Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018
A Comparison of Four Methods for Determining the Octane
Index and K on a Modern Engine with Upstream, Port or
Direct Injection
Zhenbiao Zhou, Yi Yang, Michael Brear, and Joshua Lacey
University of Melbourne
Thomas G. Leone, James E. Anderson, and Michael H. Shelby
Ford Motor Company
CITATION: Zhou, Z., Yang, Y., Brear, M., Lacey, J. et al., "A Comparison of Four Methods for Determining the Octane Index and K
on a Modern Engine with Upstream, Port or Direct Injection," SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-0666, 2017, doi:10.4271/2017-01-0666.
Copyright © 2017 SAE International
Abstract
Combustion in modern spark-ignition (SI) engines is increasingly
knock-limited with the wide adoption of downsizing and turbocharging
technologies. Fuel autoignition conditions are different in these engines
compared to the standard Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor
Octane Numbers (MON) tests. The Octane Index, OI = RON -
K(RON-MON), has been proposed as a means to characterize the
actual fuel anti-knock performance in modern engines. The K-factor,
by definition equal to 0 and 1 for the RON and MON tests respectively,
is intended to characterize the deviation of modern engine operation
from these standard octane tests. Accurate knowledge of K is of central
importance to the OI model; however, a single method for determining
K has not been well accepted in the literature.
This paper first examines four different methods for determining K,
using literature results from a modern SI engine operating with direct
injection (DI), port fuel injection (PFI) and homogeneous, upstream
fuel injection (UFI). The test fuels were ethanol-gasoline blends
spanning a wide range of RON and MON, together with isooctane as
a reference. The quality of the K results from some of these methods
is particularly dependent on the design of the test fuel matrix, with
unreliable K values resulting in some cases.
One of the more reliable methods is then used to examine how K
varies with the intake pressure, fueling strategy, engine speed and
compression ratio, with throttled conditions considered in detail.
Several of the observed trends are consistent with prior studies,
including K being consistently negative at higher loads for DI. In
contrast to other studies, however, K is also observed to approach 0.5
at part load, throttled conditions, irrespective of whether the engine is
fuelled by DI, PFI or UFI. Preliminary analysis of the autoignition
chemistry for different fuelling methods then suggests plausible
reasons for these results.
2017-01-0666
Published 03/28/2017
Introduction
Knock remains a primary challenge in spark-ignition (SI) engine
development. The occurrence of knock limits SI engine efficiency
and puts a key constraint on gasoline production. Standard methods
for measuring the Research Octane Number (RON) and Motor
Octane Number (MON) have been used since the 1920s [1,2], with
the RON and MON characterizing a fuel’s anti-knock performance
under standardized test conditions. These conditions were intended to
simulate production engine operating conditions at the time.
However, today’s SI engines, with features such as turbocharging,
direct injection and variable valve timing, are commonly argued to
produce a considerably different thermodynamic environment in
which end gas autoignition and knock take place. Such arguments
bring into question the continued relevance of RON and MON.
Kalghatgi [3,4] proposed the Octane Index (OI) to characterize the
anti-knock performance of a fuel in a modern engine,
(1)
where S = RON - MON is the octane sensitivity of the fuel, and K is
a parameter that is proposed to be dependent on engine characteristics
and operating conditions, i.e. K is not a primary parameter of the fuel.
By definition K = 0 in the RON test and K = 1 in the MON test and,
in general, can be considered to be an indicator of the deviation of
incylinder end-gas conditions from those present in the RON and
MON tests. Some previous experimental studies on modern SI
engines show that K is generally negative at higher load operating
conditions. This means that, for a given RON, a lower MON is more
favorable for reducing engine knock at these conditions, e.g.
[5,6,7,8,9].
Quantitative knowledge of K factors is the foundation of the Octane
Index model. However, methods for accurately determining K have
not been comprehensively studied in the literature. Different methods
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018

have been used for determining K by different groups, but the ratio (the latter two were kept constant during the experiment). In
consistency of these methods is unknown. This paper compares two addition, a parameter characterizing a fuel’s actual anti-knock
common approaches, the Regression Method [3] and the PRF Method performance (to determine Octane Index) is required under the
[5] for determining K. The two methods are first reviewed, and two prescribed engine conditions. Knock limited spark advance (KLSA)
variants of each method are then applied to recently reported data is commonly used for this purpose and is thus adopted here. In the
obtained on a knock-limited, modern SI engine [10]. latter part of this paper, the net mean effective pressure (NMEP) is
used in place of Pin as an operating condition, and it correlates
With an optimal method identified for K determination, the variation linearly with Pin in these experiments [10]. In addition, CA50 is also
of K over a wide range of engine operating conditions is investigated. used to indicate the knock-limited combustion in place of KLSA in
Previous studies of K in SI engines have mostly focused on high load these cases.
operation where engines are knock-limited. This study adds
investigation of K at part load conditions which are not as knock-
limited. Modern turbocharged engines start to become knock-limited
at much lower loads than naturally aspirated engines, even under
throttled conditions, which constrains fuel economy and CO2
emissions on heavily loaded test cycles like US06 [10,11,12].
Knowledge of K is needed for a wide range of conditions including
some which were not knock-limited for the baseline fuel and
compression ratio.

Experimental and Numerical Methods

Engine and Fuel Data
The experimental data [10] used in this study was obtained from a
single-cylinder SI engine operating on an engine dynamometer at a
constant intake temperature of 52°C. Stoichiometric mixtures over a Figure 1. RON and S of fuels tested in the engine experiment in [10].
wide range of intake pressures from throttled to boosted were used. Ethanol-gasoline blends (solid circles), isooctane (open circle).
Three different fueling methods - direct injection (DI), port fuel
injection (PFI), and a customized form of upstream fuel injection (UFI)
Regression Methods for Determining OI and K
- were also used, where the UFI produced the most homogeneous
mixture and had the least charge cooling effect. Two engine speeds Method 1 - Linear Regression
(1500 and 2500 rpm) and two compression ratios (10:1 and 14:1) were The Regression Method for determining OI and K was introduced by
also studied. The intake pressure was swept to achieve different loads Kalghatgi in studies involving engine and vehicle tests [3,4]. The
with fixed cam phasing. At each intake pressure the spark timing was knock limited spark advance and acceleration time were found to fit
swept to obtain borderline or “trace” knock, as discussed in [10]. This best with a linear combination of the RON and MON, e.g.
practice was kept even though the spark timing was more advanced
than that for the maximum brake torque (MBT).
(2)
A wide range of ethanol-gasoline blends were tested, including
denature ethanol and hydrous ethanol. Isooctane was also tested as a The coefficients a, b, and c are considered to be independent of the
reference. The RON of the base gasolines ranged from 82 to 98, to fuel, and were determined by linear regression of the obtained KLSA,
which ethanol was added to yield blends with ethanol content ranging RON and MON data from a set of fuels. The OI and K were then
from 0% to 75% v/v. The resulting blends yielded a wide range of obtained as follows.
RON, S, and heat of vaporization [10,13]. It is noted that the RON
and S (and thus MON) are closely correlated for the ethanol-gasoline Rearranging Eq. 2, it gives
blends, as shown in Figure 1. Including isooctane substantially
reduced the correlation between RON and S, dropping the R2 of
RON-S linear regression from 0.95 to 0.68 for the entire fuel set. This
is important for determining K via the Regression Method, as (3)
demonstrated below.
Eqs.1 and 3 can be rewritten as Eqs.4 and 5
Given that K is a function of engine operating conditions, it is
necessary to define the operating conditions used in determining K.
In the current study, the conditions used for defining a K value (4)
include intake pressure (Pin), fueling method, engine speed and
compression ratio, as well as intake temperature and equivalence
(5)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018
An example of this Linear Regression Method using the data from
[10] is shown in Figure 2. These plots show that the KLSA can be
fitted by linear regression, with the corresponding values of K being
-0.25 and +0.46 respectively for the specified operating conditions.
The fuels shown here are only those tested under these conditions and
thus used for determining K; they are subsets of those shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 2. K determination using the Linear Regression Method (Method 1).
DI, 1500 rpm, CR = 10:1. (a) Pin = 103 kPa (b) Pin = 73 kPa. Fuels shown here
are subsets of those in Figure 1.
It should however be noted that the Regression Method requires a
carefully formulated fuel set where the RONs and the octane
sensitivities of the fuels are sufficiently uncorrelated. Not meeting
this requirement would reduce the OI to a function of the RON only,
and thus potentially yield problematic K values from the regression.
In this data set, although the ethanol-gasoline blends have RON and S
values that are closely correlated (Figure 1), the inclusion of
isooctane data (with zero sensitivity by definition) in the fuel matrix
reduced the correlation between RON and S. For example, for the
fuels shown in Fig. 2(b), which is a subset of those in Figure 1,
inclusion of isooctane substantially drops the R2 value of the RON-S
linear regression from 0.96 to 0.15. 1
1. Other fuels than isooctane could also be used, provided their RON and S don’t align
with those of the test fuels. Ideally, the fuel set should consist of fuels with evenly
distributed and uncorrelated RON and S, instead of relying on a few fuels to break an
existing RON-S correlation.
To demonstrate the importance of using a properly decorrelated fuel
set, a comparison of K values determined from fuel sets with and
without isooctane is shown in Figure 3 over a range of intake
pressures. It is evident that the inclusion of isooctane has a major
impact on some of the K values, with erratic results obtained when
isooctane is excluded. This finding is consistent across the range of
intake pressures studied. Isooctane is therefore included in all further
fuel sets for determining K when using a Regression Method.
Figure 3. Variation of K with intake pressure using the Linear Regression
method with isooctane data included (solid circles) and excluded (open
circles). DI, 1500 rpm and CR=10:1.
Method 2 - Non-Linear Regression
Non-linear correlation between the KLSA and OI has also be used [6,7],
(6)
The K value can then be obtained from the OI producing the best fit
for KLSA. This quadratic regression was applied to the same
experimental data sets as in Figure 2 and the results are shown in
Figure 4. The OI and K in Figure 4(a) are similar to those obtained
with the Linear Regression Method in Figure 2(a), but Figure 4(b)
shows a different case. A single point - the isooctane data - in this
regression skews the fit into a trend that isn’t physically meaningful
at high OI values. The erratic K value, +1.28, fitted from the
quadratic regression, produces no OI in the range of 85-100, in
contrast with the case in Figure 2(b) for the same data. Figure 4(b)
demonstrates that the quadratic correlation assumed for KLSA and OI
could be problematic. Also should be noted is that removing the
outlying isooctane point does not solve the issue, because when this
fuel is not part of the test set, erratic results similar to those in Figure
3 could be resulted.
Figure 5 compares the Linear and Non-linear Regression Methods
across a range of intake pressures for both PFI and DI at 1500 rpm and
CR=10:1. These results match well at most conditions, but the erratic
results of the Non-linear Regression can be seen at certain conditions.
Based on these results, the Non-linear Regression Method is not used
further in this paper and all K values reported with a Regression
Method use linear regression with isooctane data included.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018
Figure 4. K determination using the quadratic regression method (Method 2).
DI at 1500 rpm, CR = 10:1, (a) Pin = 103 kPa, (b) Pin = 73 kPa.
Figure 5. Variation of K with intake pressure using the linear (solid circles)
and nonlinear (open circles) regression methods of KLSA for (a) PFI and (b)
DI at 1500 rpm and CR=10:1.
PRF Methods for Determining OI and K
The PRF method was first used by Mittal et al. [5] which determined
the OI of a gasoline (and thus K) by matching the antiknock
performance of the test gasoline with primary reference fuels (PRFs).
This method exploits the idea that under a given engine operating
condition, when the test fuel and a given PRF demonstrate the same
KLSA, the OI of the two fuels should be equal. Since PRFs have zero
octane sensitivity by definition (RON = MON), the OI for this case
can be directly obtained from the RON (or MON) of the PRF. The K
value for this specific operating condition can then be determined
from Eq. 1 with knowledge of the RON and MON of the (sensitive)
test fuel.
One significant advantage of this approach is that the PRF method
does not require carefully designed test fuel sets as the Regression
Methods do. Rather, K can be determined with data from a single test
fuel and various PRFs [5]. By matching the antiknock performance of
the test fuel with a different PRF at different conditions, the
dependence of K on engine operating conditions can be determined.
This method often requires more than one PRF to match the test fuel.
To reduce the number of these tests, PRF calibration curves can be
established to enable interpolation of the test fuel to the nearest PRF,
so that OI (and K) could be determined across the engine map [5].
Method 3 - PRF Method via Direct Comparison
Application of the PRF method to the current study requires
modification, because only one PRF (isooctane) was tested. Only a
few cases were found where test fuels and isooctane were tested at
similar engine operating conditions and with the same KLSA. For
this subset of test fuels, the OI = 100 and hence K can be determined
using the PRF method. We identify this as the Direct Comparison
Method. Some K values obtained using this method have been
reported in the original engine experiment paper [10].
Method 4 - PRF Method via Interpolation
To make full use of the isooctane data for this study, a variant of the
PRF method was developed. Here a third-order polynomial (Eq. 7)
was formulated to correlate KLSA and Pin for each fuel at a given
compression ratio, fueling method, and engine speed,
(7)
The intersection of the polynomials for a test fuel and isooctane at a
given Pin (or any other appropriate engine operating parameter)
should correspond to the condition where the OI = 100. The K value
can then be determined from the RON and S of the test fuel at the
intersection point. Third order polynomials were used in this study as
they were found to give reasonable fit of the available data. Of
course, this method could equally use other polynomials for other
data sets if they provided a better representation.
This method is illustrated in Figure 6, where the polynomials for
isooctane and two test fuels, B97E20 (RON = 102.7, S = 12.8) and
B95E10 (RON = 98.9, S = 11.2), are observed to intersect at Pin =
83.1 and 91.6 kPa, which yields K values of +0.21 and -0.1,
respectively. This method does not require that isooctane and the test
fuels be tested at the intersection point, as required by Method 3.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018

Rather, the polynomial fitting and interpolation allow calculation of K discussed previously, this might be related to the non-ideal fuel set
with more sparse data sets. Properties of isooctane and the two used in this study, with the RON and S being corrected for all the
ethanol-gasoline blends are shown in Table 1 [13]. fuels except isooctane.

Figure 6. K determination using the PRF method with interpolation (Method

4). Two test fuels, B97E20 (RON = 102.7, S = 12.8, open circles), B95E10
(RON = 98.9, S = 11.2, solid circles), and isooctane (open triangles). DI at
1500 rpm and CR = 10:1. The lines shown are polynomial fits to the test data.

Table 1. Properties of isooctane and the two test fuels in Figure 6 [13].

Results and Discussion

Comparing Different Methods of Determining K
A comparison of the three methods other than the Non-linear
Regression Method for determining K is now conducted. The K
values determined by these three methods are shown in Figure 7 for
various operating conditions. Figure 7(a) shows that for UFI fueling,
the K values determined by these three methods agree closely. The
differences increase somewhat for PFI, but the deviation is still less
than 0.2 in Figure 7(b). Larger differences of up to roughly 0.3 are
observed in Figure 7(c) for DI fuelling. These differences are
primarily between the Linear Regression Method (Method 1) and the
PRF Method via Interpolation (Method 4). The PRF Method via Figure 7. Variation of K with intake pressure for (a) UFI, (b) PFI and (c) DI
Direct Comparison (Method 3) yields only one or two points in each using the Linear Regression (Method 1, open circles), PRF Method via Direct
case, but with K values generally consistent with the other methods. Comparison (Method 3, open triangles), and PRF Method via Interpolation
(Method 4, solid triangles).
Despite the overall similarity of the three methods, particularly in the
mean trends of K vs Pin, the K values appear to fluctuate more The strengths and weaknesses of each method are summarized below.
significantly around the virtual trendline with Method 1 than Method
4. This is particularly evident in Figure 7(b), where frequent 1. Fuel set requirement. The Regression method requires a set of
non-monotonic K variation with Pin is observed for Method 1. As fuel blends in which the RON and S of fuels are not correlated;
otherwise the K values are subject to significant error. Since
most hydrocarbons blend more or less linearly with octane
number, formulating such a fuel set requires special expertise
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018
and blending streams, which limits the applicability of the
Regression method. In contrast, the PRF Methods do not have
this requirement.
2. Accuracy of K. The PRF-based methods use the octane numbers
of PRFs as the OI reference, which is rigorous in theory. If the
direct comparison scenario (Method 3) is applicable, exact K
values can be obtained. Otherwise, some type of interpolation,
e.g. Method 4, needs to be used. The Regression method, on the
other hand, depends on the assumed OI vs KLSA correlation,
which can be linear or non-linear, and depends on the curve
fitting quality of the regression.
3. OI range for determining K. A key advantage of the Regression
method is that the range of OI is not constrained to values less
than 100 as is the case for the PRF method. OI above 100 can be
found with modern engines and fuels. Should an analogue to a
PRF Method be used for OIs above 100, a PRF cannot of course
be chosen and another, insensitive reference fuel is required.
Based on the above considerations, the PRF Method via Interpolation is
considered most suitable for further analysis of data in Reference [10].
Effects of Engine Operating Conditions on K
The variation of K with engine operating conditions is investigated
for engine load, fueling method, engine speed, and compression ratio.
The K values reported are determined using the PRF Method via
Interpolation (Method 4). However, instead of using the Pin - KLSA
curves to match test fuels with isooctane (as shown in Figure 6), the
NMEP - CA50 curves at the corresponding conditions are used for
fuel matching. Replacing Pin with NMEP is intended to enable better
comparison of K between engines with variable cam timing. Also,
CA50 is indicative of combustion phasing and so is intended to
correlate more directly with end gas conditions than KLSA.
In most cases, K determined from the Pin - KLSA matching points is
very close to that obtained from the NMEP - CA50 matching points,
because the test fuel intersects with isooctane at a very similar,
interpolated operating condition. Consistency of the K determined
using the two pairs of matching parameters is therefore checked in
Figure 8, where very similar trends are observed. This is to be
expected since the original engine experiments [10] feature close
correlation between Pin and NMEP due to fixed cam timing. It is
noted that test fuels could intersect with isooctane on the Pin - KLSA
curves, but not necessarily on the NMEP - CA50 curves, which
creates imparity in the number of K data shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. K values determined from the matching points on the CA50-NMEP curves
(solid circles) and on the KLSA-Pin curves (open circles). DI at 1500 rpm and CR10.
Due to this PRF Method being limited to OI = 100 (ON of isooctane),
the K results presented here are only for a limited range of test
conditions in [10], mostly for throttled cases.
Effect of NMEP (Pin)
NMEP has a major impact on K because the variation of in-cylinder
pressure and temperature directly impacts end gas temperatures [14].
A decreasing trend of K with increasing NMEP is observed with
increasing NMEP in all cases, as Figure 8 and Figure 9 show.
Recalling that NMEP and Pin correlate strongly in the present study,
this trend is consistent with that reported by others [3,5,6,8] for both
throttled and boosted operation.
The pressure impact on K was explained by Kalghatgi [14], as K is
directly related to the charge temperature when the gas is compressed
to a given pressure, TP, e.g. P = 15 bar. A higher TP corresponds to a
higher K for the operating condition. Increasing intake pressure will
reduce this temperature and thus decrease K.
As will be noted throughout this paper, K decreases with Pin (and
NMEP) consistently in all cases, regardless of other operating
parameters that vary at the same time. This indicates the dominant
impact of Pin (or more generally, NMEP) on K.
Effect of Fueling Method
Most previous studies on K appear to have used a single type of
fueling method [3,6,7,8]. In contrast, this study examines DI, PFI and
UFI on the same engine. This is thought to be a significant feature of
these experiments, since several engine parameters are expected to be
affected by these differing forms of fueling, particularly the charge
cooling and volumetric efficiency. In turn, these may affect end gas
conditions and therefore engine knock.
Figure 9 shows that at a given NMEP, K for DI is generally lower
than those for PFI and UFI. This is particularly clear at 2500 rpm
(Figure 9b). To mark the important differences in engine operation, a
dashed line is used to indicate the nominal MBT timing (CA50=8
CAD aTDC), which demarcates the knock-limited cases and overly
advanced cases for isooctane and the matched test fuels. Note that
when fuels of lower OIs are used at the same operating conditions,
i.e. at same K-factors, the combustion could still be knock-limited
even at the timings earlier than the marked MBT. In other words, the
indicated “overly advanced” and “knock limited” are only for OI =
100 fuels.
The lower K with DI is most likely due to the stronger charge cooling
associated with DI, and greater with ethanol blends, which reduces
the charge temperature during compression. The differences between
the three fueling methods are nonetheless significantly smaller at
1500 rpm, which is thought to be because most K values at this
engine speed were obtained at throttled conditions. With small
quantities of fuel injected, the charge cooling from fuel vaporization
is less significant relative to in-cylinder heat transfer and other
effects. If this is the case, different fueling methods may have limited
impact at throttled, low speed conditions.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018

Figure 9. The effect of engine fueling on K at (a) 1500 rpm and (b) 2500 rpm
with DI (open circles), PFI (open triangles) and UFI (open diamonds), CR=10.
The dashed line indicates the case at the nominal MBT for OI = 100 fuels. KL
= knock limited.

Effect of Engine Speed

Direct comparisons of the 1500 and 2500 rpm cases are conducted
in Figure 10 for each fueling method. These are the same data as in
Figure 9 but plotted differently. Separate reference line for MBT is
used for the regrouped data at each engine speed. It is evident that
increasing the engine speed leads to higher K, regardless of the
fueling method used. This can be generally explained by the less
time available for heat transfer to take place at higher engine
speeds, causing higher charge temperature at a given pressure. The
impact of engine speed on K appears to diminish from UFI, PFI to Figure 10. The effect of engine speed on K for (a) UFI, (b) PFI and (c) DI
with 1500 rpm (solid circles) and 2500 rpm (open circles), CR = 10:1. The
DI. Specifically, increasing engine speed from 1500 rpm to 2500
dashed line indicates the case at the nominal MBT for OI = 100 fuels. KL =
rpm increases the K by ~0.5 with the UFI fueling, but this
knock limited.
difference drops to ~ 0.1 - 0.2 with DI. Such variation is likely
because with DI, the heat loss difference from 1500 to 2500 rpm is
somewhat dampened by the charge cooling effect, therefore Effect of Compression Ratio
resulting in smaller differences in the charge temperature and K in The effect of compression ratio (10:1 and 14:1) is now compared in
comparison with the UFI cases. Further investigation is required to Figure 11 for UFI at 2500 rpm and PFI at 1500 rpm. The K values are
validate this speculation. very similar at both compression ratios, which is consistent with
earlier work [5], even though that study did not consider throttled
conditions. This insensitivity to compression ratio is nonetheless a
surprising result, since compression ratio increases both compression
temperature and pressure, and therefore its impact on the charge
temperature at a given pressure is not straightforward. For example,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018

previous experiments on a DI engine in [8] showed that K is lower at is knock-limited and K is positive with NMEP as low as 8 bar with
higher compression ratio. However, DI data at different compression 10:1 compression ratio and this further drops to 6 bar NMEP at 14:1
ratios were not available in the present study to test this result. compression ratio.

In addition, it is well-known that K increases as end gas temperature

increases [14], and therefore K could be even higher when high inlet
air temperature is encountered, or when using variable valve timing to
trap hot EGR [5]. Also, if an engine’s compression ratio is to be
reoptimized to take advantage of a new fuel with higher RON and
higher sensitivity (e.g. an ethanol blend), it may be tempting to match
baseline knock performance at very high loads where K is negative.
But with high compression ratio and high sensitivity fuel, knock
becomes more limiting at part throttle where K is positive, as illustrated
in Figure 11, as well as in Figures 30 and 31 in [10]. These factors
indicate that MON could still be a relevant property for characterizing
fuels for SI engine combustion under some operating conditions.

Examining the End-Gas Kinetics

We now conduct a preliminary modeling study of end gas
autoignition using three cases from the data set in question, all of
which share the same fuel; E50 with RON = 104.7 and S = 14.8:

Case 1. DI, Pin = 76.5 kPa, 1500 rpm, CR = 10, K = 0.25

Case 2. UFI, Pin = 86.1 kPa, 1500 rpm, CR = 10, K = 0.24
Case 3. DI, Pin = 104.5 kPa, 1500 rpm, CR = 10, K = -0.21

We use the approach presented in an earlier study by the group [15],

which features a systematically calibrated, two-zone model. The fuel
is modeled with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
gasoline surrogate mechanism [16], with an added sub-mechanism
for nitric oxide (NO) and hydrocarbon reactions [17]. The simulation
starts at the intake valve closure (IVC) and takes into account the
residual NO inside the cylinder.
Figure 11. The effect of compression ratio on K for (a) PFI 1500 rpm and (b)
UFI 2500 rpm with CR = 10:1 (solid circles) and CR = 14:1 (open circles). Figure 12 shows the calculated end gas temperatures starting from
The dashed line indicates the case at the nominal MBT for OI = 100 fuels. KL near the end of compression and continuing to autoignition for these
= knock limited. three different cases. Of particular note is the similar autoignition
timing of Cases 1 and 2, which have very similar K but different
Implications for Fuel Quality Standards fuelling methods, loads and pressure histories during intake and
Previous studies on octane appetite argued that K was negative in compression. Case 3 has a significantly lower K, higher load and later
modern engine combustion and that lower MON gives better spark and ignition timing than Case 1.
antiknock performance for fuels with a given RON [3,4,5,6,8]. It has
therefore been advocated that MON may be no longer needed for
gasoline specifications and/or that sensitivity should be as high as
possible and therefore MON should be as low as possible. Most
previous studies were conducted at low engine speed and high load
conditions with wide open throttle or boosted intake pressures, and
relatively low inlet air temperature. This paper studied K under a
wider range of operating conditions. At low RPM and high load, K is
less than 0.5 indicating that RON is indeed more significant than
MON in characterizing the fuel anti-knock property under those
important conditions. However, under part load operations and at
2500 rpm, this study shows that K is mostly positive and its value
approaches 0.5 for some cases. Note from Figure 9, 10, 11 that for
many of these K = 0.3~0.5 cases, the combustion timings are retarded
from MBT, even for isooctane or other OI = 100 fuels, which means
the combustion is still knock limited for these high OI fuels, and Figure 12. The results of unburned gas temperature with detailed kinetics at
increasing MON should help reduce knock. For example, the engine DI, K=0.25 (solid, Case 1); UFI, K=0.24 (dotted, Case 2); and DI, K= -0.21
(dashed, Case 3) conditions. The spark timing for each case is denoted by an
open circle.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018
Such results are plausible given the definition of OI and K in Eqs. 1
to 5. Since Figure 9 earlier showed that K was not strongly dependent
on the engine fuelling method at 1500 rpm, we expect similar
antiknock performance for the same fuel and a given K but different
means of fuel delivery. The similarity in the autoignition timing for
Cases 1 and 2 is therefore reasonable, even though their spark timing
and thermodynamic history prior to ignition are different. This
modelling also shows that Case 3 with negative K (and thus higher
OI with this given fuel) has lower end-gas temperature and later
autoignition. This is also plausible, considering the case that the RON
test features lower end gas temperatures than the MON test thus
lower K. Further analysis will be conducted to test whether such
observations are more broadly applicable.
Conclusions
This paper presented a comparison of four different methods for
determining K for a modern engine operating with direct injection
(DI), port fuel injection (PFI) and homogeneous, upstream fuel
injection (UFI). The test fuels are predominately ethanol-gasoline
blends spanning a wide range of Research Octane Numbers and fuel
sensitivities. Isooctane is also included as a critical reference fuel for
which RON = MON = 100 and S = 0 by definition. The four methods
for determining K were termed “linear regression”, “non-linear
regression”, “PRF via direct comparison” and “PRF via
interpolation”. The two Regression Methods were first presented by
Kalghatgi et al. [3,4] and Cracknell et al. [6,7]. The PRF method via
direct comparison was that developed by Mittal et al. [5], with the
fourth method being an extension to this method presented in this
work, and featuring polynomial interpolation.
The quality of the results obtained using the linear and non-linear
regression methods were found to be particularly dependent on the
design of the test fuel matrix. Unreliable K values resulted in some
cases since the RON and S of the test fuels used in this study were
highly correlated. The PRF methods were found to give better quality
results across the range of conditions studied.
The PRF method via interpolation was then used to examine how K
varied with the NMEP, fueling strategy, engine speed and
compression ratio. A strong, decreasing trend of K with increasing
NMEP was observed, regardless of changes in other operating
conditions. At very high NMEP where the engine was the most knock
limited, K was negative and thus MON was irrelevant for quantifying
knock behavior. However, K was positive and the engine was
knock-limited at NMEP as low as ~ 8 bar and 10:1 compression ratio,
and also at NMEP ~ 6 bar with 14:1 compression ratio. Thus MON is
still relevant at some operating conditions.
The impact of compression ratio on K was insignificant for the
conditions studied, although the tests conducted were not
comprehensive in this regard. The impact of fueling method (DI, PFI
or UFI) on K was also insignificant at throttled conditions at 1500
rpm, but became more important at higher loads and speeds. This last
finding appears to be the first case in which K from different fuelling
methods was studied on the same engine.
Finally, a preliminary modeling investigation examined how the
autoignition timing and end gas conditions varied with K. Two results
were argued to be plausible. First, the same fuel delivered differently
(DI and UFI) but with similar K exhibited similar autoignition timing,
even though their thermodynamic histories prior to autoignition were
different. Second, the end gas temperature was found to decrease
with decreasing K for the same fuel and delivery method (DI), which
is consistent with the thermal conditions of the MON and RON
standard tests. Further analysis will be conducted to test whether such
observations are more broadly applicable.
References
1. ASTM D2699-11, "Standard Test Method for Research Octane
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel", ASTM International,
2011. doi:10.1520/D2699-11.
2. ASTM D2700-11, "Standard Test Method for Motor Octane
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel", ASTM International,
2011. doi:DOI: 10.1520/D2700-11.
3. Kalghatgi, G., "Fuel Anti-Knock Quality - Part I. Engine
Studies," SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-3584, 2001,
doi:10.4271/2001-01-3584.
4. Kalghatgi, G., "Fuel Anti-Knock Quality- Part II. Vehicle
Studies - How Relevant is Motor Octane Number (MON) in
Modern Engines?," SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-3585, 2001,
doi:10.4271/2001-01-3585.
5. Mittal, V. and Heywood, J., "The Relevance of Fuel RON and
MON to Knock Onset in Modern SI Engines," SAE Technical
Paper 2008-01-2414, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-2414.
6. Davies, T., Cracknell, R., Lovett, G., Cruff, L. et al., "Fuel
Effects in a Boosted DISI Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2011-
01-1985, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-1985.
7. Remmert, S., Campbell, S., Cracknell, R., Schuetze, A. et al.,
"Octane Appetite: The Relevance of a Lower Limit to the MON
Specification in a Downsized, Highly Boosted DISI Engine," SAE
Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 7(3):743-755, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2718.
8. Kalghatgi, G., Nakata, K., and Mogi, K., "Octane Appetite
Studies in Direct Injection Spark Ignition (DISI) Engines," SAE
Technical Paper 2005-01-0244, 2005, doi:10.4271/2005-01-0244.
9. Mittal, V. and Heywood, J., "The Shift in Relevance of Fuel
RON and MON to Knock Onset in Modern SI Engines Over
the Last 70 Years," SAE Int. J. Engines 2(2):1-10, 2010,
doi:10.4271/2009-01-2622.
10. Stein, R., Polovina, D., Roth, K., Foster, M. et al., "Effect of
Heat of Vaporization, Chemical Octane, and Sensitivity on
Knock Limit for Ethanol - Gasoline Blends," SAE Int. J. Fuels
Lubr. 5(2):823-843, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-1277.
11. Jung, H., Leone, T., Shelby, M., Anderson, J. et al., "Fuel
Economy and CO2 Emissions of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends in
a Turbocharged DI Engine," SAE Int. J. Engines 6(1):422-434,
2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-1321.
12. Leone, T., Olin, E., Anderson, J., Jung, H. et al., "Effects of Fuel
Octane Rating and Ethanol Content on Knock, Fuel Economy,
and CO2 for a Turbocharged DI Engine," SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr.
7(1):9-28, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-1228.
13. Anderson, J., Leone, T., Shelby, M., Wallington, T. et al., "Octane
Numbers of Ethanol-Gasoline Blends: Measurements and Novel
Estimation Method from Molar Composition," SAE Technical
Paper 2012-01-1274, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-1274.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Columbia Univ, Monday, August 20, 2018

14. Kalghatgi, G., "Auto-Ignition Quality of Practical Fuels Definitions/Abbreviations

and Implications for Fuel Requirements of Future SI and
aTDC - After top dead center
HCCI Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-0239, 2005,
doi:10.4271/2005-01-0239. bTDC - Before top dead center

15. Yuan, H., Foong, T., Chen, Z., Yang, Y. et al., "Modeling of CAD - Crank angle degree
Trace Knock in a Modern SI Engine Fuelled by Ethanol/ CA50 - Crank angle of 50% mass burned
Gasoline Blends," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1242, 2015, CR - Compression ratio
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1242.
DI - Direct injection
16. Mehl, M., Pitz, W.J., Westbrook, C.K., and Curran, H.J.,
DISI - Direct injection Spark ignition
"Kinetic modeling of gasoline surrogate components and
mixtures under engine conditions," Proceedings of the IVC - Intake valve closure
Combustion Institute (33):193-200, 2011, doi:http://dx.doi. MBT - Maximum brake torque
org/10.1016/j.proci.2010.05.027. MON - Motor Octane Number
17. Dagaut, P., and Nicolle, A., "Experimental study and NMEP - Net mean effective pressure
detailed kinetic modeling of the effect of exhaust gas on fuel
NO - Nitric oxide
combustion: mutual sensitization of the oxidation of nitric oxide
and methane over extended temperature and pressure ranges," OI - Octane index
Combustion and Flame (140):161-171, 2005, doi:http://dx.doi. PFI - Port fuel injection
org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.11.003. Pin - Intake pressure
PRF - Primary reference fuel
Contact Information RON - Research Octane Number
Yi Yang S - Octane sensitivity
yi.yang@unimelb.edu.au
SI - Spark ignition
Department of Mechanical Engineering UFI - Upstream fuel injection
The University of Melbourne, Australia

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Ford Motor Company and the
Advanced Centre for Automotive Research and Testing (www.acart.
com.au). We thank the authors of SAE paper 2012-01-1277 for
sharing the raw data used in this research and Mr. Hao Yuan for the
two-zone model data.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process
requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191

http://papers.sae.org/2017-01-0666