Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines (Co-Optima) -- Fuel

!"

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

#$%&'"(")*+,"!"

Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines Fuel Property Team

-./0+,"12"345.+67489!"!"#$%&"'('#")*%+",%-./0"12)3%4",%5$/1)6%7$89%:"9;1)<%:$=%:>?;#9/)@%5"99%7"2.)@%+'#%A8;>B;)*%:$=%C$2>9"D)*%5($E%F"G9;()*%->'=%!'9E10'('8GHI%

*J! ?$K'#$9%C;#;L$09;%M#;(G/%A$0'($2'(/%3J! N$B%C"EG;%?$K'#$9%A$0'($2'(/%6J! 7$>"O>%?'(2HL;12%?$K'#$9%A$0'($2'(/%<J! -$#E"$%?$K'#$9%A$0'($2'(";1%@J! A$L(;#>;%A"P;(,'(;%?$K'#$9%A$0'($2'(/%IJ! Q(G'##;%?$K'#$9%A$0'($2'(/%

R'SNTK,$%UNM%V4N%:$#$G;,;#2%4;$,W%X;P"#%-2'(B%$#E%!8(T(;;2%-"#GH%

Part 1 - Fuel Properties and Chemical Kinetics

June 9th, 2016

:"

a note about deviations from AMR template

•! 3Y*I%"1%2H;%O(12%K,;%2H;%>'S'TK,$%T('G($,%"1%0;"#G%(;P";L;E%$2%Q:C%

•! 4H"1%2H(;;%T$(2%T(;1;#2$K'#%Z(',%2H(;;%T(;1;#2;(1%(;T(;1;#21%$#%'P;(P";L%'Z%2H;%&8;9%7('T;(K;1SQEP$#>;E%M#G"#;%U;P;9'T,;#2%(;1;$(>H%T'(['9"'%%

–! Q%#8,0;(%'Z%"#E"P"E8$9%T('\;>21%$(;%>'#K#8"#G%T('\;>21%2H$2%T(;SE$2;%>'S'TK,$%

–! -;P;($9%'Z%2H;%T('\;>21%$(;%#;L%12$(21%Z'(%&]*I%$#E%$(;%"#%2H;%($,TS8T%TH$1;%

•! C;9;P$#>;%"1%#'2%;^T9">"29/%E"1>811;E)%$#E%>'99$0'($K'#1%$(;%2'8>H;E%'#%,"#",$99/%–! C;9;P$#>;%$#E%,$#/%>'99$0'($K'#1%>'P;(;E%"#%NP;(P";L%T(;1;#2$K'#%'Z%R'SNTK,".$K'#%'Z%

&8;91%$#E%M#G"#;1%_&4Y6`a%

•! A","2;E%>',,;#21%2'%T(;P"'81%/;$(%(;P";L;(%>',,;#21%–! :89KT9;%3Y*@%(;P";L1%Z;;E%"#2'%2H"1%T'(['9"'%'P;(P";L%T(;1;#2$K'#%%

•! b#%1',;%>$1;1%R'99$0'($K'#1%$(;%9"12;E%"#%C;P";L;(%N#9/%19"E;1%0;>$81;%'Z%K,;%9","2$K'#%

3

Overview: Fuel Properties and Chemical Kinetics

Central Fuel Properties Hypothesis

Development of Fuel Property Database (Fioroni in collaboration with LGHG Fuels Team)

Development of Fuel Screening Criteria – Thrust I (McCormick, Szybist, Miles in collaboration with LGHG Fuels Team)

Heat of Vaporization Measurement (Fioroni)

Measurement of Autoignition Properties with Small Volumes (Fioroni/McCormick, Goldsborough, McNenly)

Fuel Structure-Property Correlations (Bays)

Fuel Property Blending Models (McCormick)

Kinetic Mechanism Development (Pitz, Zigler)

4

Milestones: Fuel Properties and Chemical Kinetics

Tracked Milestones:

Analysis of up to 20 molecules that represent as many functional groups as possible which will increase our capacity to understand how chemical properties (functional groups) correlate to needed fuel properties and materials compatibility. (Owner NREL, due FY16 Q2) – Complete

Provide up to five fuels and 4 blending levels for blend determination studies. (Owner NREL, due FY16 Q4) – On Track

Provide a report to DOE and Optima documenting the current development status and potential for each of the three small volume autoignition testing techniques. (Owner LLNL, due FY16 Q4) – On Track

Develop a preliminary chemical kinetic mechanism for anisole, a compound relevant to pyrolysis oil-derived fuels. (Owner LLNL, due FY16 Q4) – On Track

5

Central Fuel Properties Hypothesis

If we correctly identify the critical fuel properties that affect efficiency and emissions performance for downsized, boosted SI engines, then fuels that have those properties will provide optimal engine performance.Also applies to Thrust II advanced compression ignition engines, but at a much lower level of development.

• With the correct properties, performance is a function ofproperties not composition or molecular structure

• Hypothesis may be true or very nearly true for petroleum-derived fuels

• Tested using engine experiments on biomass-derived fuels(oxygenates, targeted hydrocarbons) with fuel property valuesbeyond the range exhibited by today’s petroleum-derived fuels.

X"

NREL (Fioroni) $100k: Development of Fuel Property Database (BETO)

Y/Z04E<0C"•! 5+0*,0"*">A/=74*==BP*440CC7/=0"#A0=")+.>0+,B";*,*/*C0"@.+"4.?<0?E.?*="?0F"4*?U7U*,0"@A0=C"

[>>+.*4G"•! #7=06*80+")+.">=*\.+6"F7,G".?P=7?0"*440CC"

•! #A0="6.=04A=0C"*?U"67],A+0C">+.>.C0U"/B"1HIH"#A0=C"$0*6"

•! ;*,*"60*CA+0U".+"@+.6"=7,0+*,A+0"[44.6>=7CG60?,"•! &XX">A+0"4.6>.A?U"*?U"!:"67],A+0C"("C."@*+"

•! #70=UC"@.+":W"C>047^4"@A0=">+.>0+E0C"•! _C0U"0],0?C7<0=B"7?">+0>*+7?L"`:"5.PY>E6*"37=0C,.?0"-0>.+,"DQa$YJ"

b"

NREL (McCormick) $75k: Development of Fuel Screening Criteria (BETO)

Y/Z04E<0C"•! ;0<0=.>"C,+*,0LB"@.+"C4+00?7?L"=*+L0"?A6/0+C".@"4*?U7U*,0"/7.P/=0?UC,.48C",."C0=04,"6.C,">+.67C7?L"/*C0U".?"@A0=">+.>0+E0C"

[>>+.*4G"•! $G+00"E0+"0<*=A*E.?">+.,.4.="

'"

Tier 1 Screening for Thrust I Candidates

c"

Accomplishment: Selection of Most Promising Thrust I Bio-Blendstocks

#.+"$G+AC,"M"D*U<*?40U"KM"0?L7?0CJ"*>>=B"$70+"!"5+7,0+7*V"•! 30=E?L">.7?,d4=.AU">.7?,"/0=.F"P!%°°5""•! Q.7=7?L">.7?,"/0,F00?":%°°5"*?U"!XW°°5"•! 30*CA+0U".+"0CE6*,0U"-Ye"f"c'"•! 300,",.]747,B9"4.++.C7.?9"C.=A/7=7,B9"*?U"/7.U0L+*U*E.?"+0gA7+060?,C"

•! &T">+.67C7?L"/7.P/=0?UC,.48C"@+.6"*=="@A?4E.?*="L+.A>"4=*CC0C"("/$%,#9(4&$%3:(;,%($"/.#9(7"#$%&'(;*"'(-%,-"%."/(21-,$2"/3/(

;*,*/*C0"#A,A+0";0<0=.>60?,C"•! #A==B">.>A=*,0">+.>0+,B"U*,*"@.+"6.C,">+.67C7?L"4*?U7U*,0C"

•! [UU"4*>*/7=7,B"@.+"U*,*".?"^?7CG0U"@A0="/=0?UC"

Cou

nt

!%"

NREL (Fioroni) $250k: Heat of Vaporization Measurement

Y/Z04E<0"•! ;0<0=.>"60,G.UC"@.+"60*CA+7?L"G0*,".@"<*>.+7N*E.?"DIYOJ".@"4.6>=0]"67],A+0C"•! 30*CA+0"IYO"*C"*"@A?4E.?".@"@+*4E.?"0<*>.+*,0U"•! I7LG"IYO"@A0=C"6*B"0],0?U"8?.48"=767,9"+0UA40"?00U"@.+"C>*+8"+0,*+U"/0B.?U"8?.48"=767,9"+0UA40"?00U"@.+"+74G".>0+*E.?"

j!78(;%>',T'8#E%hNV%;$1"9/%,;$18(;E%%–!:;$18(;%P$T'(%T(;118(;%P1%2;,T;($28(;%$#E%$TT9/%R9$81"81SR9$T;/('#%;f8$K'#%

j!?'2%$TT9">$09;%2'%09;#E1%18>H%$1%G$1'9"#;%

9#k7%4*)P$Tc7%43)P$Tl%m%_nh%P$TcCak*c43%e%*c4*l%7%m%V$T'(%T(;118(;%4%m%2;,T;($28(;%"#%X;9P"#%nhP$T%m%hNV%C%m%"E;$9%G$1%>'#12$#2%

!!"

Fioroni: HOV Measurements

[>>+.*4G"•! ;7+04,=B"60*CA+0"IYO"/B";K5d$H["•! 5*=4A=*,0"IYO"@+.6"U0,*7=0U"GBU+.4*+/.?"*?*=BC7C".@"L*C.=7?0"D6.=0"@+*4E.?"F07LG,0U"CA6".@">A+0"4.6>.?0?,"IYOJ"

5G*==0?L0V"G7LG=B"<.=*E=0"C*6>=0C"0<*>.+*,0"*C",G0B"*+0"=.*U0U"7?,.",G0"7?C,+A60?,"K.=AE.?V"KB+7?L0"7?Z04E.?".@"C*6>=09"=*+L0+"C*6>=0">*?C9"4.<0+0U"F7,G">7?PG.=0"=7UC"

•! DSC/TGA measurements agree well with DHA

•! Values calculated using the CP equation fall below DSC/TGA or DHA, especially at high ethanol content

•! Very similar HOV for wide range of gasolines and ethanol blends

12

Fioroni: HOV as a Function of Fraction Evaporated

• Effect of ethanol on HOV20 may benegligible

• Increasing ethanol has significanteffect on HOV50

• Working to improve precision of thismeasurement under project withCRC (AVFL-27)

HOV Future Work FY16/17• Improve precision of DSC/TGA measurements

• New dedicated instrument• Couple with much greater precision DSC measurements

• Couple with Advanced Distillation Curve experiments and DSC/TGA-MS to revealcomposition as fuel evaporates

• Collaboration with NREL engine group on actual HOV effects

Collaborations:Coordinating Research CouncilUniversity of Colorado

13

Measurement of Autoignition Properties with Small Volumes

Objectives• Measure autoignition kinetics, or a variable correlated with common autoigntion metrics

such as RON or CN, using a very small volume of material

Three projects in various stages:• LLNL (McNenly): Flames with Repetitive Extinction & Ignition

• Ongoing Collaboration with Louisiana State University• NREL (McCormick): Flow Reactor for Small Volume Autoignition Experiments

• FY16 Start• ANL (Goldsborough): RCM as a Small Volume Autoignition Experiment

• FY16 Start

Background• Providing early-stage feedback to identify

promising fuel candidates, accelerateprogress and eliminate effort and expenseassociated with unnecessary scale-up.

• Focused on using milliliter volume samplesto characterize the autoignition behavior offuels, the property that is the mostproblematic to predict.

IQT and similar measurements

Poor resolution at long ignition delay

14

LLNL (McNenly) $75k: µFIT: Micro-liter Fuel Ignition Tester Flames with Repetitive Extinction & Ignition (FREI)

Tmax " 1300 K

:M:-%,">('TH'#;%

d8$(2.%480;%%_L"2H%",T'1;E%L$99%2;,T;($28(;%T('O9;a%

4($#19$K'#%12$G;%Z'(%%L$99%2;,T;($28(;%>H$($>2;(".$K'#%

_2H;(,'>'8T9;%#'2%1H'L#a%

:'#"2'("#G%2H;(,'>'8T9;%

h"GH%-T;;E%V"E;'1%_3YYY%ZT1p%3,,%bU%280;a%

L"2H%<6Y%#,%%0$#ET$11%_Rhqa%

h"GHS-T;;E%$#E%%:$>H"#;%V"1"'#%R$,;($1%IY%,,%:>X;##$%

58(#;(%_h3cQ"(a%_;^2;(#$9%H;$K#Ga%

480;%"#9;2%,$#"Z'9E%_,"^28(;%'Z%"#2;(;12a%

15

McNenly: µFIT: Micro-liter Fuel Ignition Tester Flames with Repetitive Extinction & Ignition (FREI)

4R%E$2$%T981%9'LS1T;;E%",$G;1%/";9E%2;,T;($28(;1%

&CMb%>H$($>2;("1K>1%_4r%$#E%4Sa%%

E;T;#E%'#%Z8;9%

C;,$"#"#G%L'(B%T9$#%Z'(%&]%3Y*IW%

•! C;E8>;%2;,T;($28(;%,;$18(;,;#2%8#>;(2$"#2/%

•! R'#K#8;%$#E%",T('P;%,;$18(;,;#21%Z'(%9"f8"E%(;Z;(;#>;%Z8;91%_"1'S'>2$#;)%#SH;T2$#;%s%2'98;#;a%

•! C;E;1"G#%08(#;(%2'%T(;T$(;%Z'(%;^T;(",;#21%$2%%;9;P$2;E%T(;118(;1%

&8;9%>'#18,TK'#W%G$1;1W%*S*Y%1>>,c,"#%9"f8"E1W%*S@%t9c,"#%%

!X"

PNNL (Bays) 150k: Fuel Structure-Property Correlations

•! N0\;>KP;%e%R'((;9$2;%Z8;9%T;(Z'(,$#>;%T('T;(K;1%2'%>H;,">$9%s%1'98K'#%12(8>28(;1%"#%>',T9;^%Z8;91%

•! b,T$>2%e%Q>H";P;%2H;%$0"9"2/%2'%(13,-*+#3(%-,&)#3('3%(/%49#*,A%#BCD9#"('7#E#F#7G#'"#"2%*#

•! QTT('$>H%–!o1;%?:Cc3US!R%2'%"#P;1KG$2;%Z8;9%12(8>28(;ST('T;(2/%>'((;9$K'#1)%;,TH$1"."#G%UR?cCN?%T(;E">K'#%

–!o#E;(12$#E%H"GHST(;118(;%TH$1;%0;H$P"'(%'Z%Z8;91%•! &828(;%g'(B%

–!R'((;9$K'#1%2'%'2H;(%T('T;(K;1)%;JGJ)%E"1K99$K'#%'(%7P$T%%–!7S4%0;H$P"'(%0;/'#E%E";1;9%18(('G$2;%Z8;91%2'%Z8;91%(;9;P$#2%2'%R'SNTK,$%

&"#$9%:;9K#G%7'"#2%'Z%.SN>2$E;>$#;%

R(/12$91%"#%-8(('G$2;%6%$2%*Y)YYY%T1"q%

*6R%$#E%*h%?:C1%'Z%$#%oTG($E;E%%5"',$11%h/E('2H;(,$9%A"f8;Z$>K'#%N"9%

4L'%?:C%(;G"'#1%H$P"#G%P;(/%12('#G%>'((;9$K'#%L"2H%UR?%

!&5l!Im"e3-"

!I"e3-"

qC;18921%$(;%T(;9","#$(/J%&"#$9%(;18921%$(;%;^T;>2;E%2'%0;%L"2H"#%*Yu%'Z%T(;1;#2;E%P$98;1J%%g'(B%>'#E8>2;E%"#%>'99$0'($K'#%L"2H%RCR%7('\;>2%QV&AS*v$J%

UR?%7(;E">K'#%Z(',%$%;,.<*%#*6R%?:C%C;G"'#%_3<J@S33%TT,a%

C3%m%YJw6%

LLNL (Pitz) $500k: Kinetic Mechanism Development

Y/Z04E<0V"•! ;0<0=.>""*?U"<*=7U*,0"4G0674*="87?0E4"6.U0=C"@.+"<*+7.AC"/7.P/=0?UC,.48C"*?U"@A0="CA++.L*,0C"

[>>+.*4GV"

18

Pitz: Development of kinetic mechanism for anisole, a bio-derived fuel

• Surrogate for methylated phenolicsstream produced from biomass

• On Co-Optima list of most promisingThrust I candidates

• RON = 119, Sensitivity = 21• LLNL preliminary mechanism

complete• Comparison of mechanism with

intermediate species data• Collaborators measuring ignition

delay times (NREL), laminar burningvelocities (Lund Univ.) and moreintermediate species at highpressure (CNRS, Orleans) foradditional validation

CH3

O

O2

750 900 10500E+00

1E-03

2E-03 JSR expt - CNRS Model - LLNL

methanephenol

benzaldehyde[mole fraction]

Temperature [K]

750 900 10500.000

0.025

0.050 JSR expt - Nancy Model - LLNL

Temperature [K]

anisole x10oxygen

[mole fraction]

OH

O

CH4

CH3

O

Jet stirred reactor experimental data:Nowakowska, Herbinet, Dufour, Glaude, Combust. Flame (2014)

19

Pitz: Investigation of the effect of molecular structure on ignition behavior at RON-like engine conditions

• RON-like pressure history from MagnusSjöberg’s DISI engine at Sandia

• Heat release curves for different alcohol chain-lengths for aRON-like engine pressure trajectory:

• RON predictions for a series offuels in different chemical classesusing RON-like pressure history

0.0E+00

2.0E+10

4.0E+10

6.0E+10

8.0E+10

1.0E+11

-15 -5 5 15He

at R

elea

se ra

teCrank Angle Degrees

methanolethanol1-propanol1-butanol1-pentanol

80

98

109

(Numbers on plot are RON values)

0

20

40

60

80

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Pres

ure

-Bar

Crank angle - degrees before TDC

Spark-5.6°

Autoignition10.3°

E30 gasoline

20

ANL (Goldsborough) $250k: Rapid compression machine (RCM) investigation of gasoline mixtures with ethanol and

validation of surrogate mechanism

• ANL rapid compression machine• CRC FACE-F / Ethanol blends (E0–E30, E100)• LLNL kinetic mechanism for gasoline surrogate

Fuels for Advanced Combustion Engines (FACE)-F:• RON = 94.4• Sensitivity = 5.6• Aromatics: 8.6%• n-Paraffins: 4.2%• Naphthenes: 11.0%• Olefins: 8.9%

:!"

ANL (Goldsborough) $250k: Rapid compression machine (RCM) investigation of gasoline mixtures with ethanol and

validation of surrogate mechanism

•! Q?A%($T"E%>',T(;11"'#%,$>H"#;%%

•! RCR%&QRMS&%c%M2H$#'9%09;#E1%_MYeM6Y)%M*YYa%

•! AA?A%B"#;K>%,;>H$#"1,%%Z'(%G$1'9"#;%18(('G$2;%

22

NREL (Zigler) $550K: Chemical Kinetics and SI Autoignition Behavior

Objectives– Assist in development and validation of chemical kinetic mechanisms for blends

through ignition delay experiments and simulations.– Combine bench-scale autoignition studies with engine experiments to more

extensively quantify fuel blend ignition performance than possible with RON andMON.

Approach– Employ a modified Ignition Quality Tester (IQT) to measure ignition performance of

biofuel compounds blended into both key simple surrogate mixtures, and morecomplex gasoline range research fuels.

– Perform computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of IQT to evaluatereduced kinetic mechanisms for blends against experimental data.

– Evaluate IQT-based data to highlight key kinetic behavior related to how ignitiondelay increases at low temperatures in relation to increased octane sensitivity.

– Characterize all fuels used in NREL’s engine experiments (and several enginestudies from other labs, including gasoline compression ignition) with the IQT.

– Begin correlation of IQT data to fuel chemistry and engine results.

:&"

Zigler: Ignition delay experiments assist in development of kinetic mechanisms for biofuel

blends •! 4;,T;($28(;%1L;;T1%$2%1;P;($9%O^;E%T(;118(;1%T('P"E;%;^T;(",;#2$9%E$2$%2'%E;P;9'T%

$>>8($2;%A,.%/&#7%&01.,474#"'(#:*%.-4%'Z%0"'Z8;91%"#2'%B;/%G$1'9"#;%18(('G$2;1J%•! -",89$K'#1%'Z%bd4%;#$09;%$%E;P;9'T,;#2%Z;;E0$>B%9''T%Z'(%P$9"E$K'#%'Z%,;>H$#"1,1%

$G$"#12%;#G"#;S(;9;P$#2%;^T;(",;#2$9%E$2$J%bG#"K'

#%U;9$/%_,

1a)%9'G

%1>$9;%

,4'S'>2$#;%7C&*YY%%*YY%CN?%*YY%:N?%

•! 4H;%>("K>$9%#;G$KP;%2;,T;($28(;%>';z>";#2%_?4Ra%(;G"'#%"1%,$TT;EJ%

:T"


blends •! 4;,T;($28(;%1L;;T1%$2%1;P;($9%O^;E%T(;118(;1%T('P"E;%;^T;(",;#2$9%E$2$%2'%E;P;9'T%

$>>8($2;%A,.%/&#7%&01.,474#"'(#:*%.-4%'Z%0"'Z8;91%"#2'%B;/%G$1'9"#;%18(('G$2;1J%•! -",89$K'#1%'Z%bd4%;#$09;%$%E;P;9'T,;#2%Z;;E0$>B%9''T%Z'(%P$9"E$K'#%'Z%,;>H$#"1,1%

$G$"#12%;#G"#;S(;9;P$#2%;^T;(",;#2$9%E$2$J%bG#"K'

#%U;9$/%_,

1a)%9'G

%1>$9;%

,4'S'>2$#;%7C&*YY%%*YY%CN?%*YY%:N?%

;2H$#'9%*Yw%CN?%wY%:N?%

•! 4H;%>("K>$9%#;G$KP;%2;,T;($28(;%>';z>";#2%_?4Ra%(;G"'#%"1%,$TT;EJ%

•! ?'2;%;2H$#'9%_*Yw%CN?a%H$1%1H'(2;(%"G#"K'#%E;9$/%$2%H"GH%4%2H$#%,4'S'>2$#;%_*YY%CN?aJ%

25


blends• Temperature sweeps at several fixed pressures provide experimental data to develop

accurate kinetic mechanisms for blends of biofuels into key gasoline surrogates.• Simulations of IQT enable a development feedback loop for validation of mechanisms

against engine-relevant experimental data.Ig

nitio

n De

lay

(ms)

, log

scal

e

iso-octanePRF100 100 RON100 MON

ethanol109 RON90 MON

90% iso-octane – 10% ethanol106.8 RON99.9 MON

• The critical negativetemperaturecoefficient (NTC) regionis mapped.

• Note ethanol (109RON) has shorterignition delay at high Tthan iso-octane (100RON).

• A 10% ethanol blendincreases ignition delay while maintaining NTCbehavior,

26

Ignition delay experiments assist in development of kinetic mechanisms for biofuel blends

• Temperature sweeps at several fixed pressures provide experimental data to developaccurate kinetic mechanisms for blends of biofuels into key gasoline surrogates.

• Simulations of IQT enable a development feedback loop for validation of mechanismsagainst engine-relevant experimental data.

Igni

tion

Dela

y (m

s), l

og sc

ale


ethanol109 RON90 MON



• The critical negativetemperaturecoefficient (NTC) regionis mapped.

• Note ethanol (109RON) has shorterignition delay at high Tthan iso-octane (100RON).

• A 10% ethanol blendincreases ignition delay while maintaining NTCbehavior,

• But a 20% ethanolblend eliminates NTCbehavior whileincreasing ignitiondelay over neatethanol in that region.

27

• Temperature sweeps at several fixed pressures provide experimental ignition delay data (ratherthan just RON or MON), including how ignition delay increases at low temperatures in relation toincreased octane sensitivity (S).

• The IQT data will be correlated with engine data focusing on load extension possible using sparkretard with high S fuels.


E20 in PRF 85100.3 RON estimatedS = 8 estimated

TSF 99.899.8 RONS = 11.1

Zigler: Ignition delay experiments provide more insight to engine results beyond RON and octane sensitivity

• In this study of ~100 RON fuels, increasing octane sensitivity correlates with increased ignition delayat lower temperatures.

• IQT data offer insight why increased load is possible with retarded spark timing, where end-gasfollows lower temperature trajectory with increased ignition delay times.

• Engine studies show that higher S enables increased load via spark retard (following presentation).

28

• Temperature sweeps at several fixed pressures provide experimental ignition delaydata (rather than just RON or MON), to examine biomass-oxygenate structure effectson engine knock resistance.

• IQT data is being correlated with engine data to explain oxygenate structure effects.

NREL: Ignition delay experiments assist in development of kinetic mechanisms for biofuel blends

Tian, M., Ratcliff, M., McCormick, R.L., Luecke, J., Yanowitz, J., Glaude, P.-A., Cuijpers, M., Boot, M.D., “Evaluation of Lignin Based Octane Boosters in a Spark Ignition Engine” submitted.

29

Future work: kinetics

Pitz• Develop surrogate mixture models for gasoline fuels to

be used in Co-Optima:– Three RON 98 reference gasoline fuels: alkylate, reformate

and ethanol-containing– Base fuel(s) selected for blending with bio-derived

blendstocks

• Simulate SI and CI engine experiments :– with RON 98 gasolines for

• constant octane sensitivity obtained from aromaticsor ethanol

• octane sensitivity varied– using basefuel(s) combined with Tier 2 bio-derived

blendstocks

• Use kinetic models to investigate high-sensitivity fuelsderiving octane sensitivity from aromatics or olefins. Isthere a significant difference autoignition resistance atThrust 1 conditions?

• Develop/validate component kinetic models torepresent missing chemical classes in Tier 2blendstocks (ketones and methyl furan)

• Investigate blendstocks that can probe the mostbeneficial fuel properties (resistance to autoignitionand high flame speed) for Thrust 1 conditions.

Zigler• Expand IQT ignition kinetics studies of key surrogate

blends beyond ethanol to include other biofuelcompounds of interest, in coordination with kineticssub-team (within FP team), and AED and LGGF teams

• Incorporate IQT-based parametric ignition delay datain engine simulation knock integral calculations tocorrelate to engine-based experimental data

• Focus more experimental studies and kinetic modelsimulations on relationship between octane sensitivity,increased ignition delay time at lower temperatures,and engine load extension possible with spark retardand high S (includes tighter collaboration with LLNL)

• Expand collaboration with other labs on studying fuelsused in their engine experiments in the IQT (e.g.,collaboration with ANL on gasoline compressionignition)

• Begin industry collaboration (including via CRC) ofusing IQT-based experimental studies to provide moreignition performance data for fuel / engine studies

30

Fuel Properties Team Research Summary

RelevanceFuel Properties research is the crucial link between fuel production (LGHG Fuels Team) and engine combustion (Advanced Engine Development Team) and testing of the central fuel properties hypothesis investigated within “Co-Optima.”

ApproachCareful measurement of fuel properties, development of new fuel property measurement methods, and targeted engine experiments directed at revealing fuel property effects – all based on a fuel matrix designed to go well beyond the chemistry represented by conventional petroleum-derived fuels.

Accomplishments• In collaboration with LGHG Fuels Team, a fuel property database was constructed and populated• A three tier fuel screening process was developed. Tier 1 screening for Thrust I (SI) fuels was

performed and a list of most promising advanced SI engine bio-blendstocks developed• New methods for measuring fuel heat of vaporization were developed and are being refined• Small volume autoignition testers are being developed for rapid fuel screening using milliliter volumes• Correlations between easily measured chemical parameters and fuel properties are being developed• Validated combustion kinetic models for important bio-blendstocks and fuel surrogates are being

developed based on RCM and IQT kinetic dataCollaborations

• “Co-Optima” has 9 National Labs, stakeholder engagement, and external advisory board• Projects presented also represent extensive collaborations with industry and universities

Future Work – A portfolio of ongoing and future work is described

31

Co-Optimization of Fuels and EnginesFuel Property and Advanced Engine Development

Team

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

FT038 – Part 2

Jim Szybist,1 Scott Sluder, 1 Matt Ratcliff, 2 Thomas Wallner, 3 Derek Splitter, 1 Andrew Ickes, 3 Christopher P. Kolodziej,3 Bob McCormick,2 Paul Miles 4

1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory3. Argonne National Laboratory4. Sandia National Laboratories

Co-Optima DOE VTO Management Team: Kevin Stork and Gurpreet Singh

Thrust I engine projects

June 9th, 2016

32

overview: thrust I engine projects

Thrust I engine projects focus on Spark Ignition combustion strategies with a focus of understanding the effects of fuel properties

Overarching Fuel Property Hypothesis: If we understand the critical fuel properties correctly, then fuels with those properties will provide comparable performance regardless of the chemical composition.

Merit FunctionEfficiency Benefits of High Octane Fuels ORNL SluderEffects of RON, HoV, and Octane Sensitivity NREL Ratcliff

ANL Kolodziej/IckesDilution Limits on SI Combustion ORNL Szybist

ANL Kolodziej/WallnerFuel Effects on LSPI ORNL Splitter

33

milestones for Thrust I engine projects are either complete or on-track

Q2. Quantify vehicle fuel efficiency gains from the use of a ~98 RON gasoline in combination with increased compression ratio using the Ford 1.6L engine (ORNL Sluder) Complete

Q3. Determine the strengths and deficiencies that exist in using flame speed to predict dilution tolerance through experimental and kinetic modelling studies (ANL Kolodziej/Wallner) On-track

Tracked co-optima milestones

Additional project level milestones are also on-track

34

purpose of efficiency merit function for thrust I: tool to rank promising candidates for further study

• This is an approach on how to value properties for efficiency

• This is not a finished product, the merit function willcontinuously evolve

• We are working to determine if these are the right fuel propertieswhether we adequately understand their impacts

• The fuel property hypothesis will be tested with biofuels thatintroduce different chemistry (structures and functional groups)

-4-3-2-101234

88 90 92 94 96

Mer

it Fu

nctio

n ∆

RON

For K = -0.5

350 400 450HoV [ kJ/kg ]

0 10 20 30LFV

150 [ % ]

The goal of Thrust 1 engine research is to develop a robust and quantitative understanding on how efficiency is impacted by fuel

properties.

6.1)92( −RONmix

3])/[46(

6

−−

+scmS mixL

( )[ ])0.2(5.067.00.2 −+−− PMIPMIH

=MeritRON

6.1)10( −

−SK mix

OctaneSensitivity Flame Speed Heat of Vaporization

Distillation Particulate Emissions

42 44 46 48 50 [ g ]

Flame Speed [ cm/s ]

1.5 2 2.5 3150

PMI

4 6 8 10 12 14 16RON

Octane Sensitivity

35

ORNL (Sluder) $500k: efficiency benefits of high octane fuels

Objectives– Quantify fuel efficiency impacts of octane

number– Test central fuel property hypothesis using

fuels with different chemistry

ApproachEngine Experiments

– Experiments with a 1.6L Ecoboost engineusing three different compression ratios(10:1 (stock), 12:1, and 13:1)

– Map engine performance with multiple fuelformulations

Vehicle Simulations– Experimental data used in Autonomie

vehicle simulations to quantify vehicleenergy consumption and fuel economy

Approximate knock limit

ORNL - Sluder (1/3)

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Engi

ne To

rque

(N*m

)

Engine Speed (RPM)

UDDSUS06 City

86.5

85.9

86.1

83.9

83.9

11.1

10.6

10.5

6.8 7.9

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Oct

ane

Num

ber

97.6

Finished Blends Blendstocks

96.5 96.6 90.7 91.8

MON

SensitivityRON

36

at fixed compression ratio, the benefit of increased octane rating for high-torque cycles can be significant

ORNL - Sluder (2/3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 500 1000 1500 2000

CA50

[ aT

DCf

]

BMEP [ kPa ]

96.6 RON E20

91.8 RON E10

101520253035404550

E10

Equi

vale

nt F

uel E

cono

my

[ Mile

s/G

allo

n ]

E10 - RON 91.8E20 - RON 96.6E0 - RON 97.4

Compression Ratio 12:1

• Increasing octane rating reduces spark retard forknock avoidance– Improvement is limited to knock-limited

load range• Important to match RON to CR with desired

torque– Downsizing/downspeeding trend demands

increasing torque• Energy consumption improvement for 5 RON

points– UDDS cycle (light load): 2%– US06 city portion (higher load): 11%

• 3.5% energy consumption decrease needed toachieve volumetric fuel economy parity for E20compared to E10

&b"

•! b#>'#1"12;#>";1%"#%9"2;($28(;%(;G$(E"#G%h'V%",T$>2%'#%B#'>B%T('T;#1"2/%

–! h'V%;D;>2%'#9/%0;;#%'01;(P;E%LH;#%>'P$("$#2%L"2H%'>2$#;%1;#1"KP"2/%•! M^T$#E;E%L"2H%#;L%;^T;(",;#2$9%(;18921%Z(',%NC?A%$#E%?CMA%•! :$"#%>'#>981"'#W%h'V%"1%$%2H;(,$9%>'#2("082'(%2'%1;#1"KP"2/%

–! %Q9"G#1%2H;%O#E"#G1%'Z%1;;,"#G9/%%>'#2($(/%9"2;($28(;%O#E"#G1%

–! R'#1"12;#2%L"2H%2H;%P$T'(".$K'#%%;D;>21%"#%2H;%CN?%$#E%:N?%2;121%

ORNL and NREL collaboration: HoV can be thought of a contributor to octane sensitivity

Y-e1"P"K=AU0+"D&d&J"

3*,4G0U"-Ye"*?U"Y4,*?0"K"O*+B7?L"I.O"

38

NREL (Ratcliff) $250k: effects of S, HoV and RON on GDI Performance

Fuel RON SHOV

[kJ/kg]Oxygen

wt%

Isooctane (PRF 100) 100 0 303 0

TSF99.8 (74% Toluene) 99.8 11.1 390 0

E25 in TRF88 (23% Toluene)

101.6 10.7 489 24.6

E40 in TRF6x (24% Toluene)

99.2 12.2 595 40.3

E20 + 2% p-Cresol in TRF88 100.3 10 472 22.4

E20 + 6% Anisole in TRF88 99.9 11 472 26.5

E25- FACE B 105.6 11.8 485 26.3

Objectives– Test null hypothesis: At a given octane sensitivity, HoV impact on knock resistance

is included in S

Approach– Single cylinder version of GM

Ecotec 2.0L, 9.2: CR– Side-mounted DI or upstream

fuel injection– Load sweeps at an intake

manifold temp of 50 ⁰ C– Sweep intake manifold T

for max load at 2 different CA50 phasing

Fuel Matrix– Matched RON and S at

variety of HoV– Fuels with different S and RON

included to bound results

NREL – Ratcliff (1/3)

39

load sweeps reveal that performance of fuels with matched RON and S is independent of HoV

• Using direct injection (DI) all 100 RON, S ≈ 11 fuels have similar knock-limitedperformance gains over isooctane; no evident HoV benefit

• S ≈ 11 allows more than half the combustion phasing advance available with 106 RONfuel, between 1200 – 1500 kPa NMEP


Iso-octaneTSF99.8E25-TRF88E40-TRF6xE20_2%p-Cresol-TRF88E25-FACE B

6

10

14

18

22

700 1050 1400 1750 2100

CA50

[ aT

DC f

]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

MBT Timing6

10

14

18

22

700 1050 1400 1750 2100

CA50

[ aT

DC f

]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

MBT Timing6

10

14

18

22

700 1050 1400 1750 2100

CA50

[ aT

DC f

]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

MBT Timing6

10

14

18

22

700 1050 1400 1750 2100

CA50

[ aT

DC f

]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

MBT Timing

RON = 100S = 0

RON = 105.6S = 11.8

RON = 99.2-101.6S = 10.7-12.2

40

HoV appears to improve performance at elevated intake air temperatures

• Increasing HoV improves DI performance at late combustion phasing and intakemanifold temperatures greater than 50 ⁰ C

• Performance of upstream injected (UI) 100 RON, S ≈ 11 fuels is significantly higher thanDI of isooctane


10

12

14

16

18

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

IMEP

net [

bar ]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

10

12

14

16

18

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

IMEP

net [

bar ]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

10

12

14

16

18

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

IMEP

net [

bar ]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

10

12

14

16

18

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

IMEP

net [

bar ]

IMEPnet

[ kPa ]

RON = 100S = 0

RON = 99.2-101.6S = 10.7-12.2

595 kJ/kg

472 kJ/kg

390 kJ/kg

HoV

Isooctane, DIIsooctane, UITSF 99.8, DITSF 99.8, UIE40-TRF6x, DIE40-TRF6x, UIE20+2%p-Cresol-TRF88, DIE20+2%p-Cresol-TRF88, UI Intake Manifold T [ deg C ]

Plot shows peakIMEP at a constantCA50 phasing

41

ANL (Wallner) $300k: studies of research octane number (RON) and heat of vaporization (HoV)

• Objectives– Develop a better understanding of how fuel

properties, particularly RON and HoV, impact auto-ignition for conventional, stoichiometric SIcombustion

– Isolate effects of entangled fuel properties, such asRON and HoV, on SI combustion and knock

• Project Plans– Use the well-established CFR engine (identifies fuel RON and MON) as a

research platform to develop scientific understanding of isolated fuel effectson SI combustion

– Investigate HoV effects on RON as a function of operating parameters (intakeair temperature, compression ratio, and spark timing) for a range of fuels

HoVRON

ANL– Kolodziej/Ickes (2/2)

42

collaborations established, CFR engine and test cell prep nearing completion

• Progress– Collaboration established with Marathon

Petroleum Corporation– CFR engine refurbished and installation

underway– Test cell data acquisition installed– Test matrix and analytical method defined

• Deliverables– Completion of initial test matrix by Sep 30, 2016– Boundary conditions of CFR engine for modeling to toolkit team– Development of a two-parameter knock behavior characteristic which takes

HoV into account is a potential outcome of this work

ANL– Kolodziej/Ickes (2/2)

43

ORNL (Szybist) $300k: fuel effects on the limits of EGR dilution for SI engines

• Objectives– Determine the magnitude and causes of

fuel-specific differences in extending the EGRdilution limit

• Methodology– Single cylinder version of GM Ecotec 2.0L, 9.2: CR

• 2000 rpm, nominal load of 3.5 bar IMEPg

– Side-mounted DI, laboratory air handling withexternal cooled EGR loop

– 6 fuel blends from pure components designed tovary flame speed, enable kinetic modeling

– Dilution limit defined by stability metric (COV)through EGR/combustion phasing space

• Future Work: Continuing work will be focusedon high load dilution tolerance andpressure effects (>15 bar)

95%

56%

46%

44%

24%

78%

5%

14%

25%

19%

25%

12%

30%

27%

21%

30%

10%

30%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fuel

1

Fuel

2

Fuel

3

Fuel

4

Fuel

5

Fuel

6

Volu

me

Perc

ent

ethanol

toluene

n-heptane

iso-octane

ORNL– Szybist (1/4)

Baseline Operating Condition

44

0

5

10

15

20

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

EGR

[ % ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

0

5

10

15

20

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Fuel 1Fuel 2Fuel 3Fuel 4Fuel 5Fuel 6

EGR

[ % ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

Highest Dilution Tolerance

Intermediate Dilution Tolerance

Lowest Dilution Tolerance

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

2468

1012141618202224

EGR

[% ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

1.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.0009.000

COV of IMEP [ % ]

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

2468

1012141618202224

EGR

[% ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

1.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.0009.000

COV of IMEP [ % ]

EGR dilution tolerance is defined by combustion stability, fuel specific differences are observed

• Response to EGR is the similarfor all fuels (similar slopes)

• Fuels-specific differences aredue to different starting points

Fuel

1

95%

iso-

octa

ne,

5% n

-hep

tane

Fuel

5

24%

iso-

octa

ne, 2

5% n

-he

ptan

e, 2

1% to

luen

e,

30%

eth

anol

Lines of Constant 3% COV


45

highest dilution tolerance fuels havehighest flame speed

• Dilution tolerance correlates to laminar flame speed– Energy fraction mixing rule and kinetic calculations

agree– Kinetics allow flame speed calculations at relevant

temperature and pressure conditions

• Flame speed at ignition provides a good indication ofspark-to-CA5, combustion stability

– Experimental spark-to-CA5 to represents early flame growth– Rapid early flame kernel growth critical for combustion stability– Calculated flame speed in excellent agreement with

experimental spark-to-CA5 44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Fuel

5

Fuel

3

Fuel

4

Fuel

6

Fuel

2

Fuel

1

Mixing Rule (358 K)Chemkin (348 K)

Calc

ulat

ed F

lam

e Sp

eed

(cm

/s)

Highest Dilution ToleranceIntermediate Dilution Tolerance

Lowest Dilution Tolerance


46

5 10

400

500

600

Tem

pera

ture

(K)

Pressure (bar)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Flame Speed (cm/s)Fuel 1 Flame Speed

highest dilution tolerance fuels havehighest flame speed

• Dilution tolerance correlates to laminar flame speed– Energy fraction mixing rule and kinetic calculations

agree– Kinetics allow flame speed calculations at relevant

temperature and pressure conditions

• Flame speed at ignition provides a good indication ofspark-to-CA5, combustion stability

– Experimental spark-to-CA5 to represents early flame growth– Rapid early flame kernel growth critical for combustion stability– Calculated flame speed in excellent agreement with

experimental spark-to-CA5


6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

2468

1012141618202224

EGR

[% ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

2025303540455055606570

Flame Speed at Ignition Timing [ cm/s ]Fuel 1

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

2468

1012141618202224

EGR

[% ]

CA50 [ CA aTDCf ]

18.0020.0022.0024.0026.0028.0030.0032.0034.0036.0038.0040.00

Spk-5% Combustion Duration [ CA ]

Calculated Flame Speed at Ignition Timing is Insensitive to Spark Timing

Agrees with Experimental Results of Spark-to-CA5 duration

47

fuel-specific effects can be significant, HoVidentified as possible dilution tolerance detractor

• Fastest flame speed fuel enables a 50% relativeincrease in EGR at a constant COV of 3%compared to the slowest flame speed fuel– 8% EGR to 12% EGR– Absolute EGR dilution tolerance will change

with engine design and operating condition– Relative ranking between fuels is expected to

remain for all homogeneous SI engines• HoV may detract from dilution tolerance

– Flame speed is a function of temperature– Up to 15 C of additional charge cooling

expected for 30% ethanol– Flame speed calculations reveals this

temperature reduction has a large impact onflame speed

• This project to move to high loads FY16 FY17• ANL to investigate flame speed effects

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 161

2

3

4

5

6

CO

V of

IM

EP (%

)

EGR (%)

Fuel 1 COV of IMEP Fuel 1 Spark to 90% MFB Duration Fuel 5 COV of IMEP Fuel 5 Spark to 90% MFB Duration

50

55

60

65

70

75

Spar

k to

90

% M

FB D

urat

ion

(°C

A)

55

57

59

61

63

65

Fuel 1 Fuel 5 Fuel 5 - HoVCalcu

late

d Fl

ame

Spee

d [ c

m/s

]

4 bar, 500 K 4 bar, 485 K


48

Iso-octane N-heptane

Toluene

Ethanol

Methanol

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40 45 50 55 60

Hea

t of V

apor

izat

ion

[kJ/

MJ]

LFS at 1atm, 358K [cm/s]

ANL (Wallner) $200k: fuel effects on EGR and lean dilution limits on SI combustion

• Objectives– Identify the influence of fuel properties on SI

combustion lean and EGR dilution tolerance– Quantify the relative impact of fuel properties

on dilution tolerance compared to enginedesign parameters

• Project Plans– Evaluate hypothesis that laminar flame speed (LFS),

at nominal conditions, can be used to predict dilutiontolerance (lean and EGR) of a fuel in SI combustion

– Determine the impact of HoV on dilution tolerance– Compare fuel LFS lean/dilute tolerances against

engine design parameters

Fuel 4,Fuel 5

Fuel 1,Fuel 2,Fuel 3

Fuel Components 1 2 3 4 5

iso-octane X X X

n-heptane X X X

toluene X

ethanol X X

methanol X X

ANL– Kolodziej/Wallner (1/2)

• Methodology– Single cylinder version of Ford engine, 0.63L, 12.2:1 CR

• 1500 rpm, loads of 3.2 and 5.6 bar IMEP,constant combustion phasing (8 CA aTDCf)

– PFI and DI fueling

49

fuel matrix is isolating effects of LFS and HoV in preliminary data

• Progress– Developed a method to identify fuel

blends with target HoV and flame speed– Derived fuel matrix and test program– Preliminary results confirm positive

correlation of flame speed with dilutiontolerance

• Deliverables– Comparison of fuel and engine design

parameters on SI combustion lean dilutiontolerance

– Completion of LFS hypothesis testing byJune 30, 2016

Fuel F1: Low LFS, Low HOV (toluene)Fuel F2: Low LFS, Low HOV (mixture)Fuel F4: High LFS, High HOV (mixture)

02468

1012

0 5 10 15 20 25C

OV I

MEP

[%]

EGR [%]

3% COVIMEP

≈4% EGR

10152025303540

Flam

e D

evel

op.

Angl

e [°

CA]

Fuel F1 Fuel F2 Fuel F4

MBT spark timing at each test point

10

15

20

25

10-9

0% C

omb.

D

ur. [

°CA]

CR = 12.21500 RPM

3.2 bar IMEPPFI SOI = 300°bTDC

ANL– Kolodziej/Wallner (2/2)

Molecule Type

Bio-blendstock Structure BP (°C)

RON (-)

HoV (kJ/kg)

Planned

Alcohol 4-Methylpentan-3-ol

148 95.9 423

Alkane (1S, 4S)-1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptane

144.6 95.3 268

Aromatic o-Xylene 144 120 409 X

Ester 3-Methylbutyl acetate

142 100.6 291 XFuran 2-methyl-5-

propyl furan 138 93.9 295

Ketone 3-hydroxy-2-butanone

148 107.5 506 X

50

ORNL (Splitter) $150k: fuel effects in low speed pre-Ignition

• Objectives– To improve the understanding of

fuel properties on low speed pre-ignition (LSPI)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

Fuel Boiled (%)

~BP of doping fuels

• Project Plans– Single cylinder version of Ford1.6L

Ecoboost engine• Dedicated LSPI engine• Leverages lubricants LSPI activity• Automated LSPI test cycle

– Initial work focused on boiling point,HoV, and fuel structure on LSPI

• Input to fuel merit function andco-optima down selection

– Extend focus to down selected co-optima fuels

ORNL– Splitter (1/2)

LSPI promoting fuel, Fuel A SAE 2014-01-1226, RON =98.3 LSPI supressing fuel, Fuel K SAE 2014-01-1226, RON =99.4 Haltermann EEE Tier II, RON =96.3 Sunoco Optima, RON =98

51

engine system is operational, on-track to meet Q4 project-level milestone

• Deliverables– Initial molecular structure effects on

LSPI tests Sept 30 2016– Feed forward of findings into fuels

merit function

• Progress– Initial scoping fuels identified– DAQ system collecting 15,000

consecutive cycles is operationalthrough the leveraged lubricantproject

– Engine failure occurred under LSPIconditions

• New engine installed andoperational

FY 2016 Q1

FY 2016 Q2

ORNL– Splitter (2/2)

-20 0 20 40 60 80 1000

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Crank Angle (°CA aTDCf)

Cyl

inde

r Pre

ssur

e (b

ar)

Average LSPI (cycle #116)

Spark timing

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

Spar

k Pr

imar

y C

oil S

igna

l (vo

lt)

Spark timing

52

comments to last years reviewers 2015 projects included: FT002 (Zigler), and FT008 (Szybist)

Reviewers commented on the selection process of bio and conventional fuels being studied.Fuel choices moving forward will be guided by multi-lab “Co-Optima” effort. This includes coordination with BETO “Co-Optima” effort through the Low Greenhouse Gas Fuels Team, through stakeholder engagement, and alignment on fuels amongst the various National Laboratories

Reviewers commented on the need to better understand the role of fuel properties as it relates to engine behavior. Specific examples include determining the chemistry-specific contribution to RON (FT008).

This comment is in-line with the overarching fuel hypothesis of the “Co-Optima” effort. We are seeking to understand whether knowing fuel properties are sufficient, or if the chemical composition of the fuel is critical to understanding performance aside from the fuel properties.

Specific to FT008: Regarding the high-octane study, the reviewer asked what is the impact of revised pistongeometry on fuel spray volatility and wall impingement, fuel pool fires, etc.

Fuel injection events for this study are early in the intake stroke, providing lengthy evaporation and mixing times and reducing the importance of jet-piston interactions. While the piston geometries are not optimal for cold start and transients, discussion of the designs with industry stakeholders have provided confidence that they are adequate for research applications.

53

numerous overarching and portfolio-level collaborationsadditional project-level collaborations

Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines brings together expertise from across the National Laboratorysystem, working toward a common purpose. This effort has stakeholder engagement at a high levelto ensure relevance. 9 laboratories, engines, fuels, kinetics, simulation, biofuel development, LCA& TEA, market transformation Monthly stakeholder engagement phone calls, industry listening days, external advisory board

Projects presented at the semi-annual AEC program review meetings Engagement with ACEC Tech Team activitiesAdditional project-level collaborations with industry and academia

Kolodziej/WallnerFord - Hardware

SzybistFCA – Cody Baldwin-SquibbUniversity of Michigan – Yan Chang (student)

SplitterDriven Racing Oils – custom lubricants

SluderFord – Hardware and technical guidanceUSDRIVE Fuels Working Group – multiple OEMs

and energy companies

RatcliffGeneral Motors – Hardware and Technical Guidance

Kolodziej/IckesMarathon Oil – Hardware, fuels, technical guidance

54

summary

RelevanceThrust I engine experiments are critical to understanding the role of fuel properties on efficiency. This information is critical to knowing how to value various fuel properties within “Co-Optima.”

ApproachPerform engine experiments that test the overarching “Co-Optima” fuel property hypothesis. Provide quantitative results that will aid in refining the Thrust I merit function. Interact with other teams within “Co-Optima” for modeling support, fuel selection, and fuels critical to the overall goal of reduced GHG emissions.

Accomplishments• Once octane sensitivity has been accounted for, the role of HoV on KLSA is significantly diminished• Multi-lab effort provided insight into the role of HoV as a thermal component to octane sensitivity• EGR dilution tolerance is dominated by flame speed, related to early flame kernel growth

Collaborations• “Co-Optima” has 9 National Labs, stakeholder engagement, and external advisory board• Projects presented at AEC semi-annual program review, engaged with ACEC TT• Numerous other project-level collaborations

Future WorkContinue to test the overarching “Co-Optima” fuel property hypothesis by incorporating biofuels with a wide range of chemical compositions into experiments, with support from modeling and kinetics efforts, in coordination with additional “Co-Optima” teams.

Documents

Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines (Co-Optima) -- Fuel