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

net/publication/296665000

Optimization of Injection Characteristics in a Large Marine Diesel Engine Using

Evolutionary Algorithms

Conference Paper · April 2009

DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-1448

CITATIONS READS

6 66

3 authors, including:

Christos A Chryssakis Lambros Kaiktsis

Det Norske Veritas National Technical University of Athens
24 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   891 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lambros Kaiktsis on 27 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2009-01-1448

Optimization of Injection Characteristics in a Large Marine

Diesel Engine Using Evolutionary Algorithms

Panagiotis Andreadis, Christos Chryssakis, Lambros Kaiktsis

National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)
Dept. of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering

Copyright © 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT level, Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention, adopted by

The reduction of pollutant emissions of marine diesel
engines can be achieved by employing multiple injection
strategies, similar to the ones used in automotive
engines. In the present work, the options for advanced
injection strategies, in terms of pilot injections, are
explored for a large two-stroke marine diesel engine
operating at full load, by utilizing Computational Fluid
Dynamics simulations coupled with an Evolutionary
Algorithm. The goals of the present Multi-Objective
constrained optimization are the minimization of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) emissions and engine specific fuel
consumption. The constraint, imposed by structural
limitations of the engine, is the maximum cylinder
pressure. The design variables include parameters
controlling the pilot and main injections, and the injected
total mass. The problem is handled as a Multi-Objective
Optimization Problem, and the final set of elite solutions
is identified based on the Pareto dominance. The
methodology yields two families of solutions,
corresponding to early and late pilot injection, providing
significant improvement, both in terms of NOX emissions
and engine efficiency. The elite solutions are analyzed
and interpreted by detailed processing of the simulation
results.
INTRODUCTION
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1997,
sets regulations for the prevention of air pollution by
ships [2]. MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide
(SOX) and nitrogen oxides emissions from ship exhaust
gases. Annex VI contains provisions allowing for special
SOX Emission Control Areas (ECA) to be established
with more stringent controls on sulphur oxides
emissions. In these areas, the sulphur content of fuel oil
used onboard ships must not exceed 15,000 ppm. Along
these lines, the Marine Environment Protection
Committee, at its 57th session in April 2008, agreed on a
three-Tier structure for new engines, which would set
progressively tighter NOX emission standards for new
engines, depending on the date of their installation (see
Table 1, for engines with speed lower than 130 RPM).
The Tier III standards appearing in Table 1 will be
enforced in the Emission Control Areas only.
Table 1: NOX Emissions Standards for Low-Speed
Marine Engines, according to the IMO [2]
Construction Date NOX [g/kWh]
Tier I 01/2000 17.0
Tier II 01/2011 14.4
Tier III
01/2016 3.4
(ECA only)

In 2002, the European Commission adopted a European
Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from
seagoing ships. The strategy reports on the magnitude
and impact of ship emissions in the EU, and sets out a
number of actions to reduce the contribution of shipping
to health and climate change [1]. At the international
It is evident from Table 1 that NOX emissions from large
marine engines have to be reduced by 15% by 2011,
and ways for an 80% reduction have to be identified for
operation in the Emission Control Areas by 2016. Soot
emission standards have not been announced yet, but
are expected to come into force in the near future.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the
session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of
the paper.
SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA
In the present study, we explore possibilities for reducing
both NOX emissions and engine Specific Fuel-Oil
Consumption (SFOC) of a large two-stroke marine
diesel engine, operating at full load. Specific Fuel Oil
Consumption is expressed in g/kWh, and the term is an
equivalent of Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, for
marine engine applications. It is noted that the above
mentioned requirement of 15% reduction in NOX
emissions applies to a prescribed weighted average
over the load profile, with the full load corresponding to a
contribution of 29%. The engine behavior at partial load,
not considered in the present study, can be different in
comparison to full load.
Attempts for reducing exhaust emissions from marine
diesel engines can benefit from the experience gained
with similar efforts for the smaller automotive engines.
Recently, substantial efforts have been made in order to
develop new strategies for the in-cylinder reduction of
soot and NOX emissions of automotive diesel engines.
These studies include multiple fuel injections, enabled
by the availability of common rail injection systems, in
order to improve fuel-air mixing, and to achieve
combustion under conditions that do not favor emissions
formation [3-7]. A primary goal of multiple injections is
the enhancement of fuel atomization and evaporation, in
order to create a more homogeneous fuel-air mixture in
the cylinder, with reduced fuel-rich areas, where soot is
produced. In addition, maintaining combustion at
temperatures lower than approximately 2300 K is
important for reducing the NOX formation rates. In terms
of engine efficiency, introducing a pilot injection
increases the pressure levels close to TDC, so that the
early expansion takes place at an elevated mean
pressure, thus approaching the theoretical Diesel cycle.
In the presence of only one pilot injection pulse, the
early expansion pressure trace cannot be ideal
(constant). In terms of NOX production, the introduction
of a pilot injection results in a) combustion with minimal
NOX formation prior to TDC, b) mixture dilution, and thus
lower temperatures, for combustion in the expansion
stroke. Further, the possibility of retarded Start of Main
Injection contributes to lower NOX formation rates.
Building on the experience with smaller engine
applications, a number of studies has been reported
recently for marine diesel engines, aiming at reducing
pollutant emissions without compromising fuel economy.
In particular, Yoon et al. [8], using both CFD and
experiments, explored the effect of several engine
parameters, including the fuel injection rate, on
combustion, and were able to reduce NOX emissions by
up to 20%, for the same levels of fuel economy.
Following a different approach, Struckmeier et al. [9]
performed experiments using a fuel with lower cetane
number, to allow for early injection and increased
ignition delay and fuel-air mixing times, thus achieving
Partially Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition
(PCCI) combustion. This approach resulted in a 10%
reduction in NOX emissions, with non-negligible gains
(order 1.5%) in fuel economy.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can be a valuable
tool in exploring the potential of multiple injections in
large marine diesel engines, facilitated by the recent
introduction of common rail injection systems in these
engines. CFD analysis provides insight into the engine
in-cylinder processes via visualization of the fuel
injection, spray atomization and evaporation, fuel-air
mixing, as well as of the development of the combustion
process. In this context, Kontoulis et al. [10-11]
performed recently the first studies of the effects of pilot
injection on combustion and emissions of large two-
stroke marine engines using CFD; they concluded that
significant reduction in specific fuel consumption can be
achieved, while maintaining the same NOX emission
levels and possibly also reducing soot concentration in
the exhaust gases.
Optimization methods, mainly based on Genetic
Algorithms, have been used in the last years in order to
vary systematically and optimize engine parameters that
affect engine performance and pollutants formation.
Hence, fuel efficiency, and the exhaust concentration of
NOX and other pollutants become objective functions in
optimization problems. These problems are often treated
as single objective problems [e.g., 12-14], but multi-
objective approaches using the Pareto Front technique
have also been utilized [15-16].
Extending the work of Kontoulis et al. [10-11], in the
present work an optimization methodology, based on
Evolutionary Algorithms, is used in conjunction with CFD
analysis in order to identify and interpret optimal design
variables (here: injection profile parameters) in a large
two-stroke marine diesel engine operating at full load.
Here, optimization consists in minimizing SFOC and the
exhaust NOX concentration. As there are trade-off
relationships between the engine efficiency and NOX,
the problem is handled as a Multi-Objective Optimization
problem, with the elite solutions identified based on the
Pareto dominance technique. }
ENGINE GEOMETRY AND COMPUTATIONAL
APPROACH
The engine geometry corresponds to the RT-flex58T-B
Sulzer engine. Each cylinder has three injectors, located
symmetrically on the periphery of the cylinder head;
each injector has five orifices, to enhance dispersion of
the liquid fuel into the cylinder. In general, the injection is
in a co-swirl direction. The main engine characteristics
are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Main engine characteristics
Bore Diameter [m] 0.58
Stroke [m] 2.416
Injection System Common Rail
Exhaust Valve Closing, EVC
-96
[o aTDC]
Exhaust Valve Opening, EVO
120
[o aTDC]
Engine Speed [RPM] 105
 simulation predicts an exhaust NOX concentration of
A modified version of the KIVA3 code [17-18] has been 1622 ppm, in good agreement with the experimental
used for the simulations. The modifications include the value of 1400 ppm.
fuel atomization, ignition, combustion, and NOX
formation models. In particular, spray modeling involves Table 3: Engine reference operating conditions
a cascade drop breakup model [19-20], while ignition
modeling utilizes an ignition progress variable, obtained Intake Pressure [bar] 3.52
from the solution of a corresponding transport equation Intake Temperature [K] 330
[21]. NOX modeling is based on a detailed chemical Start of Injection [o aTDC] 2
scheme, implemented on top of the extended Zeldovich Injection Duration [o] 15.2
mechanism [22]. Tetradecane (C14H30) has been used
as fuel. The present code has been used extensively by 160
the NTUA group in the simulation of flow and Experiment
140
combustion in two-stroke marine diesel engines [23-24]. Computation

Cylinder Pressure [bar]

120

In the simulations, a full 360o geometry has been 100

selected, in lieu of a 120o sector, to allow for a future
variation of the injection profile between the injectors, a 80

possibility provided by the common rail injection 60

systems. The computational mesh, validated in previous
40
studies [23-24], consists of approximately 85,000 cells at
Exhaust Valve Closing (EVC). Based on temporal 20

resolution tests, a proper timestep value is selected, 0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60
corresponding to 79 increments per Crank Angle (CA)
Crank Angle [deg.]
degree. Only the closed part of the engine cycle is
Figure 1: Reference case pressure histories for
computed, i.e. from -96o at EVC to +120o at Exhaust
experiment and computation.
Valve Opening (EVO). The initial swirl velocities are
prescribed in terms of a Bessel function, and correspond 8

to a proper value of the swirl number (ωswirl/ωengine). 7 Experiment

Computation
6
Rate of Heat Release

Code Validation
5
The code has been validated against experimental 4
results for a reference case of continuous injection. The
3
initial condition for pressure and temperature has been
determined from a trial-and-error procedure, by 2

comparing the computed cold-flow pressure against an 1

experimental pressure trace. The obtained reference 0
values, as well as the injection parameters of the
-1
reference (continuous) injection profile, are summarized -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crank Angle [deg.]
in Table 3.
Figure 2: Reference case rate of heat release histories
The computed cylinder pressure and rate of heat release for experiment and computation.
traces of the reference case are presented in Figures 1
and 2, respectively, and compared to experimental data. The analysis of combustion will utilize T-φ maps. The T-
The experimental rate of heat release curve is based on φ maps present the concentrations of produced NOX
the measured pressure, and is obtained from a and soot, as functions of local stoichiometry and
thermodynamic code (Dr. G. Weisser, private temperature, thus identifying the conditions that promote
communication). In the present work, normalized values low-emissions engine operation. It is noted that for soot
of the rate of heat release are presented: the interpretation is less straightforward than for NOX,

ROHR =
(
d Qchem )⋅
100
d (CA) Qchem, tot
where Qchem,tot is the total heat release, corresponding to
the entire injected fuel mass. While the agreement
between experiment and simulation is very good
regarding the pressure, the rate of heat release curves
indicate that the computation predicts a slower burning
in the late stages of combustion, resulting in an overall
longer combustion duration. Finally, it is noted that the
since the maps do not provide information on the soot
oxidation process.
Studies reported in the literature include the use of both
static and transient T-φ maps, the latter case illustrated
in Bergman and Golovitchev [25]. In the present study,
transient maps have not been used; instead, for
simplicity, one static map is utilized, corresponding to
the data reported in Kitamura et al. [26], obtained for a
pressure of 60 bar and a residence time of 2 ms, which
corresponds to 1.3o CA for the present engine speed of
105 RPM.
MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION f2 Pareto Dominant Solutions

In Multi-Objective Optimization Problems (MOOPs) a Dominated Solutions

r
vector of design variables x is sought, which satisfies m x2
r
constraints (included in a vector g ) and minimizes a Minimize
r
vector, f , with k objective functions. This can be x1
formulated as follows:

⎪
r
1 (
⎧min f (xr ) = f (xr ), f (xr ),..., f (xr ) T ⎫
2 k ⎪
)
⎪r
{
r
⎨x ∈ X = x ∈ ℜ
n }
⎪ g (xr ) ≤ 0, j = 1,..., m
⎪
⎬
⎪ f1
⎪ j ⎪ Figure 3: Illustration of the Pareto Front for a case with
⎩ ⎭
two objective functions.
Objective and constraint functions are functions of
design variables:
EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-
OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS
r
( )
⎧⎪ f i (x ) = f i x1 , x 2 ,..., x n , i = 1,..., k ⎫⎪
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are semi-stochastic
⎪⎩ j (
j 1 2 n )
⎨ g (xr ) = g x , x ,..., x , j = 1,..., m⎬
⎪⎭ methods, based on an analogy with Darwin’s laws of
natural selection. Since the EAs belong to the multi-point
search methods, an optimum solution can be
A common practice to solve such a problem is to use a determined even when the landscape of the objective
trade-off between the objectives by combining them, function is multi-modal (characterized by several local
using some fixed weights pre-described by the user. The minima). Moreover, EAs do not require the calculation of
resulting single objective function is optimized using for the gradient of the objective function; as a result, and in
instance a classical gradient-based method, or even a contrast to gradient-based search methods, they can be
Genetic Algorithm. A limitation of this approach is that applied to problems whose search space is discrete [28].
the choice of weights associated with each objective The objective function being the only information
influences the solution of the optimization problem; an required by the problem is a major advantage, as the
inappropriate choice can lead to sub-optimal results in numerical calculation of the gradient can be
comparison with the solution obtained by considering the cumbersome. Overall, EAs are very powerful and
interrelated objectives in an independent manner [27]. effective optimization tools, especially for multi-objective
optimization problems.
An alternative approach is based on the concept of the
Pareto optimum solutions, where problems are treated A number of multi-objective EAs has been recently
as multi-objective ones. In this approach, all dominant developed [e.g. 29-30]. These algorithms are roughly
solutions are maintained, as illustrated in Figure 3. A divided into two categories, namely explicit and implicit
solution is called dominant when: ones, with most modern methods obtaining the Pareto
ur uur front explicitly. Two typical explicit algorithms are the
( ) ( )
fi x1 ≤ fi x2 ∀i = 1,..., k and SPEA2 [31] and NSGA-II [32], the former one being
used in the present study. Here, the specific EA tool
ur uur
( ) ( )
fi x1 < fi x2 ∃ i = 1,..., k used is the EASY software (Evolutionary Algorithms
SYstem) [33-35].
r r r r
In the above case, x1 dominates x 2 , where x1 , x 2 ∈ ℜ n .
r r r r In EAs, a search point is called an individual (or
When x1 dominates x 2 , x1 is a better solution than x 2 . chromosome). The individuals are composed by genes,
The collection of all non-dominated solutions is the which are the design variables encoded using a floating
Pareto Front, sketched in Figure 3 for the case of k=2. point representation, in the form of bit strings. The
following steps outline the basic procedure of EAs for
MOOPs [36].

Step 1: Suppose there are n individuals (search points).

These individuals are quasi-randomly initialized in the
search space defined by the limits imposed on
parameters. Since each individual is represented by a bit
string, each bit is determined by a random number
generator. The value of n is maintained throughout the
generations. In the present work, n is set to 64.
Step 2: The evaluation code (also called evaluator or new individual is created by reversing the selected bits,
analyzer) is used to determine the objective and resulting in a new search point. This concept is shown in
constraint functions, fi and gi, of each individual. Figure 6.

Step 3: The Pareto Ranking for each candidate solution The above steps 1-6 are summarized in Figure 7.
is determined by counting the number of individuals that
dominate the examined candidate solution. The Pareto
Ranking, R, is equal to the above number increased by
1. When the solution is non-dominated, the Pareto
Ranking becomes 1, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Subsequently, a proper index, the fitness value, is
assigned to each individual, based on its Pareto Ranking
and, depending on the algorithm used, on previously
selected elite solutions. In this work, the SPEA2
algorithm [31] is used for the calculation of the fitness
value.
Figure 5: Schematics of the Uniform Crossover
f2 Operation.
R=3
R=1
R=4

R=3

R=1
R=1

f1 Figure 6: Schematics of the Mutation Operation.

Figure 4: Illustration of the Pareto Ranking concept.

Step 4: If the terminal condition of the problem is not

satisfied, the routine selects the parents (Step 5) and
uses them to create offspring (Step 6). In general, the
procedure stops when a prescribed criterion is fulfilled.
In the present work, termination is imposed after
evaluations for 13 generations.

Step 5: Parent selection takes place using a roulette

wheel method. Each roulette wheel slot receives an
individual from the current population. An individual with
better fitness value is associated with a larger wheel slot
size. A larger size of a roulette wheel slot corresponds to
a better chance of being selected as a parent. This
favors individuals with better fitness values, while
offering the chance to less fit individuals to take part in
the reproduction process, hence maintaining diversity
through the generations.

Step 6: A new individual is created using the operations

of crossover and mutation. In the crossover operation,
illustrated in Figure 5, some individuals are randomly
selected among the parents determined in Step 5.
Subsequently, crossover is applied. In the present work,
only uniform crossover is utilized, i.e. certain bits of the Figure 7: Flowchart of an Evolutionary Algorithm.
bit string are selected among the parents: a mask is
randomly created, indicating which parent will be
selected for a certain bit (corresponding to a location in
the bit string). A second offspring can be generated from
the remaining bits. If the operation of mutation is utilized,
certain bits of an individual are randomly selected, and a
KIVA3-EASY SIMULATIONS for this variation. MR is defined based on the difference
between the total injected mass in the reference and an
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION arbitrary case:

In order to perform the engine optimization study, the mref − mtot ,inj
KIVA3 code has been coupled with the EASY software. MR = ⋅100%
Here, EASY is used as the optimizer and KIVA3 as the mref
evaluator. The exchange of information between the
evaluator and the optimizer is performed via properly where mtot,inj is the total mass injected in an arbitrary
developed pre- and post-processing routines (Figure 8): case and mref the mass injected in the reference case, of
continuous injection.
a. Pre-processing routine: reads the design
variables (EASY output), calculates the injection
profile, and generates the KIVA3 input file.
b. Post-processing routine: computes the objective
functions (here: NOX concentration and SFOC)
and the constraint values (here: maximum
pressure), based on KIVA3 output files. This
information is then transferred to EASY for
further processing.

Figure 9: Sketch of injection profile with pilot injection.

Three design variables (Start Of Pilot Injection – SOPI,
Start Of Main Injection – SOMI and Pilot Mass Fraction –
PMF) are indicated with arrows.

The definition of the search space for each design

variable was guided by the experience of similar studies
with smaller engines, as well as by the preliminary
selection of parameters in the marine diesel engine
Figure 8: Sketch of the computational procedure. studies of Kontoulis et al. [10-11]. The range of all four
design variables is given in Table 4.
OPTIMIZATION PARAMETERS
Table 4: Range of the design variables
The length of the bit string that represents a design Design Variables Range
variable has been set to 10 bits. Four design variables
Min Max
are used in the present study, therefore, the total length
Start Of Pilot Injection, SOPI
of the chromosome (candidate solution) is 4×10=40 bits. -40 -5
[o CA aTDC]
The offspring (or population) size has been set to 64,
Start Of Main Injection, SOMI
and the number of parents to 20. Uniform crossover and 1 5
[o CA aTDC]
mutation operations are used to create the offspring,
Pilot Mass Fraction, PMF
once the parents are selected. The simulation is 4 20
[% of total injected mass]
terminated when 13 generations have been evaluated
Mass Reduction, MR
(13×64=832 individuals). The results demonstrated 0 4
[% of reference case]
small further progress after 7-8 generations.
Other possible design parameters, such as the number
DESIGN VARIABLES AND SEARCH SPACE
and orientation of injector holes, are excluded from the
present work, to minimize the search space, and to allow
The pilot injection strategy was optimized in terms of the
the optimized solutions to be validated with the current
injection rate shape for the given engine. The shape is
engine in future experiments.
defined by three design variables: Start Of Pilot Injection
(SOPI), Start Of Main Injection (SOMI) and Pilot Mass
OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS
Fraction (PMF) to be injected as part of the total fuel
amount (Figure 9). In addition, the total injected mass
Two objective functions are used, namely the exhaust
was varied among the population; thus, a fourth design
NOX concentration (normalized with the corresponding
variable, Mass Reduction (MR), was created to account
value of the reference case) and an estimated value of
SFOC, also expressed in non-dimensional form. To
arrive at the SFOC estimate, the work integral (∫ p ⋅ dV )
is first calculated from the cylinder pressure trace of the
computed here closed part of the cycle (from -96o CA
aTDC to 120o CA aTDC). The SFOC is then estimated
as the ratio of the total injected fuel mass to the work
integral, and is normalized with the corresponding ratio
of the reference case, giving the second objective
function.

CONSTRAINTS

Under real operating conditions, a limit of 150 bar is

imposed for the maximum cylinder pressure, to avoid
excessive mechanical strain on the engine components.
In a first optimization series, this limit has been ignored,
in order to evaluate the capabilities of the optimization
algorithm coupled with CFD, as well as to explore a
larger number of potential injection strategies.
Subsequently, a second optimization series was
performed, imposing the pressure limit of 150 bar as a
constraint. In both series, no constraint has been Figure 10: Injection profiles generated in simulations,
imposed for the work output. and experimental profile of the reference case.

INJECTION PROFILE

The injection profile used in the present simulations was

calculated based on the design variables determined by
the Evolutionary Algorithm. For expediency, the
experimental profile of the reference case was slightly
moderated in the computations, see Figure 10(a); the
computational results corresponding to the original
(experimental) and the moderated profile were
practically identical. The total fuel mass varied among
the population (MR), but the maximum injection velocity
of the (moderated) reference case was maintained as Figure 11: Computational injection profiles with pilot
the upper limit in the injection profiles. As a result of fuel injection pulse, and experimental profile of the reference
mass conservation, the main injection duration was case. The value of PMF=30% is not within the range of
adjusted for every candidate solution. the present study, and the corresponding profile is
included only for illustration purposes.
The injection rate shape used in the simulations for main
and pilot injection had the same opening and closing RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
profile as the reference case, to account for the actual
injection characteristics. Thus, given the maximum
As previously indicated, the engine optimization was
injection velocity of the moderated profile (see Fig. 10),
performed in two steps. First, an optimization series was
the duration of an injection event was readily determined
computed without imposing any constraint for the
based on the corresponding injected mass. Figures 10
maximum pressure; subsequently, an optimization was
and 11 illustrate the injection profiles of representative
performed with the constraint of 150 bar for the
cases.
maximum cylinder pressure. It is noted that the results of
the unconstrained case may be of interest for partial
load, where pressure levels are substantially lower.

OPTIMIZATION WITHOUT PRESSURE CONSTRAINT

The Pareto Front for the case without the pressure

constraint, as well as the reference point and some
intermediate results are displayed in Figure 12.
Inspection of Figure 12 reveals that the engine
performance can be significantly improved, both in terms
of fuel consumption and of NOX, when a carefully fraction of the fuel has been burned before TDC without
selected injection strategy is employed. In addition, it is any NOX formation. In general, however, the late
clear that there is always a trade-off between the injection may result in increased fuel consumption if not
optimization goals; thus, the final selection of the properly applied. Regarding the work output, Cases B
optimum injection strategy has to be guided by the and D remain unaffected, whereas reductions of 1.4%
requirements of engine operation. As an example, if and 2.3% have been computed for Cases A and C,
reducing NOX emissions is the main objective, then respectively.
Case A of Figure 12 can be selected. In this case, the
gains in terms of fuel consumption are minimized. On Table 5: Injection parameters, normalized values of NOX
the other hand, if the reduction of fuel consumption is concentration and SFOC, and maximum cylinder
the main goal, then Case B of Figure 12 could be pressure for reference case and optimal Cases A, B, C,
selected, with only a minor decrease (8.1%) in NOX and D, identified in Figure 12.
emission levels. However, in most practical applications
a compromise is sought, and a reasonable selection Ref. A B C D
could thus be Case C, where NOX emissions are Design
reduced by 17.6% with a 2.4% reduction in SFOC. As Variables
inferred from Table 1, a 15% reduction in NOX emissions SOPI
is required for engines installed after 2011, while a 2.4% -- -32.6 -10.9 -31 -30.6
[o CA aTDC]
gain in fuel consumption is substantial for engines of this SOMI
size. In addition, Case C has a maximum cylinder 2.0 4.5 3.4 3.7 3.6
[o CA aTDC]
pressure of 149 bar, which satisfies the cylinder PMF [% of total
pressure constraint. Alternatively, Case D could be -- 13.7 15.4 10.3 15.3
injected mass]
selected, with NOX emissions reduction of 15.2% and a MR [%] 0.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.5
3.6% improvement in fuel economy. However, unlike in Objectives
Case C, in Case D the maximum cylinder pressure
NOX [%] 100 75.8 91.9 82.4 84.8
reaches 152 bar, thus exceeding the limit of 150 bar set
SFOC [%] 100 98.4 96.0 97.6 96.4
by the manufacturer. A summary of the injection
Cyl. Pressure
parameters, specific fuel consumption, and NOX
emission levels is given in Table 5, for Cases A, B, C, Max. Pressure
149.2 152.5 156.5 149.0 152.0
and D. [bar]

Further analysis of Cases A, B, C and D can reveal

A In all cases, the results of the reference case are also
C D B large amount of fuel injected during the pilot injection, a
Figure 12: Objective functions (normalized values of
exhaust NOX concentration and SFOC) for reference
case and representative generations, for the series with
unconstrained maximum cylinder pressure.
It is illustrated in Table 5 that, with the exception of Case
B, where the NOX emissions reduction is marginal, the
selected pilot injection timings are approximately at -30o
CA aTDC, while the injected mass during the pilot
injection is in the range 10%-15% of the total injected
mass. Additionally, a 3.5%-3.9% reduction of the total
injected mass has been achieved for all cases, while the
Start Of Main Injection has been delayed to 3.4o-4.5o CA
aTDC, compared to 2o CA aTDC in the reference case.
The reduction of NOX emissions is not surprising, since
the main part of combustion is taking place at lower
temperatures, later in the expansion stroke, while a
important information regarding the effect of injection
parameters on combustion and emissions formation
processes in large two-stroke engines. In Figure 13, the
fuel injection profiles and the computed cylinder
pressure traces for Cases A-B, and C-D are shown, and
in Figure 14 the corresponding heat release rate traces.
included. An interesting combustion trend can be
observed from Figures 13 and 14. Due to the relatively
first heat release event occurs shortly before TDC,
resulting in a rapid increase in cylinder pressure, and is
completed before the start of the main injection. The
main injection is delayed, and, as a consequence, the
main heat release event is also delayed. Therefore, in
most cases, the maximum cylinder pressure is achieved
before TDC. This results in slightly reduced work output
from the engine, which is (partly or fully) recovered
during the expansion stroke. However, the total amount
of fuel injected is significantly lower, compared to the
reference case, leading to reduced specific fuel
consumption.

Figure 13: Unconstrained series of computation: fuel
injection profiles with pilot injection, and computed
cylinder pressure traces for Cases A, B, C, D, and for
reference case.
Figure 14: Unconstrained series of computation:
computed heat release rate traces for Cases A, B, C, D,
and for reference case.
The long ignition delay period for the first part of the
combustion in Cases A, C, and D suggests that
sufficient time for fuel-air mixing is available, and thus a
relatively homogeneous mixture is formed. We note that,
while the long ignition delay times appear plausible, the
present ignition model should be validated against
experimental data for cases of early pilot injection.
Understanding of the combustion process can be
enhanced by utilizing T-φ maps, in conjunction with the
computed reactive flowfields. In Figure 15, we present T-
φ maps including the local T, φ values of all
computational cells, for representative crank angle
values, for the reference case. It is demonstrated that
soot formation is initiated at 4o aTDC, while at 14o aTDC
both soot and NOX production levels are substantial.
Subsequently, soot production becomes less intense,
and terminates prior to 27o aTDC.
The formation of a rather homogeneous fuel-air mixture
in the cases of early pilot injection can be confirmed
when comparing the T-φ maps for Cases A and B during
the compression stroke, presented in Figures 16 and 17,
respectively. Figure 16 illustrates that, in Case A, during
the early pilot injection, the levels of cylinder pressure
and temperature (approximately 30 bar and 600 K,
respectively) do not favor fast fuel atomization and
evaporation. Therefore, a more uniform mixing is
achieved, as opposed to Case B, where the fuel is
injected in a much hotter environment (approximately
800 K, 90 bar), resulting in fast evaporation and ignition.
In the latter case, the heat release corresponding to the
pilot injection is abrupt (Figure 14), and it is observed
that some soot is formed in a small area of the
combustion chamber (Figure 17, -6o aTDC). In both
cases, the temperatures during the first phase of
combustion remain lower than 2000 K, hence there is no
formation of NOX. Nevertheless, it is possible that early
injections lead to significant wall wetting.
Figure 15: Reference case: T-φ maps, including local T,
φ values of all computational cells, at selected time-
instants.
Figure 16: Unconstrained series of computation: T-φ
maps, including local T, φ values of all computational
cells, for Case A, at selected time-instants.
The main injection starts at 4.5o CA aTDC for Case A,
and at 3.4o CA aTDC for Case B. In both cases,
combustion starts after a very short ignition delay, due to
the already high temperature inside the cylinder. The
combustion behavior is similar for both cases (as
indicated by the heat release rate curves of Figure 14),
but it appears that soot formation conditions are
dominant in a slightly larger area of the combustion
chamber in Case A, for a longer period of time (Figure
16, 21o and 29o aTDC, Figure 17, 20o and 28o aTDC).
This is an indication that soot formation is stronger in
Case A, while soot oxidation starts later, leading to
higher overall soot levels in the exhaust gases. On the
other hand, it is evident that in Case A the maximum
temperatures are lower, compared to Case B, which
leads to lower NOX formation. This is an anticipated
result, since the main injection timing is retarded in Case
A. A comparison with the corresponding plots of Figure
15 indicates that Case A is characterized by soot
formation levels comparable to those of the reference
case, while Case B corresponds to NOX formation levels
of the same order as those of the reference case.
Figure 17: Unconstrained series of computation: T-φ
maps, including local T, φ values of all computational
cells, for Case B, at selected time-instants.
Additional information on the in-cylinder processes can
be obtained by visualizing the computed flowfields. A
comparison between Cases A and B, at selected timings
before the main injection, is shown in Figure 18. The
images show the liquid fuel spray, represented with
black dots, and the fuel-air equivalence ratio at a plane
located perpendicular to the cylinder axis, at the height
of the fuel injectors. Figure 18 illustrates that, in Case A,
the fuel spray penetrates farther into the cylinder,
compared to Case B, and a more homogeneous mixture
is formed. However, it is also clear that, due to limited
intensity of spray breakup, a certain amount of liquid fuel
does not evaporate, and reaches the cylinder walls,
creating liquid films. These films cannot evaporate
rapidly, and seem to remain on the wall until the start of
main injection (4o CA aTDC). Soot formation is very
likely to occur at these locations, however is not
expected to contribute to the final soot concentration,
since this soot will most likely be oxidized during the
initial phases of the main combustion event. Very similar
behavior has been observed in visualizations for Case
C, with slightly smaller wall films, due to the reduced
amount of fuel injected during the pilot injection. It is
noted that liquid films can be sources of unburned
hydrocarbons (UBHC), and may contaminate the
lubrication oil.
Case A Case B
Figure 18: Visualization of liquid spray, and grayscale
contours of fuel-air equivalence ratio at the plane
including the injectors, for Cases A and B.
A further complication associated with the wall wetting is
related to the increased thermal loads on the cover of
the combustion chamber. In Figure 19, the maximum
temperature on the cylinder cover region (i.e.
temperature of the computational cells adjacent to the
cover) is shown. It is illustrated that for early injection
(Cases A, C and D) the thermal loads increase
significantly, since the fuel injected in the pilot is burned
close to the wall. Even though the maximum
temperatures are lower than the temperatures during the
main combustion event, the total time that the cylinder
walls are under high temperatures has been significantly
increased. The computational results also indicate that
the thermal loads of the valve and piston surfaces are
unaffected, since the fuel spray does not reach them.
Figure 19: Unconstrained series of computation:
maximum temperature vs. crank angle for computational
cells adjacent to the cylinder cover, for reference case
and Cases A, B, C, D.
OPTIMIZATION WITH CONSTRAINED MAXIMUM
PRESSURE
In order to address the engine manufacturer’s maximum
pressure limitation of 150 bar, a second series of
optimization simulations has been performed. In this
series, in order to avoid a possible omission of good
solutions, a maximum accepted value of 152 bar
(instead of 150 bar) has been set; thus, all operating
conditions with maximum pressure up to 152 bar have
been maintained through the computed generations.
However, only cases with pressure up to 150 bar have
been selected as appropriate solutions. The results of
the constrained optimization series are presented in
Figure 20, and are compared with those of the
unconstrained series. As illustrated in Figure 20, when
the pressure constraint is imposed, the solutions are
somewhat inferior. In Table 6, the injection parameters
and the resulting objective function values are
summarized for four representative Cases, E, F, G and
H.
 the unconstrained case, and significantly different from
the reference case. It is also interesting to note that,
given the pressure constraint, the optimization algorithm
E -16% has selected a different strategy (late, rather than early
pilot injection) for accomplishing the goals of NOX and
-2.4% SFOC reduction.
G
H
F

Figure 20: Final Pareto Fronts (normalized values of

exhaust NOX concentration and SFOC) for constrained
and unconstrained optimization series.

Table 6: Injection parameters, normalized values of NOX

concentration and SFOC, and maximum cylinder
pressure for reference case and optimal Cases E, F, G
and H, identified in Figure 20.

Ref. E F G H
Design
Variables
SOPI
-- -12.2 -12.6 -35.0 -12.4
[o CA aTDC]
SOMI
2.0 4.8 3.1 4.3 4.1
[o CA aTDC]
PMF [% of total
-- 10.5 7.8 11.6 11.6
injected mass]
MR [%] 0.0 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.7
Objectives Figure 21: Constrained series of computation: fuel
NOX [%] 100 77.8 91.1 80.4 83.7 injection profiles with pilot injection, and computed
SFOC [%] 100 100.4 97.5 98.2 97.6 cylinder pressure traces for Cases E, F, G, H, and for
Cyl. Pressure reference case.
Max. Pressure
149.2 145.4 148.8 149.2 147.7 Among the four cases of the constrained series, Case H
[bar]
seems to be the most suitable one for practical
applications, as reduction in NOX concentration is
Table 6 illustrates that, similarly to the unconstrained 16.3%, (thus meeting the 2011 emissions requirements),
case, in order to reduce NOX formation, the main while a significant benefit of 2.4% in fuel economy is
injection timing has to be delayed. However, one also achieved. Interestingly, the improvement obtained
remarkable difference with the previous series is that in this study is of the same order with the reductions
most cases have a pilot injection timing at around -12o achieved recently by employing different strategies, see
CA aTDC (with the exception of Case G, which is very Yoon et al. [8] and Struckmeier et al. [9].
similar to Case C of the unconstrained series).
Furthermore, in order to maintain the cylinder pressure
Finally, we note that, in addition to the maximum
lower than 150 bar, the amount of fuel injected in the
pressure, the (minimum) work output per engine cycle
pilot injection has been reduced to a range of 8%-12%
could be set as an additional constraint. Preliminary
(as opposed to approximately 15% in the unconstrained
calculations indicate that, when both constraints are
series). Regarding the work output, a reduction of 3.8%
imposed, the NOX concentration is reduced up to 10%,
has been computed for Case E, whereas reductions of
for the same level of SFOC as in the reference case.
the order of 1.5% have been computed for Cases F, G
and H.

The cylinder pressure traces for Cases E, F, G, and H,

along with the injection velocity profiles, are shown in
Figure 21, while the corresponding heat release rate
traces are presented in Figure 22. The combustion
patterns, as illustrated by the corresponding cylinder
pressure and heat release rate traces, are very similar to

Figure 22: Constrained series of computation:
computed heat release rate traces for Cases E, F, G, H,
and for reference case.
CONCLUSIONS
An Evolutionary Algorithm has been utilized to optimize
the fuel injection parameters in a large two-stroke
marine diesel engine operating at full load, in order to
obtain simultaneous reduction of NOX emissions and
specific fuel consumption. First, an unconstrained
optimization series was performed, followed by a
constrained one, in terms of the maximum cylinder
pressure. Two alternative injection strategies have been
identified, both leading to a reduction in NOX emissions
higher than 15% and simultaneous fuel economy
benefits of approximately 2%:
a) an early pilot injection (around -30o CA aTDC) of
approximately 10%-15% of the fuel, which has
the disadvantages of significant wall wetting and
increased thermal loads on the cylinder cover.
b) a late pilot injection (around -10o CA aTDC) of
approximately 8%-12% of the fuel.
In relation to the two optimization goals, the early
injection cases are in general associated with lower NOX
production, while the late injection ones with improved
SFOC values. Thus, it appears that the evolutionary
algorithm converged to the early injection strategy due to
the resulting lower temperatures before the main
injection event, and hence the tendency for lower final
NOX concentration. On the other hand, selection of the
late pilot injection should be attributed to the higher
pressure levels close to TDC, resulting in higher work
output in the early expansion stages. The final values of
NOX concentration and SFOC are, of course, strongly
dependent on the Start of Main Injection (SOMI); this is
demonstrated in the values of the objectives (Tables 5
and 6).
The reduction of NOX by more than 15% at full load
appears promising in view of the emissions legislation;
however, to fully assess the potential of pilot injections,
future studies should consider engine operation at partial
loads. In addition, soot emissions should be added as an
objective function, in order to achieve a full optimization
of engine operation.
As a final remark, meeting the 2016 emissions
standards for the Environmentally Controlled Areas
appears to be a challenge that cannot be met solely by
optimizing fuel injection, and will require additional
actions, such as introduction of EGR, water injection,
and catalytic converters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Prof. K.C. Giannakoglou of
NTUA for providing the EASY optimization software, and
for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank Dr.
G. Weisser of Wärtsilä Switzerland for helpful
discussions, and for providing us with the engine data.
The second author acknowledges the financial support
by a Marie-Curie International Reintegration Grant,
Agreement No. 207232.
REFERENCES
1. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment,
Abatement and Market-based Instruments,
European Commission Directorate General
Environment, August 2005
2. MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI: Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships, International Maritime
Organization, August 2004
3. Benajes, J., Molina, S., Garcia, J.M., Influence of
Pre- and Post-Injection on the Performance and
Pollutant Emissions in a HD Diesel Engine,
presented at SAE World Congress 2001-01-0526,
2001
4. Ishikawa, N., Uekusa, T., Nakada, T., Hariyoshi, R.
DI Diesel Emission Control by Optimized Fuel
Injection, presented at SAE World Congress 2004-
01-0117, 2004
5. Payri, F., Benajes, J., Pastor, J.V., Molina, S.
Influence of the Post-Injection Pattern on
Performance, Soot and NOX Emissions in a HD
Diesel Engine, presented at SAE World Congress
2002-01-0502, 2002
6. Garcia, J.M., Molina, S.A., Benajes J., Influence of
Pre- and Post-Injection on the Performance and
Pollutant Emissions in a HD Diesel Engine,
 presented at SAE World Congress 2001-01-0526,
2001
7. Chryssakis, C.A., Hagena, J.R., Knafl, A.,
Hamosfakidis, V., Filipi, Z.S., Assanis, D.N. (2006).
In-Cylinder Reduction of PM and NOX Emissions
from Diesel Combustion with Advanced Injection
Strategies, Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Vol. 41, No. 1-4,
pp. 83-102
8. Yoon, W.H., Kim, B.S., Kim, K.D., Lee, Y.S., Ghal,
S.H., Optimization of Piston Bowl Shape, Fuel
Injection Nozzle and Fuel Injection Rate for the
Reduction of NOX Emissions in a Medium-speed
Diesel Engine, presented at COMODIA 2008,
Sapporo, Japan, July 2008
9. Struckmeier, D., Tsuru, D., Kawauchi, S.,
Shinnosuke O., Tajima, H., Visualization of the PCCI
Combustion of Light Cycle Oil (LCO) in Diesel
Engines, presented at COMODIA 2008, Sapporo,
Japan, July 2008
10. Kontoulis, P., Chryssakis, C., Kaiktsis, L., Analysis
of Combustion and Emissions in a Large Two-Stroke
Marine Diesel Engine, Using CFD and T-φ Mapping,
presented at 18th Int. Multidimensional Engine
Modeling User’s Group Meeting at the SAE
Congress, Detroit, MI, April 13, 2008
11. Kontoulis, P., Chryssakis, C., Kaiktsis, L., Evaluation
of Pilot Injections in a Large Two-Stroke Marine
Diesel Engine, Using CFD and T-φ Mapping,
presented at COMODIA 2008, Sapporo, Japan, July
2008
12. Senecal, P.K., Reitz, R.D., Simultaneous Reductions
of Engine Emissions and Fuel Consumption Using
Evolutionary Algorithms and Multi-Dimensional
Spray and Combustion Modeling, presented at SAE
World Congress 2000-01-1890, 2000
13. Liu, Y., Reitz, R.D., Optimizing HSDI Diesel
Combustion and Emissions Using Multiple Injection
Strategies, presented at SAE World Congress 2005-
01-0212, 2005
14. Tanner, F.X., Srinivasan, S., Optimization of an
Asynchronous Fuel Injection System in Diesel
Engines by Means of a Micro-Evolutionary Algorithm
and an Adaptive Gradient Method, presented at SAE
World Congress 2008-01-0925, 2008
15. Shi, Y., Reitz, R.D., Assessment of Optimization
Methodologies to Study the Effects of Bowl
Geometry, Spray Targeting and Swirl Ratio for a
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Operated at High-Load,
presented at SAE World Congress 2008-01-0949,
2008
16. Hiroyasu, T., Miki, M., Kamiura, J., Watanabe, S.,
Hiroyasu, H., Multi-Objective Optimization of Diesel
Engine Emissions and Fuel Economy using Genetic
Algorithms and Phenomenological Model, presented
at SAE World Congress 2002-01-2778, 2002
17. Amsden, A.A., O’Rourke P.J., Butler T.D., KIVA II –
A Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows
with Sprays, Los Alamos National Laboratory LA-
11560-MS, 1989
18. Amsden, A.A., KIVA-3: A KIVA Program with Block-
Structured Mesh for Complex Geometries, Los
Alamos National Laboratory LA-12503-MS, 1993
19. Tanner, F.X., Liquid Jet Atomization and Droplet
Breakup Modeling of Non-Evaporating Diesel Fuel
Sprays, presented at SAE World Congress 970050,
1997
20. Tanner, F.X., Weisser, G., Simulation of Liquid Jet
Atomization for Fuel Sprays by Means of a Cascade
Drop Breakup Model, presented at SAE World
Congress 980808, 1998
21. Weisser, G., Tanner, F., Boulouchos, K., Modeling
of Ignition and Early Flame Development with
Respect to Large Diesel Engine Simulation,
presented at SAE World Congress 981451, 1998
22. Weisser G., Modelling of Combustion and Nitric
Oxide Formation for Medium-Speed DI Diesel
Engines: a Comparative Evaluation of Zero- and
Three-Dimensional Approaches, Ph.D., Thesis, ETH
Zurich, Switzerland, 2001
23. Kaiktsis, L., Numerical Simulation of Flow and
Combustion in the RTA58T Engine of Wärtsilä NSD,
Technical Report, 2001
24. Kotrogiannis, N., Numerical Simulation of Flow and
Combustion in a Two-Stroke Marine Diesel Engine,
Diploma Thesis, National Technical University of
Athens, 2006
25. Bergman, M., Golovitchev, V.I., Application of
Transient Temperature vs. Equivalence Ratio
Emission Maps to Engine Simulations, presented at
SAE World Congress 2007-01-1086, 2007
26. Kitamura, T., Ito, T., Senda, J., Fujimoto, H. (2002).
Mechanism of Smokeless Diesel Combustion with
Oxygenated Fuels Based on the Dependency of the
Equivalence Ratio and Temperature on Soot
Particles Information, International Journal of Engine
Research, Vol. 3, No 4, pp. 223-247
27. Thevenin, D., Janiga, G., Optimization and
Computational Fluid Dynamics, Springer Verlag,
Berlin, 2008
28. Tan, K.C., Khor, E.F., Lee, T.H., Multiobjective
Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications, Springer
Verlag, London, 2005
29. Cantu-Paz, E. (1998). A Survey of Parallel Genetic
Algorithms, Calculateurs Paralleles, 10(2)
30. Coello, C. A., Handling Preferences in Evolutionary
Multiobjective Optimization: A Survey, presented in
2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation,
volume 1, pp. 30–37, 2000
31. Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., SPEA2:
Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary
Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization, presented
in Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimization,
and Control, Barcelona, Spain 2002
32. Pratab, A., Deb, K., Agrawal, S. and Meyarivan, T.,
A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II.,
In Kan- GAL report 200001, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur, India, 2000
33. http://velos0.ltt.mech.ntua.gr/EASY/ Multiobjective Optimization, Evolutionary
34. Karakasis, M., Giannakoglou, K.C. (2006). On the Computation, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-16
Use of Metamodel-Assisted Multi-Objective
Evolutionary Algorithms”, Engineering Optimization, CONTACT
Vol. 38(8), pp. 941-957
35. Kampolis, I.C., Giannakoglou, K.C. (2008). A Mr. Panagiotis Andreadis: nm05402@central.ntua.gr
Multilevel Approach to Single- and Multi-Objective Dr. Christos Chryssakis: cchryssa@naval.ntua.gr
Aerodynamic Optimization, Computer Methods in Prof. Lambros Kaiktsis: kaiktsis@naval.ntua.gr
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 197, pp.
2963-2975
36. Fonseca, C.M, and Fleming, P.J. (2005). An
Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in

View publication stats