ERC Research on Advanced Fueling Strategies for High Efficiency, Low Emission Engines

ERC Research on Advanced Fueling Strategies for High Efficiency, Low Emission Engines Rolf D. Reitz University of Wisconsin-Madison Acknowledgements: Industry Partners: Direct-injection Engine Research Consortium members, Caterpillar, Ford, General Motors. Sandia, Argonne, Oak Ridge National Labs, ARO, DOE, NASA, ONR, Princeton CEFRC. - ERC faculty, staff and students http://www.erc.wisc.edu/

Founded in 1946 ~70 years ago! Largest academic research center focusing on internal combustion engines in the U.S. ~$3 million annual research budget 7 active faculty - 50-50% Federal-Industry funding, - Direct-injection Engine Research Consortium (DERC) - 36 members Over 50 graduate students, 10-15 post-docs and visiting scholars, 8-10 research and administrative staff Engine research Primary focus is engine performance, combustion, emission control Diesel, spark-ignition and advanced combustion engine research Major themes - Education of students - Use of real engines and diagnostics - Emphasis on interaction between experiments and modeling - Interaction with practicing engineers 2

Outline Development of today s fuels (1910-1970) Early history of ERC research (1946-1995) ERC research in advanced fueling strategies Multiple injections (1994) Gasoline compression ignition (2001) Dual fuel RCCI (2009) Dual injector, dual fuel strategies (2014-15) Conclusions and future research directions 3

Lessons from history (1910-20) the Mayflower Ignitability affects engine efficiency - limits compression ratio (CR). Early Spark Ignition (SI) engines were plagued by spark knock, CR ~ 4:1. Cylinder pressure measurements by Midgley and Kettering at DELCO/GM showed different fuels had different knock tendency e.g., kerosene worse than gasoline Volatility differences were thought to be the explanation. Guided by the Mayflower, they added a red dye (iodine) to kerosene and knock tendency was greatly reduced! Unfortunately, tests with other red dyes did not inhibit knock, disproving the theory. But, finding powerful antiknock additives was a major serendipitous discovery! Boyd T (1950) Pathfinding in Fuels and Engines. SAE 500175, 4(2) 182-195. 4 Mayflower Trailing Arbutus Jane in early spring

Lessons from history (1920-30) the Amines and TEL Research after WW-I was motivated by national security - Improved fuel efficiency with higher CRs made possible the first non-stop airplane flight from New York to San Diego in the 1920 s. GM and US Army studied hundreds of additives and found aromatic amines to be effective knock suppressors. 1920 experimental GM car driven on gasoline with toluidine with CR ~7:1-40% better fuel consumption than 4:1. Engine exhaust plagued by unpleasant odors - the goat! Much research was devoted to find acceptable additives, - finally leading to tetraethyl lead (TEL) But, TEL caused solid deposits, damaged exhaust valves and spark plugs. Scavenger additives with bromine and chlorine corrected the problem. - Partnership with Ethyl-Dow and DuPont to extract compounds from sea water - 10 tons of sea water needed to provide 1 lb of bromine! WW-II aviation engines used iso-heptane (triptane: 2,2,3-trimethyl butane) - allowed CR as high as 16:1. Reitz, Front. Mech. Eng. 1:1, 2015 5

Lessons from history (1930-70) TEL and the future Lead poisoning was an early concern - In 1926 US Surgeon General determined that TEL poses no health hazards. - Use of lead in automotive fuels has been called The mistake of the 20th century 1950: Dr. Arie Haagen-Smit - cause of smog in LA to be HC/NO - Cars were the largest source of UHC/NOx 1950: Eugene Houdry - developed catalytic converter for auto exhaust. - But, lead was found to poison catalytic converters. 20 years later: US EPA announces gas stations must offer "unleaded" gasoline, - Based accumulated evidence of negative effects of lead on human health. - Leaded gasoline was still tolerated in certain applications (e.g., aircraft), but was permanently banned in the US in 1996, in Europe since 2000 World Wars & national security played a major role to define automotive fuels. Today s engines and their fuels would not have been developed without close collaboration between engine OEMs, energy and chemical companies! A consequence of collaboration between big engine and big oil is that transformative changes in transportation systems will not occur easily. A new concept engine must be able to use available fuels, A new fuel must run in existing engines. Reitz, Front. Mech. Eng. 1:1, 2015 6

Race between compression ratio and octane number WW-II clean air act muscle car: miles/$ opec ERC: diesel focus Advanced comb. E. Curtis, 2013 8

A Brief History of Engine Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 1946-1995 by G.L. Borman*57 1930s Profs. G.C. Wilson and R.A. Rose - Pioneered work on pressure pickups and reduction of diesel ignition delay via use of fuel additives. 1942, post-ww-ii Profs. P.S. Myers ME*47 and O. Uyehara ChE*45 - studied under Profs. L.A. Wilson and K.M. Watson - 2-color pyrometry in a Fairbanks Morse engine equipped with a window Uyehara, O.A., Myers, P.S., Diesel Combustion Temperatures The Influence of Fuels of Selected Composition, SAE Trans., Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 178-199, 1949. - Led to a $50K WARF grant plus housing in T-25 "war surplus" building and CRC contract to measure end-gas temperatures in SI engines with iodine spectra absorption Chen, S.K., Beck, N.J., Uyehara, O.A., and Myers, P.S., Compression and end gas temperatures from iodine absorption spectra, SAE Trans. 503 526 (1954) Phil Anotto retired ~1986 and produced 48 PhDs and 80 MS graduates http://www.erc.wisc.edu/theses.php 2015: ERC has produced over 500 graduates www.erc.wisc.edu/documents/bormanserc-review.pdf 9

A Brief History of Engine Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 1946-1995 by G.L. Borman*57 Major Technologies: Engine diagnostics, drop and spray vaporization, combustion, emissions, chemical kinetics, cycle and CFD modeling, fuels, heat transfer 1949-52 Ignition improvers Army fuels 1949 Emissions - Diesel smoke 1951 Drop vaporization 1959-63 Heat flux-radiation measurements 1962 Super-critical environments 1964 Pressure heat release rate 1966 End gas knock Krieger & Borman ASME 1966 Johnson, Myers & Uyehara, SAE 1966 1977 Total cylinder contents dumping (NOx) 1981 Compression-Ignited Homogeneous Charge Combustion Najt & Foster SAE 830264 1982 UHC sampling probe measurements correlated with model predictions 1986 ERC named ARO Center of Excellence for Advanced Propulsion 1991 3-D CFD modeling for engine development 1991-94 Diesel multiple injection www.erc.wisc.edu/documents/bormanserc-review.pdf Nehmer & Reitz SAE 940668 10 Reitz & Rutland SAE 911789

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies multiple injections 1994: Nehmer, D.A., MS Measurement of the Effect of Injection Rate and Split Injections On Diesel Engine Soot and NOx Emissions 1994: Tow, T., MS The Effect of Multiple Pulse Injection, Injection Rate and Injection Pressure on Particulate and NOx Emissions from a D.I. Diesel Engine 1994: Pierpont, D.A., MS An Experimental Study of the Effect of Injection Parameters and EGR on D.I. Diesel Emissions and Performance Single injections Han et al. SAE 960633 Particulate (g/bhp-hr) 0.2 H l [S1] Single.6 0.18 : H [D1] 13-(0)-87 0.16 T T [D2] 16-(0)-84 : [D3] 21-(0)-79 0.14 l G G [D4] 32-(0)-68 0.12 H 0.1 : T 0.08 H G : lt 0.06 HG : T G H : l T 0.04 l l 0.02 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NOx (g/bhp-hr) [S1] [D1] [D2] [D3] [D4] Split injections Nehmer & Reitz SAE 940668 Tow, Pierpont & Reitz SAE 940897 Pierpont, Montgomery & Reitz SAE 950217 Common-rail injector 90MPa injection pressure 125 degree spray angle 1600 rev/min,75% load 12

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies fuels and split injection 2001: Marriott, Craig D. MS An Experimental Investigation of Direct Injection for Homogeneous and Fuel-Stratified Charge Compression Ignited Combustion Timing Control Gasoline-fueled HD diesel engine - Low pressure common rail, hollow cone injector - GCI, PFS, PPC,. Marriott & Reitz SAE 2002-01-0418 Canakci & Reitz IJER 2003 Hanson et al. SAE 2009-01-1442 Dempsey & Reitz SAE 2011-01-0356 Ra et al. SAE 2011-01-1182 P~100bar CO and UHC Emissions (g/kg-fuel) 120 100 80 60 40 20 Engine Emissions vs Start of Injection Timing 700 RPM PHI=0.22 HCCI CO UHC NOx Particulate Matter 0 0-360 -300-240 -180-120 -60 0 Injection Angle (deg ATDC) Stratified 18 15 12 9 6 3 NOx PM and Emissions NOx Emissions (g/kg-fuel) (g/kg-fuel) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 NOx Emission and Combustion Efficiency Comparison: Single vs Split Injections Intake Air Temp = 119 C PHI = 0.21 0 85 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 Engine Speed (rev/min) Single Injection NOx Split Injection NOx Single Injection Comb. Eff. Split Injection Comb. Eff. 97 94 91 88 Combustion Efficiency (%) Marriott & Reitz US Patent 6,668,789 2003 SOI 300 100 o : SOI1 ~180 o (60%); SOI2 ~90 o 13

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies - diesel vs. gasoline Kalghatgi et al. SAE 2007-01-0006 Engine Bore x Stroke [mm] Compression ratio Injector hole, dia [µm] Engine speed [rpm] heavy-duty, flat cylinder head, shallow bowl 127 x 154 14.0 8, 200 1200 Swirl ratio 2.4 Intake temp [C], Pressure [bar] Oxygen @ IVC/EGR [%] Pilot split ratio [%] 40, 2.0 15.8/25 30 Ra et al., "Parametric Study of Diesel Engine Operation with Gasoline," Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 181, No. 2, pp.350-378, 2009

Diesel vs. gasoline - emissions 0.3 Soot 18 Marriott et al. SAE 2002-01-0419 Ra et al. CST 2009 calculated soot [g/kg-f] 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 diesel Gasoline, cal Diesel, cal Gasoline, exp Diesel, exp gasoline 0 0-30 -20-10 0 10 20 start of main injection 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 AVL smoke opacity [%] NOx [g/kg-f] 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 NOx Gasoline, cal Gasoline, exp Diesel, cal Diesel, exp Additional time for mixing with gasoline offers significant benefit for soot reduction in CIDI engines 1.0 0.0-30 -20-10 0 10 20 start of main injection [deg atdc] Vishwanathan & Reitz CST 2010 15

Combustion optimization - fuel and EGR selection Gasoline 6 bar IMEP, 1300 rpm 100 Net ISFC [g/kw-hr] MISFIRE 80 250 240 230 60 10 bar/deg. 40 5.6 bar/deg. 210 190 180 g/kw-hr 20 Diesel Gasoline-diesel cocktail Kokjohn et al. SAE 2009-01-2647 PRF PRF [-] HCCI simulations used to choose optimal EGR rate and PRF (isooctane/n-heptane) blend Predicted contours agree well with HCCI experiments Fuel reactivity must change with EGR rate for optimum ISFC As load is increased the minimum ISFC cannot be achieved with either neat diesel fuel or neat gasoline 0 170 190 g/kw-hr 0 10 20 30 40 EGRRate Rate [%] EGR [%] 50 60 ERC PRF mechanism Ra & Reitz, CNF 2008 16

Optimized Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition Port injected gasoline Direct injected diesel Kokjohn et al. SAE 2009-01-2647 Gasoline Gasoline Injection Signal Squish Conditioning Ignition Source -80 to -50-45 to -30 Crank Angle (deg. ATDC) CFD with Genetic Algorithms used to optimize multiple injection strategy Diesel Diesel GA: Senecal & Reitz SAE 2000-01-1890 17

ERC: Heavy- and light-duty experimental engines Engine Heavy Duty Light Duty Engine CAT SCOTE GM 1.9 L Displ. (L/cyl) 2.44 0.477 Bore (cm) 13.72 8.2 Stroke (cm) 16.51 9.04 Squish (cm) 0.157 0.133 CR 16.1:1 15.2:1 Swirl ratio 0.7 2.2 IVC ( ATDC) -85 and -143-132 EVO( ATDC) 130 112 HD LD Injector type Common rail Nozzle holes 6 8 Hole size (µm) 250 128 Engine size scaling Staples, SAE 2009-01-1124 18

Experimental validation - HD Caterpillar SCOTE IMEP (bar) 9 Speed (rpm) 1300 EGR (%) 43 Equivalence ratio (-) 0.5 Intake Temp. ( C) 32 Intake pressure (bar) 1.74 Gasoline (% mass) 76 82 89 Diesel inject press. (bar) 800 SOI1 ( ATDC) -58 SOI2 ( ATDC) -37 Fract. diesel in 1 st pulse 0.62 IVC (ºBTDC)/Comp ratio 143/16 Pressure [MPa] 10 8 6 4 2 Hanson et al. SAE 2010-01-0864 Effect of gasoline percentage 14 Experiment Simulation 12 Neat Diesel Fuel 76% 82% 89% 89% Gasoline Neat Gasoline 0 0-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 Crank [ ATDC] 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Apparent Heat Release Rate [J/ ] Computer modeling predictions confirmed Combustion timing and Pressure Rise Rate control with diesel/gasoline ratio Dual-fuel can be used to extend load limits of either pure diesel or gasoline 19

RCCI high efficiency, low emissions, fuel flexibility Indicated efficiency of 58±1% achieved with E85/diesel Emissions met in-cylinder, without need for after-treatment Considerable fuel flexibility, including single fuel operation Diesel can be replaced with <0.5% total cetane improver (2-EHN/DTBP) in gasoline - less additive than SCR DEF NOx [g/kw-hr] Soot [g/kw-hr] Gross Ind. Efficiency Heavy-duty RCCI (gas/gas+3.5% 2-EHN, 1300 RPM) Heavy-duty RCCI (E-85/Diesel, 1300 RPM) Heavy-duty RCCI (gas/diesel 1300 RPM) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 57 54 51 48 45 HD Target (~2010 Levels) HD Target (~2010 Levels) 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Gross IMEP [bar] Splitter, SAE 2010-01-2167; Hanson, SAE 2011-01-0361, Kokjohn IJER 2011 20

Dual-fuel RCCI combustion controlled HCCI Heat release occurs in 3 stages Reitz et al. US Patent 8,616,177-2013 Cool flame reactions from diesel (n-heptane) injection First energy release where both fuels are mixed Final energy release where lower reactivity fuel is located Changing fuel ratios changes relative magnitudes of stages Fueling ratio provides next cycle CA50 transient control RCCI AHRR [J/ o ] 200 150 100 50 0 Cool Flame Primarly n-heptane PRF Burn n-heptane + entrained iso-octane Iso-octane Burn Primarly iso-octane -20-10 0 10 20 Crank [ o ATDC] Delivery Ratio [% iso-octane] 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 d(del i ver yrati o) d(i nt:temp:) = 0:4 per cent K CA50=2 ATDC RCCI SOI = -50 ATDC 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Intake Temperature [ o C] 21 21

Multi-cylinder RCCI - transient operation GM 1.9L Engine Specifications Engine Type Bore Stroke Displacement Cylinder Configuration EURO IV Diesel 82 mm 90.4 mm 1.9 liters Inline 4 4 valves per cylinder Swirl Ratio Variable (2.2-5.6) Compression Ratio 17.5 EGR System Hybrid High/Low Pressure, Cooled ECU (OEM) Bosch EDC16 ECU (new) Drivven UW RCCI Hybrid Vehicle Common Rail Injectors Bosch CRIP2-MI 148 Included Angle 7 holes, 440 flow number. Port Fuel Injectors Delphi 2.27 g/s steady flow 400 kpa fuel pressure SAE Paper 2015-01-0837 Highway Fuel Economy Testing of an RCCI Series Hybrid Vehicle Reed Hanson, Shawn Spannbauer, Christopher Gross, Rolf D. Reitz, University of Wisconsin; Scott Curran, John Storey, Shean Huff, ORNL 22

RCCI operating range ORNL & ERC Wagner, Aramco Workshop, 2014 RCCI offers diesel-like or better BTE across speed-load range. UDDS/FTP cycle ORNL simulations indicate RCCI offers >20% fuel economy c.f. 2009 PFI engines Load expansion via alternative fuels, VVA, dual direct injection,.. 23

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies RCCI load expansion 2015: Lim, J., PhD High Power Output Operation of RCCI Combustion Direct injection of both diesel and gasoline Stock piston geometry has 2 zones: - Squish with high surface/volume ratio, - bowl with low S:V ratio Lim and Reitz ASME GTP, 136, 2014 Lim and Reitz SAE 2014-01-1320 High load/speed simulations ERC KIVA3V-R2, GA optimization Discrete Multi-Component fuel evaporation ERC PRF mechanism - 46 species, 142 reactions Gasjet model for reduced grid dependency Both injectors at cylinder axis HD RCCI engine: 21 bar IMEP gasoline/diesel IVC conditions: 3.42 bar, 90 C, 46%EGR 24

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies DDFS strategy 2015: Wissink, M.L., PhD Wissink & Reitz SAE 2015-01-0856 Direct Injection for Dual Fuel Stratification (DDFS): Improving the Control of Heat Release in Advanced IC Engine Combustion Strategies RCCI PPC PPC Caterpillar 3401 SCOTE CR=14.9 DDFS 25

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies DDFS emissions More final late-injected fuel EPA 2010 0 26

ERC: Advanced fueling strategies DDFS efficiency ~14% reduction ~12% reduction ~1% increase ~13% reduction ~30% increase DDFS provides high efficiency, lower noise/cov, lower heat loss/increased exhaust loss reducing turbo requirements 27

Conclusions and future research directions Advanced combustion strategies (e.g., GCI, RCCI and its variants) offer practical low-cost pathways to >15% improved internal combustion engine fuel efficiency (lower CO 2 ) Made possible by advances in fuel injectors and computer control Splitter et al. SAE 2013-01-0279 RCCI GTEs in the 58-60% range achieved within ~94% of theoretical cycle. Inconvenience of two fuels already accepted by diesel industry (diesel/def) RCCI is cost effective and offers fuel flexibility: - low cost port-injected less reactive fuel (e.g., gasoline, E85, wet EtOH, C/LNG) with optimized low pressure DI of more-reactive fuel (e.g., diesel/additized gas) - reduced after-treatment needed - meet NOx and PM emission mandates in-cylinder - diesel or SI (w/spark plug) operation can be retained (e.g., mixed mode, limp home). Improved transient control: - proportions of low and high reactivity fuels can be changed dynamically, with same/nextcycle combustion feedback control Direct injection of both fuels allows more control of heat release: - reduced noise, reduced cyclic variability, no efficiency penalty, move waste heat to exhaust Future directions: - transient engine feedback control, load extension (e.g., via: multiple injection, CR, VVA), - optimized pistons reduced crevice volumes, insulated pistons. - optimized boost, EGR, charge-air cooling, alternative fuels.. and vehicle testing! 28, 2013

2025 and beyond. Voyage to new concepts in engine combustion California ARB: 90% reduction in NOx emissions by 2031 (0.02 g/bhp hr) 80% reduction in GHG emissions (below 1990 levels) by 2050 Governor s 50% petroleum reduction target by 2030 (renewable fuels), and continued reductions in air toxics & diesel PM (PN 6 10 11 1/km).

Backup

High load GA optimization 21 bar IMEP Iso-octane 1 [mg, ATDC] 149.8 @ -115.6 Iso-octane 2 [mg, ATDC] 87.8 @ -21.0 N-heptane [mg, ATDC] 7.4 @ -3.0 Lim and Reitz ASME GTP, 136, 2014 Lim and Reitz SAE 2014-01-1320 NOx [g/kw-hr] 0.026 Soot [g/kw-hr] 0.078 CO [g/kw-hr] 4.4 UHC [g/kw-hr] 2.7 Gross ITE [%, IVC-EVO] 46.0 Gross ITE [%, BDC-BDC] 48.2 CAD @ 10% HR [ATDC] 7.0 CAD @ 50% HR [ATDC] 16.0 CAD 10-90% HR 13.0 Max Pressure [bar] 169.7 PPRR [bar/deg] 12.6 Dual fuel, direct injection offers high load, high efficiency operation potential Dual fuel RCCI offers high power with medium load high speed operation 31

Limits of dual fuel RCCI efficiency Calibrate 0-D code with experimental data Use to determine: - initial conditions - geometry Results: 60% GTE possible with: High Cr Lean operation (Φ<0.3) 50% reduction in heat transfer & combustion losses Deactivate under-piston oil jet cooling Splitter et al. SAE 2013-01-0279 Exp. GT POWER GT POWER Compression ratio 14.88 14.88 18.6 IMEPn (bar) 8.00 7.86 8.69 Fueling (mg/cyc) 87.13 87.13 87.13 Gross Therm Eff. (%) 54.3 54.5 59.7 Net Therm Eff. (%) 52.0 52.1 57.5 BTE (%) 45.3 45.1 49.1 FMEP (bar) 1.03 1.0 1.2 Convection HX N/A 0.4 0.2 Comb. Eff. (%) 98 98 99 Intake Pressure (bar) 1.5 1.5 1.68 Exhaust Pressure (bar) 1.625 1.625 1.75 Turbo eff. (air filter + DOC) 67.5 62.3 72.8 32

Ultra high efficiency, dual fuel RCCI combustion High efficiency demonstrated Simulation heat transfer tuned to match data - 14.88:1 Piston required HX = 0.4-18.7:1 required HX = 0.3 Pancake design ~1.2 less surface area 18.7:1 without oil cooling required HX = 0.2 GTE IMEPg NTE IMEPn (%) (bar) (%) (bar) Experiment 59.1 6.82 55.0 6.27 Model, HX =0 100% comb. η Model, HX =0 100% comb.η, 0% EGR 62.4 7.12 58.5 6.85 63.4 7.23 61.0 6.95 GTE (%) IMEPg IMEPn NTE (%) (bar) (bar) EXP (pt. 83) 59.1 6.82 55.0 6.27 GT Power HX =0.2 58.8 6.79 54.8 6.25 GT Power HX =0.4 56.7 6.55 52.8 6.02 Pressure (bar) EXP, Squirter off, 43% EGR, Oil Matrix Point 83 GTPower, HX=0, 100% comb. η, 43% EGR GTPower, HX=0, 100% comb. η, 0% EGR 150 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0-15 DI: 3%EHN+91ON PFI: E85 T IVC = 43 C EGR = 42% E85 / 3% EHN+91 PON RCCI 43 C intake, 42% EGR, 6.3 bar IMEPn -40-30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 40 Crank Angle ( CA ATDC) 94% of maximum theoretical cycle efficiency achieved! Splitter et al. RCCI Engine Operation Towards 60% Thermal Efficiency, SAE 2013-01-0279 33 750 600 450 300 150 0 AHRR (J/ CA)

RCCI Fuel flexibility Alternative fuels Natural gas/diesel RCCI Nieman, 2012 Operating Condition Low- Load Mid-Load High-Load Gross IMEP [bar] 4 9 11 13.5 16 23 Engine Speed [rpm] 800 1300 1370 1460 1550 1800 Intake Press. [bar abs.] 1.00 1.45 1.94 2.16 2.37 3.00 Intake Temp. [ C] 60 60 60 60 60 60 Caterpillar 3401E SCOTE Displacement [L] 2.44 Bore x Stroke [mm] 137.2 x 165.1 Con. Rod Length [mm] 261.6 Compression Ratio 16.1:1 Swirl Ratio 0.7 IVC [deg ATDC] -143 EVO [deg ATDC] 130 Common Rail Diesel Fuel Injector Number of Holes 6 Hole Diameter [μm] 250 Included Spray Angle 145 o ERC KIVA PRF kinetics NSGA-II MOGA 32 Citizens per generation ~9500 Cells @ BDC UW Condor - Convergence after ~40 genrtns Design Parameter Minimum Maximum Premixed Methane [%] 0% 100% DI Diesel SOI 1 [deg ATDC] -100-50 DI Diesel SOI 2 [deg ATDC] -40 20 Diesel Fraction in First Inj. [%] 0% 100% Diesel Injection Pressure [bar] 300 1500 EGR [%] 0% 60% 34

RCCI Fuel flexibility Alternative fuels Double vs. triple injection 4 bar IMEP 23 bar IMEP Nieman MS 2012 % of Fuel Energy In 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Results 2 Inj. Optimum 3 Inj. Optimum Soot [g/kw-hr] 0.004 0.004 NOx [g/kw-hr] 0.24 0.10 CO [g/kw-hr] 10.8 7.3 UHC [g/kw-hr] 10.5 3.8 η gross [%] 45.1% 47.1% 45.1% 47.1% 31.5% 31.9% 17.1% 18.7% 2 Inj. Optimum 3 Inj. Optimum 6.3% 2.4% Gross Work Exhaust Loss Heat Transfer Combustion Loss % of Fuel Energy In 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Results 2 Inj. Optimum 3 Inj. Optimum Soot [g/kw-hr] 0.079 0.014 NOx [g/kw-hr] 0.08 0.17 CO [g/kw-hr] 6.0 1.7 UHC [g/kw-hr] 9.4 3.3 η gross [%] 44.1% 46.5% 46.5% 44.1% 42.4% 43.0% 2 Inj. Optimum 3 Inj. Optimum 7.9% 8.5% 5.6% 2.0% Gross Work Exhaust Loss Heat Transfer Combustion Loss 35

RCCI Fuel flexibility Alternative fuels Nieman MS 2012 23 bar IMEP, triple Injection (Isosurface = 1600K) 10 12 14 16 18 ATDC Achieve low soot, despite late 3 rd injection o o Combustion starts in squish region, so diesel #3 injects into a relatively cool environment Fairly small amount injected 36