reproduces the original shape perfectly and the new gener-
operating conditions. ated lines, because of the restrictions imposed, keep the main
aspects of the bowl.
The generation of the combustion chamber geometry is one of The injected fuel mass flow rate profile has a critical effect on
the most time consuming steps in an optimization. Bowl shapes the combustion process so in order to be consistent with the exper-
are very diverse, which makes it difficult to be adjusted, especially imental data, an in-house 0D model code capable of reproducing
with only a few parameters. However, in order to capture properly any injection rate profile was developed. The model needs experi-
the trends of the geometric parameters in the RSM method, the mental data because a measured injection rate profile has to be
process needs to be consistent, this is, the restrictions of the orig- adjusted using Bezier curves and then, the curve generated from
inal bowl have to be maintained. For that reason, an in-house code adjusting the experimental injection rate profile is modified to fit
to adjust and resize any bowl contour was developed The basic the required injection pressure and total injected mass. Fig. 2a
idea behind the code is to adjust the original geometry with Bezier shows the measured injection profile used as reference and the
curves and then readjust the curves iteratively taking into account curves obtained from the software and Fig. 2b shows the read-
the restrictions, like for example the maximum width of the bowl justed injection profile and the corresponding experimental data.
is limited by the oil gallery location. Fig. 1 shows the reference A critical aspect of the injection is the slope of the injection rate
bowl, adjusted with Bezier curves and compared with variations when the injector receives the electric signal and when the signal
of the geometry for different values of the geometric parameters. ends. It can be seen in Fig. 2 how the injection profile generator
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 219
ISFC [g/kWh]
Changing MSN only 210
430 Reference-CFD
420 S1 Opt1 200
410 S1 Opt2
400 190
390
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
MSN [-] MSN [-]
1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
150
100 0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
MSN [-] MSN [-]
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
RSM results
Changing NA only
ISFC [g/kWh]
210
430 Reference-CFD
420 S1 Opt1
200
410 S1 Opt2
400 190
390
144 146 148 150 152 144 146 148 150 152
NA [deg] NA [deg]
1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
150
100 0
144 146 148 150 152 144 146 148 150 152
NA [deg] NA [deg]
Fig. 10. Effect of swirl (top) and Nozzle included angle (bottom) on key combustion, emissions and performance parameters. Reference engine levels are included as red lines.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Table 7
The methodology described in this section has 3 steps, while
Optimized combustion systems after Stage 1.
each of them has their own tools, which are described in the tools
d/B () K () Swirl (MSN) NA (deg) section. Fig. 3 shows summarizes the 3 steps of the methodology.
S1 Opt1 (best ISFC) 0.605 0.15 2 152 The first step is the configuration of the CFD model used for the
S1 Opt 2 (best NOxSmoke) 0.595 0.06 2 150 later optimization. It has to be properly calibrated and validated
with experimental data because the main objective of the opti-
mization process is to vary parameters in a given range so not hav-
keeps the original slopes, what assures the consistency with the ing a well calibrated model could change the trends provided by
experimental data. the engine. It has to be pointed that the calibrated model parame-
ters have been kept constant for the following steps.
The second step is dedicated to the optimization of the combus-
4. Methodology tion system. The methodology for this optimization is based on
Design of Experiments (DOE) techniques, particularly the Response
Accuracy is one of the most difficult aspects when optimizing Surface Method (RSM). This method was selected due to its attrac-
unknown processes that cannot be tested experimentally. Part of tive cost/benefit ratio specially compared to the evolutive opti-
this inaccuracy comes from the CFD model but an important frac- mization methods, which are more costly and less predictable in
tion also comes from the optimization methodology. In order to terms of time. Moreover, due to the randomness of the simulated
avoid uncertainties due to the combustion process and to be able points, with evolutive methods it is more difficult and less accurate
to validate the methodology, the ranges of the optimization param- to capture the cause/effect relations between the input and the
eters were chosen in order to keep a conventional combustion in output parameters.
all cases so the know-how on this combustion models can be used The final step focuses on validating the optimums. Once the
to validate results and trends. DOE are performed, a series of convenient optimum are obtained
220 J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229
-5
together with the geometry of the central point of the DOE, the
-10 higher the K the more reentrant bowl shape. The ranges for the
input parameters kept for all DOE are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
-15 Fig. 5 contains the combinations of the 2 parameters related to
the bowl geometry included in the DOE design compared to those
-20 of the original engine bowl geometry. The same comparison is car-
ried out between the other settings modified in the optimization
-25 process.
0 10 20 30 40 It is important to highlight how despite the well-known trade-
off existing between ISFC and BSFC especially when the boost pres-
Width [mm]
sure is adjusted, the analysis was carried out considering ISFC and
Fig. 11. Optimized combustion systems after Stage 1. not BSFC since this research focuses on understanding the require-
ments of the combustion system to optimize the energy conversion
from heat to work respecting emission constraints. These processes
from the response surface and those optimums have to be vali- are intrinsically controlled by the combustion process, while the
dated with the CFD model to assure the wanted accuracy of the mechanical losses (including pumping losses) are not accounted
method. Additional validations at other operating conditions are for since they depend on external factors not directly controlled
necessary to check if the new set up has a better performance than by the combustion process such as the lubrication and surface fin-
the original in well-representative points of the engine map. ish (friction losses), the mechanical efficiency of auxiliary systems
In this study, four parameters for Stage 1 and six parameters for (auxiliary losses) or the turbocharging system efficiency and its
Stage 2 were chosen to be optimized and a Central Composite matching (pumping losses). The optimization of the combustion
Design (CCD) defined the DOE test plan with 25 and 77 simulations system to obtain the best indicated efficiency carried out in this
respectively. Among the output parameters, efficiency, emissions investigation must be followed by a next step dedicated optimiza-
and combustion related parameters were included. The objective tion of the engine subsystems to transfer the ISFC improvements
of some of these parameters was to confirm the key trends into final BSFC benefits.
followed by the main outputs.
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
400 210 40 2
ISFC [g/kWh]
Smoke [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
30
395 200 1
20
390 190 0
Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
Smoke [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
Smoke [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
2
395 190 350
1
Fig. 12. Stage 1 optimized combustion systems assessment at 1200 rpm low load (top), 1600 rpm half load (mid) and 1800 rpm full load (bottom). Rf refers to the
reference combustion system, o1 to the Stage 1 Opt 1 and o2 to the Stage 1 Opt 2 combustion systems.
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 221
ISFC [g/kWh]
405 200
400
190
395
390 RSM results
180
385 Changing d/B only
Reference-CFD
0.56 0.58 0.6 0.56 0.58 0.6
S1 Opt1
d/B [-] S1 Opt2 d/B [-]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
0.56 0.58 0.6 0.56 0.58 0.6
d/B [-] d/B [-]
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
RSM results
Changing K only
ISFC [g/kWh]
405 200
Reference-CFD
400 S1 Opt1
S1 Opt2 190
395
390
180
385
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.15
K [-] K [-]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.1 0.15
K [-] K [-]
Fig. 13. Effect of d/B (top) and K (bottom) on key combustion, emissions and performance parameters. Reference engine levels are included as red lines. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
5. Results and discussion data after adjusting the constants of the soot formation model. An
over-prediction of NOx values is observed for the high load condi-
The section below describes the CFD model validation and two tion, probably related with the faster rise on the main HRR com-
optimizations performed for the reference engine. The first opti- pared to experimental data, however, the quality of the CFD
mization stage focuses on optimizing four engine parameters model was considered as suitable for carrying out the optimization
(bowl shape, intake manifold design and injection hardware) and activities.
the second stage keeps the geometric parameters as optimization
inputs and adds four more optimization parameters (injection
and air management settings).
5.2. Optimization Stage 1
5.1. CFD model calibration and validation A preliminary optimization process was carried out with the
aim of investigating the impact of the engine hardware and nozzle
The CFD model was thoroughly validated by simulating the configurations on emissions and fuel consumption. This first stage
three operating conditions under investigation described in Table 2. focused on medium speed/load, evaluating later the optimum con-
The results of the CFD model compared against the experimental figurations at low speed/load and high speed/load operation
data in terms of performance and pollutants after calibrating the conditions.
sub-model constants, especially those related to the soot model, Air management and injection settings were kept constant at
are included in Figs. 68. their reference values. Then, a double shot injection (pilot plus
Those figures show a fair agreement in terms of performance main events) at the reference timings and injection pressure was
(IMEP), fuel consumption (ISFC) and combustion characteristics considered. The engine volumetric compression ratio was also kept
(HRR). In addition, the final soot levels were close to experimental constant at the reference value shown in Table 1.
222 J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229
ISFC [g/kWh]
Changing P2 only 200
405 Reference-CFD
400 S1 Opt1
S1 Opt2
190
395
390
180
385
2.35 2.4 2.45 2.35 2.4 2.45
P2 [bar] P2 [bar]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
2.35 2.4 2.45 2.35 2.4 2.45
P2 [bar] P2 [bar]
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
RSM results
Changing EGR only
ISFC [g/kWh]
405 200
Reference-CFD
400 S1 Opt1
S1 Opt2 190
395
390
180
385
16 18 20 16 18 20
EGR [%] EGR [%]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
16 18 20 16 18 20
EGR [%] EGR [%]
Fig. 14. Effect of P2 (top) and EGR (bottom) on key combustion, emissions and performance parameters. Reference engine levels are included as red lines. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Four parameters related to the bowl shape (diameter and re- and Smoke increase and decrease respectively. Finally, increasing
entrant profile), intake manifold design (swirl) and injection the nozzle included angle results in similar trends than those
hardware (nozzle included angle) were optimized by means of observed increasing swirl, so wide angle nozzle provided better
the DOE technique known as Response Surface Method. The results in terms of ISFC and Smoke emissions.
ranges of these optimization parameters were shown in Table 5. On the light of the results, Table 7 describes the two optimum
Additional details of the response surface functions can be found combustion systems defined following two different optimization
in Appendix A. paths
Figs. 9 and 10 show the effects of bowl geometry (d/B and K)
and the effects of swirl and nozzle included angle (NA) respectively 1. Minimizing ISFC keeping the NOxSmoke trade-off (S1 Opt1).
on the end of combustion angle (CA90abs), engine efficiency (ISFC) 2. Improving the NOxSmoke trade-off accepting 2% ISFC penalty
and NOxSmoke emissions. (S1 Opt2).
Focusing on the main general trends observed in Fig. 9, it can be
seen how increasing bowl diameter (d/B) results in a later CA90abs The optimized bowl profiles compared to that of the reference
while the effect on ISFC is almost negligible. The impact on NOx and combustion system are shown in Fig. 11, together with the com-
Smoke emissions was moderate. Additionally, increasing the reen- bustion system definition for those optimal configurations. Observ-
trant shape of the bowl (K) clearly advances the end of combustion ing these data, both optimization paths resulted in similar bowl
(CA90abs) and decreases ISFC independently from the combination diameters, with d/B around 0.6, but higher reentrant shape, higher
of the other input factors. NOx emissions increase while Smoke was K, was required for the minimum ISFC criterion compared to the
much less affected. smaller K for the improving NOxSmoke trade-off criterion. In all
Switching to the most relevant trends observed in Fig. 10, cases higher nozzle included angle than the reference engine were
increasing swirl advances CA90abs and decreases ISFC also inde- obtained, especially for the minimum ISFC combustion system
pendently from the values of the other input parameters. NOx configuration.
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 223
ISFC [g/kWh]
405 200
Reference-CFD
400 S1 Opt1
S1 Opt2 190
395
390
180
385
1300 1400 1500 1300 1400 1500
IP [bar] IP [bar]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
1300 1400 1500 1300 1400 1500
IP [bar] IP [bar]
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
RSM results
ISFC [g/kWh]
Changing SoIm only 200
405
Reference-CFD
400
S1 Opt1 190
395 S1 Opt2
390
180
385
357 358 359 360 357 358 359 360
SoIm [deg aTDC] SoIm [deg aTDC]
300 1
Soot [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
200
0.5
100
0
0
357 358 359 360 357 358 359 360
SoIm [deg aTDC] SoIm [deg aTDC]
Fig. 15. Effect of IP (top) and SoIm (bottom) on key combustion, emissions and performance parameters. Reference engine levels are included as red lines. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 16. NOx and ISFC trade-off for both optimization stages (left). Pmax and ISFC trade-off detected from the results of the Stage 2 (right).
The two optimized configurations were modeled and compared 0.5%, while NOx slightly increases by +1.4% and the Smoke level
with the reference engine in Fig. 12. It is shown how S1 Opt1 (best is nearly unchanged keeping FSN below 0.1. For S1 Opt 2 (best
ISFC) provided slightly decreased fuel consumption by less than NOxSmoke trade-off) NOx decreases by 17% with Smoke still
224 J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229
Table 8
Optimized combustion systems after Stage 2.
Reference Reference
S1 Opt1 5 S1 Opt2
S2 Opt1 S2 Opt2
0 0
Height [mm]
Height [mm]
-5
-10 -10
-15
-20 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
Width [mm] Width [mm]
Fig. 17. Optimized piston bowl profiles best ISFC (left) and for best NOxSmoke (right). Optimum from Stage 2 and the reference engine have the same NA.
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
400 205 40
ISFC [g/kWh]
Smoke [FSN]
0.6
NOx [g/h]
395
30
200 0.4
390
20 0.2
385 195 0
Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2 Rf o1 o2
CA90abs [deg aTDC]
Smoke [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
190 200
390 0.2
180 150
Smoke [FSN]
NOx [g/h]
400 195 2
300
395 190 1
Fig. 18. Stage 2 optimized combustion systems assessment at 1200 rpm low load (top), 1600 rpm half load (mid) and 1800 rpm high load (bottom). Rf refers to the
reference combustion system, o1 to the Stage 2 Opt 1 and o2 to the Stage 2 Opt 2 combustion systems.
below 0.1 FSN at the expense of a minor increment in ISFC by 0.7%, high load and 1200 rpm low load. Results shown in Fig. 12 con-
below the acceptable limit. The two optimized configurations were firm that both combustion systems also work adequately in these
also evaluated for the other two operating conditions, 1800 rpm other operating conditions.
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 225
Table 9
Experimental and CFD results for S2 Opt1 and S2 Opt2 at 1600 rpm medium load.
The combustion system definitions for those optimal configura- the low load case both optimized bowls are able to reduce NOx
tions are included in Table 8, and the bowl profiles compared to the emissions by around 15%, keeping ISFC almost constant with less
reference combustion system and Stage 1 optimums are shown in than a 0.5% difference. At the high load case the trend is very sim-
Fig. 17. ilar with a reduction by 6.3% NOx for S2 Opt1 bowl and by 5% for S2
In this Stage 2 the two optimization paths provided quite sim- Opt2 bowl compared to the reference, together with a reduction in
ilar bowl geometries, with d/B 0.56 for best ISFC against 0.55 for ISFC of less than 1% for both optimized bowls. Soot emission levels
best NOxSmoke and K equal to 0.1 in both cases. Injection settings show little discrepancies that, due to the low value of the experi-
were also similar with the highest IP of 1520 bar and the earliest mental measurements, could be explained by experimental errors
SoIm of 356.72 aTDC, and they even share the highest P2 equal and/or inaccuracies in the soot model predictions. Nonetheless, the
to 2.44 bar. Therefore, the key difference between both optimiza- optimum bowl geometries provide competitive soot levels com-
tion paths is observed in the EGR level, which shifts from 17% for pared to the reference bowl, even following the trends predicted
the best ISFC to 21% for the best NOxSmoke. by the modeling results. Focusing now on pressure gradient, it
Fig. 18 compares the results of the two optimized configura- increases by around 18% in the low load case and by 2% in the high
tions from Stage 2 with those obtained with the reference combus- load case, also according with the trends previously predicted.
tion system. According to these results, S2 Opt1 and S2 Opt2 As a final remark, these results confirm how the reference bowl
decrease fuel consumption by 4.3% and by 3.2% respectively, NOx geometry was already optimized in terms of ISFC and therefore, the
slightly increases by 1% for S2 Opt1 but sharply decreases by 43% potential for further improvement by re-optimizing the bowl
for S2 Opt2. Smoke level is kept controlled at FSN levels below geometry is very limited. As a consequence, air management and
0.1 in both cases. injection setting in addition to the bowl geometry must be
As shown in Fig. 18 the optimized combustion systems were included in the optimization in order to decrease ISFC by improv-
also evaluated for the other two operating conditions, 1800 rpm ing the combustion system.
high load and 1200 rpm low load using the specific reference
setting for each case. The S2 Opt1 combustion system also works 7. Conclusions
adequately under high-load conditions. It is noticeable how the
S2 Opt2 improves further the NOx emissions and keeps a modest An optimization methodology based on a combination of CFD
reduction in ISFC and soot. modeling and the statistical Design of Experiments (DOE) tech-
nique known as Response Surface Method (RSM) was applied to
a 4-cylinder 4-stroke Medium Duty Direct Injection (DI) CI engine
6. Experimental validation
in order to reduce ISFC while keeping the main pollutants constant.
This methodology provided not only the optimum configurations
The piston geometries for both optimized combustion systems
but also the cause-effect relations between the control and target
obtained using the methodology described in this paper were
parameters. This improves the understanding of the requirements
machined and installed in the engine with the aim of validating
of the conventional diesel combustion system and what parame-
the quality of the CFD optimization results. The injection and air
ters are more attractive for being optimized.
management settings of the CFD optimums were implemented in
In a first optimization stage has been found how the combus-
order to replicate the exact conditions for both S2 Opt1 and S2
tion system geometry could only improve ISFC by 0.5% without
Opt2 combustion systems. Both cases were tested experimentally
increasing NOx emissions level. This study also indicated that a
at medium speed/load and the performance was compared with
swirl-supported with re-entrant bowl shape combustion system
the CFD results.
is still required for this engine and input parameter ranges.
In general, the agreement is good as indicated in Table 9, con-
After that, injection and air management settings were included
firming how the CFD model setup and the optimization methodol-
in order to increase the potential of the optimization and to be able
ogy performed well. According to the experimental results, the
to significantly reduce ISFC (around 5%), for constant NOx emis-
main objective, ISFC, was reduced by 5% and 4% with S2 Opt1
sions, as confirmed by the second optimization stage. It is also
and S2 Opt2 respectively, fairly similar to the 4.3% and 3.2% pre-
noticeable that 40% NOx reduction can be obtained keeping con-
dicted by the CFD, while the NOx and soot were kept constant or
stant ISFC and soot emissions. Optimization path leads to advanced
improved compared to the reference. In addition, the emission
SoI for improved ISFC, increased EGR in order to control NOx emis-
optimum, S2 Opt2, was able to reduce almost 40% NOx emissions
sions keeping a moderate impact on ISFC, while adjusting IP and P2
with slightly higher ISFC following also the trends predicted by
helps to control soot emissions. This path fits with the current
CFD. Finally, the pressure gradient increases by 10% in both cases,
trends followed in the field of diesel engine development.
showing a possible noise restriction, what was also captured accu-
rately by the CFD except for a small underprediction with the S2
Opt1. Appendix A. Response surfaces functions
As a result, the error between the CFD predictions and the
experimental validation results is below 3% in the emissions, 2% The mathematical model used to correlate the optimized input
in ISFC and 5% in noise, proving the robustness and accuracy of and the outputs of the Stage 1 are shown below
the new method.
Following the structure of the paper, the optimum bowls were Output C 1 db C 2 k C 3 MSN C 4 NA C 5
2 2
evaluated at the other operating conditions, 1200 rpm low load db C 6 k C 7 MSN2 C 8 NA2 C 9
and 1800 rpm high load, keeping their respective reference set- db MSN C 10 db k C 11 db NA C 12
tings. However, in the particular case of 1800 rpm high load
k MSN C 13 k NA C 14 MSN NA C 15
the air management and injection settings were slightly re-
adjusted to fulfill the mechanical restrictions of the engine along db k MSN C 16 db k NA C 17
the experiments. k MSN NA C 18 db MSN NA C 19
As concluded at the end of optimization Stage 1, the impact of 3
db k MSN NA C 20 MSN3 C 21 db C 22
the geometry itself on ISFC is very limited, while the effect on pol-
lutant emission levels is higher, as indicated in Tables 10 and 11. At NA3 C 23
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 227
where the inputs db, k, MSN and NA calculated as the example All the coefficient shown in Table 13 proved to be significant at
below. least for one of the outputs studied in this paper so as a matter of
simplifying the calculations, they were all kept. In order to show
db dbvalue dbmax dbmin =2=dbmax dbmin =2 the fit of the surfaces compared to the original data, Table 14
shows the R2 values.
It can be seen that, except for the pressure gradient that shows a
being dbvalue the value of db that will be calculated, dbmax the
lower fitting level than the other, all the surfaces can accurately
maximum value of db in the range used for the optimization
predict the values of the original DOE points.
and dbmin the minimum value of db in the range used for the
The mathematical model used to correlate the optimized input
optimization.
and the outputs of the Stage 2 are shown below
The coefficients C1 to C23 are described in Table 12.
A study of the significance level of the coefficients was per-
formed. The results obtained from the ANOVA for each coefficient Table 14
is shown in Table 13. R2 values for the surfaces obtained for every output in Stage 1.
Table 16 Table 17
P-value for all the coefficients used in the RSM for Stage 2. R2 values for the surfaces obtained for every output in Stage 2.
Output P-values for all coefficients Output Pmax dP/da NOx Smoke ISFC CA90abs
2
Pmax dP/da NOx Smoke ISFC CA90abs R 0.9981 0.9597 0.998 0.9904 0.9978 0.9934
C1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C3 0.0000 0.0091 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 where the inputs db, k, P2, EGR, IP and SoIm are calculated as the
C4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
example below.
C5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C7 0.0000 0.0230 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 db dbvalue dbmax dbmin =2=dbmax dbmin =2
C8 0.5700 0.6420 0.0398 0.4825 0.0747 0.0127
C9 0.1705 0.2001 0.0329 0.5237 0.0000 0.0185 The coefficients C1 to C50 are described in Table 15.
C10 0.6505 0.5300 0.0000 0.3154 0.0000 0.1019 A study of the significance level of the coefficients was per-
C11 0.0245 0.5276 0.2360 0.0587 0.5424 0.0000 formed. The results from the ANOVA for each coefficient is shown
C12 0.1376 0.2663 0.1135 0.0000 0.5721 0.6085 in Table 16.
C13 0.0176 0.3975 0.0556 0.6393 0.6081 0.4058
C14 0.1405 0.9186 0.0000 0.6269 0.2372 0.0011
All the coefficient shown in Table 16 proved to be significant at
C15 0.0309 0.0329 0.0575 0.3139 0.0000 0.0000 least for one of the outputs studied in this paper so as a matter of
C16 0.0000 0.6125 0.0000 0.4784 0.1610 0.0001 simplifying the calculations, they were all kept. In order to show
C17 0.0013 0.6125 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 the fit of the surfaces compared to the original data, Table 17
C18 0.3005 0.1559 0.0000 0.3973 0.0000 0.0000
shows the R2 values.
C19 0.0001 0.0243 0.0000 0.8713 0.0664 0.5043
C20 0.0000 0.7598 0.0000 0.5138 0.1373 0.0021 It can be seen that, except for the pressure gradient that shows a
C21 0.0000 0.0613 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 lower fitting level than the other, all the surfaces can accurately
C22 0.0001 0.2106 0.0000 0.3973 0.0443 0.0000 predict the values of the original DOE points.
C23 0.0000 0.2818 0.0001 0.4613 0.0000 0.0001
C24 0.0000 0.0449 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C25 0.0000 0.7598 0.0000 0.0092 0.0000 0.0000 References
C26 0.0000 0.9186 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C27 0.0103 0.7598 0.0000 0.8945 0.0000 0.0000
[1] Choi S, Shin S, Lee J, Min K, Choi H. The effects of the combustion chamber
C28 0.0000 0.2818 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 geometry and a double-row nozzle on the diesel engine emissions. Proc Inst
C29 0.0431 0.0531 0.2179 0.1067 0.0591 0.3849 Mech Eng, Part D: J Automobile Eng 2015;229(5):5908.
C30 0.3313 0.0378 0.0370 0.5781 0.2798 0.1015 [2] Atmanli A, Yksel B, Ileri E, Karaoglan AD. Response surface methodology
C31 0.2462 0.3716 0.1160 0.3768 0.0182 0.5971 based optimization of dieseln-butanolcotton oil ternary blend ratios to
C32 0.5816 0.5454 0.4214 0.6973 0.5600 0.0435 improve engine performance and exhaust emission characteristics. Energy
C33 0.0410 0.6538 0.0184 0.0547 0.3020 0.2457 Convers Manage 2015;90:38394.
C34 0.3848 0.0909 0.0458 0.3099 0.6375 0.3593 [3] Genzale, CL, Reitz RD, Musculus, MPB. Effects of piston bowl geometry on
C35 0.0081 mixture development and late-injection low-temperature combustion in a
C36 0.0522 heavy-duty diesel engine. SAE technical paper; 2008.
C37 0.0142 [4] Benajes J, Pastor JV, Garca A, Monsalve-Serrano J. An experimental
C38 0.0063 investigation on the influence of piston bowl geometry on RCCI performance
and emissions in a heavy-duty engine. Energy Convers Manage
C39 0.0026
2015;103:101930.
C40 0.0463
[5] Park SW. Optimization of combustion chamber geometry for stoichiometric
C41 0.0469
diesel combustion using a micro genetic algorithm. Fuel Process Technol
C42 0.0421 2010;91(11):174252.
C43 0.0021 [6] Wickman DD, Yun H, Reitz RD. Split-spray piston geometry optimized for HSDI
C44 0.0333 diesel engine combustion. SAE technical paper; 2003.
C45 0.025 [7] Shi Y, Reitz RD. Optimization of a heavy-duty compressionignition engine
C46 0.0194 fueled with diesel and gasoline-like fuels. Fuel 2010;89(11):341630.
C47 0.1311 [8] Kim D, Park S. Optimization of injection strategy to reduce fuel consumption
C48 0.0289 for stoichiometric diesel combustion. Fuel 2012;93:22937.
C49 0.021 [9] Sun Y, Reitz RD. Modeling diesel engine NOx and soot reduction with
C50 0.011 optimized two-stage combustion. SAE technical paper; 2006.
[10] Kokjohn SL, Reitz RD. A computational investigation of two-stage combustion
in a light-duty engine. SAE technical paper; 2008.
Output C 1 db C 2 k C 3 P2 C 4 EGR C 5 IP C 6 [11] Gafoor CPA, Gupta R. Numerical investigation of piston bowl geometry and
swirl ratio on emission from diesel engines. Energy Convers Manage
2 2
SoIm C 7 db C 8 k C 9 P22 C 10 EGR2 C 11 2015;101:54151.
[12] Ge H, Shi Y, Reitz R, Wickman D, Willems W. Engine development using multi-
IP2 C 12 SoI2m C 13 P2 IP C 14 P2 EGR C 15 dimensional CFD and computer optimization. SAE technical paper; 2010.
[13] Rakopoulos CD, Kosmadakis GM, Pariotis EG. Investigation of piston bowl
P2 SoIm C 16 P2 db C 17 P2 k C 18
geometry and speed effects in a motored HSDI diesel engine using a CFD
EGR IP C 19 EGR SoIm C 20 EGR db C 21 against a quasi-dimensional model. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51
(3):47084.
EGR k C 22 IP SoIm C 23 IP db C 24 [14] Yun H, Reitz RD. An experimental study on emissions optimization using
IP k C 25 SoIm db C 26 SoIm k C 27 micro-genetic algorithms in a HSDI diesel engine. SAE technical paper; 2003.
[15] Kim M., Liechty MP, Reitz RD. Application of micro-genetic algorithms for the
3 3
db k C 28 db C 29 k C 30 P23 C 31 optimization of injection strategies in a heavy-duty diesel engine. SAE
technical paper; 2005.
EGR3 C 32 MSN3 C 33 SoI3m C 34 db2 k C 35 [16] Shi Y, Reitz RD. Assessment of optimization methodologies to study the effects
of bowl geometry, spray targeting and swirl ratio for a heavy-duty diesel
db IP P2 C 36 db k P2 C 37 db k EGR C 38
engine operated at high-load. SAE technical paper; 2008.
db k IP C 39 db k SoIm C 40 [17] Shi Y, Ge H, Reitz RD. Computational optimization of internal combustion
engines. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
EGR IP SoIm C 41 EGR P2 k C 42 db2 P2 C 43 [18] Hajireza S, Regner G, Christie A, Egert M, Mittermaier H. Application of CFD
P2 IP k C 44 P2 IP SoIm C 45 P2 k SoIm C 46 modeling in combustion bowl assessment of diesel engines using DoE
methodology. SAE technical paper; 2006.
db2 k2 C 47 db k IP SoIm C 48 [19] Yuan Y, Li GX, Yu YS, Zhao P, Li HM. Multi-parameter and multi-object
db k IP P2 C 49 db k IP EGR C 50 optimization on combustion system of high power diesel engine based on
response surface method. Chin Int Combust Engine Eng 2012;5:005.
J. Benajes et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 110 (2016) 212229 229
[20] Reitz R, von der Ehe J. Use of in-cylinder pressure measurement and the [27] Karlsson A, Magnusson I, Balthasar M, Mauss F. Simulation of soot formation
response surface method for combustion feedback control in a diesel under diesel engine conditions using a detailed kinetic soot model. SAE
engine. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part D: J Automobile Eng 2006;220(11): technical paper; 1998.
165766. [28] Hiroyasu H, Kadota T. Models for combustion and formation of nitric oxide and
[21] Lee T, Reitz RD. Response surface method optimization of a high-speed direct- soot in direct injection diesel engines. SAE technical paper, 1976.
injection diesel engine equipped with a common rail injection system. J Eng [29] Huh KY, Gosman AD. A phenomenological model of diesel spray atomization.
Gas Turbines Power 2003;125(2):5416. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multiphase flows; 1991.
[22] Lapuerta M, Armas O, Hernndez JJ. Diagnosis of DI Diesel combustion from in- [30] Reitz RD, Diwakar R. Structure of high-pressure fuel sprays. SAE technical
cylinder pressure signal by estimation of mean thermodynamic properties of paper; 1987.
the gas. Appl Therm Eng 1999;19(5):51329. [31] Habchi C, Lafossas FA, Bard P, Broseta D. Formulation of a one-component
[23] Payri F, Molina S, Martn J, Armas O. Influence of measurement errors and fuel lumping model to assess the effects of fuel thermodynamic properties on
estimated parameters on combustion diagnosis. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26 internal combustion engine mixture preparation and combustion. SAE
(2):22636. technical paper; 2004.
[24] Bosch W. The fuel rate indicator: a new measuring instrument for display of [32] Yakhot V, Orszag SA. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic
the characteristics of individual injection. SAE technical paper, 1966. theory. J Sci Comput 1986;1(1):351.
[25] Methodology, STAR-CD. Version 4.18; 2012. [33] Angelberger C, Poinsot T, Delhay B. Improving near-wall combustion and wall
[26] Colin O, Benkenida A. The 3-zones extended coherent flame model (ECFM3Z) heat transfer modeling in SI engine computations. SAE technical paper; 1997.
for computing premixed/diffusion combustion. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2004;59 [34] Issa RI. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-
(6):593609. splitting. J Comput Phys 1986;62(1):4065.