High Compression Ratio Turbo

Gasoline Engine Operation Using

Alcohol Enhancement

PI: John B. Heywood

Sloan Automotive Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 19, 2014

Project ID FT016

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
 Overview
Timeline
• Project start date: 9/01/2011
• Project end date: 1/15/2015
(with no-cost extension)
• Percent complete: 77%
Budget
• Total project
funding:$1,203,122
– DOE share: $962,497
– Contractor share: $240,625
• Funding received in FY13:
$168,748
• Funding for FY14: $167,337
2
Barriers
• Barriers addressed
– Peak thermal efficiency (LDV)
> 45%
– Peak fuel efficiency
improvement (LDV) > 25%
– Emission control fuel penalty
< 1%
Partners
• Cummins Inc
• Project lead: MIT
 Relevance/Objectives
• Objectives:
– To explore and assess the potential for higher efficiency gasoline
engines through use of non-petroleum fuel components that remove
existing constraints on such engines while meeting future emissions
standards
– Investigate the benefits of knock-free SI engines through the use of
alcohol blending with gasoline
– Substantially improve efficiency through raising the compression
ratio, increasing boost (in turbocharged engines), and engine
downsizing, enabled by knock-resisting properties of alcohols
• FY13-14 goals
– Experiments and simulations to demonstrate thermal efficiency
improvement of > 25% over drive cycle for LDV
– Determine means of decreasing use of high octane fuel

3
 Approach/Strategy
• Approach: Ethanol’s unique properties as a SI fuel:
– High octane of ethanol can be used to avoid knock at high load
• Evaporative and chemical octane components important
– At part loads, lower octane gasoline used, minimizing the
amount of high octane fuel used through a driving cycle
• Strategy: Combination of engine tests, engine and
vehicle simulations, to quantify potential of approach
– Dyno-engine testing with gasoline and alcohol fuels
– Tests carried out in TC engine at MIT, and in a stronger MDV
engine at Cummins using different fuel compositions
– Simulations using combustion (Chemkin), engine (GT-Power)
and vehicle (Autonomie) models

4
 Project Milestones - 1
Phase 1-2

5
 Project Milestones - 2
Phase 3

6
 Technical Accomplishments
Experimental / Simulation Approach
Experimental Engine –
GM Ecotec LNF
• DISI turbocharged
• Inline 4 cylinder
• 9.2:1 Compression Ratio
• Maximum boost: 2 bar abs. MAP
7
GT-Power Simulation
• Results beyond experimental limits
and test constraints
– Engine speed, boost level,
compresison ratio, peak pressure
• Heat Transfer, charge cooling, and
combustion efficiencies
– Adjusted to match experimental
results
Livengood-Wu Auto-Ignition Integral
Model
• To predict knock onset using
pressure and temperature from the
simulation
 Technical Accomplishments
Performance Map
2500 Efficiency Contour
Efficiency Contour
0.34
WOT • Using knock resistant fuel (E85)
0.3
2000
4 0.32 • At MBT timing except over the
0.356 0.356 maximum pressure limits
0.356
BMEP (kPa)

0.3
Efficiency
1500 0.28 • Increases as the load increases,
0. 34

but there is a diminishing return

0.34 0.26
1000
0.34 • Increase is relatively large at light
0.24 load
0.3
0.3 0.22
500 0.3
0.26
0.26 0.26
Status: Experimental maps for the 2
0.2
0.18 0.18 liter TC engine for ethanol-
0 0.18 gasoline blends, defining BSFC,
1500 2000 2500 3000
efficiency, and WOT constraints
Engine Speed (rpm) completed
8
 Technical Accomplishments
Operating Limits
Knock Limits
0.3 • RON 91 ~ 1000 kPa BMEP
0.35 4
2000
0.356 0.356 0.35 • To reach above 1000 kPa BMEP,
0.35
0.356
spark retard or higher RON fuels
BMEP (kPa)

E20 0.35
0.35 required
1500
32
In-Cylinder Peak Pressure Limits
0. 34

0.
RON 96 E10
0.34
• 100 bar at 1800~1900 kPa BMEP at
0.34 MBT
1000
RON 91
0.32 [E85] WOT • Spark retard necessary above peak
32
Pressure Limit 0. pressure limits
0.3 0.32[E20] Knock Limit
0.3
500 0.28 0.3
[RON96] Knock Limit • Constraint on boost level and RC
0.26 0.28
0.24 0.28[E10] Knock Limit.26 Knock onset limits defined for range of
0.26
00. 0
0.22 .2224[RON91] Knock0.24
Limit
0.2
0.2 0.18 0 18 0.2 0. 22 ethanol-gasoline blends, including
1500 2000 2500 3000
effects of spark retard on torque,
Engine Speeds (rpm) efficiency, and knock threshold
9
 Technical Accomplishments
Performance Map at Higher Compression Ratio and Boost

11.5:1 CR 13:1 CR
4000 Efficiency 4000 Efficiency
WOT WOT
[RON91] Knock Limit 3500 [RON91] Knock Limit
3500
[E10] Knock Limit [E10] Knock Limit
[E25] Knock Limit [E25] Knock Limit
3000 [E50] Knock Limit 3000 [E50] Knock Limit
BMEP (kPa)

BMEP (kPa)
8
0.3

2500 0.39
2500

5
36
0.3

2000 0. 2000
7
0.3
0.37 5
1500 0.36 3 1500 0.3
0.3
5 0.3

0.3
0.3
5 3
1 0.3

5
1000 0.3 1000 0.35
0.33 0.2
9 0.3

0.2
0.29

3 0.33 0.29
0.31

0.3
0.33
9
0.31

1
0.31 0.29 0.31 0.29
500 0.29 0.25 500 0.2 0.29
0.25 5 0.25
0.25 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21
0.21 0.21 0.17 0.21
0.17 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.13
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Engine Speed (rpm) Engine Speed (rpm)

Effects of higher compression ratio and boost on part-load efficiency determined.

10
 Technical Accomplishments
Spark Retard Effect in a TC Engine
1.05 1.4
Light Load (80 kPa)

Normalized fuel mass

1.35
WOT (138 kPa)
Normalized NIMEP

1
1.3

0.95 1.25

1.2
0.9
1.15
81 kPa
100 kPa 1.1
0.85 base boost (130)
135 kPa 1.05
WOT (140)
0.8 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Spark Timing Relative to MBT Timing Spark Timing Relative to MBT

• Due to increasing MAP, NIMEP • Due to increasing MAP, fuel

reduction is less at high boost consumption increases with fixed
air-to-fuel ratio

11
 Technical Accomplishments
Engine in Vehicle Simulation Approach
Efficiency Map Experiments and
simulation at higher CR
– Fuel Conversion Efficiencies
without knock (E85 fuel)
– Knock onset limits for different
ethanol blends

Torque (Nm)
Driving Cycle Simulation E20
– Operation points on the E10
efficiency map determined E0
– Spark retard incorporated

Ethanol consumption
– Ethanol fraction determined at
each time step Speed (RPM)
– Fuel economy determined
 Technical Accomplishments
Engine in Vehicle Simulation Results
UDDS Cycle UDDS Cycle
0.32 0.12

0.3 0.1
Engine Brake Efficiency

Ethanol Fraction
0.28 9.2 0.08 9.2
11.5 11.5
13.5 13.5
0.26 0.06

0.24 0.04

0.22 0.02

0.2 0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
Engine Displaced Volume (Liters) Engine Displaced Volume (Liters)

• Effect of downsizing is large in this this urban driving cycle: improvement

in thermal efficiency ~ 40% with downsizing from 2.4 to 1 liter engine
• Impact of increased compression ratio is small
– little efficiency difference between 11.5 and 13.5
13
 Technical Accomplishments
Illustrative LDV Examples and Results

• 3200 lb. vehicle with 2.5 liter NA engine downsized to 1.25 liter boosted
TC engine), CR of 11.5, using up to 10 deg. spark retard when needed:
1. Average engine efficiency and MPG improve 33, 27, and 14% for Urban,
Highway, and US06 cycles, respectively, relative to NA engine (average
24%), at constant performance.
2. Ethanol use is 1.5, 0.5, and 8% of gasoline use (on an energy basis):
average 3.3%.
3. Use of spark retard important; with MBT spark timing, average efficiency
and MPG improves about 4%, but average ethanol use is 15%.
4. Increasing compression ratio from 11.5 to 13.5 has modest effect on
efficiency and MPG, but doubles the ethanol consumption.
5. Increasing boost (to 3000 kPa BMEP) and further downsizing to 1 liter
engine (at CR of 11.5) increases average efficiency by an additional 15%,
but increases average ethanol use to 7.5%.

14
Collaboration and Coordination
with Other Institutions
• MIT leading the effort
– Experiments with lower pressure capability engine
– Simulations (chemical/knock, TC engine, vehicle)
– MIT team: John Heywood, Leslie Bromberg, Daniel Cohn, Young Suk Jo,
Raymond Lewis
• Cummins Inc
– High pressure capability boosted engine tests
– Providing co-share for the project
– Leader: Samuel Geckler

15
 Remaining Challenges/Barriers

• Efficiency
– Met project objective (improvement in efficiency by >25%) in
lightly loaded cycles (Urban, Highway), but not US06
– We have not reached target best thermal efficiency of 45% for
LDV
• Ethanol Consumption
– Relatively high rate-of-consumption of high octane fuel in
aggressive cycles
– Lack of widespread availability of high octane fuel (i.e., E85)
could be an issue

16
 Proposed Future Work
• FY14:
– Evaluation of alcohol enhancement in medium duty vehicles
using Autonomie models for multiple drive cycles
– Evaluation of hydrous ethanol for light duty vehicles
– Explore engine’s octane requirement over full load range

• FY15 (No-cost extension):

– Determination of cost of implementing technology onboard
vehicles
• Cost of technology
• Cost of engine and vehicle calibration
• Cost of ownership

17
 Summary
Project Accomplishments to date
1. Developed broader understanding of turbocharged gasoline engine
performance maps, incorporating maximum pressure limits, fuel
octane and knock onset constraints, effects of spark retard, higher
boost/downsizing trade-off.

2. Demonstrated that ethanol’s knock suppressing potential is

substantial, and will achieve project’s goals: combination of chemical
octane and evaporative cooling impact.

3. Quantified effects of higher compression ratios and higher boost on

performance and efficiency of knock-suppressed engine: raising
boost with engine downsizing has much larger impact.

4. Engine-in-vehicle simulations, with high compression ratio, high

boost, and major engine downsizing indicate up to some 40 percent
improved average engine efficiency and miles per gallon (urban
driving) at essentially the same vehicle acceleration performance,
relative to a naturally-aspirated gasoline engine.
18
 Technical Backup Slides

25
 Technical Accomplishments
Knock Onset and Speed
1600
Knock Limits in Simulation
Peak Pressure • Autoignition integral
1400 5 degree after Peak Pressure
10 degree after Peak Pressure
BMEP (kPa)

15 degree after Peak Pressure

1200 Experimental KO
Linear Knock Shifting

1000 • KO (Knock Onset) timing changes

knock limit in simulation
800
Knock Limits in Experiments
• Knock onset occurs later after
600
peak pressure as speed increases
400
• KO insensitive to speed as both
1500 2000 2500 3000
KLSA and MBT timing advance
Speed (RPM)
Empirical autoignition knock model has been developed, validated, and
used to define knock onset for E0 to E85 on these simulated maps.
26