See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267927464

RCCI Engine Operation Towards 60% Thermal

Efficiency

Article in SAE Technical Papers · April 2013

DOI: 10.4271/2013-01-0279

CITATIONS READS

39 583

4 authors, including:

Derek A. Splitter Martin Wissink

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory
57 PUBLICATIONS 1,431 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 286 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rolf Deneys Reitz

University of Wisconsin–Madison
250 PUBLICATIONS 7,561 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stoichiometric Diesel Combustion View project

Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Particle Number and Mass Emissions from Spark-Ignition
Engines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rolf Deneys Reitz on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
RCCI Engine Operation Towards 60% Thermal
Efficiency
Derek Splitter, Martin Wissink, Dan DelVescovo and Rolf Reitz
Univ of Wisconsin
ABSTRACT
The present experimental study explored methods to obtain
the maximum practical cycle efficiency with Reactivity
Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI). The study used
both zero-dimensional computational cycle simulations and
engine experiments. The experiments were conducted using a
single-cylinder heavy-duty research diesel engine adapted for
dual fuel operation, with and without piston oil gallery
cooling. In previous studies, RCCI combustion with in-
cylinder fuel blending using port-fuel-injection of a low
reactivity fuel and optimized direct-injections of higher
reactivity fuels was demonstrated to permit near-zero levels
of NOX and PM emissions in-cylinder, while simultaneously
realizing gross indicated thermal efficiencies in excess of
56%.
The present study considered RCCI operation at a fixed load
condition of 6.5 bar IMEP an engine speed of 1,300 [r/min].
The experiments used a piston with a flat profile with 18.7:1
compression ratio. The results demonstrated that the indicated
gross thermal efficiency could be increased by not cooling
the piston, by using high dilution, and by optimizing in-
cylinder fuel stratification with two fuels of large reactivity
differences. The best results achieved gross indicated thermal
efficiencies near 60%. By further analyzing the results with
zero-dimensional engine cycle simulations, the limits of cycle
efficiency were investigated. The simulations demonstrated
that the RCCI operation without piston oil cooling rejected
less heat, and that ∼94% of the maximum cycle efficiency
could be achieved while simultaneously obtaining ultra-low
NOX and PM emissions.
INTRODUCTION
As an energy conversion device, the internal combustion
engine (ICE) has become invaluable to society. The ability of
2013-01-0279
Published
04/08/2013
Copyright © 2013 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2013-01-0279
the ICE to provide economically viable and reliable power
for both stationary and mobile applications has resulted in
mass production of the ICE in a variety of displacement and
design platforms [1]. However, these advances in mobility
and power generation do not come without side effects.
Government mandated regulation of engine pollutants such as
carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon (HC), oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM) have been
aggressively increased.
More recently, legislation has been passed [2] which will
mandate fuel consumption reductions from vocational class
heavy-duty vehicles. This legislation will effectively add
another exhaust gas to be mitigated, viz., carbon dioxide
(CO2). This recent legislation couples an increase in fuel
economy with existing reductions in exhaust emissions.
These new regulations may require a rethinking of the
traditional and independent ways in which engine emissions
and efficiency have been classified, and will require a
uniform approach for simultaneous reductions.
A potential strategy to simultaneously address emissions and
fuel economy regulations is through implementation of low-
temperature combustion (LTC) strategies. Typically these
strategies rely on long ignition delays to increase fuel-air
mixing, reducing local equivalence ratios or temperature or
both [3,4].
One of the most versed LTC strategies is homogeneous
charge compression ignition (HCCI). This strategy relies on
the autoignition of a fully premixed air-fuel charge, affording
operation with very lean mixtures (Φ or Φ′1 < 0.3). The result
is that near-zero in-cylinder levels of NOX and PM emissions
are possible. Additionally, as noted by Foster [5], the lean
charge reduces combustion gas temperatures, reducing the
driving potential for heat transfer, and increase ng the
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
expansion γ, both increasing work potential. However, to
capitalize on these advantages the combustion event must be
knock-free. It is well known that combustion knock increases
engine heat transfer. For example, work by Grandin et al. [6]
using in-cylinder Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman Spectroscopy
(CARS) laser diagnostics coupled with in-cylinder
thermocouples demonstrated that during knocking conditions
the thermal boundary layer thins, and heat losses increase.
A method to increase HCCI combustion control and knock
mitigation is through the addition of stratification. Various
stratification strategies have been researched such as
compositional [7, 8, 9] or thermal stratification [10, 11].
Although these have shown some promise, interesting work
by Herold et al. [12] demonstrated that both compositional
and thermal effects can compete during the ignition process
of HCCI operation and careful management of both thermal
and reactant composition distributions are needed for
successful stratified combustion control.
A different stratification approach is partial fuel stratification.
This technique introduces controlled equivalence ratio (Φ)
stratification into the chamber. Results by Sjöberg and Dec
[13] and later by Yang et al. [14] have shown this technique
as a promising means to reduce autoignition knocking
tendency. Additionally, Dec et al. [15] has shown that partial
fuel stratification can increase engine efficiency at high loads
by reducing engine knocking and enabling more efficient
combustion phasing. Alternatively, fuel stratification can be
compounded by introducing simultaneous reactivity and Φ
stratification through the use of dual-fueling. Modeling
results by Kokjohn and Reitz [16] have shown that Φ plus
reactivity stratification further enhances the ignition gradient
within the charge, enabling knock free autoignition
combustion phasings near TDC at mid-high load operation.
More recent in-cylinder planar laser induced florescence
(PLIF) measurements by Kokjohn et al. [17] supported earlier
emissions spectroscopy work by Splitter et al. [18], which
demonstrated that this dual-fuel combustion event is
controlled by zones of reactivity sequentially igniting from
the most to least reactive. This technique has correspondingly
been called reactivity controlled compression ignition
(RCCI). Recent single-cylinder RCCI experiments by Splitter
et al. [19] have demonstrated that full-load (20 bar brake
mean effective pressure (BMEP)) RCCI operation is possible,
with efficiencies comparable to state-of-the-art conventional
diesel combustion (CDC). The results were with pump 87
pump octane number (PON) gasoline and #2 ultra-low sulfur
diesel (ULSD) with a production possible operating
condition, simultaneous low PPRR, and met EPA 2010 NOX
and soot emissions mandates in-cylinder.
1Charge based equivalence ratio,
In the present study, high efficiency RCCI experiments will
be conducted to establish pragmatic estimates of maximum
heavy-duty (HD) engine efficiency. Initially zero-
dimensional simulations will be used to assess the sensitivity
and fuel efficiency gains that could be possible though
changes to compression ratio, charge dilution, combustion
efficiency, and heat transfer effects. This initial work will
serve as a guide for the second portion of the work, where
single-cylinder engine experiments were conducted to assess
the ability to realize the zero-dimensional predictions. Lastly
the simulation will be validated against experimental results,
and then used to determine the measured performance
relative to an ideal cycle.
The comparison will also address considerations of future air
handling systems required to obtain high gross efficiencies.
The results are presented as a theoretical study that defines
what would be required for the engine alone to achieve the
DOE super truck goal of demonstrating HD engine 50%
brake thermal efficiency (BTE), and to provide insight into
modes for achieving 55% BTE. Note that no validation or
engineering assessment or selection of supporting
technologies (EGR coolers, DOC conversion efficiencies,
reduction in FMEP technologies, etc…) is provided, only the
definition of what may be required for optimizing the
combustion process for high efficiency (a gross cycle based
process).
MODELING
Prior to engine experiments, computational tools were used to
explore the conditions that may provide increased engine
efficiency. The zero-dimensional GT Power code was
coupled to experimental heat release and initial conditions.
This is a similar approach as taken by Dempsey and Reitz
with CFD and experiments in [20]. As is standard in zero
dimensional modeling, the models heat transfer relation
required tuning to match experimental pressure data. The heat
transfer correlation used in the simulations was the Woschni
Huber model with the stock coefficients [21], the piston
surface area was set to 1.1 times the bore area, and the total
convection coefficient was tuned to match experimental
pressure data (coefficient value of 0.4 required). This
approach provides useful guidance in solving the
thermodynamics of the engine cycle, which can suggest
conditions that may increase engine efficiency.
For example, recent zero-dimensional simulation work by
Caton [22] has demonstrated that a combination of factors
must be used to advance engine efficiency, with the primary
factors being burn duration, phasing, dilution, and
compression ratio. Supporting zero-dimensional modeling
work by Lavoie et al. [23], has also suggested that very lean
operation can increase gross efficiency. However, as pointed
.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

out by Chadwell et al. [24], without careful consideration, Table 1. Stock 3401 SCOTE geometry
high levels of pumping work can be incurred in highly dilute
LTC strategies. Thus, the conditions of maximum gross, net
and brake efficiencies can be mutually exclusive. Thus,
simulation tools can be very beneficial as a development
utility, but their results still require experimental validation.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Single-cylinder engine experiments were performed on a
representative HD platform. The engine geometry is given in
Table 1, with a diagram of the engine lab in Figure 1. The
experiments used two different pistons, both significantly
different from the stock single cylinder oil test engine
(SCOTE) piston. The piston profiles can be seen in Figure 2,
with specific details in Table 2. As seen in the table, the
surface area of the RCCI pistons is reduced as compared to
the stock piston, and the 18.7: 1 compression ratio (rc) flat
“pancake” piston was surface polished. The design of both
RCCI pistons was based on the findings of Splitter et al. [25]
which details the development of the rc = 14.9:1 continual Figure 2. Cross sectional view of the stock CDC 16.1:1 rc
bowl “bathtub” piston. For both pistons the compression ratio (black), rc =14.9:1 optimized RCCI bathtub (green), and
was determined through direct measurement. 18.7:1 rc pancake (blue) pistons. The grey line atop the
piston profiles denotes the cylinder fire deck at TDC.
Note the undercutting of the top ring relative to the CDC
stock piston

Table 2. Piston properties

For all tests, the location of motored peak cylinder pressure

was fixed at −0.4°CA after top dead center (ATDC).
Acquired cylinder pressure traces were averaged for 500
cycles, and unless specifically noted, post-processed using a
zero-phase low-pass Butterworth filter with the cutoff
frequency at the first resonance mode of the respective
engine, as described by Eng [26]. Peak pressure rise rate
(PPRR) was calculated from the cylinder pressure ensemble
averages. The apparent heat release rate (AHRR) was
calculated by differentiating the ensemble average pressure
using a first order Savitzky-Golay filter with a window size
of nine. The AHRR calculation also used a non-constant
gamma approach, where the measured constant compression
Figure 1. diagram of the engine lab
gamma was used prior to top dead center (TDC) and the
measured constant expansion gamma was used after TDC.

2RCCI pistons cut from research blanks with 1 [mm] undersized top ring lands, further detail in Splitter et al. [25]
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

Combustion phasing was characterized by the location of
50% apparent heat release (CA50), which was determined by
integrating the AHRR.
All gaseous engine-out emissions were analyzed with a five
gas Horiba analyzer bench and particulates were measured
with an AVL 415S smoke meter. HC emissions were
corrected using the Kar and Cheng ethanol flame ionization
detector (FID) response correlation [27].
High reactivity fuel was delivered through a common rail
operated at low pressure, with the injector and injection
schedule is seen in Table 6. The low reactivity fuel was
delivered through a high flowrate standard design port-fuel
injector (PFI) with dimensions and injection schedule
depicted in Table 7.
Table 6. High reactivity fuel injector and schedule

The fuels used were splash blended on site. The low

reactivity fuel used was E85, determined through blending a
measured volume of 85% ethanol with a separate measured
volume of 15% gasoline, the blend comprised the port
injected fuel. The high reactivity fuel was cetane improved
gasoline. 3% by volume of 2- Ethylhexyl-Nitrate (EHN) was
added to gasoline, and this was the direct injected fuel.

Table 3. Gasoline fuel properties

Table 7. Low reactivity fuel injector and schedule

Table 4. Ethanol fuel properties

RESULTS
Initial Modeling Study
An initial experimental case was selected as a baseline. It was
operated with the rc = 14.9:1 piston at 1300 [r/min] with
typical RCCI conditions. The performance of this case is seen
Table 5. 2-Ethylhexyl-Nitrate fuel properties in Table 8.

Fuel flow rates were calculated from emissions bench values

and from mass measurements using a coriolis effect-based
meter for the low reactivity fuel, and a differential pressure-
based measurement for the high reactivity fuel. The fuel flow
rates were averaged to determine engine fueling, efficiency,
and losses, as discussed and defined in Appendix A.

3PON of Ethanol estimated to be 99.15 by Eyidogan et al. [28]

4EHN properties obtained from Oxley et al. [29]
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

Table 8. Initial RCCI experimental results for

simulations

Figure 3. Calculated BTE as a function of IMEPg and

GTE (GIE synonymous to GTE)

Based on these results, it is seen that to achieve the Super

Truck efficiency targets from the engine alone, very high
engine efficiencies and low losses are required at moderate to
high loads. To explore pathways to achieve these results, the
experimental AHRR and initial conditions from Table 8 were
used in GT Power. The simulation heat transfer coefficient
These results were used in a simple parametric study to was tuned to match the experimental data (coefficient found
determine the required gross thermal efficiency (GTE) for a to be 0.4), establishing a baseline simulation condition. Then,
given BTE. The study used the friction mean effective changes such as compression ratio, combustion efficiency,
pressure (FMEP) and pumping mean effective pressure heat transfer, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and Φ were
(PMEP) from Table 8 in Equation 1, to calculate the BTE simulated, to improve the understanding of their interaction
from a given gross thermal efficiency (GTE) and gross on engine efficiencies. Select results from the simulation are
indicated mean effective pressure (IMEPg). presented in Table 9, where it is seen that to achieve very
high engine efficiencies a combination of effects is needed.

Table 9. Initial modeling study result (changes in bold)

(1)
The results of the study are seen in Figure 3, where the DOE
super truck goals of 55% BTE is highlighted. Using these
results and conditions, estimates can be made of the required
GTE for a give BTE. The results show that for a typical HD
engine IMEP, gross engine efficiencies in excess of 55% with
simultaneously low losses (PMEP and FMEP) are required to
achieve a BTE in excess of 50%, and 60% GTE is required
for 55% BTE.

5FMEP estimated from multi-cylinder and FMEP data in [30].

6Calculated from an air standard model, 4 kPa intake air filter and 16 kPa exhaust diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) + pipe, pressure losses to ambient added.
7Calculated from an air standard model, no pressure losses assumed (air filter, DOC, and exhaust pipe all are 0 kPa).
8GT Power FMEP correlation used correlation constants, based on estimated RCCI BTE presented in Splitter et al. [19], C = 0.3 [bar] C =0.005 C =0.03 [bar s/m] C = .0006 [bar*(s/m)2]
1 2 3 * 4
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
Figure 4. Initial Modeling results
The results suggest that through lean high compression ratio
operation, and with a 50% reduction in incomplete
combustion and heat transfer losses, ∼60% GTE and ∼49
BTE may be realizable. However, it is critical to note that a
combustion profile from an experiment at one condition is
only valid at that condition. Thus, the solution generated by
the simulation should only be used as a tool for guiding an
experimental pathway, where additional modifications may
be required to match with experiments. Additionally in
Figure 4, the maximum laboratory peak cylinder pressure
(PCP) limit of 150 bar is noted. Thus, in the research
laboratory, similar experimental conditions may be operated,
but at only at lower engine loads.
Experimental Results
Based on the initial simulations, experimental tests with lean
operation and high compression ratio were performed. For
the tests, four conditions were operated. The 18.7:1 rc piston
described in Table 2 was used. The engine was fueled with
E85 and 3% EHN gasoline for the low and high reactivity
systems, respectively, using the injection strategy described
in Tables 6 and 7. For all tests combustion phasing and load
were fixed at 0.50 CA ATDC, as a preliminary combustion
phasing sweep empirically determined this timing to be
within the area of highest efficiency. Fixed phasing operation
with fixed load of 6.45 bar net indicated mean effective
pressure (IMEPn) was maintained while sweeping boost
(equivalent to a sweep of Φ'). To maintain combustion
phasing the ratio of the less and more reactive fuels were
adjusted as required. As noted in the initial simulations, a
simultaneous 50% reduction in heat transfer and incomplete
combustion are needed with lean high compression ratio
operation. To aid these reductions in the experiments, piston
oil cooling jet modulation was performed (i.e., jet on or off).
9Numbering convention from Splitter [35], thesis available online through ProQuest, http://disexpress.umi.com/.
As noted by Pan et al. [31], most modern CDC applications
have employed oil spray gallery cooling, where a jet of
pressurized oil is directed into a channel inside the piston.
The oil is used to cool the piston crown and remove heat from
the ring-liner interface, a wear point. Since this design is used
as a load expansion and heat removal strategy, it is designed
for full load CDC operation. This means that the cooling
capabilities are often oversized for less than full load
operation. For example, Kajiwara et al. [32] showed that
60-70 % of piston crown heat is removed through the gallery
in oil gallery cooled pistons. Likewise Luff et al.[33] has
demonstrated that if piston oil gallery jet cooling is not active
at lower engine loads a 5-10% reduction in CO and
corresponding increase in GTE is possible as piston surface
temperatures increase (50°C at a mid-load condition).
More recently Hendricks et al. [34] has shown that in RCCI,
the amount of piston crown heat is significantly reduced
compared to CDC, with 50-75% less piston crown heat flux
at matched conditions. Therefore, in RCCI piston oil gallery
spray cooling requirements are likely reduced, with uncooled
operation potentially offering increased efficiency through
reductions in heat transfer and incomplete combustion losses.
However, it should be noted that piston oil gallery cooling is
typically employed a means to not only extends the operable
range but also the lifespan of diesel engines, thus elimination
of piston oil spray cooling systems in production should be
executed with caution as unknown long term durability issues
may arise if improperly executed.
Experiments with and without piston oil gallery cooling were
conducted to assess if reductions losses and increases in GTE
were possible. The tested conditions can be seen in Table 10
with all 102 data points graphically shown in Figure 5 (the
data marker scheme is used throughout the results section).
Table 10. Piston oil gallery cooling test conditions
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

The results show a good agreement with the CDC findings by

Luff et al. [33], where a decrease in CO emission of 5-10%
was observed. Interestingly, with RCCI these effects are
observed to be magnified at the lean limits, where uncooled
piston operation extends the range of high combustion
efficiency. This directly influences the maximum possible
gross efficiency, as indicated in Figure 7, where losses are
plotted as a function of Φ′.

Figure 5. Piston oil gallery cooling test conditions and

data marker coloring scheme

The combustion efficiency and CO and HC emissions

concentrations from the tested points are presented in Figure
6.

Figure 7. Loss trends for cooled (open) and uncooled

operation (closed)

The results of Figure 7 show that for low heat transfer and
exhaust losses, lean operation is required. This competes with
incomplete combustion losses which are minimum at
intermediate Φ′ operation. However, without piston oil
cooling (red markers) the tradeoff in these losses is reduced,
enabling good combustion efficiency at leaner operation, thus
compounding increases in efficiency.

Figure 8 illustrates the GTE results with 40% EGR and 40°C
intake temperature, clearly depicting improved GTE and
learner operation possible without piston oil cooling.

Figure 6. Incomplete combustion emissions

concentrations and corresponding fuel energy loss.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

Figure 9. Energy budget at maximum GTE operation

with (black) and without (red) piston oil gallery cooling

Figures 8 and 9 clearly demonstrate that without piston oil

Figure 8. GTE results with 40% EGR and 43°C intake
temperature at CA 50 of 0.5°CA ATDC, 6.45 bar IMEPn.
In the figure the data markers represent the average and error
bars represent the range of GTE values calculated from the
different fuel flow metrics (see appendix for details).
gallery cooling GTE can be increased, however they do not
demonstrate if the increases are from leaner operation, or the
change in piston cooling. To explore these relations, further
analysis was performed. Figure 10 displays the Φ′ associated
with maximum efficiency for the four conditions presented in
Table 10.

To assess the reasons for the efficiency differences, the

energy budgets of the best GTE and matched Φ′ of two cases
were compared. Using the relations described in the
appendix, fuel input energy was tracked using a first law
approach. The performance of the highest efficiency
conditions for operation with and without piston oil galley
cooling were averaged (duplicate runs), and the breakdown of
fuel energy use is shown in Figure 9.

The results of Figures 8 and 9 clearly demonstrate that

without piston oil gallery cooling, RCCI can exhibit an
improved maximum efficiency of approximately 1% point
higher. The reasons for this are surprisingly not from
improved combustion efficiency, as there is actually a 0.5 %
point decrease without cooling, but are from reduced heat
transfer and exhaust losses of over 1% point.
Figure 10. Φ'at maximum efficiency operation with
cooling (black) and without cooling (red). Hashed bars
are with 40°C intake temperature 40% EGR operation,
soil bars are with 20°C intake 0% EGR operation.

The results illustrate that without piston oil cooling,

efficiency is maximized at leaner conditions. Therefore, the
reductions in heat transfer in Figure 9 are likely partially
dependent on reduced in-cylinder temperatures associated
with leaner operation. To better isolate the trapped mass
effects on losses, matched Φ′ operation was compared. The
results are presented in Figure 11.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

cooling, the highest GTE values are coincident with the

lowest HX and intermediate VE. This suggests that decreased
engine breathing may enable improved GTE and reduced
HX. However, the relations between breathing and net
efficiency are strongly linked, thus to realize gains on the
gross in the net and brake basis careful and well-engineered
air handling systems may be required. Additionally, the effect
of reduced VE was found to be strongly linked to piston
cooling, and not to differences in fueling (PFI/DI ratio),
suggesting that piston cooling is primarily responsible for the
reduced VE.

To understand the reasons for this VE and HX trend reversal,

select cooled and uncooled cases were compared. Figure 13
illustrates the trends in bulk gas in-cylinder temperature at
Figure 11. Matched Φ′ operation with (black) and matched conditions, as shown in Table 11.
without (red) piston oil gallery cooling. Note the increase
in losses with cooling.
Table 11. Conditions and performance in Figure 13
The results demonstrate that at matched Φ′ (matched
adiabatic flame temperatures), heat transfer losses are similar,
incomplete combustion losses are lower, and surprisingly,
exhaust losses are actually lower without piston oil gallery
cooling. At first glance, the exhaust loss trend is
counterintuitive since at a given Φ′, the exhaust gas
temperatures without piston oil cooling tended to be ∼1-5°C
higher than with cooling.

However, as seen in Figure 12, without piston oil gallery

cooling the volumetric efficiency (VE) of the engine was
reduced. The impact that this has on gross efficiency is
subtle.

Figure 12. GTE plotted in volumetric efficiency and heat

transfer space. Operation with rc =14.9:1 is also plotted
for comparison. This compression ratio was tested at a
higher load of 8.45 bar IMEPn but matched phasing and
overall turbocharger efficiency (∼65% overall).

Figure 12 shows that with piston oil gallery cooling, the Figure 13. Cylinder pressure and bulk gas temperature
highest GTE is coincident with high VE and low heat transfer for operation with (black) and without (red) piston oil
(HX). That is, improved engine breathing and thus trapped gallery cooling, data are unfiltered.
mass improve GTE. Conversely, without piston oil gallery
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
The results of Figure 13 clearly show that at matched initial
conditions the bulk gas temperature without piston oil gallery
cooling is higher. This is a result of decreased airflow (3%
less). However, as shown in Table 11 the Φ′ of the cases is
nearly the same. Traditionally with decreased airflow, a
proportional increase in Φ′ would be expected. However, if
less fuel is simultaneously required to match load, then Φ′
can be unchanged. This reduction in airflow is confirmed by
comparison of the exhaust losses, as shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Exhaust losses for cooled (grey) and uncooled
(red) operation, rc =14.9:1 results with cooling also
plotted (blue)
The exhaust loss results demonstrate that without piston oil
gallery cooling, the exhaust losses decrease. Since these are
determined as the difference in energy, the results can be
affected by temperature or mass flowrate. Figure 15 shows
the exhaust gas temperatures for the cases, clearly
demonstrating that the exhaust gas temperatures with and
without cooling are similar (black vs. red). The losses with rc
=14.9:1 are also plotted for reference (blue).
Figure 15. Exhaust surge tank temperature for cooled
(black) and uncooled (red) operation, rc =14.9:1 results
with cooling also plotted (blue)
The results clearly show that the difference in exhaust losses
is not from a difference in temperature but from a difference
in mass flowrate. Thus, from the observed lower heat transfer
loss and VE results (Figure 12), combined with the higher in-
cylinder temperatures (Figure 13) and reduced exhaust losses
(Figure 14), it is inferred that operation without piston oil
gallery cooling increases in-cylinder boundary surface
temperatures. This reduces engine heat transfer losses, with
simultaneous reductions in exhaust losses, further increasing
engine efficiency, and enabling matched Φ′ operation with
reduced VE. Lastly, it is seen that with higher compression
ratio more fuel energy is extracted in-cylinder, reducing
exhaust gas temperatures (blue vs. red and black in Figure
15).
The results and analysis demonstrate that, without piston oil
gallery cooling, engine efficiency of LTC strategies may
increase. The combination of reduced combustion losses, heat
transfer and exhaust losses all enable improved gross
efficiency. However, as indicated by Luff et al. [33], without
piston oil gallery cooling oil viscosity can increase, thus, to
maximize brake efficiency improvements the oil pump may
need to be variable.
Final Modeling Results
Based on the experimental results, it is useful to revisit the
GT Power simulation for both support of the experimental
findings, and also to determine the cycle efficiency limits.
Simulations were conducted using the experimental inputs of
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

Table 12 for the initial conditions. Although not shown in the The results show that with HX=0.3 in the simulation good
table, the experimental AHRR of cases 61 and 83 (see Figure agreement is seen in pressure history, where the efficiency
13) was also input into the simulations. and performance agreements are seen in Table 13.

Table 12. High efficiency operation points with and Table 13. Performance with cooling (Figure 16)
without piston oil gallery cooling

From the results it is seen that operation with the 18.7:1 rc

piston offers a slight reduction in heat transfer as compared to
the 14.9:1 rc piston. To assess the heat transfer effect without
piston oil gallery cooling, pressure results were compared in
Figure 17, with specific results in Table 14.

In the initial rc =14.9:1 study with piston oil gallery cooling, a

HX value of 0.4 was required to match experimental data.
Results with the 18.7:1 rc piston are presented in Figure 16,
where the HX constants needed to be reduced to 0.3 to match
experimental data. The reduction is attributed reduced surface
area from bowl shape (as noted in Table 2) and bowl
polishing. The polishing further minimizes surface area
created by machining tool paths.

Figure 17. Experiment and simulation without piston oil

gallery cooling, lower HX term required 0.2 vs. 0.4

Table 14. Performance without cooling (Figure 17)

Figure 16. Experiment and modeling high compression

ratio operation with piston oil cooling the, note the lower
HX required 0.3 vs. 0.4

11Determined from experimental measured bulk pressure and trapped mass

 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
The results clearly demonstrate that without piston oil gallery
cooling, the simulation heat transfer coefficient needed to be
reduced, in agreement with the experimental trends.
After the initial simulation validation, computational
exploration was performed, to determine the sources and
magnitudes of additional engine efficiency gains. For these
simulations, the normalized experimental heat release input
for combustion, and adiabatic (HX=0) 100% combustion
efficiency was assumed. The results are seen in the dashed
magenta line Figure 18 with detailed performance and
efficiencies in Table 15. Also presented in the figure and
tables are simulation results with 0% EGR assumed. This
simulation addresses the effect that the 42% EGR, required in
the experiments, has on efficiency (decreased ratio of
expansion to compression γ), where these results are in
dashed cyan. The experimental pressure and AHRR results
are plotted in black
Figure 18. Simulation of adiabatic 100% combustion
efficiency with 42% EGR (magenta) and 0% EGR
(cyan), experiment (black)
Table 15. Performance of ideal operation vs. measured
(Figure 18)
The findings show that adiabatic operation with 100%
combustion efficiency offers additional engine fuel efficiency
gains. Likewise, operation without EGR can increase engine
efficiency, so long as EGR is not required for combustion
control, and that combustion efficiency gains though
combustion product recycling do not outweigh y efficiency
benefits of 0% EGR operation. Ignoring these requirements
and phenomena, and assuming that adiabatic, 100%
combustion efficiency operation with air is the maximum
cycle efficiency, then the experimental results show that
∼94% of maximum engine cycle efficiency is possible with
RCCI.
Lastly the effect of combustion duration can be investigated.
For this simulation 0.1°CA combustion duration was
assumed, this represents an air-standard cycle. These results
are shown in dashed orange and are plotted with the previous
0% EGR, adiabatic, 100% combustion efficiency results from
Figure 18, again in cyan. The two simulation cases and the
experimental case (black) are potted in Figure 19, and the
detailed efficiency results are presented in Table 16.
Figure 19. Air-standard cycle simulation (orange
dashed)
Table 16. Performance of ideal operation (Figure 19)
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

The results show that there is a nominal increase in GTE and

NTE with the ∼14°CA shorter burn duration. However, since
the near-zero combustion duration of the air standard cycle
results in much higher peak cylinder pressure, the brake
efficiency can actually decrease. Under these conditions, the
increase in FMEP could negate the modest increase in GTE
and NTE observed with the shorter burn duration. The result
is that for maximizing brake efficiency HCCI/RCCI like burn
durations are likely required maximize net and gross
efficiencies without increased FMEP. For instance Lavoie et
al. [23] suggest that only when burn durations are longer than
∼20°CA is there a significant decrease in efficiency.

DISCUSSION
The presented results demonstrate that extremely high gross
efficiencies are possible with the combustion control
provided by RCCI. However, in practice brake efficiency is
of primary interest. Therefore optimization of both air
handling and factional systems will be of major importance to
achieve high brake efficiency. Brake efficiency of LTC
strategies can be difficult to reach with production air
handling systems (Chadwell et al. [24]). As gross efficiencies
increase, exhaust enthalpies are reduced, presenting a tradeoff
between gross and net efficiencies. If high power densities
are desired, this tradeoff must be overcome.
To illustrate this, the GT Power model was used to explore
variations in turbo efficiency and to demonstrate its effect on
net efficiency. Five cases were selected using the
experimental conditions of test matrix point 83 (used
throughout the previous discussions as a representative case
with high efficiency when operated with EGR and no piston
oil cooling). The conditions of the five cases are presented in
Table 17, and the corresponding gross and net fuel
efficiencies are shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. NTE and GTE of various boosting strategies
(cases 1-4) and adiabatic 100% combustion efficiency
case 5
Based on these results it is seen that a systems integration
approach for the design of the air handling system is required
to achieve high NTE with high LTC GTE. Case 1 assumes
aggressive boosting technology (∼70% combined efficiency)
that exceeds the limits of conventional technology.
Using this approach with the FMEP constants of Footnote 5
in conjunction with the experimental data, estimates of the
BTE and BMEP can be made as shown in Figure 21. The
figure illustrates that 50% BTE may be possible at ∼16 bar
BMEP, and if a 10% reduction in FMEP were possible (e.g.,
through friction reduction), this could be reduced to 14 bar
BMEP. These conditions are beyond the PCP capabilities of
the present test laboratory, and were thus not able to be
tested. However, they are within the limits of more modern
production and pre-production HD engines where 200 bar
PCP is realizable.

Table 17. GT Power simulations pressure boundary

conditions used in Figure 20

Figure 21. Estimated BTE and BMEP from 18.7 rc

Φ'=0.27 TDC CA50 RCCI operation (black), and NTE as
discussed in Fig. 20 (green, blue, red). Calculated FMEP
vs. BMEP is shown in grey.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

The figure also demonstrates that if the NTE could be combustion losses would be required. Based on the
increased to 57% (blue), a BTE of 50% can be achieved at simulation findings, experiments were conducted to validate
loads at or below 10 bar BMEP, or 8 bar BMEP with a the simulations and to confirm the suggested pathways to
combined 10% reduction in FMEP. Figure 20 demonstrated increase engine efficiency.
that this level of NTE can be realized by either increases in
combustion efficiency plus further reduction in heat loss The experiments were conducted using Reactivity Controlled
(case 5), or through increases in turbocharger efficiency Compression Ignition (RCCI) in a single-cylinder version of
(reduced AP across the engine), as in cases 3 and 4. the Caterpillar 3400 series heavy-duty diesel engine. RCCI
allows the combustion timing and duration to be controlled,
The latter strategy would require “perfect” boosting, meaning and hence permits exploration of optimal engine performance
little-to-no pressure drop across the engine. For LTC, this strategies. The results showed that the use of piston oil
would likely necessitate auxiliary boosting in tandem with the gallery cooling hinders gross and net efficiency, since
use of turbo machinery. (For example, augmenting a portion without cooling, the lean limit can be extended and the
of the boost demand with a secondary device, like an indicated efficiency generally increased at all tested
electromechanical supercharger.) However, to avoid conditions. Gross indicated efficiencies in excess of 59%
additional factional losses, it would be best to power such a were measured in the experimental engine, with
device by means other than the alternator (e.g., waste heat corresponding near-zero levels of NOX and PM. Finally, the
generated electricity or regenerative electro-kinetic capture experimental results were used to recalibrate the zero-
and storage). dimensional code, and were found to represent efficiencies as
high as ∼94% of the theoretical cycle limit that could be
Regardless of the strategy, the results of Figures 20 and 21 reached with 0% EGR, adiabatic, 100% combustion
demonstrate that very high GTE is possible from a variety of efficiency operation.
ways. However, to increase real engine efficiency,
improvements in engine air handling and engine friction are The results show that with optimized combustion
required. When achieving high gross efficiencies (recall that management and thermodynamic conditions, 60% gross
the present maximum efficiency was within 6% of the engine efficiencies are possible with RCCI, thus providing a
theoretical cycle limit12), the highest potential for increasing pathway to meet the DOE Super Truck 50% BTE engine
BTE is available, but the associated improvements in efficiency goal, as well as a pathway for reaching 55% BTE.
pumping and friction must also be integrated to fully benefit However, the results also have shown that improvements to
BTE. boosting system efficiencies for low exhaust temperatures
and overall reductions in friction are required to best
Thus, although LTC strategies offer the potential of capitalize on the high gross efficiencies.
extremely high GTE, to maximize BTE, advanced
technologies may be required to fully realize these efficiency REFERENCES
benefits. It should be noted that, even without such
advancements, LTC BTE has been demonstrated to be 1. Stone, R., “Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines,”
competitive with state-of-the-art CDC to full load in Splitter Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA,
et al. [19] and in multi-cylinder engine tests in Curran et al. ISBN 978-0-7680-2084-7, 1999.
[36], but with the additional major advantage of ultra-low 2. Bunker B., “U.S. HDV GHG and Fuel Efficiency Final
engine-out NOx and PM, below those of EPA 2010 Rule” 17 annual Directions in Engine-Efficiency and
regulation standards without the need for after-treatment. Emissions Research (DEER) conference presentation,
presented October 4, 2011, available at http://
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/
proceedings/2011_deer_presentations.html, 2011.
Simulations and experiments were used to assess pathways
for achieving 50% BTE or greater in a HD engine. The 3. Kalghatgi, G., Risberg, P., and Ångström, H., “Partially
simulations were conducted using GT-Power and suggested Pre-Mixed Auto-Ignition of Gasoline to Attain Low Smoke
that gross thermal efficiencies upwards of 60% would be and Low NOx at High Load in a Compression Ignition
required, with simultaneous low pumping and frictional Engine and Comparison with a Diesel Fuel,” SAE Technical
losses. The zero-dimensional engine cycle simulation was Paper 2007-01-0006, 2007, doi: 10.4271/2007-01-0006.
calibrated with experimental results to determine appropriate
4. ACE001: Heavy-Duty Low-Temperature and Diesel
initial conditions and engine geometries that enable high
Combustion & Heavy-Duty Combustion Modeling
efficiency operation. The simulations determined that use of
(Musculus, DOE 2012 Merit Review), http://
∼18.6:1 rc with a 50% reduction in both heat transfer and
www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/

12Theoretical cycle limit applies for the tested boost, compression ratio, trapped mass, etc… and is not absolute for an arbitrary geometry or operating condition.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM
merit_review_2012/adv_combustion/
ace001_musculus_2012_o.pdf, accessed October 9, 2012.
5. Foster D.E., “Low Temperature Combustion- A
Thermodynamic Pathway to High Efficiency Engines”,
National Petroleum Council Fuels Study, prepared March
2012.
6. Grandin, B., Denbratt, I., Bood, I., Brackmann, C. et al.,
“The Effect of Knock on the Heat Transfer in an SI Engine:
Thermal Boundary Layer Investigation using CARS
Temperature Measurements and Heat Flux Measurements,”
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2831 2000, doi:
10.4271/2000-01-2831.
7. Shibata, G., Oyama, K., Urushihara, T., and Nakano, T.,
“Correlation of Low Temperature Heat Release With Fuel
Composition and HCCI Engine Combustion,” SAE Technical
Paper 2005-01-0138, 2005, doi: 10.4271/2005-01-0138.
8. Shibata, G. and Urushihara, T., “Realization of Dual Phase
High Temperature Heat Release Combustion of Base
Gasoline Blends from Oil Refineries and a Study of HCCI
Combustion Processes,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(1):145-163,
2009, doi: 10.4271/2009-01-0298.
9. Bessonette, P., Schleyer, C., Duffy, K., Hardy, W. et al.,
“Effects of Fuel Property Changes on Heavy-Duty HCCI
Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0191, 2007,
doi: 10.4271/2007-01-0191.
10. Dec, J., Hwang, W., and Sjöberg, M., “An Investigation
of Thermal Stratification in HCCI Engines Using
Chemiluminescence Imaging,” SAE Technical Paper
2006-01-1518, 2006, doi: 10.4271/2006-01-1518.
11. Sjöberg, M., Dec, J., and Cernansky, N., “Potential of
Thermal Stratification and Combustion Retard for Reducing
Pressure-Rise Rates in HCCI Engines, Based on Multi-Zone
Modeling and Experiments,” SAE Technical Paper
2005-01-0113, 2005, doi: 10.4271/2005-01-0113.
12. Herold, R., Krasselt, J., Foster, D., Ghandhi, J. et al.,
“Investigations into the Effects of Thermal and
Compositional Stratification on HCCI Combustion - Part II:
Optical Engine Results,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(1):1034-1053,
2009, doi: 10.4271/2009-01-1106.
13. Sjöberg, M. and Dec, J., “Smoothing HCCI Heat-Release
Rates Using Partial Fuel Stratification with Two-Stage
Ignition Fuels,” SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0629, 2006,
doi: 10.4271/2006-01-0629.
14. Yang, Y., Dec, J., Dronniou, N., Sjöberg, M. et al.,
“Partial Fuel Stratification to Control HCCI Heat Release
Rates: Fuel Composition and Other Factors Affecting Pre-
Ignition Reactions of Two-Stage Ignition Fuels,” SAE Int. J.
Engines 4(1):1903-1920, 2011, doi: 10.4271/2011-01-1359.
15. Dec, J., Yang, Y., and Dronniou, N., “Boosted HCCI -
Controlling Pressure-Rise Rates for Performance
Improvements using Partial Fuel Stratification with
Conventional Gasoline,” SAE Int. J. Engines 4(1):1169-1189,
2011, doi: 10.4271/2011-01-0897.
16. Kokjohn, S.L., Reitz, R.D., “Characterization of Dual-
Fuel PCCI Combustion in a Light-Duty Engine,” presented at
2010 International Multidimensional Engine Modeling User's
Group Meeting, https://imem.cray.com/2010/
Meeting-2010/7_Kokjohn%20and%20Reitz.pdf, USA, 2010
17. Kokjohn, S.L., Musculus; M., Splitter, D.A., Reitz R.D.,
“Investigation of Fuel Reactivity Stratification for
Controlling PCI Heat-Release Rates Using High-Speed
Chemiluminescence Imaging and Fuel Tracer Fluorescence,”
SAE Int. J. Engines 5(2):248-269, 2012, doi:
10.4271/2012-01-0375.
18. Splitter, D., Kokjohn, S., Rein, K., Hanson, R. et al., “An
Optical Investigation of Ignition Processes in Fuel Reactivity
Controlled PCCI Combustion,” SAE Int. J. Engines 3(1):
142-162, 2010, doi: 10.4271/2010-01-0345.
19. Splitter D.A., Wissink M.L., Hendricks T.L., Ghandhi
J.B., and Reitz R.D., “Comparison of RCCI, HCCI, and CDC
Operation from Low to Full Load”, THIESEL 2012
Conference on Thermo- and Fluid Dynamic Processes in
Direct Injection Engines, 2012.
20. Dempsey, A. and Reitz, R., “Computational
Optimization of a Heavy-Duty Compression Ignition Engine
Fueled with Conventional Gasoline,” SAE Int. J. Engines
4(1):338-359, 2011, doi: 10.4271/2011-01-0356.
21. Gamma Technologies GTPower Suite 4 users manual,
accessed May 1, 2012.
22. Caton J. A., “The thermodynamic characteristics of high
efficiency, internal-combustion engines”, Energy Conversion
and Management Volume 58, June 2012, Pages 84-93, 2012
23. Lavoie G.A., Ortiz-Soto E., Babajimopoulos A., Martz
J.B., Assanis D.N., “Thermodynamic sweet spot under highly
dilute and boosted gasoline engine conditions”, Draft
submitted to International Journal of Engine Research, March
2012.
24. Chadwell, C., Alger, T., Roberts, C., and Arnold, S.,
“Boosting Simulation of High Efficiency Alternative
Combustion Mode Engines,” SAE Int. J. Engines 4(1):
375-393, 2011, doi: 10.4271/2011-01-0358.
25. Splitter D. A., Kokjohn S.L., Wissink M.L., and Reitz
R.D. “Effect of Compression Ratio and Piston Geometry on
RCCI Load Limits and Efficiency,” SAE Technical Paper
2012-01-0383, 2012, doi: 10.4271/2012-01-0383.
26. Eng, J., “Characterization of Pressure Waves in HCCI
Combustion,” SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-2859, 2002,
doi: 10.4271/2002-01-2859.
27. Kar, K. and Cheng, W., “Speciated Engine-Out Organic
Gas Emissions from a PFI-SI Engine Operating on Ethanol/
Gasoline Mixtures,” SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 2(2):91-101,
2010, doi: 10.4271/2009-01-2673.
28. Eyidogan M., Ozsezen A.N., Canakci M., Turkcan A.,
“Impact of alcohol-gasoline fuel blends on the performance
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

and combustion characteristics of an SI engine”, Fuel,

Volume 89, Issue 10, October 2010, Pages 2713-2720, ISSN
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
0016-2361, 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.032. AFR - mass based air fuel ratio
29. Oxley J.C., Smith J.L., Rogers E., Ye W., Aradi A.A., AHRR - apparent heat release rate
and Henly T.J., “Heat-Release Behavior of Fuel Combustion ATDC - after top dead center
Additives”, Energy & Fuels 2001, 15, 1194-1199, 2001.
BMEP - brake mean effective pressure
30. Milliam D., “DOE Final Report DE-FC05-00OR22806 BTE - brake thermal efficiency
Heavy Truck Engine Program Final Report for
C1 - elemental carbon
Caterpillar/DOE Heavy Truck Clean Diesel Cooperative
Research Program, DOE contract No. DE- CA50 - 50% mass fraction burned
FC05-00OR22806”, Published March 31, 2007, 2007. CARS - Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman Spectroscopy
31. Pan, J., Nigro, R., and Matsuo, E., “3-D Modeling of CDC - conventional diesel combustion
Heat Transfer in Diesel Engine Piston Cooling Galleries,” CO - Carbon Monoxide
SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-1644, 2005, doi:
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
10.4271/2005-01-1644.
Coeff. - coefficient
32. Kajiwara, H., Fujioka, Y., and Negishi, H., “Prediction of
Cp - specific heat at constant pressure
Temperatures on Pistons with Cooling Gallery in Diesel
Engines using CFD Tool,” SAE Technical Paper Cη - combustion efficiency
2003-01-0986, 2003, doi: 10.4271/2003-01-0986. DOC - diesel oxidation catalyst
33. Luff, D., Law, T., Shayler, P., and Pegg, I., “The Effect DOE - Department of Energy
of Piston Cooling Jets on Diesel Engine Piston Temperatures, E85 - 85% ethanol 15% gasoline by volume
Emissions and Fuel Consumption,” SAE Int. J. Engines 5(3):
1300-1311, 2012, doi: 10.4271/2012-01-1212. EGR - exhaust gas recirculation
EHN - Ethylhexyl-Nitrate
34. Hendricks T.L., Ghandhi J.B., “Experimental
Investigation of Piston Heat Transfer During Conventional Exh. - exhaust
Diesel and Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition FID - sample abbreviations
Combustion Regimes,” Presentation SAE World Congress, FMEP - friction mean effective pressure
April, 2013. GIE - gross indicated efficiency
35. Splitter D., “High Efficiency RCCI Combustion”, PhD. GTE - gross thermal efficiency
Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2012, 320 pages; H/C - hydrogen to oxygen ratio
AAT 3542004, available through ProQuest http://
disexpress.umi.com/. HC - hydrocarbon
HCCI - homogeneous charge compression ignition
36. Curran S.J., Wagner R.M., and Hanson R.M., “Reactivity
Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) Combustion on a HD - heavy-duty
Multi-Cylinder Light-Duty Diesel Engine”, International HX - heat transfer
Journal of Engine Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 216-225 IMEP - indicated mean effective pressure
(2012). IMEPg - gross indicated mean effective pressure
37. F-chart Software Engineering Equation Solver (EES) 4 IMEPn - net indicated mean effective pressure
user's manual, accessed Sept 14, 2010. Int. - intake
IVC - intake valve closure
CONTACT INFORMATION LHV - lower heating value
Derek Splitter
LTC - low temperature combustion
splitterda@ORNL.gov
MON - motor octane number
NOX - oxides of nitrogen
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
NTE - net thermal efficiency
This material is based on work supported by the Department O/C - oxygen to carbon ratio
of Energy Award DE-EE0000202, and from the Sandia
Laboratories PCP - peak cylinder pressure
PFI - port fuel injection
PM - particulate matter
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

PMEP - pumping mean effective pressure

PON - pump octane number
PPRR - peak pressure rise rate
r/min - revolutions per minute
rc - compression ratio
RCCI - reactivity controlled compression ignition
RON - research octane number
SCOTE - single cylinder oil test engine
TDC - top dead center
ULSD - ultra low sulfur diesel
VE - Volumetric efficiency
η - efficiency
Φ - air based equivalence ratio
Φ′ - charge based equivalence ratio
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

APPENDIX

Determining Efficiency
Gross, and net thermal efficiencies were calculated using Equations 2, and 3, where the respective work terms were calculated using
Equations 4 and 5, and where fuel energy was calculated using Equation 6 and 7.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)
A common method to determine fuel flow rate is to combine exhaust gas and direct mass measurements. By using the fuels ratio of
hydrogen to carbon (H-to-C) and oxygen to carbon (O-to-C) ratio, the air fuel ratio (AFR) was determined from emissions. This
calculated AFR can be compared to the direct mass measured AFR, and thus two separate fuel flow rates can be determined. This
approach necessitates that the fuels be compared on an atomic carbon ratio (C1) basis, using wet based emissions (water present in
exhaust gas).

(7)

Determining Losses
Pumping losses were calculated using Equations 8 and 9.

(8)

(9)

Exhaust losses were calculated by the relation in Equations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, where the mass flow rate of air ( ) is from
direct mass flow rate measurement. Although the specific heat of an ideal gas is a function of temperature only, the range of
temperature s observed at the tested conditions is small. Therefore, a constant Cp of 1006 and 1080 J/kg-K was assumed in the
analysis for the respective intake and exhaust streams (the mass of fuel is assumed to be small and not significant in terms of the bulk
gas Cp). EGR was calculated as the ratio of CO2 intake to exhaust. The use of volumetric based EGR in determination of in
equation 13 provides little error in the limit of lean operation as the molecular weight of EGR in the intake is nearly that of air (less
than 1%), and is thus deemed acceptable.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)
Incomplete combustion (Inc. Comb.) was calculated using Equation 15, with combustion efficiency defined in subsequent Equations
16 and 17. Of note is that the relation in Equation 16 accounts for EGR recycling of combustion products in the determination of
combustion efficiency. Also note that fuel energy and HC energy differ. The FID was calibrated to respond 1:1 to propane, with the
heating value of HC was defined as 43.8 [MJ/kg]. However, the heating value of the fuel used (Efuel) was different, and was calculated
using the measured values. Likewise the heating values of PM and CO were 32.8 and 10.1 [MJ/kg] respectively. Additionally, species
invisible to FID detectors such as H2 and aldehydes were ignored in the analysis as advanced measurement techniques are required for
their sampling, which were not available.

(15)

(16)

(17)
The relation to determine the heat transfer loss is seen in Equation 18, (denoted at HX). Of specific note, HX is not directly solved in
the analysis by measurement. In turn, it was solved as the left over or unaccounted for energy that remains from the input fuel energy.

(18)
Since HX losses can result from a variety of sources, it is somewhat misleading to classify this loss entirely as heat transfer. However,
heat transfer is the most likely dominant term, thus justifying the nomenclature selection.

Determining Uncertainties
In addition to a carbon balance, measurement uncertainty and uncertainty propagation are important to investigate. Uncertainty
analysis assesses the confidence of measured and calculated values. An uncertainty analysis of losses and efficiencies was performed
in Engineering Equation Solver (EES) [37]. The approach used the governing equations for losses and efficiencies in Equations 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The measured uncertainties were determined for each device per the manufacturer's
specifications. To determine the different uncertainties, a sweep of high efficiency conditions was performed (test matrix points
71-102, see Splitter [35]). These conditions were selected because at high efficiency operation, errors in fuel flow and fuel energy will
be magnified. Using this approach, the uncertainties of the respective AFR based GTE can be seen in Table 18.
 THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Wisconsin - Madison , Friday, April 19, 2013 02:47:17 PM

Table 18. Average GTE, and GTE uncertainty of oil points 72-102 (all points without piston oil gallery cooling).

The data show that the average GTE and corresponding uncertainty form the respective AFR based fuel flow. The highest efficiency
points from the sweep were selected, and are depicted in Figure 22, with error bars indicating the respective uncertainties.

Figure 22. GTE as calculated from different AFR and direct mass based measurements.

From these findings it is seen that there is a spread in AFR measurements. It is common to hold “good” measurements within a 2%
AFR range. This approach was taken in the present data. However, at high engine efficiencies small differences in fuel flow (less than
2%) are magnified, adding spread to the data. Thus, to mitigate these errors, all efficiencies were calculated from an average of the
AFRC and AFRmass fuel flows. Lastly the uncertainty in losses can be calculated form the measurement uncertainties.

Table 19. Energy budget using AFRC and AFRmass averaged fuel flow. Energy use, uncertainty, and relative uncertainty of
GTE shown, data are average of oil points 72-102 (all points without piston oil gallery cooling).

The data shows that the HX loss and EXH losses have the highest uncertainty, but the overall value is reasonable.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA

View publication stats