Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 1999-01-0187

Calculation of Heat Release in Direct

Injection Diesel Engines
Michael F. J. Brunt
Anglia Polytechnic University

Kieron C. Platts
Ford Motor Co. Ltd.

Reprinted From: Processes of Diesel Engine Combustion

(SP-1444)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
Calculation of Heat Release in Direct Injection Diesel Engines
Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Accurate heat release analysis of cylinder pressure data
is a powerful tool used in the development of diesel
engines. However, significant errors in the calculated
heat release values can occur due to shortcomings in
both the experimental measurements and in the heat
release model and this can produce misleading results.
This paper shows the effect of such common errors on
the calculated gross heat release data obtained when
analysing simulated and experimental direct injection die-
sel engine pressure diagrams using a traditional single-
zone First Law heat release model. The work reveals that
the greatest uncertainty in most cases will be caused by
assuming the wrong rate of heat transfer between the cyl-
inder charge and combustion chamber walls. To over-
come this limitation, an alternative heat release model is
proposed and shown to give very good results over a
wide range of operating conditions. This heat release
model, which uses a variable polytropic index to cater for
the heat transfer, is best suited for diesel engine perfor-
mance and development applications where consistent
diesel engine heat release data are required.
BACKGROUND
Thermodynamic analysis of measured cylinder pressure
data is a very powerful tool used for quantifying combus-
tion parameters(1,2). There are two main approaches
which are often referred to as “burn rate analysis” and
“heat release analysis”. Burn rate analysis is mainly used
for determining burn angles in gasoline engines and is
used to obtain the mass fraction burned which is a norm-
alised quantity with a scale of 0 to 1. Heat release analy-
sis is most commonly used for diesel engine combustion
studies and produces absolute energy with units of
Joules or Joules/degree. The rate of heat release is a
very important parameter since this has a very significant
influence on combustion noise, pressure rise rate and
NOx emissions. The cumulative (or integral) heat release
characteristic is equally important since this is indicative
of the combustion characteristics and the value at the
1
1999-01-0187
Michael F. J. Brunt
Anglia Polytechnic University
Kieron C. Platts
Ford Motor Co. Ltd.
end of combustion can be used to quantify combustion
efficiency.
A number of technical papers(2-8) have studied the main
sources of errors associated with heat release calcula-
tions. The most significant sources of heat release errors
have been shown to be due to both cylinder pressure
measurement errors, caused by incorrect phasing, abso-
lute pressure referencing offset and noise, and heat
release model errors, due to deficiencies in modelling
spatial variations, gas properties and charge to wall heat
transfer. In addition to such errors producing incorrect
numerical values for the heat release quantities, mislead-
ing and non-physical heat release characteristics can
also result, such as the occurrence of negative heat
release rates during the post-combustion period. Heat
release analysis is also known to be much more sensitive
to errors compared to burn calculations because the nor-
malising process has the effect of reducing the impact of
calculation errors.
It is important to emphasise that the accuracy required
from the heat release analysis will depend on the applica-
tion. In the case of thermodynamic measurements con-
ducted in a research laboratory for example, where
perhaps a detailed energy balance is being attempted,
extremely high accuracy will be sought and high preci-
sion pressure measurements will be undertaken. In addi-
tion, a great deal of time would be taken to make sure
that the pressure data is precisely phased and refer-
enced, optimum noise reduction techniques would be
applied and exact values specified for air to fuel ratio
(AFR), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), start of injection
(SOI), inlet charge temperature and estimated end of
combustion (EEOC).
In the case of more routine engine development applica-
tions on the other hand, where perhaps hundreds of test
measurements are made each and every day, larger
pressure measurements errors will tend to be present
and it may be impractical to take into account test to test
variations in the AFR, EGR and inlet charge temperature
in the data analysis. The emphasis will therefore be on
using a heat release analysis methodology which is both
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
robust, thereby giving consistent and repeatable values,
and is numerically efficient, thus minimising processing
time and giving real-time calculation capability.
This paper is directed at the latter application where the
requirement is for consistency of the heat release calcu-
lations when using a fixed set-up to efficiently process
large quantities of “real” pressure data from a variety of
engines. The main objectives of this paper are to first
examine and quantify the main sources of errors in gross
heat release calculations, to then explore the merits of
using an alternative heat release model and finally to
compare the results obtained when using alternative heat
release models for analysing experimental direct injection
(DI) diesel engine cylinder pressure data.
TRADITIONAL FIRST LAW (TFL) HEAT
RELEASE MODEL
THE HEAT RELEASE MODEL – The purpose of this
section is to evaluate the accuracy of a traditional single-
zone First Law (TFL) heat release model and determine
its sensitivity to assumptions and typical measurement
errors. Such models are common and have been
described elsewhere (9-11). Single-zone-models are nor-
mally employed in preference to the potentially more
accurate multi-zone (two or more zone) models since
they are less complex, numerically more efficient and
usually yield results of similar accuracy. The single-zone
models do not include spatial variations and hence
assume uniform charge temperature and composition,
this means for example that the single-zone model peak
charge temperature is much lower than the actual peak
burned gas temperature. Terms for work, chemical
energy changes (heat release) and changes in sensible
internal energy are always included but additional terms
may also be incorporated for cylinder charge to wall heat
transfer, crevice volumes, blowby, fuel enthalpy and in-
cylinder fuel injection mass. Previous work has shown
that, with the exception of charge to wall heat transfer,
these additional effects are usually small for production
engines and can be neglected with minimal loss of accu-
racy.
The charge to wall heat transfer is also often ignored for
simplicity and the heat release thus determined is
referred to as “net” heat release. When heat transfer
effects are included the heat release energy calculated is
described as “gross” heat release. Net heat release val-
ues are typically 15% lower than those obtained on a
gross heat release basis(10,11).
The traditional single-zone First Law equation used in
this paper was:
γ 1
dQhr = . p. dV + .V . dp + dQw
γ −1 γ −1
where Qhr is the gross heat release, γ is the mean ratio
of specific heats (gamma), p is the cylinder pressure, V is
the cylinder volume and Qw is the wall heat transfer.
Gamma varies with charge temperature and composition
and is known to have a very significant effect on the cal-
culated heat release energy. Ideally, gamma would be
varied with fuel specification, air to fuel ratio (AFR),
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), charge pressure and
charge temperature but for general purpose applications
gamma is usually made a function of temperature only.
For the analysis of simulated data in this section, an
approximate relationship was used for gamma which was
based on a previous(11) gasoline engine correlation with
a small offset applied to accommodate the leaner mix-
tures used in diesel engines. This equation was:-
γ = 135
. − 6.0 * 10 −5 * T + 10
. * 10 −8 * T 2 (2)
where T is the temperature in K.
Values for gamma from this equation are 1.3 and 1.27 at
temperatures of 1000K and 2000K respectively. It should
be noted that whilst equation (2) should give gamma val-
ues within circa +- 0.02 of the correct value for diesel fuel
under all operating conditions when the correct tempera-
ture is used, further errors may be incurred due to inac-
curacies in estimating the charge temperature.
The above equations have been used to give the incre-
mental gross heat release energy over a given crank
angle interval. The cumulative gross heat release is
obtained by summing the incremental energies over the
combustion period. Crevice volumes, blow-by and in-
cylinder fuel injection effects are not catered for with
equation (1) and will not be considered further in this
paper. Appendix A gives further information on the First
Law equation derivation, nomenclature used and the
implicit assumptions made.
The heat release results shown in this paper were calcu-
lated using LUCID2 post-processing combustion analysis
software. The LUCID2 software contains algorithms for
calculation of IMEP, peak cycle pressure, pressure rise
rate burn angles, heat release, charge temperature, esti-
mated end of combustion (EEOC), polytropic indexes,
misfires and so on and includes statistical analysis of the
individual cycle data. Charge to wall heat transfer is
accommodated using the well known Woschni(12) heat
transfer equation whilst charge temperature is estimated
from the measured cylinder pressure data by first assum-
ing a charge temperature at a specified location in the
engine cycle and then applying the perfect gas equation.
Absolute pressure referencing is carried out using the
polytropic index referencing method (18).
CYLINDER PRESSURE DATA – The evaluation work
described in this paper was carried out using both simu-
lated and experimental pressure data, simulated data
only being used in the first part of the paper whilst the
(1) experimental measurements are described later. Simu-
lated cylinder pressure data has the advantage that it is
known to be free from common measurement errors and
provides a source of heat release data for comparing the
heat release model results against.
2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

The simulated pressure data were produced by a two-
zone thermodynamic engine model ENGSIM(13) which
includes for variable specific heats, multiple chemical
species, dissociation, wall heat transfer and variable
combustion chamber geometry. Appendix B gives further
details of the simulation program, the assumed engine
specification and the two engine operating conditions
simulated. Also shown in Appendix B are the simulated
cylinder pressure curves for these two data cases. Both
simulated test cases are for turbocharged direct injection
diesel engines operating at 3000 rpm with case 1 having
the Annand(14) equation using a convective multiplier of
0.45), the simulated heat transfer areas were not fully
representative of a diesel engine and the fact that the
heat release model used a single-zone approach which
does not give realistic flame temperatures. In addition,
errors in gamma will also affect the heat release and
hence give the appearance of an incorrect heat transfer
rate.
2800
Multiplier=2
Multiplier=3
2400

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

a peak cylinder pressure and gross IMEP of 80 bar and
12.7 bar respectively and case 2 having corresponding 2000
values of 131 bar and 18.7 bar respectively. Case 2 is Simulation Model
1600
therefore representative of a very high load condition Multiplier=1
whilst case 1 is a medium to high load condition. Both 1200 Multiplier=0
cases deliberately have a relatively large, pre-mixed
energy characteristic so that effects on the heat release 800

curves can more readily be seen. 400

Simulated Data Case 2
First Law with
Woschni Heat Transfer

EVALUATION OF ERRORS USING A 0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TRADITIONAL FIRST LAW HEAT RELEASE
Crank Angle (degs)
MODEL
Figure 1. Effect of the assumed heat transfer coefficient
THE EFFECT OF HEAT TRANSFER – Figure 1 shows on the calculated cumulative heat release
the effect on the calculated cumulative heat release using First Law equation with Woschni
energy of varying the charge to wall heat transfer coeffi- correlation and simulated cylinder pressure
cient for the case of simulated data case 2. The multiplier data
for the Woschni heat transfer equation (a multiplier of
unity is as per the Woschni(12) paper) was varied from 0.0 100
(adiabatic or 'net') through 3.0 (3 times the Woschni coef- 90 Simulated Data Case 2
First Law with
ficient). Also shown in Figure 1 is the cumulative fuel 80 Woschni Heat Transfer
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

Multiplier=2 Multiplier=3
energy output by the ENGSIM engine simulation program 70
which produced the cylinder pressure data. The results 60 Simulation Model
show that the assumed rate of heat transfer does have a 50
very significant effect, both on the shape of the heat 40
release curve and on the maximum heat release energy 30 Multiplier=1
(and hence on the inferred combustion efficiency). 20
Neglecting or underestimating the heat transfer causes a 10
Multiplier=0

low value to be produced for the maximum cumulative 0

heat release and a negative slope to the heat release -10
curve during post-combustion expansion. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crank Angle (degs)
Figure 2 shows the equivalent plot to Figure 1 but this
time in terms of the rate of heat release (expressed in Figure 2. Effect of the assumed heat transfer coefficient
terms of J/deg). This reveals a similar situation to that for on the calculated heat release rate using First
the cumulative heat release curve in that neglecting or Law equation with Woschni correlation and
underestimating the heat transfer produces low values for simulated cylinder pressure data
the heat release rate. In addition, negative heat release
rates are produced for the post-combustion expansion The important point to note from Figures 1 and 2 is that
phase and also for the period prior to the start of combus- heat transfer does have a very significant effect on the
tion. calculated heat release curves. Neglecting heat transfer
gives errors of the order of 15% and the wrong shape for
Figures 1 and 2 both reveal best agreement between the
the curves, which is undesirable. Overestimating the heat
simulated and heat release model heat release energies
transfer will give excessive maximum cumulative heat
when a multiplier of circa 2 is applied to the Woschni
release energy (and hence the appearance of combus-
equation. This does not imply that the Woschni equation
tion efficiencies of over 100%) and the appearance of
itself is at fault since the heat transfer rate in the ENGSIM
combustion continuing after combustion really has been
simulation model could be varied (actually calculated with
completed.

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

THE EFFECT OF GAMMA – Figure 3 shows the effect of errors close to TDC, as would be expected, and give the
variation in the assumed value of gamma on the cumula- appearance of a high rate (positive or negative) prior to
tive heat release using the same simulated pressure data the start of combustion. The peak rate of heat release is
as before. The Woschni heat transfer multiplier was set to increased by circa 15% by the 1.0 degree advance in
unity for this plot. In this case, gamma is varied by +-0.04 phasing.
relative to the "base gamma" calculated from equation
(2). The results show that increasing gamma has the 120

effect of reducing the calculated heat release, as might Simulated Data Case 2,
100
be expected from inspection of equation (1) since the first First Law with Heat Transfer

Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

two terms are both divided by (gamma-1). The +0.04 and 80
Base Gamma - 0.04
-0.04 offsets in gamma, which are very large compared Base Gamma
to expected variations caused by AFR, EGR, etc. pro- 60

duced errors of circa -7% and +8% respectively in the 40

maximum cumulative heat release. In addition, gamma
also affects the slope of the heat release curve after the 20
Base Gamma + 0.04
completion of combustion, a low value of gamma giving
0
the appearance of "negative" combustion.
-20
2400 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crank Angle (degs)

2000 Figure 4. Effect of the assumed ratio of specific heats

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

Base Gamma -0.04

(gamma) on the calculated heat release rate
1600
Base Gamma using First Law equation with Woschni heat
Base Gamma +0.04
transfer correlation and simulated cylinder
1200
pressure data
800
2400

400 Simulated Data Case 2,

First Law with Heat Transfer
2000
Cumulative Heat Release (J)

0
TDC +1 degree
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1600
Crank Angle (degs)
Correct Phase
Figure 3. Effect of the assumed ratio of specific heats 1200

(gamma) on the calculated cumulative heat TDC -1 degree

release using First Law equation with Woschni 800

heat transfer correlation and simulated

400 Simulated Data Case 2,
cylinder pressure data First Law with Heat Transfer

0
Figure 4 shows the heat release rate plot corresponding -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
to the same conditions as Figure 3. This confirms that Crank Angle (degs)
using the correct value of gamma is indeed important,
the -0.04 change in gamma increasing the peak rate of Figure 5. Effect of crank angle phase error on the
heat release by circa 15% but also giving a more nega- calculated cumulative heat release using First
tive rate of heat release during the expansion phase. Law equation with Woschni heat transfer
correlation and simulated cylinder pressure
THE EFFECT OF CRANK ANGLE PHASING – Figure 5 data
shows the effect of varying the crank angle phasing by +-
1.0 degrees about the correct value. This plot reveals a This level of error caused by incorrect crank angle phas-
very high sensitivity to phasing errors and shows errors in ing is similar to that incurred for IMEP (15) and empha-
the maximum cumulative heat release of circa +-8%/ sises the importance of accurate setting of the crank
degree. Adding 1.0 degree to the assumed TDC position angle encoder system in diesel engine measurements.
increases the cumulative heat release and causes the Low values for both IMEP and maximum cumulative heat
heat release curve to be negative during post- release would suggest the assumed TDC being phased
combustion expansion too early. Gasoline engines, with lower compression ratio,
appear to have about half the sensitivity(11) to such
Figure 6 is the heat release rate plot corresponding to errors.
Figure 5. This shows that phasing errors cause large

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

approximately include for the charge to wall heat transfer

100
and will be referred to in this paper as the "Polytropic
90
Simulated Data Case 2, Index First Law" (PIFL) heat release model.
80 First Law with Heat Transfer
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

TDC +1 degree
70 The PIFL heat release equation for the incremental heat
60 release, ∆Qhr,2, between two crank angle positions (1
50 and 2) in the engine cycle is:-
40
n
30 TDC -1 degree V2  V 1
∆Qhr ,2 = .[ p 2 − p1.   ] (3)
20
γ −1 V 2
10 Correct Phase
0 where V and p refer to the cylinder volume and pressure
-10 respectively whilst n and γ refer to the polytropic index
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Crank Angle (degs) and ratio of specific heats.

Figure 6. Effect of crank angle phase error on the The mean gamma term is assumed to be independent of
calculated heat release rate using First Law the polytropic index and would still be based on the tem-
equation with Woschni heat transfer perature correlation as used with the traditional First Law
correlation and simulated cylinder pressure equation. Appendix C provides a full derivation of this
data equation including nomenclature and description of
assumptions.
SUMMARY OF ERROR SENSITIVITY USING THE The incremental energies thus calculated are then
TRADITIONAL FIRST LAW HEAT RELEASE EQUATION – summed in the usual way to obtain the cumulative gross
The brief analysis above has shown that the calculated heat release. If heat transfer is ignored by replacing the
cumulative heat release and heat release rates are very polytropic index, n, by the ratio of specific heats, γ, it is
sensitive to the assumed rate of heat transfer, the value easy to show that this equation produces similar results
of gamma used and crank angle phasing accuracy. Other to the traditional First Law equation used earlier with the
errors, such as absolute pressure referencing (pressure heat transfer term set to zero. The main advantage of this
"pegging"), errors in the specified compression ratio and equation is that charge to wall heat transfer can be
pressure system measurement system sensitivity errors approximately included for in the polytropic index term. To
will also have some effect on the accuracy of the heat be most accurate the polytropic index term needs to be
release calculations but these should be relatively small varied continuously during the heat release calculations,
where good pressure measurement procedures are fol- previous work(11) showing that significant errors were
lowed. The TDC phasing should normally be set to within incurred under certain somewhat extreme conditions
+-0.2 degrees for high accuracy IMEP measurement and where the index was not varied. A further potential
this source of error should be then be minimised. Heat advantage is that the implied heat transfer can be auto-
release errors caused by variations in AFR and EGR matically adjusted via the experimentally determined
affecting gamma will clearly produce errors of perhaps +- polytropic indexes for engine to engine variations in the
4% although on average the errors should be relatively heat transfer coefficient.
small using an appropriate equation for gamma.
Figure 7 shows how the polytropic index, calculated from
The largest error in the calculated heat release energy in simulated pressure-volume data at 40°ATDC, typically
practice is most likely to be incurred by ignoring the varies with engine speed and assumed heat transfer
charge to wall heat transfer. Smaller errors would result coefficient. In this case, the engine simulation was set
from assuming "typical" heat transfer rates although such such that combustion was completed close to TDC and
errors would probably still dominate in most cases. Net hence well before the point at which the polytropic index
heat release values are very often used in preference to was calculated. Polytropic index was calculated from
gross heat release values, despite the errors which have pressure (p) and volume (V) data over a crank angle
been demonstrated, because this reduces the amount of range (1 to 2) using equation (4):-
computation and avoids the need for heat transfer param-
eters to be specified. ln( p 2 / p 1)
n= (4)
POLYTROPIC INDEX FIRST LAW (PIFL) HEAT
ln(V 1 / V 2 )
RELEASE MODEL Figure 7 shows that the calculated polytropic index for the
post-combustion data varies with heat transfer rate, an
Previous work(11) applied to gasoline engine heat release increasing value for the expansion index corresponding
analysis has shown that a modified First Law equation to increasing heat transfer. A similar situation exists for
can be used to calculate the gross heat release energy the compression index except that the polytropic index
which does not significantly increase the computational reduces with increasing heat transfer out of the combus-
load. This approach involves using the polytropic index to tion chamber.

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

1.42 2.5

1.4 Polytropic Index Calculated at 40 Degrees

ATDC, Gamma Circa 1.23 2
1.38
Twice Datum Heat Transfer

Correction Factor
1.5
Polytropic Index

1.36
Datum Heat Transfer
1.34 1

1.32
50% of Datum Heat Transfer 0.5
1.3 Simulated Data,18:0 AFR,
19.0 Compression Ratio
1.28 0

1.26
-0.5
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Engine Speed (rpm) Crank Angle (degs)

Figure 7. Typical variation in expansion polytropic index Figure 8. Assumed polytropic index correction factor,
(at 40°ATDC) with engine speed and heat calculated from simulated diesel engine
transfer coefficient, calculated using simulated conditions, used for the PIFL heat release
diesel engine pressure data model

The compression and expansion polytropic indexes can The method used to calculate gross heat release using
only be calculated immediately before and after the com- the PIFL heat release model therefore is as follows:-
bustion phase of the engine cycle. Burn rate models used
1. determine the estimated end of combustion (EEOC)
in gasoline engine analysis do not normally vary the
indexes during combustion and use the compression 2. calculate the compression and expansion polytropic
index up to TDC and the expansion index after TDC. This indexes
approach has been shown to work well for normalised 3. carry out heat release calculations up to TDC using
burn curves and generally produces good results with the compression index (from 2 above) multiplied by
gross heat release. However, the use of fixed polytropic the correction factor for that crank angle
indexes cannot give the correct heat transfer characteris- 4. continue with the heat release calculations after TDC
tic prior to TDC and immediately after TDC and some using the expansion index (from 2 above) multiplied
means of varying the polytropic index with crank angle is by the correction factor for that crank angle
clearly desirable if consistent heat release data are to be
produced. Appendix C provides further details of the calculation of
EEOC and the polytropic indexes.
The polytropic index for non-fired conditions reduces dur-
ing compression prior to TDC, going negative at TDC. On Figure 9 shows the inferred heat transfer using the PIFL
the expansion stroke, the polytropic index is high at TDC heat release model and simulated cylinder pressure data.
and reduces rapidly during the 10× immediately following The heat transfer is inferred from the difference in the
TDC. A discontinuity in the characteristic therefore occurs heat release calculated by using both gamma (adiabatic)
at TDC due to the change in sign of the cylinder volume and n for the exponent in equation (3). Without the poly-
ratio. This characteristic, when normalised, is relatively tropic index correction being applied, the inferred heat
independent of the operating conditions although it does transfer prior to TDC is negative (whilst it should be posi-
vary somewhat with compression ratio. tive) and zero at TDC (since no change in volume), there-
after rising rapidly to the expected value. With the
Hence, it is clear that the polytropic indexes, calculated correction factor applied, the inferred heat transfer prior
before and after combustion, can be varied during the to TDC is much more realistic and only a small difference
combustion period according to the normalised charac- occurs after 20°ATDC. Clearly, the heat transfer charac-
teristic to obtain a more realistic heat transfer profile. Fig- teristic with the polytropic index multiplier is much more
ure 8 shows the correction factor used for this work, this realistic than when using constant polytropic indexes and
being obtained by normalising the polytropic index this approach has been used for the PIFL heat release
obtained from the simulation program (with a compres- model in the remainder of this paper.
sion ratio of 19.0:1) for no-combustion, elevated tempera-
ture conditions and at 1.0 degree resolution. The Figure 10 shows the inferred heat transfer using the PIFL
correction factor varies from unity mainly over the range heat release model (with polytropic index multiplier)
TDC +-10° and deviates from unity by circa +-1.3 at TDC. against the heat transfer given by the Woschni heat
The correction factor is not symmetric about TDC transfer equation for the two simulated pressure data
because it also includes for changes in gamma. Unity cases. The PIFL model heat transfer rate is typically
correction factor is assumed outside of TDC +- 50°. twice that for the Woschni heat transfer equation with
unity multiplier although the profile is similar. Comparison

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

between the PIFL and twice the Woschni equation heat to gamma in terms of the change in the magnitude of the
transfer (as seemed to be appropriate earlier in Figures heat release curves is greater for PIFL, being approxi-
1 and 2) for simulated data case 2 shows that the latter mately +15% and -12% for the -0.04 and +0.04 gamma
predicts slightly higher values just after TDC and slightly offsets respectively.
lower values during the later expansion process. The
absolute differences are relatively small compared to the 3000

heat release rate or to the errors associated with ignoring

heat transfer altogether. 2500

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

Base Gamma -0.04
8 2000

7
1500 Base Gamma +0.04
6 With Polytropic Correction
Heat Transfer Rate (J/deg)

5 1000
Base Gamma
4
500
Simulated Data Case 2,
3 No Polytropic Correction Polytropic Index First Law

2 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 Crank Angle (degs)
Inferred Heat Transfer for
0 Simulated Data Case 2 Figure 11. Effect of assumed gamma on the calculated
-1 cumulative heat release using the PIFL model
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 and simulated cylinder pressure data
Crank Angle (degs)

Figure 9. Effect of polytropic index correction factor on These errors are simply due to the (gamma-1) term
the inferred heat transfer rate using the PIFL which means that the effect on the calculated heat
model and simulated cylinder pressure data release increases as gamma is made smaller. The TFL
heat release model, equation (1), is less sensitive
10
because the p.dv term is also multiplied by gamma. This
Woschni * 2 suggests that gamma needs to be accurate to within
9
Simulated Case 2
Inferred from Polytropic Index about +-0.01, which is probably just about achievable
8 Simulated Case 2 given the variation of gamma with AFR and EGR. It might
Heat Transfer Rate (J/deg)

7
Woschni Inferred from Polytropic Index also be possible to improve on the accuracy further by
Sim' Case 2 Simulated Case 1
6 applying a small offset to gamma as a function of engine
5 load (as determined from the pressure data and IMEP.
4

3 120

2
Simulated Data Case 2,
Woschni 100
1 Polytropic Index First Law
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

Simulated Case 1
Base Gamma
0
80
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Base Gamma -0.04
Crank Angle (degs)
60
Figure 10. Comparison of the Woschni correlation and
polytropic index First Law inferred heat 40

transfer rates for two cases of simulated

Base Gamma +0.04
cylinder pressure data 20

0
EVALUATION OF ERRORS USING THE PIFL -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
HEAT RELEASE MODEL Crank Angle (degs)

Figure 12. Effect of assumed gamma on the calculated

THE EFFECT OF GAMMA – Figure 11 and 12 shows the heat release rate using the PIFL heat release
effect of varying gamma compared to that calculated model and simulated cylinder pressure data
using equation (2) by a relatively large amount of +-0.04.
This same comparison was done earlier for the traditional THE EFFECT OF POLYTROPIC INDEX – The polytropic
First Law equation (Figures 3 and 4) but a comparison index is calculated from the pressure data but is sensitive
between the two sets of graphs shows two main differ- to errors in the pressure data. Typical pressure data
ences. First, gamma for the PIFL model acts purely as a errors include signal noise, absolute pressure referencing
scaling factor (as shown by equation (3)) and incorrect errors, drift and thermal shock. Figures 13 and 14 show
values do not change the slope of the heat release the effect of +-.02 offsets in the calculated expansion
curves before or after combustion. Second, the sensitivity

7
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

polytropic index. An increased expansion index is in line

2500
with increased heat transfer and therefore increased heat 4 3
release. The graphs show that the expansion index off-

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

2000
sets of +-0.02 produce circa +-3% error in the heat
release and a small change in the post-combustion heat 2
release slopes. 1500 1

3000
1000
Datum Expansion Index +0.02
2500
1. Simulation Model, Data Case 1
Cumulative Heat Release (J)

500 2. Polytropic Index First Law, Data Case 1

3. Simulation Model, Data Case 2
2000 4. Polytropic Index First Law, Data Case 2
Datum Expansion Index
0
1500 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Datum Expansion Index -0.02 Crank Angle (degs)

1000 Figure 15. Comparison of the calculated cumulative heat

500
0
-10
Figure 13. Effect of variation in the expansion index on
the calculated cumulative heat release using
the PIFL model and simulated cylinder
pressure data
A change in the compression index (not shown) would
have a much smaller effect on the cumulative heat
release energy but a similar effect on the pre-combustion
heat release rate. The effect however would be of oppo-
site sign since an increased compression index is in line
with a reduced rate of heat transfer.
release curves obtained from the PIFL heat
Simulated Data Case 2, release model with the corresponding engine
Polytropic Index First Law
simulation model values for simulated cylinder
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
pressure data
Crank Angle (degs)
Comparison of the plots show very good agreement in
general with the PIFL heat release model giving slightly
lower heat release values during the early combustion
phase and slightly (circa 3 to 5%) higher values for the
maximum cumulative heat release energy. These differ-
ences are relatively small and the error in the maximum
cumulative heat release for example could be eliminated
by increasing the value of gamma by approximately 0.01.
100
3
1. Simulation Model, Data Case 1
90
2. Polytropic Index First Law, Data Case 1
4 3. Simulation Model, Data Case 2
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

80
2 4. Polytropic Index First Law, Data Case 2
100 70
1
90 Simulated Data Case 2,
60
Polytropic Index First Law
80
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

50
Datum Expansion Index +0.02
70 40
Datum Expansion Index
60 30

50 20

40 10

30 0
Datum Expansion Index -0.02 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
20
Crank Angle (degs)
10
Figure 16. Comparison of the calculated heat release
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
rate curves obtained from two heat release
Crank Angle (degs) models and simulated cylinder pressure data
Figure 14. Effect of variation in the expansion index on
A particularly good aspect of the comparison made in
the calculated heat release rate using the PIFL
Figures 15 and 16 is that the shape of the heat release
model and simulated cylinder pressure data
curves is excellent, with virtually zero heat release rate
before and after combustion. The accuracy of the heat
COMPARISON WITH SIMULATION MODEL HEAT
release curves is generally better than that obtained with
RELEASE DATA – Figures 15 and 16 compares the heat
the traditional First Law heat release model with Woschni
release values output by the ENGSIM engine simulation
heat transfer equation and unity multiplier and signifi-
program and those from the PIFL heat release model.
cantly more accurate than the adiabatic traditional First
Ideally, the curves would be identical since the engine
Law model .
simulation program assumed 100% combustion effi-
ciency. Results for both simulated data cases are com-
pared in these plots.

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
HEAT RELEASE MODEL EVALUATION USING
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The results presented so far have only used single cycle
computer simulated data. In this section experimentally
measured cylinder pressure data are analysed which
allows the performance of the heat release models to be
quantified when experimental errors are present.
A Ford 1.8 Litre 4 cylinder turbocharged, non-intercooled,
direct injection diesel engine was used to produce the
cylinder pressure data. A Kistler 6125A pressure trans-
ducer was flush mounted in cylinder number 1 and con-
nected to a Lucas charge amplifier type 1421/3. An AVL
670 Indimaster was used to log the data at 0.5 degree
resolution, 50 consecutive engine cycles being recorded
for each measurement point. Fuel measurements were
taken using the in-cell Flotron fuel meter giving fuel flow
rate for the whole engine.
A total of 221 measurements were made over a range of
conditions, covering the following operating points:
• a total of 24 start of injection (SOI) timing sweeps
from nominally 10°BTDC to 3°ATDC at 2000 rpm and
3000 rpm and for engine loads ranging from 0.1 bar
to 10 bar BMEP at 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm
• 2 engine load sweep from 0.05 bar to 10.0 bar BMEP
for engine speeds of 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm and
fixed SOI timing of 8.5°BTDC
• a full load engine speed sweep at standard SOI tim-
ing for engine speeds ranging from 1000 rpm to 4500
rpm
The experimental cylinder pressure thus obtained were
post-processed by LUCID2 cylinder pressure analysis
software. Further details of the calculations are given in
Appendix C. The results shown in this section are mainly
based on 50 cycle ensemble averaged pressure cycles
(i.e. the heat release analysis was carried out on a single
average pressure diagram). A brief discussion of individ-
ual cycle analysis however is included at the end of this
sub-section.
The performance of three heat release models are com-
pared in this section, these models being as follows:-
• polytropic index first law (PIFL), as defined
• gross first law (GFL), TFL with Woschni model
• net first law (NFL), adiabatic TFL model
The GFL and NFL models are simply the traditional First
Law heat release models covered in the earlier section of
this paper and which are based on equation (1). The GFL
model uses the Woschni heat transfer equation with unity
multiplier whilst the NFL model ignores the wall heat
transfer. A slightly different gamma equation is used to
cater better for the wide range of AFRs used in the exper-
imental tests, further details are given in Appendix C.
9
ANALYSIS USING ENSEMBLE AVERAGED CYLINDER
PRESSURE DATA – Figures 17 through 19 show the
results obtained from carrying out heat release analysis
on the ensemble average cylinder pressure data for the
221 test points covering the engine speed, engine load
and injection timing sweeps. In each case, the EEOC
cumulative heat release energy using the three different
heat release models is plotted against the input fuel
energy based on the measured fuel mass input per cylin-
der multiplied by the lower calorific value of the fuel
{42.83 kJ/kg}).
1600
Polytropic Index First Law
1400
PIFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)
1:1 Line
1200
1000
800
600
Least Squares Best Fit Line
400 y = 0.9617x
2
R = 0.9876
200
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Fuel Energy Based on Flow Meter (J)
Figure 17. Scatter plot of calculated peak (at EEOC)
cumulative heat release using PIFL versus fuel
input energy values for a wide range of
measured engine data
The scatter plots generally show a good correlation
between the EEOC cumulative heat release energy and
the input fuel energy, R2 values being very close to unity
for all three plots. The PIFL heat release model produced
the highest heat release values which on average were
96% of the input fuel energy. In comparison, the GFL
(Gross First Law) and NFL (Net First Law) produced
average values which were 92% and 82% of the input
fuel energy values respectively.
The PIFL heat release model results shown in Figure 17
are close to expectations(10) with combustion efficiencies
very close to 100% at low to mid engine loads and reduc-
ing down to circa 93% at higher engine loads. This model
did produce heat release energy for some test points
which exceeded the corresponding input fuel energy (i.e.
combustion efficiencies greater than 100%), particularly
at the lower engine loads, but this can be explained by
small errors in the fuel flow and cylinder pressure mea-
surements.
The GFL heat release values (with standard Woschni
heat transfer model), shown in Figure 18, produced the
least scatter of all 3 cases but produced combustion effi-
ciencies which were perhaps 5% lower than expected
based on the input fuel energy. This shortfall can be
explained by deficiencies in the simple single-zone model
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

being employed(8), measurement errors and/or an under- Figure 20 shows a scatter plot for the EEOC heat release
estimate of the heat transfer rate. A 40% increase in the energy calculated with the GFL and PIFL heat release
assumed heat transfer rate (1.4 * Woschni coefficient) models for the 221 test points. The correlation is very
would have produced cumulative heat release values good (R2 = 0.995) with the PIFL heat release model pro-
close to those for the PIFL heat release model. ducing heat release energies of circa 35 J higher than the
corresponding values for the GFL heat release model
1600
across the whole range. This is slightly different from the
Gross First Law
1400
1:1 Line correlations shown in Figures 17 and 18 when the best fit
GFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)

was forced through the origin. The 4 highest heat release

1200
values (greater than 1200 J) suggest a modest system-
1000 atic error, these are all for 3000 rpm retarded high load
800
measurements. The PIFL model appears to marginally
overestimate the heat release for these 4 test points due
600
Least Squares Best Fit to a combination of late EEOC and high value of expan-
y = 0.9192x
400 R2 = 0.9939
sion polytropic index whilst the GFL seems to slightly
underestimate the heat release.
200

0 1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1400
Fuel Energy Based on Flow Meter (J)

PIFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)

Least Squares Best Fit
1200 y = 1.0004x + 35.569
Figure 18. Scatter plot of calculated peak (at EEOC) 2
R = 0.9951
cumulative heat release using GFL versus fuel 1000

input energy values for a wide range of

800
measured engine data
600

Figure 19 shows the calculated heat release using the 400

NFL heat release model. This shows combustion efficien-
1:1 Line
200
cies on average of circa 82% which is in line with the val-
ues expected for an adiabatic heat release model. In 0
addition to the disadvantage of underestimating the aver- 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
GFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)
age combustion efficiency, increased variability is pro-
duced due to the fact that the heat transfer is Figure 20. Comparison between the EEOC cumulative
proportionally higher at low engine speeds. The 2 outly- heat release values for the GFL (x axis) and
ing points (at circa 900 and 1050 J input fuel energy) PIFL (y axis) heat release models
which can be seen in Figure 19 correspond to 1000 rpm
and 1250 rpm respectively and are due to the higher pro- Figure 21 shows the cumulative heat release energy ver-
portion of heat transfer energy at the low engine speeds. sus crank angle plot for a 2000 rpm, 1.0 bar BMEP, 10×
This demonstrates that ignoring wall heat transfer by BTDC injection timing test point. The results for all 3 heat
using a net heat release model introduces a shortfall in release models are plotted and this shows that the PIFL
the true gross heat release energy which is both engine and GFL heat release models produce similar values up
dependent and also a function of operating conditions. to circa 15° ATDC but the heat release for the GFL model
incorrectly falls for crank angles later than 30° ATDC. The
1600
NFL model gives lower values than the other 2 models
1400
Net First Law
1:1 Line
throughout and exhibits a highly negative gradient for
NFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)

crank angles higher than 30° ATDC. The heat release

1200
shows a negative characteristic before TDC, whilst a
1000 small negative value may be expected due to fuel latent
heat effects. This suggests that a small crank angle
800
phase error was present, this effect was shown earlier in
600 Adiabatic First Law Figures 5 and 6. The PIFL model produced the smallest
y = 0.8203x
400 R2 = 0.9852
negative value.

200
Figure 22 shows the equivalent plot to Figure 21, but this
time for the rate of heat release. The peak rate of heat
0
release is similar for all 3 heat release models (within 2 J/
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Fuel Energy Based on Flow Meter (J) °) but the PIFL produces the best characteristics at crank
angles after 20° ATDC. Overall, the heat release rate
Figure 19. Scatter plot of calculated peak (at EEOC) curve for the PIFL appears to be closer to the expected
cumulative heat release using NFL versus fuel profile.
input energy values for a wide range of
measured engine data

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

culated which in turn would cause the heat release to be

300
Polytropic Index First Law
slightly underestimated.
250
Cumulative Heat Release (J)

1200
200 Polytropic Index First Law
1000

Cumulative Heat Release (J)

150
Gross First Law
Net First Law 800
100 Net First Law
Net First Law
600
50
400
0
2000 rpm 1.0 bar BMEP
200
-50
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 3000 rpm 10.0 bar BMEP
Crank Angle (degs) EEOC=60 Degrees
-200
Figure 21. Cumulative heat release plots for the three -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
heat release models at 2000 rpm and 1.0 bar Crank Angle (degs)
BMEP
Figure 23. Cumulative heat release plots for the three
heat release models at 3000 rpm and 10.0 bar
30 BMEP
2000 rpm 1.0 bar BMEP
25
50
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)

20
Polytropic Index First Law
40 Gross First Law
15
Heat Release Rate (J/deg)
Gross First Law
30
10 Polytropic Index First Law

5 20

0
10 Net First Law
Net First Law

-5
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0
3000 rpm 10.0 bar BMEP
Crank Angle (degs) EEOC=60 Degrees

-10
Figure 22. Rate of heat release plots for the three heat -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
release models at 2000 rpm and 1.0 bar Crank Angle (degs)
BMEP
Figure 24. Rate of heat release plots for the three heat
release models at 3000 rpm and 10.0 bar
Figure 23 shows a further heat release plot for a 3000
BMEP
rpm, 10 bar BMEP, 5 °BTDC injection timing test point. In
this case, the EEOC is 60 °ATDC and the PIFL and GFL
ANALYSIS USING INDIVIDUAL CYCLE CYLINDER
heat release models give very similar curves. The NFL
PRESSURE DATA – Figure 25 shows the EEOC heat
produces consistently lower (by about 15%) cumulative
release values calculated using the PIFL and GFL mod-
heat release values although the profile does not exhibit
els for individual cycles rather than ensemble averaged
a negative gradient after EEOC as expected. There is
data as shown in the previous sub-section. Data for six
also no negative heat release immediately following the
different engine loads (0.1 bar to 4.0 bar BMEP) at 3000
start of injection as shown earlier in Figure 21 for the
rpm are shown, each load point having 50 individual
lower engine load case.
cycle values). The scatter plot shows a very good corre-
Figure 24 shows the equivalent heat release rate curve lation between the results from the two models with the
for the same experimental operating conditions as Figure PIFL results exhibiting slightly higher levels of variability.
23 and this reveals a peak rate of heat release at circa
Figure 26 shows a scatter plot for the CoV (coefficient of
10× ATDC. Again, the difference in the peak rate of heat
variation) of EEOC heat release for the 221 test points
release between the three heat release models is rela-
based on the individual cycle heat release calculations.
tively small at circa +- 3%. All three models produced
This shows that there is a strong correlation between the
slightly positive heat release rates after EEOC. These
CoVs produced by the two heat release models and that
results suggest that the EEOC has been underestimated
in general the CoV for the PIFL model is circa 2% higher
and a small amount of heat release is still occurring after
than the corresponding value for the GFL model. This
60× ATDC. In the case of the PIFL, this would cause a
observation supports the results shown in Figure 25. CoV
slightly low value of expansion polytropic index to be cal-
values in excess of 10 % are revealed in Figure 26, the

11

highest values generally corresponding to the lowest
engine loads. At least part of this variability is thought to
be attributable to small phasing errors in the measured
cylinder pressure data, the cumulative heat release being
very sensitive to phase errors as shown previously in Fig-
ure 5. Similar CoV values were calculated for the IMEP
and a strong correlation was also found between heat
release and IMEP CoV. Examination of individual cycle
pressure Vs. crank angle plots for cycles exhibiting
extreme IMEP values confirmed that a phase shift of typi-
cally 1° had occurred, the reason for this error however is
not clear.
650
600 Least Squares Best Fit Line
PIFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J)
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
200 250
Figure 25. Scatter plot comparing the GFL (x axis) and
PIFL heat release model values, 3000 rpm
data and 6 different load points, 50 cycles per
measurement point
14
PIFL EEOC Heat Release CoV (%)
12
10
8 release analysis accuracy to the traditional gross First
6
4
2 tion diesel engine data covering a wide range of
0
0 2
Figure 26. Comparison of the CoV (50 cycles per test
point) cumulative heat release values for the
GFL and the PIFL heat release models
SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA HEAT RELEASE
ANALYSIS – The heat release results obtained from
analysing the experimental cylinder pressure data, cover-
ing an extensive range of operating conditions, with the
three alternative heat release models has shown a high
level of consistency. The PIFL and GFL produced similar
values for the EEOC cumulative heat release energy
whilst the NFL produced significantly lower values as
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
expected. The peak rate of heat release however was not
very sensitive to heat release model specification. The
PIFL performed best when it came to the heat release
versus crank angle plots, always producing nearly flat
cumulative profiles prior to and after combustion,
whereas the GFL, and particularly, NFL models often
produced non-physical characteristics, especially nega-
tive heat release rates after the end of combustion. The
PIFL model however is slightly more sensitive to errors in
gamma and crank angle phasing and has been shown to
give marginally higher inter-cycle and test to test variabil-
ity compared to the GFL model.
Overall, the PIFL model produced very consistent results
and performed at least as well as the gross First Law
heat release model. It would be expected to produce
y = 1.0919x
R2 = 0.9964 more consistent results when different engines are
tested, although this would need to be confirmed by fur-
ther measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
Results for 6 x 50 Individual Cycle Test Points,
The accuracy of calculated gross heat release using a
3000 rpm, 8.5 Degrees BTDC Injection Timing, single-zone First Law with heat transfer model has been
Loads of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 Bar BMEP
investigated and quantified. The most significant errors
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
are due to incorrectly assigned ratio of specific heats and
GFL Model EEOC Heat Release (J) charge to wall heat transfer rates and errors in the mea-
sured cylinder pressure data. Most of these sources of
errors can be contained to relatively small values and the
largest errors in practice will be caused by uncertainties
in the heat transfer.
An alternative heat release model, called the polytropic
index first law model, has been developed and evaluated
using simulated direct injection diesel engine cylinder
pressure data This uses a variable polytropic index to
approximately cater for the charge to wall heat transfer
and has been shown overall to produce similar heat
1:1 Line Law model
The performance of three alternative heat release mod-
els has been compared using experimental direct injec-
operating conditions. The new polytropic index model
was found to produce similar results to the traditional
4 6 8 10 12 14
GFL EEOC Heat Release CoV (%) gross First Law model in general and much superior per-
formance compared to the net (adiabatic) First Law
model. The polytropic index model was found to consis-
tently produce the best heat release versus crank angle
characteristics although it was found to give slightly
higher inter-cycle variability. The polytropic index model is
considered to be well suited for diesel engine develop-
ment applications where consistent results are required.
REFERENCES
1. Lyn, W.T., “Calculation of the Effect of Rate of Heat
Release on the Shape of Cylinder Pressure Diagram and
Cycle Efficiency”, Proc. I. Mech. E., 1960-61.
12
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
2. Krieger, R.B., and Borman, G.L., “The Computation of
Apparent Heat Release for Internal Combustion Engines”,
ASME paper 66-WA/DGP-4, 1967
3. Timoney, D.J., “Problems with Heat Release Analysis in D.I.
Diesel”, SAE paper, 870270, 1987.
4. Karim, G.A., and Khan, M.O., “An Examination of Some of
the Errors Normally Associated with the Calculation of
Apparent Rates of Combustion Heat Release in Engines”,
SAE 710135, 1971.
5. Gatowski, J.A., et al., ”Heat Release Analysis of Engine
Pressure Data”, SAE paper 841359, 1984.
6. Sastry, G.V.J. and Chandra, H., "A Three-Zone Heat
Release Model for DI Diesel Engines, SAE paper 940671,
1994.
7. Homsey, S.C. and Atreya, A., "An Experimental Heat
Release Rate Analysis of a Diesel Engine Operating Under
Steady State Conditions", SAE paper 970889, 1997
8. Kamimoto, T. et al., "A Two-Zone Model Analysis of Heat
Release Rate in Diesel Engines", SAE paper 972959, 1997
9. Hayes, T.K., Savage, L.D. and Soreson, S.C., “Cylinder
Pressure Data Acquisition and Heat Release Analysis on a
Personal Computer”, SAE paper 860029, 1986.
10. Heywood, J.B., "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamen-
tals", McGraw - Hill Book Company, ISBN 0-07-100499-8.
APPENDIX A - TRADITIONAL SINGLE-ZONE FIRST LAW HEAT RELEASE MODEL
The classical First Law equation for the in-cylinder
charge during the non-flow period between inlet valve
closure (IVC) and exhaust valve closure (EVC) can be
written for an incremental crank angle interval:
dQhr = dW + dUs + dQw
where:
dQhr = gross heat energy released due to combustion
dW = work due to piston movement
dUs = change in sensible internal energy
dQw = heat transfer from charge to cylinder wall
Note that the above First Law equation ignores mass
changes due to piston ring blow-by, valve leakage and
fuel injection into the cylinder. Further equations can be
written as follows:
p. dV = dW
m. c v. dT = dUs
d ( p.V )
= dT
m. R
R
= γ −1
Cv
where:
p is the cylinder pressure
11. Brunt, M.F.J., Rai, H. and Emtage, A.L., “The Calculation of
Heat Release Energy from Engine Cylinder Pressure
Data”, SAE paper 981052, 1996.
12. Woschni, G., "A Universal Applicable Equation for the
Instantaneous Heat Transfer Coefficient in the Internal
Combustion Engine", SAE paper 670931, 1967.
13. Brunt, M.F.J., "The Effect of Combustion Chamber Shape
on the Combustion Rate in an S.I. Engine", PhD Thesis,
Loughborough University of Technology, 1980.
14. Annand, W.J.D., “Heat Transfer in the Cylinders of Recipro-
cating Internal Combustion Engines”, Proc. Inst. Mech.
Engrs., Vol 177, no 36, pp 973-990, 1963.
15. Brunt, M.F.J. and Emtage, A.L., “Evaluation of IMEP Rou-
tines and Analysis Errors”, SAE paper 960609, 1996.
16. Rassweiler, G.M. and Withrow, L., “Motion Pictures of
Engine Flames Correlated with Pressure Cards”, SAE
Transactions, Vol 42, 1938.
17. Miyamoto, N., et al., "Description and Analysis of Diesel
Engine Rate of Combustion and Performance using
Wiebe's Functions", SAE paper 850107, 1985.
18. Brunt, M.F.J. and Pond, C.R., "Evaluation of Techniques for
Absolute Cylinder Pressure Correction", SAE paper
970036, 1997
dV is the change in cylinder volume
m is the trapped mass
c v is the mean specific heat at constant volume
R is the specific gas constant
(A1) γ is the ratio of specific heats (gamma)
Substitution of equations (A2) to (A5) into equation (1)
and rearranging the terms gives the usual form of the
First Law heat release equation:-
γ 1
dQhr = . p. dV + .V . dp + dQw (A6)
γ −1 γ −1
It should be noted that equation (A6) is an approximation
in that the specific gas constant, R, has been assumed
to be constant, mean values for specific heat and gamma
have been taken and liquid fuel enthalpy has been
neglected. The specific gas constant and specific heat
(A2) will vary during combustion due to changes in the charge
(A3) composition. The equation used for the change in inter-
nal energy (equation (A3)) assumes that specific heat is
independent of temperature which will introduce an error
(A4)
when the temperature change is large. These errors how-
ever should be small when equation (A6) is applied suc-
(A5) cessively over small crank angle intervals and a mean
value of gamma which is appropriate for the conditions at
that incremental time is used. The pragmatic approach
normally used is to vary gamma as a linear function of
temperature and this has been shown to work well (5, 10).
13
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

Equation (A6) ignores crevice volumes and assumes all
of the charge is at the same temperature. The cylinder
pressure is assumed to be uniform throughout the com-
bustion chamber which restricts the application to direct
injection diesel, heat release analysis for divided com-
range from start of injection (SOI) to the estimated end of
combustion (EEOC) and summing the heat release
energy obtained from each calculation. This process is
shown in equation (A7)
EEOC

∑ dQ
bustion chamber cases is more complicated and is
described elsewhere (10). Qhr = hr , i (A7)
i = SOI
Gross cumulative heat release, Qhr, is calculated by suc-
cessively applying equation (A6) over the crank angle

APPENDIX B - SIMULATED ENGINE DATA

Simulated cylinder pressure data, generated using the

ENGSIM(13) thermodynamic engine simulation software, Table B2— Conditions for Engine Simulation
were used in this study to evaluate the performance of Parameter Case #1 Case #2
different heat release algorithms. Two different conditions
Engine speed 3000 rpm 3000 rpm
were simulated for a single arbitrary diesel engine specifi- Injection timing 5× BTDC 10× BTDC
cation. ENGSIM is a two-zone thermodynamic engine Air to fuel ratio 24.0:1 18.0:1
simulation program which was developed mainly for gas- Volumetric efficiency 140% 160%
oline engines but includes a double Weibe's function(17) Charge temp at IVC 340 K 340 K
Residual gas + EGR 3% 3%
which allows diesel engine heat release to be approxi- Combustion efficiency 100% 100%
mated. ENGSIM includes algorithms for equilibrium, vari- Pre-mixed fraction 7% 20%
able specific heats, variable composition and charge to Ignition delay 5° 5°
wall heat transfer. For the work described in this paper Pre-mixed duration 5° 10°
Combustion duration 45° 70°
ENGSIM was set up for diesel fuel with heat transfer sim- Gross IMEP bar 18.7 bar
ulation using the Annand(14) equation with convection Peak charge pressure 80 bar 131 bar
multiplier of 0.45. The basic turbocharged diesel engine
140
specification assumed is shown in Table B1.
Simulated Cylinder Pressure
120 Data using Engsim

Table B1— Assumed Engine Specification for Simulation Data Case 2

100
Cylinder Pressure (bar)

Parameter Value Assumed

80
Bore 88.0 mm
Stroke 90.0 mm 60
connecting rod length 140.0 mm
Swept volume 547 cc 40
Compression ratio 19.0:1
Combustion chamber Bowl in Piston 20
Data Case 1
Two turbocharged diesel engine test operating conditions 0
were simulated. These are described in Table B2 below. -180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180
Crank Angle (degs)
Figure B1 shows the simulated cylinder pressure dia-
grams produced by ENGSIM for the two cases. Figure B1.Simulated cylinder pressure versus crank
angle diagram for engine conditions shown in
Tables B1 and B2

APPENDIX C - POLYTROPIC INDEX FIRST LAW (PIFL) HEAT RELEASE MODEL

The main assumptions made in this derivation are that

the combustion can be idealised as being divided into a
number of constant volume combustion processes and
that the pressure change due to piston motion and
charge to wall heat transfer can be modelled as a series
of polytropic processes. The derivation is as follows:
The incremental pressure rise due to combustion, Dp2,
between two crank angle locations in the engine cycle, 1
and 2, can be approximated by:
n
 V1
∆p 2 = [ p 2 − p1.   ] (C1)
 V 2
Equation (C1) gives the pressure rise due to combustion
assuming that the pressure change due to compression
can be represented by a polytropic process with poly-
tropic index n. In this equation p1 and p2 are the mea-
sured pressures and V 1 and V2 are the cylinder volumes
calculated from a knowledge of the engine geometry and

14
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
crank angle location. Assuming perfect gas relationships
as usual, the incremental temperature rise, ∆T2, due to
combustion can be approximated by:
∆p 2.V 2
∆T 2 =
m. R
Equation (C2) is an approximation since it assumes R is
a constant and the combustion occurs at a fixed volume.
The incremental heat release energy, ∆Qhr,2,, required to
produce the temperature rise can be obtained from
applying the First Law for the assumed constant volume
process:-
∆Qhr , 2 = m. ∆Uc , 2 = m. cv. ∆T 2
Equation (C3) does not include a charge to wall heat
transfer term since it is assumed that this is included in
the polytropic exponent n.
Equations (C1) through (C3) plus equation (A5) pre-
sented earlier in Appendix A can be combined to give the
PIFL heat release model:
n 2000 rpm but is actually slightly varied with engine
V2  V1
∆Qhr , 2 = .[ p 2 − p1.   ]
γ −1  V 2
Equation (C4) gives the approximate incremental gross
heat release energy for the crank angle interval from θ1 to
θ2 and this can be summed over the combustion period
as per equation (A7) shown earlier to produce an esti-
mate of the gross cumulative heat release. The net
cumulative heat release can be obtained if the polytropic
index, n, is replaced by the ratio of specific heats, i.e.
gamma. For the net heat release case, the PIFL heat
release model (equation (C4)) will produce identical
results to the First Law model (equation (A6)) if the crank
angle interval over which the calculations are performed
is very small.
The polytropic index was varied with crank angle over the
range TDC +-50° although most of the correction was
applied over the range TDC+-10°, see Figure 8 in the
main text. The polytropic index for equation (C1) was
then obtained from the polytropic index calculated for
either the compression or expansion processes multi-
plied by the appropriate correction factor for that crank
angle. For heat release calculations prior to TDC, the
(C2) compression index, normally calculated over the range -
75° to -35° was used. For heat release calculations after
TDC, the expansion index was used which was normally
calculated over the range EEOC (estimated end of com-
bustion) to EEOC + 40°. An 11 point smoothing proce-
dure was used to reduce sensitivity to noise spikes and
ADC resolution error. The uncorrected polytropic indexes
thus calculated are very sensitive to pressure measure-
ment errors and capping limits were placed on the com-
(C3) pression (1.28 to 1.36) and expansion indexes (1.29 to
1.42, actually engine speed dependent) to limit the effect
of such errors, particularly when dealing with individual
cycle analysis.
The estimated end of combustion (EEOC) is defined as
that crank angle during the expansion stroke (from 10°
ATDC) at which p.Vneoc is at a maxima plus 10°. The
EEOC polytropic index, neoc, is set to nominally 1.2 at
speed. To reduce the sensitivity to noise and ADC resolu-
(C4)
tion, 11 point, 1 degree interval averages are used for this
calculation. The EEOC is not critical providing it does not
underestimate the true end of combustion (this would
result in a low value of expansion index being calculated),
hence 10° is added on for safety. This routine has been
shown to give very reliable performance even under con-
ditions of poor pressure data quality.
For the experimental measurement analysis, gamma was
varied with charge temperature using the same polyno-
mial equation as shown in equation (2) but the linear
term was doubled and the constant was increased to
1.44. Compared to equation (2), this produced higher
gamma values at low engine load (high AFR and low
charge temperature) and lower gamma values at high
engine load (lower AFR and higher charge temperature).
This change was made to more accurately account for
AFR variations with engine load.
15