SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 1999-01-0840

The Influence of Boost Pressure on Emissions

and Fuel Consumption of a Heavy-Duty
Single-Cylinder D.I. Diesel Engine
K. V. Tanin, D. D. Wickman, D. T. Montgomery, S. Das and R. D. Reitz
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Reprinted From: In-Cylinder Diesel Particulate and NOx Control 1999

(SP-1427)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

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. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 1999-01-0840

The Influence of Boost Pressure on Emissions

and Fuel Consumption of a Heavy-Duty
Single-Cylinder D.I. Diesel Engine
K. V. Tanin, D. D. Wickman, D. T. Montgomery, S. Das and R. D. Reitz
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

An electronically controlled Caterpillar single-cylinder oil
test engine (SCOTE) was used to study diesel combus-
tion. The SCOTE retains the port, combustion chamber,
and injection geometry of the production six cylinder, 373
kW (500 hp) 3406E heavy-duty truck engine. The engine
was equipped with an electronic unit injector and an elec-
tronically controlled common rail injector that is capable
of multiple injections.
An emissions investigation was carried out using a six-
mode cycle simulation of the EPA Federal Transient Test
Procedure. The results show that the SCOTE meets cur-
rent EPA mandated emissions levels, despite the higher
internal friction imposed by the single-cylinder configura-
tion. NOx versus particulate trade-off curves were gener-
ated over a range of injection timings for each mode and
results of heat release calculations were examined, giv-
ing insight into combustion phenomena in current “state
of the art” heavy-duty diesel engines.
Next, a study of the effects of varying boost pressure lev-
els was conducted. For fixed brake specific NOx levels,
with low-pressure (90 MPa) single injections, particulate
was found to reduce monotonically as the boost pressure
was increased. Interestingly, with low pressure double
injections and with high pressure (>90 MPa) single injec-
tions, particulate was found to decrease at first and then
to increase as the boost pressure was increased beyond
an optimum level. A minimum value for particulate with
respect to boost level was found for all cases, including
the low-pressure single injections, when a correction for
the six-cylinder turbocharger efficiency was applied.
Computer modeling confirms that this is due to a reduc-
tion in the spray penetration and mixing that occurs as
the engine gas density is increased. BSFC was generally
reduced with increasing boost pressure. These results
suggest that variable geometry turbochargers or other
enhanced boosting methods will aid in the reduction of
emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty truck
engines.
The capability of direct-injection (DI) diesel engines to
produce efficient power is well known. However, diesel
engines exhibit a propensity for high nitrogen oxide (NOx)
and particulate matter (particulate) emissions, and most
strategies to reduce either NOx or particulate emissions
cause an increase in the other emission.
Since 1990, progress in engine technology has allowed a
significant reduction in all forms of emissions from diesel
engines. However, demands for further emissions reduc-
tion, quieter operation, and improved performance still
provide serious challenges.
Advanced fuel injection technology can help reduce NOx
and particulate emissions. More precise control of the
rate, pressure, and timing of fuel injection, while using a
high-pressure injection system, not only permits simulta-
neous reductions in NOx and particulate formation during
combustion, but can also reduce engine noise. The elec-
tronic unit injectors (EUIs) found on most commercially
available heavy-duty engines are capable of precise high-
pressure injection [1].
Another technology used to gain more control over com-
bustion processes in diesel engines is the use of a vari-
able boost pressure system. A variable boost system
allows flexible control, and thus optimization, of boost
pressure for different load and speed conditions. In addi-
tion to the original power and efficiency goals of variable
boost systems, these systems have proven to improve
emissions and transient response as well [2]. Thus, vari-
able boost systems are expected to be an important com-
ponent for future low emissions heavy-duty diesel
engines [1].
When a fixed geometry, un-wastegated turbocharger is
used to provide boost for an engine, a compromise must
be made. Midrange torque and efficiency must be sacri-
ficed in order to not over-boost at high loads and speeds.
Wastegates allow some exhaust gas to bypass the turbo-
charger turbine at high loads and speeds, thus reducing

1
boost pressure and avoiding an over-boost situation. The
drawback to wastegates is that bypassed gas’ availability
is wasted, leading to reduced overall efficiency at high
loads and speeds [2]. In an attempt to provide increased
boost at lower loads and speeds while not overboosting
or operating at reduced efficiency at high loads and
speeds, variable boosting systems such as VGTs and
variable speed superchargers have been developed.
There are three types of VGTs; those with variable area
turbines, those with variable geometry nozzles, and
those with axially movable vanes [2,3]. One type of VGT
that appears especially promising is the axially movable
vane turbocharger. They have a high degree of flexibility
and fewer moving parts than other designs.
Another variable boost system that promises to provide
even more flexibility than VGTs is sequential hydro-
supercharging (SHS). SHS systems use turbocharger
compressor impellers driven by hydraulic turbines. An
engine driven hydraulic pump would provide hydraulic
power for the hydraulic turbines. The hydraulically driven
compressors are used to increase the pressure of air
supplied to the engine’s normal turbocharger compres-
sor. This type of system would allow very flexible control
of boost levels and retain the availability recovery of the
turbocharger [4].
Clearly, with the present variety of available variable
experiments, however, duration was determined by
required fuel flow rate for a given running condition. Table
2 gives the specifications of the EUI system. The EUI
system has a rising injection rate profile with SOI (needle
valve opening) at 36.5 MPa and the end at 29.0 MPa
(needle valve closing).
Specifications of the common rail fuel injection system
are given in Table 3. The common rail system gives
square injection rate profiles and is capable of single,
double, triple, and quadruple injection schemes with
injection pressures from 20 to 100 MPa, however, only
single and double injection with a maximum of 90 MPa
were used to ensure reliability. Timing and duration can
be varied independently for each injection pulse.
A PC based data acquisition and analysis system was
used to take a 50 cycle average of cylinder pressure (and
injection pressure for the EUI) at 1/2 crank angle degree
increments. The cylinder pressure data, along with other
operating conditions were then analyzed using the First
Law of Thermodynamics to calculate the apparent heat
release rate (AHRR).
Baffle Mixing Orifice T.C.
Primary Exhaust
Dilution Air
Heater Compressed
Air
EGR Cooler T.C.

boost systems, effects of boost pressure should be stud- EGR

ied in more detail. Thus, a significant portion of the Emissions

Filters

present research is dedicated to studying effects of boost Analyzers

Vacuum
Pump Secondary
pressure. Exhaust Intake Dilution Air

Bellows
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP T.C. Meter

T.C. Exhaust
The test engine is a fully instrumented Caterpillar single- Caterpillar
cylinder oil test engine (SCOTE). The SCOTE is a single- Single Cylinder
Engine
T.C. Thermocouple

T.C.
cylinder version of the Caterpillar 3400 series heavy-duty Gate Valve

diesel engine. It retains the injector, combustion cham- Metering Orifice

ber, and much of the port geometry of Caterpillar's 500

hp 3406E heavy-duty over-the-road truck engine. The Figure 1. Engine Laboratory Setup
engine laboratory setup used in the present experiments
is shown schematically on Fig. 1 and the details of the
engine are given in Table 1. Table 1. Engine Specifications

The engine is capable of producing 62 kW at a rated Engine Type Caterpillar SCOTE

(single-cylinder oil test
speed of 1800 rev/min. Simulated supercharging and/or engine)
turbocharging with intercooling is accomplished by - single-cylinder
metering temperature controlled, compressed air into a - direct injection
intake surge tank and controlling back pressure in the - 4 valve
exhaust surge tank. Engine fluid temperatures are moni- Bore x Stroke 137.2 mm x 165.1 mm
tored using type K thermocouples. Compression Ratio 15.6 : 1
Two fuel injection systems were used in the present Displacement 2.44 liters
experiments: A conventional electronic unit injector (EUI) Combustion Cham- Quiescent
system and a common rail system. The EUI system is the ber
standard fuel injection system from Caterpillar for use Piston Articulated Steel/Aluminum
with SCOTE and 500 hp 3406E heavy-duty diesel Mexican Hat Sharp Edge
engines. With the EUI, start of injection (SOI) and dura- Crater
tion can be varied independently. During the present

2
 Emissions data recorded during experiments include
Table 2. EUI System Specifications total hydrocarbons (THC), CO, CO2, NOx, and particu-
late . SOF was measured from the particulate using
Injector Type Electronically Controlled
Unit Injector (EUI) Soxhlet extraction. Emissions data was obtained using
the instrumentation summarized in Table 5. Emission lev-
Injection Pressure Up to 190 MPa
els were calculated according to US EPA CFR 40 specifi-
Number of Nozzle 6 cations [6].
Holes
Nozzle Hole Diameter 0.214 mm For measurements of particulate matter, a full dilution
tunnel designed according to EPA 40CFR [6] recommen-
Spray Angle (included) 130°
dations is used. The purpose of the dilution tunnel is to
simulate particulate growth due to hydrocarbon adsorp-
tion that is seen in the atmosphere as exhaust is expelled
Table 3. Common Rail System Specifications into air. The dilution tunnel is a mixing device that is
Injector Type Electronically Controlled designed to ensure that the exhaust is thoroughly mixed
Common Rail Injector with dilution air. The dilution air is compressed air from
(see reference [5]) the laboratory supply that is blown into the dilution tunnel
Injection Pressure 90 MPa through diffusers, which enhance mixing. A portion of
diluted sample is drawn from the tunnel for analysis. The
Number of Nozzle 6
Holes sample portion can be further diluted in the secondary
dilution tunnel before being drawn, in series, through two
Nozzle Hole Diameter 260 µm
Pallflex T60A20 filters. The filters are weighed before and
Spray Angle (included) 125° after particulate deposition so that a total particulate
measurement can be made.

Table 4. Fuel Analysis Results COMPUTATIONAL SETUP

Carbon 87.10%
THE MODEL – The basic features of the KIVA-II CFD
Hydrogen 12.68% code used in this study are well documented [7,8] and
C/H Ratio 6.869 will not be repeated here for brevity. However, the original
Heat of Combustion KIVA code has been extensively modified at the Univer-
Gross 45.19 MJ/kg sity of Wisconsin-Madison's Engine Research Center
Net 42.49 MJ/kg and a number of new and improved sub-models have
Sulfur 0.048% been incorporated to improve its ability to predict diesel
Cetane Rating 44.3 engine combustion with improved accuracy. These mod-
els include a modified RNG (Re-Normalization Group) k-
API Gravity @ 60° F 32.7 e turbulence model [9], a Kelvin-Helmholtz Raleigh- Tay-
Viscosity @ 40° C 2.43 cSt lor (KHRT) droplet breakup model [10], a wall-impinge-
Flash Point, PMCC 67.2° C ment model [11], and a dynamically varying drop-drag
coefficient model to account for drop distortions from the
spherical shape [12]. The ignition model is based on the
Table 5. Emissions Instrumentation Shell auto ignition model [13-15]. The earlier specifica-
tion of a minimum cell temperature of 1000 K or product
NOx Chemiluminescent Analyzer / Thermo concentration of 0.1 was found to work well with no or low
Environmental Instruments Inc., Model concentration of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). With
10S
high EGR cases, however, the model was unable to pre-
Particulate Full Dilution Tunnel (EPA 40CFR dict the ignition delay correctly. Furthermore, if a high cell
Design)
temperature is used as a switch from cool flame to main
THC Flame Ionization Detector / Gow-Mac combustion, a detrimental effect was observed for
Model 23-500 retarded injection cases. This problem was rectified using
CO Infrared Gas Analyzer / California a modified version, which incorporates the concentration
Analytical Instruments Model 3300A of intermediate species, "q" as one of the criteria for
CO2 Infrared Gas Analyzer / Horiba, switching from cool flame ignition to main combustion
Model VIA-510 based on the suggestion of Schäpertöns and Lee [16].
The combustion model is based on the characteristic-
The fuel used during the present testing was obtained time model originally developed for spark ignition engines
from a commercial fuel vendor, so it represents a valid [17]. Finally, the emission models used are the Extended
sample of what is currently available to the trucking Zeldovich mechanism to predict NO formation [18] and
industry. A sample of the fuel was analyzed and the the Hiroyasu model [19] for the soot formation. The soot
results are given in Table 4. oxidation models used in the present study are primarily

3
based on the kinetically controlled Nagle and Strickland- Tint is the intake surge tank temperature. Since this sim-
Constable (NSC) oxidation model [20]. However, the plified code does not take into account heat transfer
Arrhenius rate equation's pre-exponential factor was opti- effects, some freedom was reserved to adjust the initial
mized to match experimental soot results. temperature and initial species densities within a reason-
able range (< 5%) so that the computed initial pressure at
INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS – The predic- IVC matched the experimental pressure.
tion of diesel engine combustion using a CFD code
At the solid wall surfaces, constant wall temperature with
strongly depends on the accurate specification of initial
logarithmic law-of-the-wall velocity boundary conditions
and boundary conditions in the combustion chamber. For
were used. Turbulence model parameters are the same
computational efficiency, simulation starts from intake
as those reported by Han and Reitz [9].
valve closing (IVC). A methodology developed at ERC for
estimating species density and temperature at IVC as In the computational study, the symmetry of the six noz-
inputs for the combustion predictions was used in the zle holes symmetrically placed around the axis of the cyl-
present study [21]. In this prediction routine, it is inder was exploited to minimize the computational time
assumed that complete combustion occurs at each cycle. by considering only one-sixth of the engine combustion
The experimental data used are fuel flow rate, intake air chamber in the computations. A perspective view of the
flow rate, engine speed, volume at IVC, intake tempera- computational grid with an arbitrary spray plume is shown
ture, exhaust temperature, and the EGR percentage on Fig. 2.
computed from the zero-dimensional residual gas frac-
tion code. The initial gas temperature at IVC, Tivc, is
determined by the following formula:
 
mr* Tr + ma, f +ma * EGR * Tint
Tivc =  100 
ma, f +ma * EGR + mr
100

Where ma,f, and ma are the mass of fresh air charge, and
the total mass of intake charge respectively. Tr is the tem-
perature of the residual gas (assumed to be the same Figure 2. Computational Mesh
temperature as the measured exhaust temperature), and

100
Mode 4
90

80
Mode 3
70
Load - %

60
Mode 5
50

40

30
Mode 2
20
Mode 6
10
Mode 1
0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Engine Speed (rev/min)
Figure 3. Loads and Speeds for the Six-Mode FTP Simulation

4
Table 6. Test Conditions (nominal)
Running Condition Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
Speed (rev/min) 700 821 993 1672 1737 1789
% Load 0 25 75 95 57 20

Fuel Rate (kg/hr) 0.32 1.50 6.28 11.50 6.97 3.80

Intake Temp (C) 29 28 28 40 32 27
Intake Press (kPa), {psia} 100 {14.5} 103 {14.9} 161 {23.4} 267 {38.8} 184 {26.7} 121 {17.5}
Exhaust Press (kPa), {psia} 100 {14.5} 106 {15.4} 136 {19.8} 247 {35.9} 181 {26.2} 135 {19.6}

TEST CONDITIONS
ENGINE TEST CONDITIONS – Testing was done at six
operating conditions that constitute a six-mode FTP sim-
ulation. The running conditions are shown on a load ver-
sus speed map on Fig. 3. The controlled parameters for
the running conditions are presented in Table 6.
The test conditions held constant for all testing at a given
mode were engine speed, intake temperature, intake
pressure, and fuel flow rate.The running conditions,
except for the fuel flow rate at mode 1, were taken from
the operating map of a six cylinder production version of
the Caterpillar 3400 series engine (373 kW (500 hp)
3406E). The fuel flow rate at mode 1 was established by
varying injection duration, and thus the fuel flow rate, to
give a power output near but slightly above zero. The
assumption made was that the additional frictional mean
effective pressure imparted due to the use of a single-cyl-
inder test engine would be equivalent to the accessory
load on an “as installed” six cylinder engine.
A constant pressure drop across the engine was selected
as the exhaust pressure determinant during the boost
pressure experiments because it was thought that this
would yield a nearly constant residual, so that intake
boost pressure effects would not be confounded with
“internal EGR” effects from the increased residual. This
assumption was verified using a “1-D” unsteady flow
model [22]. The model was run for four engine cycles to
ensure that a steady-state condition had been achieved.
When operating at mode 5, the residual gas fraction in
the fourth cycle’s intake charge changes from 4.0% to
4.7% of the total intake charge when going from the base
condition (+0% boost) to the +55% boost condition. If, for
the +55% boost condition, the additional work required
for an enthalpy balance (modeling a real turbocharger)
were coming from piston compression work, the exhaust
pressure and temperature would have increased to
369kPa and 673K respectively, (compared to 282kPa and
627K for the constant delta P used in the experiment).
Under this elevated backpressure condition, the 1-D
model predicts that the residual gas fraction would climb
to 6.3%.
The explanation for the six-cylinder correction seen in the
results of the boost pressure experiments is as follows.
With the assumption of a constant pressure drop
between intake pressure and exhaust pressure that was
used to set the exhaust pressure in the boost study, there
is an enthalpy imbalance. The available energy in the
exhaust at the exhaust pressures and temperatures used
in the experiments was not great enough to accomplish
the compression of the intake charge to the level used in
the experiments if reasonable turbocharger efficiencies
were assumed. Thus, a turbocharger model was devel-
oped to estimate the additional power required to com-
press the intake charge to the levels used in the
experiments. The corrected six-cylinder data presented
was attained by using a corrected engine power that is
the difference between the measured power of the
engine and the additional required power estimated using
the turbocharger model. In the turbocharger model, the
changes in enthalpy for an isentropic compression of the
intake gases and an isentropic expansion of the exhaust
gases are calculated. When these differences in enthalp-
ies are calculated for the known six cylinder operating
condition, an overall turbocharger (and manifolding) effi-
ciency can be calculated as the ratio of the differences of
compression and expansion enthalpies. The efficiency
can then be used to calculate the additional power
(above that which is available from the exhaust) which
would be required to compress the intake charge. In the
results presented on Figs. 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31,
33, 34, 36, and 37, both the actual experimental data and
the “enthalpy balance corrected” data are presented (the
corrected data is labeled “with 6-cyl. correction”). Table 7
shows the efficiencies used at each mode for the correc-
tions (efficiencies were calculated from baseline runs on
the single-cylinder engine using intake and exhaust pres-
sures from six-cylinder engine data).
Table 7. Efficiencies Used for Six-Cylinder Corrections
Running Condition Overall Turbocharger/
Manifolding Efficiency
Common Rail, Mode 4 47.25%
Common Rail, Mode 5 47.83%
EUI, Mode 3 52.71%
EUI, Mode 4 49.58%
EUI, Mode 5 45.55%

5
COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION – In the computational
work, results are given on a fuel specific basis rather than
0.8
on a brake specific basis, so the enthalpy imbalance
-9.5 ATDC
does not affect the computational results. Two different 0.7
load conditions (Modes 4 and 5) with varying boost pres-

Particulate (g/hr)
sures were studied in the present work. The intake boost 0.6
pressures were varied, while keeping SOI at the value 0.5
used in the corresponding engine experiment.
-0.5 ATDC
0.4
NOMENCLATURE
0.3
-3.5 ATDC -6.5 ATDC
Start of injection (SOI) timing data will be given in crank- 0.2
shaft degrees after top dead center (ATDC), thus -6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ATDC means 6 degrees before top dead center. Emis- NOx (g/hr)
sions data are given in either on an emission rate basis
(g/hr), a brake power specific (brake specific) basis (g/
kW-hr or g/bhp-hr), or on a fuel specific basis (g/kg-fuel). Figure 4. NOx versus Particulate Trade-off Curve for
“Soot” should be taken to mean the insoluble portion of Mode 1
particulate emissions.

RESULTS OF BASELINE ENGINE

Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

60 0.5
EXPERIMENTS
50 0.4

AHRR (normalized)
One objective of the present study was to explore the 0.3
40
emissions and performance characteristics of a current
state-of-the-art heavy-duty diesel engine using the stan- 30 0.2
dard production EUI injection system. As mentioned pre- 0.1
20
viously, a multi-mode FTP simulation was used. The
results for each mode will be discussed and then the 10 0.0
results of the cycle estimate will be reviewed.
0 -0.1
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
MODE 1 – Mode 1 is a simulation of idle. The peak injec- Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
tion pressure at mode 1 is 40 MPa. Idle is an important
running condition for heavy-duty engines because this
type of engine often sees extended idling periods while in Figure 5. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-injection, and
operation. Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 1, -6.5
ATDC SOI
Figure 4 shows the NOx versus particulate trade-off
curve for mode 1. This trade-off was produced by varying Figure 5 is a plot showing cylinder pressure, rate-of-injec-
the SOI from -9.5 degrees ATDC to -0.5 degrees ATDC. tion, and apparent heat release rate (AHRR) for mode 1
The units used on Fig. 4 are g/hr rather than the brake when using an SOI of -6.5 ATDC. The -6.5 ATDC is the
specific g/bhp-hr units, as will be used in the discussion SOI that results in the lowest combined estimate of emis-
of the other modes. Emission rate units are used at mode sions and fuel consumption when used in the calculation
1 because the power is quite low and emissions levels of the six-mode-cycle estimate.
given with brake specific units are hard to interpret
because they are so large, owing to the fact that they are On Fig. 5, notice that all of the fuel is injected during the
a quotient with a very small denominator (power). ignition delay. Injecting fuel during the ignition delay
causes a large premixed burn fraction, which is often
On Fig. 4, notice that when operating at the most associated with high NOx emissions. At mode 1, where a
advanced timing (-9.5 ATDC), there is sharp increase in very small amount of fuel is injected, much fuel is pre-
particulate mass. This is evidence of over-penetration of mixed before start of ignition. The heat release curve on
the fuel spray. At earlier injection timings, the in-cylinder Fig. 5 shows no appreciable diffusion burn which con-
temperature and air density are relatively low. Therefor, firms that fuel burns at a high kinetically controlled rate
much of the injected fuel collects on the walls and the pis- (premixed burn), rather than at a slower diffusion con-
ton and doesn’t burn completely. As a result, the particu- trolled rate (diffusion burn).
late exhibits a high percentage of soluble fraction (~90%)
at the idling conditions represented by mode 1.

6
Also, the study by Montgomery et al. [23] showed that
injection pressure has a significant influence on total par-

Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

60 0.30
ticulate emissions at engine idling. During those injection
pressure variation experiments it was found that 30 MPa 50
0.25
injection produced the lowest particulate. In the present

AHRR (normalized)
0.20
study, the peak injection pressure for the mode 1 is 40 40
0.15
MPa. Which appears to be appropriate, except at more 30 0.10
advanced timings.
20 0.05
MODE 2 – Mode 2 is a low speed (821 rev/min), low load 0.00
10
(25%) operating condition. Peak injection pressure for -0.05
mode 2 was 75 MPa. 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 6 shows the NOx versus particulate trade-off for Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
mode 2. This trade-off was produced by varying the SOI
from -6.0 degrees ATDC to 2.0 degrees ATDC. On Fig. 6,
at the most retarded timing there is a sharp drop in par- Figure 7. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-injection, and
ticulate. The unexpected sharp drop occurs because Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 2, –0.5
under these conditions, injection occurs when the piston ATDC SOI
is past TDC. Consequently, much heat transfer from the
compressed air has already occurred, and the pressure
and temperature are dropping rapidly due to expansion. NOx (g/kW-hr)
The lower in-cylinder temperature causes a longer igni- 5.36 5.70 6.04 6.37 6.71 7.04 7.38 7.71 8.05
0.22 0.30
tion delay, and consequently a large premix burn. The 1.5 ATDC
large premixed burn, in turn, causes high temperatures 0.20 0.27

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)
late in the cycle. The late cycle high temperature 0.18 4.5 ATDC 0.24
improves soot oxidation but also increases NOx levels.
0.16 0.21
Even though retarded timings give interesting emissions -1.5 ATDC
results, BSFC is high, making this type of operation unac- 0.14 0.19
ceptable.
0.12 0.16
Figure 7 shows pressure, apparent heat release rate, and 0.10
-4.5 ATDC -7.0 ATDC
0.13
instantaneous rate-of-injection for the –0.5 ATDC SOI 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00
point seen on Fig. 6. Similar to the -6.5 ATDC at mode 1, NOx (g/bhp-hr)
the –0.5 ATDC SOI point seen on Fig. 6 is the mode 2
emissions level that results in the lowest emissions when Figure 8. NOx versus Particulate Trade-off Curve for
used in the calculation of the six-mode-cycle estimate. Mode 3
Figure 7 shows that at mode 2, similar to mode 1, almost
all of the fuel is injected during the injection delay. Thus,
Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

high NOx emissions are expected at this mode due to the 100 0.05
large premixed burn fraction. 90

AHRR (normalized)
80 0.04
70
NOx (g/kW-hr) 0.03
60
7.38 8.05 8.72 9.39 10.06 10.73 11.40 12.07 50
0.08 0.107 0.02
40
-0.5 ATDC
0.07 0.094 30 0.01
Particulate (g/kW-hr)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

20
2.0 ATDC
0.06 0.080 10 0.00
-3.5 ATDC 0
0.05 0.067 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
0.04 0.054
-6.0 ATDC
0.03 0.040 Figure 9. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-injection, and
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 3, -4.5
NOx (g/bhp-hr)
ATDC SOI

Figure 6. NOx versus Particulate for Mode 2

7
MODE 3 – Mode 3 is an operating condition at 75% load
with an engine speed of 993 rev/min. Peak injection pres- NOx (g/kW-hr)
sure at mode 3 was 95 MPa. Mode 3 is a simulation of 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.2
engine operation near the torque peak. 0.10 0.134
-6.0 ATDC
0.09 0.121
Figure 8 shows the NOx versus particulate trade-off

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)
curve for mode 3. Again, notice that the trade-off is nor- 0.08 0.107
mal except for the “hook” at late timing that was also seen 0.07 0.094
for mode 2 and discussed in that section.
0.06 0.080
Figure 9 shows pressure, apparent heat release rate, and 3.0 ATDC
0.05 0.067
instantaneous rate-of-injection for the –4.5 ATDC SOI
point seen on Fig. 8 (the point used in the six-mode cycle 0.04 0.054
0 ATDC -3.0 ATDC
evaluation). This is the first mode where fuel is sprayed 0.03 0.040
2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6
for a period of time longer than the ignition delay. In fact,
NOx (g/bhp-hr)
the injection at this high load mode lasts well into the dif-
fusion burn. Thus, the heat release displays the three
normal characteristics of diesel combustion; ignition Figure 10. NOx versus Particulate Trade-off Curve for
delay, premixed burn, and diffusion burn. Mode 4

MODE 4 – Mode 4 an operating condition at 95% load

with an engine speed of 1672 rev/min. Peak injection

Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

140 0.08
pressure at mode 4 was 170 MPa. Mode 4 is a simulation
120 0.07
of high load engine operation between the torque and

AHRR (normalized)
0.06
power peaks. Mode 4 is an especially interesting mode 100
0.05
for two reasons. First, at this mode the engine operates
80 0.04
at high load and speed conditions, where normal emis-
sions control schemes are less effective. Second, mode 60 0.03

4 is the largest contributor to the cycle estimate of NOx, 0.02

40
power, and fuel consumption. 0.01
20 0.00
Figure 10 shows a NOx versus particulate trade-off gen- 0 -0.01
erated by varying SOI at mode 4. As can be seen from -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 10, most of the emission curve for mode 4 is within Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
the region below the 1998 EPA emission levels of 5.36 g/
kW-hr (4.00 g/bhp-hr) NOx with 0.134 g/kW-hr (0.100 g/ Figure 11. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-injection, and
bhp-hr) particulate. Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 4, 3.0
Figure 11 shows pressure, rate-of-injection and apparent ATDC SOI
heat release rate versus crankshaft angle for a 3.0 ATDC
SOI injection at mode 4. The 3.0 ATDC SOI point was the
one used for mode 4 in the cycle emissions estimate. It is NOx (g/kW-hr)
interesting to note that there is little premixed burn 2.95 3.22 3.49 3.75 4.02 4.29 4.56 4.83 5.10 5.36
0.065 0.087
observed under these running conditions. 7.5 ATDC
0.060 0.081
This means that in-cylinder temperatures are sufficiently Particulate (g/kW-hr)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

0.055 0.074
high that the fuel starts burning almost immediately after
SOI. In support of this, the pressure trace is seen to be 0.050 -4.0 ATDC 0.067
smooth relative to other modes, further indicating a small 0.045
2.0 ATDC
0.060
premixed burn fraction. 0.040 -1.0 ATDC 0.054

0.035 0.047
4.5 ATDC
0.030 0.040
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
NOx (g/bhp-hr)

Figure 12. NOx versus Particulate Trade-off Curve for

Mode 5

8
MODE 5 – Mode 5 is a running condition at 57% load

Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

and an engine speed of 1737 rev/min. The peak injection 70 0.14
pressure for this mode was found to be 145 MPa. 0.12
60

AHRR (normalized)
Figure 12 shows the NOx versus particulate trade-off 50
0.10
curve for mode 5. Notice that the emissions levels at 0.08
40
mode 5 comply easily with the 1998 emission standards. 0.06
Figure 13 shows pressure, rate-of-injection and apparent 30
0.04
heat release rate versus crankshaft angle for a 4.5 ATDC 20
SOI injection at mode 5. The 4.5 ATDC SOI point was the 0.02

one chosen to represent mode 5 in the cycle emissions 10 0.00

estimate. Similar to mode 3, the heat release for mode 5 0 -0.02
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
shown on Fig. 13 indicates distinct periods of ignition
Crank Shaft Angle (degrees)
delay, premixed burn, and diffusion burn.

MODE 6 – Mode 6 is a light load mode (20%) at high Figure 15. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-Injection, and
engine speed (1789 rev/min). The peak injection pres- Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 6, -3.5
sure for mode 6 was 93 MPa. ATDC SOI
As discussed earlier, the magnitude of the unburned HC Similar to modes 2 and 3, at the most retarded injection
(soluble fraction) for the light-load modes depends largely timing (2 ATDC on the NOx versus particulate trade-off
upon the amount of fuel injected during the ignition delay. shown on Fig. 14) there is a decrease in particulate due
It also depends on the mixing rate with the air during this to the longer ignition delay and the subsequent large pre-
period, which is influenced by the swirl flow in the cylin- mixed charge which causes high in-cylinder tempera-
der. tures. This results in lower particulate and higher NOx
than one might expect.
Pressure (bar) and Rate of Injection (mg/CA)

100 0.09
90 0.08 SIX MODE CYCLE EMISSIONS ESTIMATE – In order to
judge the effect of each mode on the overall cycle emis-
AHRR (normalized)

80 0.07
70 0.06 sions, the emission rates and power from each mode is
60 0.05 multiplied by a weighting factor that reflects the amount of
50 0.04 time that the FTP test spends near the respective mode’s
40 0.03 load and speed condition. For instance, the emissions at
30 0.02 mode 1 (idle) are quite low, however mode 1 is weighted
20 heavily in the FTP and is correspondingly weighted
0.01
10 heavily in the six-mode simulation. In calculating the
0.00
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 cycle estimate, each mode is represented by a point
Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC) (SOI) with the most advantageous emission levels for
that mode. For example, at mode 4, a -3.5 ATDC SOI
yielded the lowest cycle estimate of emissions of all injec-
Figure 13. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-injection, and
tion timings used at this mode.
Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 5, 4.5
ATDC SOI Table 8 summarizes the results of the six-mode analysis.
As can be seen, the engine complies with 1998 emission
levels and is thus a useful research tool for combustion
NOx (g/kW-hr) and emissions research. The cycle NOx was 5.10 g/kW-
4.69 5.36 6.03 6.71 7.38 8.05 8.72 hr (3.80 g/bhp-hr), particulate was 0.107 g/kW-hr (0.079
0.26 0.349
-0.5 ATDC g/bhp-hr), and the BSFC was 321 g/kW-hr (173 g/bhp-
0.24 0.322 hr). Note that these values are not corrected for the sin-
Particulate (g/kW-hr)

gle-cylinder engine’s frictional losses, which are higher

Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

0.22 0.295
-3.5 ATDC
0.20 0.268 than the six-cylinder version.
-6.5 ATDC
0.18 0.241 The bars on Fig. 16 represent each mode’s weighted
0.16 0.215 contribution to the six-mode cycle’s estimate of emis-
2.0 ATDC sions, fuel consumption, and power. Clearly, the modes
0.14 -9.0 ATDC 0.188
where the emissions contributions are high and the
0.12 0.161
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 power contribution is low are modes that have high brake
NOx (g/bhp-hr) specific emissions.

Figure 14. NOx versus Particulate Trade-Off Curve for

Mode 6

9
 45
40
35
30 % of total NOx
25 % of total Part
20 % of total Pow er

15 % of total Fuel

10
5
0
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6

Figure 16. Modes’ Relative Contributions to the Cycle Estimate

Table 8. Modes’ Emissions and Cycle Emissions Estimate

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6
SOI (deg. ATDC) -6.5 -0.5 -4.5 3.0 4.5 -3.5
NOx (g/kW-hr) {g/bhp-hr} 43.61 {32.52} 7.98 {5.95} 6.52 {4.86} 4.03 {3.01} 3.62 {2.70} 5.90 {4.40}
Part. (g/kW-hr) {g/bhp-hr} 0.722 {0.538} 0.098 {0.073} 0.153 {0.114} 0.067 {0.050} 0.048 {0.036} 0.280 {0.209}
Power (kW) {hp} 0.4 {0.5} 7.5 {10.0} 32.8 {44.0} 53.33 {71.5} 30.0 {40.2} 15.1 {20.2}
Fuel (g/kW-hr) {g/bhp-hr} 888 {662} 208 {155} 194 {145} 218 {163} 231 {172} 252 {188}
Cycle NOx 5.10 (g/kW-hr) 3.80 (g/bhp-hr)
Cycle Particulate 0.107 (g/kW-hr) 0.079 (g/bhp-hr)
BSFC 231 (g/kW-hr) 173 (g/bhp-hr)

INTAKE AIR BOOST PRESSURE STUDY results on the other side of the inflection point from other
boost levels’ results.
A second objective of the present study was to character-
ize effects of varying boost pressure level on diesel emis- Table 9. NOx Levels Used During Boost Experiments
sions and performance. Both fuel injection systems were
used for this study; the EUI and the common rail system. Modes Nox Nox
Unlike the EUI system, which has a rising rate-of-injec- (g/bhp-hr) (g/kW-hr)
tion, the common rail system produces a nearly square EUI. Mode 3 single injection 4.92 6.60
rate-of-injection shape. During the boost pressure experi- EUI. Mode 4 single injection 3.58 4.80
ments, the engine was run at modes 3, 4, and 5 with the EUI. Mode 5 single injection 3.51 4.71
EUI system and at modes 4 and 5 with the common rail
system. Also, with the common rail system two sets of CR. Mode 4 single injection 2.78 3.73
experiments were conducted at mode 5; one with single CR. Mode 5 single injection 3.24 4.35
injections and the other with double injections. It is impor- CR. Mode 5 split injection 3.30 4.42
tant to reiterate that during the experiments, SOI was var-
ied in an attempt to keep brake specific NOx emissions
constant. Therefore, changes in particulate emissions The variation of NOx from run-to-run at any given mode
and BSFC versus boost pressure are isolated with was within 5%. At mode 5 the intake air pressure was
respect to NOx emissions. increased up to +65% (304 kPa, 44.1 psia) in increments
of 5 psia, where 184 kPa (184 kPa, 26.7 psia) was taken
Table 9 presents the mean NOx levels that were chosen
as +0% boost pressure. At mode 4 where +0% boost cor-
and kept constant during the boost pressure experiments
responds to 267 kPa (268 kPa, 38.8 psia), the intake air
at each given mode. The NOx levels in Table 9 were cho-
pressure was increased only up to +20% (321 kPa, 46.6
sen because they were on the smooth part of the NOx
psia), to respect load limits on the engine. At mode 3 the
versus particulate trade-off curve, away from inflection
boost pressure was increased up to +85% (299 kPa, 43.3
points. Inflection points might make data interpretation
psia), with 161 kPa (23.4 psia) taken as the +0% boost.
difficult if the SOI required for a given boost level gave

10
In order to correct the engine power for the increased
intake pressure, the exhaust pressure was also
increased so that difference between the intake and
exhaust pressures was kept constant during all experi-
ments, as described earlier.
The results and discussion of the boost pressure experi-
ments with the EUI system will be presented first followed
by a discussion the common rail system performance.
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
137.9 172.4 206.8
0.80
0%
0.70
the SOI needed to keep brake specific NOx constant dur-
ing the experiments. Notice on Fig 17a that equivalence
ratio decreases inversely and air/fuel ratio increases lin-
early with increasing boost pressure, just as one would
expect for an increase in air flow with a constant fuel flow
rate. The SOI points on Fig. 17 first proceed toward more
retarded timings, then toward more advanced timings
with increasing intake air pressure. This indicates that
small increases in intake air pressure cause higher in-cyl-
inder temperatures, requiring more retarded injection tim-
ings to hold a constant NOx level. However, as the intake
241.3 275.8 310.3 air pressure is increased further, in-cylinder temperatures
-8.0
SOI are decreased, allowing more advanced injection timings.
Equiv.Rto.
-6.0 Figure 18 shows the results of BSFC versus the intake air
pressure for mode 3. The data on Fig. 18 includes both

SOI (degrees ATDC)

Equivalence Ratio

10% 20% -4.0 the constant delta P data from the experiments and data
0.60
that has been corrected for the increased power required
45% -2.0 to compress the intake charge of a six-cylinder engine
0.50 35% operating at elevated boost levels. Both sets of data show
65% 0.0 that the fuel consumption at mode 3 decreases drasti-
55%
0.40 cally with increasing boost pressure until the boost pres-
85% sure reaches +55% (250.1 kPa, 36.3 psi) at which point,
2.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 increases in boost pressure were less beneficial.
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Intake Air Pressure (kPa)

Figure 17a. EUI, Mode 3, Equivalence Ratio and Injection
137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
Timing versus Boost 150 201.2
0% 10% single cylinder data
145 with 6-cyl. correction 194.4
20%
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

140 187.7

BSFC (g/kW-hr)
137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
15 -8.0
SOI 135 181.0
0% A/F Ratio 35% 45%
20 -6.0 130 174.3
SOI (degrees ATDC)
Air/Fuel Mass Ratio

20% 55%
10%
25 -4.0 125 65% 167.6
85%
45%
35% 120 160.9
30 -2.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
65% Intake Air Pressure (psia)
55%
35 0.0

85% Figure 18. EUI, Mode 3, BSFC versus Boost for constant
40 2.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 NOx of 4.92 g/bhp-hr (6.60 g/kW-hr)
Intake Air Pressure (psia)
Figure 19 shows the effect of intake boost pressure on
particulate emissions. Although the particulate emissions
Figure 17b. EUI, Mode 3, Air/Fuel Mass Ratio and
were still decreasing with increasing intake pressure, a
Injection Timing versus Boost
tremendous reduction, more than 70%, was observed as
the boost pressure was increased up to +45%,
BOOST PRESSURE EFFECTS WITH EUI – Mode 3 –
(233.9kPa, 33.9psia). Also, notice that at mode 3 the six-
At mode 3 experiments were conducted with intake air
cylinder correction had little effect on the brake specific
pressures from 161.3kPa (23.4 psia) for baseline (+0%
particulate emissions.
boost), to 298.5kPa (43.3 psia) for +85% boost. Mode 3
results are shown on Figs. 17 to 19. Figure 17 shows the
equivalence ratio (Fig. 17a) or air/fuel ratio (Fig. 17b) and

11
 Mode 4 – As previously mentioned, Mode 4 is a high load
Intake Air Pressure (kPa) (61kW) operating condition. At the baseline +0% boost
137.9
0.11
172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
0.148
pressure level, the engine’s power output just reached
0.10 0%
single cylinder data
0.134
the maximum absorption capability of the dynamometer,
with 6-cyl. correction
0.09 0.121
so experiments at this mode were limited to decreases in
10%
boost pressure. The intake air pressure was decreased

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

0.08 0.107
0.07 0.094
from 267.5kPa (38.8psia) at +0%, to 213.7kPa (31.0psia)
20%
0.06 0.080
at –20%. The SOI timings required to maintain constant
0.05 0.067
brake specific NOx are shown on Fig. 20. Also shown on
0.04
35%
0.054
Fig. 20 is the equivalence ratio (Fig. 20a) and air/fuel
0.03 45% 0.040
ratio (Fig. 20b). Notice on Fig. 20 that unlike mode 3, at
0.02
65% 85% 0.027 mode 4, injection timing must be steadily advanced with
0.01 0.013
increasing boost pressure in order to maintain a constant
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 brake specific NOx level.
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Intake Air Pressure (kPa)

Figure 19. EUI, Mode 3, Particulate versus Boost for
206.8 220.6 234.4 248.2 262.0 275.8
constant NOx of 4.92 g/bhp-hr (6.60 g/kW-hr) 156 209.2
-20% single cylinder data
154 206.5
with 6-cyl. correction
152 -15% 203.8
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)

BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

BSFC (g/kW-hr)
150 201.1
206.8 220.6 234.4 248.2 262.0 275.8
0.62 -6.5 148 -10% 198.5
-20%
0.60 -6.0
146 195.8
-15% -5.5
SOI (degrees ATDC)

0.58 144 -5% 193.1

Equivalence Ratio

-5.0 0%
0.56 SOI -10% 142 190.4
-4.5
Equiv.Rto. 140 187.7
0.54 -4.0
30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0
-3.5 Intake Air Pressure (psia)
0.52 -5%
-3.0
0.50 0% -2.5
Figure 21. EUI. Mode 4. BSFC versus Boost for constant
0.48 -2.0
30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 NOx of 3.58 g/bhp-hr (4.80 g/kW-hr)
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 20a. EUI, Mode 4, Equivalence Ratio and Injection Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
Timing versus Boost 206.8 220.6 234.4 248.2 262.0 275.8
0.087
-20% single cylinder data
0.06
with 6-cyl. correction 0.081

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
0.06
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

Intake Air Pressure (kPa) 0.074

-15%
206.8 220.6 234.4 248.2 262.0 275.8
23 -6.5 0.05
-20% 0.067
24 -6.0
0.05
-5.5 0.060
-15% -10% 0%
SOI (degrees ATDC)

25
Air/Fuel Mass Ratio

-5.0 0.04 -5% 0.054

26 SOI -10% -4.5
A/F Ratio
-4.0 0.04 0.047
27 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0
-3.5 Intake Air Pressure (psia)
28 -5%
-3.0
29 0% -2.5 Figure 22. EUI, Mode 4, Particulate versus Boost for
30 -2.0 constant NOx of 3.58 g/bhp-hr (4.80 g/kW-hr)
30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia)
Figure 22 shows the relationship between the particulate
and the boost pressure. The particulate emission rises
Figure 20b. EUI, Mode 4, Air/Fuel Mass Ratio and rapidly (see Fig. 22) as the boost is decreased, providing
Injection Timing versus Boost a minimum of 0.052 g/kW-hr (0.039 g/bhp-hr) in particu-
late at –5% (254.4 kPa, 36.9 psia) boost pressure. Since
experiments were not conducted at higher boost pres-

12
sures, it is difficult to judge whether this was an absolute
minimum or not. However, the computational work, which

Pressure (bar) and Rate of injection (mg/CA)

100 0.08
was also conducted at this mode, gives an opportunity for
0.07
further investigation as discussed below. 80 0.06

AHRR (normalized)
From the experimental results, it appears that the turbo- 0.05
charger selected for this specific engine has operating 60
0.04
conditions, which match well with the engine at high load 0.03
conditions. The intake air pressure at +0% boost pro- 40
0.02
vided by the turbocharger is close to the optimum pres- 0.01
20
sure at mode 4.
0.00
0 -0.01
Mode 5 – As discussed earlier, mode 5 represents a high -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
speed, intermediate load mode with a peak injection Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
pressure of 145 MPa. Figures 23, 24, and 25 present cyl-
inder pressure, rate-of-injection, and apparent heat
Figure 23. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-Injection, and
release at mode 5 at the boost pressures of +0% (184
Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 5, +0%
kPa, 26.7 psia), +35% (249 kPa, 36.1 psia), and +65%
Boost, 0.5 ATDC SOI
(304 kPa, 44.1 psia) respectively. In order to keep NOx
constant, the injection timing had to be advanced some-
what as the boost pressure was increased (see Fig. 26).

Pressure (bar) and Rate of injection (mg/CA)

The requirement of earlier SOI is an interesting result 120 0.08
because one might easily expect the opposite. However, 0.07
100
it can be explained by the diluting effect of the intake mix- 0.06

AHRR (normalized)
ture with extra air, which provides leaner air/fuel ratios 80 0.05
and results in decreased in-cylinder temperatures and 0.04
lower NOx levels. Also, as can be seen from the graphs, 60
0.03
the premix burn decreases along with the ignition delay 40 0.02
as the boost pressure increases. This also explains the 0.01
influence of the boost on NOx formation since high NOx 20
0.00
levels are generally thought to accompany large pre-
0 -0.01
mixed burns. This behavior of NOx, premix burn, and the -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
ignition delay versus the boost pressure was true for all Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
cases, so graphs of the pressure, rate-of-injection and
apparent heat release for the other modes will not be
Figure 24. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-Injection, and
plotted.
Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 5,
Figures 26 through 28 present equivalence ratio, air/fuel +35% Boost, -1.5 ATDC SOI
ratio, BSFC, and particulate versus the boost pressure,
respectively, at mode 5 with the EUI fuel injection system.
Pressure (bar) and Rate of injection (mg/CA)

As can been seen from Fig. 28, particulate decreases at 160 0.08
first and then increases as the boost pressure is
140 0.07
increased up to +35%, 249 kPa (36.1 psia). This appears
120 0.06
to be due to a reduction in the spray penetration and mix- AHRR (normalized)
0.05
ing that ultimately outweighs the benefits of leaner mix- 100
0.04
tures as the engine gas density is increased. The 35% 80
increase in the intake air boost pressure results in almost 0.03
60
40% reduction in the particulate which corresponds to 0.02
40
0.058 g/kW-hr (0.043 g/bhp-hr). BSFC was reduced 0.01
monotonically with increasing boost pressure for all 20 0.00
cases. At 35% increased boost, the minimum for particu- 0 -0.01
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
late, the BSFC was found be reduced by 7% for the cor-
Crank Shaft Angle (degrees ATDC)
rected six-cylinder configuration.

Figure 25. Cylinder Pressure, Rate-of-Injection, and

Apparent Heat Release Rate for Mode 5,
+65% Boost, -4.0 ATDC SOI

13
 Intake Air Pressure (kPa) Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310 172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310
0.45 -5.0 0.07 0.094
0% 0% single cylinder data
0.43 with 6-cyl. correction 0.087
-4.0 0.07
10%

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
0.40

Particulate (g/bhp-hr)
SOI (degrees ATDC)
65%
Equivalence Ratio

20% -3.0 0.06 0.081

0.38
45%
0.35 SOI 30% -2.0 0.06 0.074
Equiv.Rto. 20%
40% 10%
0.33
-1.0 0.05 0.067
0.30 50%
0.0 0.05 0.060
0.28
65% 35%
0.25 1.0 0.04 0.054
25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia) Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 26a. EUI, Mode 5, Equivalence Ratio and Injection Figure 28. EUI, Mode 5, Particulate versus Boost for
Timing versus Boost constant NOx of 3.51 g/bhp-hr (4.71 g/kW-hr)

BOOST PRESSURE EFFECTS WITH COMMON

RAIL – Mode 4 with, single injection – At this mode the
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
experiments were done for intake air pressures from
172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310
30 -5.0 267.5kPa (38.8psia) at +0%, up to 321.0kPa (46.6psia) at
0% +20%. Further increase in boost pressure was not con-
10% -4.0 sidered pertinent since most existing turbochargers have
35
a maximum pressure ratio of about 3:1.
SOI (degrees ATDC)
Air/Fuel Mass Ratio

20% -3.0
40
SOI
30% The results of the experiments conducted at mode 4 with
-2.0
A/F Ratio 40% the common rail system, using single injections are
45
-1.0 shown on Figs. 29 to 31. Comparing the results with
50%
those of the EUI system at mode 4, it can be seen that
50
0.0 trends of the curves are very similar, however the differ-
65% ence in the particulate is a factor of 3. The injection pres-
55 1.0
25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 sure for the EUI system was higher (170 MPa at mode 4)
Intake Air Pressure (psia) than for the common rail (90 Mpa), so the difference in
the results confirms that there is an optimum injection
and intake air pressure combination.
Figure 26b. EUI, Mode 5, Air/Fuel Mass Ratio and
Injection Timing versus Boost
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
262.0 275.8 289.6 303.4 317.2 330.9
0.52 -2.0
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
0%
172 190 207 224 241 259 276 293 310 0.50 -1.5
168 224.6
65% 5%
SOI (degrees ATDC)
Equivalence Ratio

165 0% 221.3 0.48 -1.0

163 217.9 SOI
0.46 10% Equiv.Rto. -0.5
BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

160 214.6
BSFC (g/kW-hr)

30% 50%
158 10% 40% 211.2 0.44 0.0
20% 15%
155 207.9
0.42 20% 0.5
153 204.5
150 201.2 0.40 1.0
single cylinder data 38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0
148 197.8
with 6-cyl. correction Intake Air Pressure (psia)
145 194.5
25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia) Figure 29a. Common Rail, Mode 4, Single Injection,
Equivalence Ratio and Injection Timing
Figure 27. EUI, Mode 5, BSFC versus Boost for constant versus Boost
NOx of 3.51 g/bhp-hr (4.71 g/kW-hr)

14
 Intake Air Pressure (kPa) Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
262.0 275.8 289.6 303.4 317.2 330.9 137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
28 -2.0 0.50 -7.0
0% -10% SOI
-1.5 Equiv.Rto.
0.45 -6.0
30 5% 0%

SOI (degrees ATDC)

Air/Fuel Mass Ratio

SOI (degrees ATDC)

Equivalence Ratio
-1.0 0.40
SOI 10% -5.0
10%
32 A/F Ratio -0.5 20%
0.35
-4.0
15% 0.0
34 0.30 40%
-3.0
20% 0.5
0.25
65%
36 1.0 -2.0
38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia) Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 29b. Common Rail, Mode 4, Single Injection, Air/ Figure 32a. Common Rail, Mode 5, Single Injection,
Fuel Mass Ratio and Injection Timing versus Equivalence Ratio and Injection Timing
Boost versus Boost

Intake Air Pressure (kPa) Intake Air Pressure (kPa)

262.0 275.8 289.6 303.4 317.2 330.9 137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
156 209.2 30 -7.0
0% single cylinder data -10% SOI
with 6-cyl. correction 35 A/F Ratio
154 206.5 0% -6.0

SOI (degrees ATDC)

Air/Fuel Mass Ratio 40 10%
BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

BSFC (g/kW-hr)

152 203.8 -5.0

20%
45
150 5% 201.2 -4.0
10% 50 40%
15% -3.0
148 198.5 55
20%
65%
146 195.8 60 -2.0
38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia) Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 30. Common Rail, Mode 4. Single Injection, BSFC Figure 32b. Common Rail, Mode 5, Single Injection, Air/
vs. Boost, NOx at 2.78 g/bhp-hr (3.73 g/kW-hr) Fuel Mass Ratio and Injection Timing versus
Boost

Intake Air Pressure (kPa)

262.0 275.8 289.6 303.4 317.2 330.9 Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
0.22 0.295
0% single cylinder data 137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3
166 222.6
0.20 with 6-cyl. correction 0.268 single cylinder data
164 219.9
with 6-cyl. correction
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

Particulate (g/kW-hr)

0.18 0.241 162 217.2

-10%
0.16
5% 0.215 160 214.6
BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

BSFC (g/kW-hr)

0%
158 211.9
0.14 0.188
10% 156 209.2
0.12 0.161 154 10% 206.5
15%
20% 152 20% 203.8
0.10 0.134
150 201.1
40%
0.08 0.107 148 198.5
38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 65%
146 195.8
Intake Air Pressure (psia) 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 31. Common Rail Mode 4, Single Injection

Particulate versus Boost for constant NOx of Figure 33. Common Rail, Mode 5, Single Injection, BSFC
2.78 g/bhp-hr (3.73 g/kW-hr) versus Boost for constant NOx of 3.24 g/bhp-
hr (4.35 g/kW-hr)
15
Mode 5, single injection – Figures 32 and 33 show the
effect of boost air pressure on equivalence ratio, air fuel Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
ratio and BSFC, respectively. Figure 34 shows the partic- 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 344.7
35 -8.0
ulate effects. It can be seen that the tendency of the
curve is almost the same as that of mode 4 with single 0%
40 -7.0
10%
injection (see Fig. 31), but the values decrease less rap-

SOI (degrees ATDC)

45

Air/Fuel Mass Ratio

20% 30%
idly with the boost pressure. -6.0
50 SOI
A/F Ratio -5.0
55
45% -4.0
60
Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
137.9 172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 65 65% 75% -3.0
0.603
0.45 single cylinder data
-10% 70 -2.0
with 6-cyl. correction 0.536 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
0.40 0%
Intake Air Pressure (psia)
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
0.35 0.469

0.30 10% 0.402 Figure 35b. Common Rail, Mode 5, Split Injection, Air/
Fuel Mass Ratio and Injection Timing versus
0.25 0.335 Boost
0.20 20%
0.268
0.15
40% Mode 5, split injection – At mode 5, experiments were
65%
0.201 conducted with split injections using the same amount of
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 fuel as for the single injection but 50% of the fuel was
Intake Air Pressure (psia) injected in the first pulse and 50% after a 10 degree
crankshaft angle dwell. Figures 35, 36, and 37 show
Figure 34. Common Rail, Mode 5, Single Injection, results for the common rail system at mode 5 with split
Particulate versus Boost for constant NOx of injection. As can be seen on Fig. 37, the particulate
3.24 g/bhp-hr (4.35 g/kW-hr) exhibits a strong minimum at an optimal boost pressure
of about +45%. In this case, comparable particulate
emissions are reached with the low pressure injection
Intake Air Pressure (kPa) system as those obtained with the higher injection pres-
172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 344.7 sure EUI system (e.g. compare to Fig 28 at +0% boost).
0.45 -8.0 Confirming the benefit of split injection seen previously
0% -7.0
(e.g. [23]).
0.40
SOI (degrees ATDC)

10%
Equivalence Ratio

-6.0
0.35 Intake Air Pressure (kPa)
20% SOI
30% Equiv.Rto. -5.0 172.4
180
206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 344.7
241.4
0.30 single cylinder data
-4.0 175 234.7
with 6-cyl. correction
0.25
45% -3.0 170 228.0
75%
BSFC (g/bhp-hr)

BSFC (g/kW-hr)
65%
0.20 -2.0 165 221.3
25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
160 214.6
Intake Air Pressure (psia) 0%
155 207.9
10% 45% 65% 75%
Figure 35a. Common Rail, Mode 5, Split Injection, 150 20% 201.2
30%
Equivalence Ratio and Injection Timing
145 194.4
versus Boost 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 36. Common Rail, Mode 5, Split Injection, BSFC

versus Boost for constant NOx of 3.30 g/bhp-
hr (4.42 g/kW-hr)

16
 Intake Air Pressure (kPa) Table 10. Simulation Parameters used in Mode 4
172.4 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 344.7 Boost Pressure
0.12 0.161
single cylinder data
0% Parameters Baseline -15% +20% +40%
0.11 with 6-cyl. correction 0.148
Intake Temp, K 313 313 313 313
Particulate (g/bhp-hr)

Particulate (g/kW-hr)
10%
0.10 0.134 Intake Pressure, 268 228 321 375
75% kPa
0.09 20% 0.121
Exhaust Pres- 248 208 301 355
0.08 0.107 sure, kPa
65%
Air Flow Rate, 5.67 4.84 6.81 7.94
0.07
30%
0.094 kg/min
45%
0.06 0.080
Fuel Flow Rate, 0.192 0.192 0.192 0.192
25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 kg/min
Intake Air Pressure (psia)

Figure 37. Common Rail, Mode 5, Split Injection, 14

Particulate versus Boost for constant NOx of 12 Exp
3.30 g/bhp-hr (4.42 g/kW-hr) KIVA

Cylinder Pressure, MPa

10
COMBUSTION AND EMISSION MODELLING
8
As described in the experimental study, results were 6
obtained using six modes of operation. In this study, only
the Mode 5 and Mode 4 cases were simulated with vary- 4
ing boost pressures. In the experimental study there was
a limitation in the power output that could be safely 2
absorbed by the existing engine dynamometer. There-
0
fore, Mode 4 test runs could not be carried out beyond a -100 -50 0 50 100
certain boost pressure. Accordingly, the effect of Crank Angle, degree ATDC
increased boost pressure was further investigated in the
simulation study. The airflow rate and SOI timing for con- (a) Baseline
stant NOx emissions corresponding to a given boost
pressure level was determined using trends observed in 12
the experiment and used as input in the simulation study.
10 Exp
Cylinder Pressure, MPa

SIMULATION OF MODE 4 – Mode 4 represents approxi- KIVA

mately 95 percent full load operating condition. A maxi- 8
mum boost pressure of 268 kPa could be used for the
baseline experiment. Further experimental studies were 6
carried out at reduced boost pressures of -5% to -20%. In
the simulation four boost pressures were considered for 4
Mode 4: the baseline (268 kPa), -10% boost (241 kPa), -
15% boost (228 kPa) and -20% boost (214 kPa). The 2
parameters used for the simulation are given in Table 10.
0
Combustion and Emission Characteristics – Figures 38 -100 -50 0 50 100
and 39 show the comparison of cylinder pressure and Crank Angle, degree ATDC
rate-of-heat release, respectively, for the baseline and - (b) -15% Boost Pressure
15% boost conditions. In this case the cylinder pressure
curves were found to match very well with the experimen- Figure 38. Comparison of Simulated and Measured
tally measured data. In the rate-of-heat-release curves Cylinder Pressure
shown on Fig. 39, the ignition delay is also well simu-
lated.

17
 Extrapolation Studies – For mode 4, the highest boost
0.04
pressure cases were +20% and +40%. The intake pres-
Normalized Heat Release Rate
Exp sure, air mass flow rate initial conditions were estimated
0.03 by extrapolating the measured data in the experiments.
KIVA
Table 10 shows the extrapolated data used in the simula-
0.02 tions for the +20% and +40% boost pressure cases. Also
shown are the baseline and -15% boost pressure data
obtained from the experiment.
0.01
The predicted cylinder pressure and rate-of-heat-release
curves are compared with the baseline condition on Fig.
0.00
41. The accumulated heat release data obtained from the
simulations show that at a boost pressure of +20%, there
-0.01 is an increase in heat release by 2% at EVO but the accu-
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 mulated heat release drops as the boost pressure is
Crank Angle, degree ATDC increased to 40%. This could again be due to the fact that
(a) Baseline at very high boost pressure some regions in the combus-
tion chamber might have very low equivalence ratios and
the low temperature inhibits combustion in those regions.
0.04
Normalized Heat Release Rate

Intake Air Pressure, kPa

Exp 206.8 241.3 275.8 310.3 344.7 379.2
0.03 1.2
KIVA

0.02 1.0 Exp

KIVA

Soot, g/kg-fuel
0.8
0.01
0.6
0.00
0.4
-0.01
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.2
Crank Angle, degree ATDC
0.0
(b) -15% Boost Pressure 30 35 40 45 50 55
Intake Air Pressure, psia
Figure 39. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Heat
Figure 40. Effect of Boost Pressure on Particulate
Release
Emission for Mode 4
Soot emission as a function of boost pressure is shown
The emission results obtained with +20% and +40%
on Fig. 40. The measured data for particulate emissions
boost pressure (Fig. 40) indicate that significant addi-
includes both soot and soluble organic fraction (SOF) in
tional soot reduction could be obtained using a boost
the exhaust. In the simulation study only in-cylinder soot
pressure in the range of +20 to +30%. Further increase in
(the insoluble fraction of particulate) is predicted. There-
boost pressure may not be economical. With a modifica-
fore, in the comparisons, the measured SOF was sub-
tion in the turbocharger design, it may be possible to opti-
tracted from the particulate emission data. The
mize an existing engine for lower soot emission while
increasing trend of soot with lowering of boost pressure
keeping the NOx emissions within acceptable limits.
observed in the experiment is well maintained in the sim-
From the simulation study it is also evident that by
ulation study. However, the predicted soot levels are
increasing boost pressure the thermal loading of the
higher than those measured. The overall equivalence
engine remains unaffected as the fueling rate remains
ratio is the main factor controlling soot emissions. In this
the same in this case.
operating condition, no minimum value of soot was
observed, however, the slope of the curve was found to
SIMULATION OF MODE 5 – Four different boost pres-
reduce with further increase in the boost pressure. This
sure conditions were considered: baseline, 20, 40 and 60
suggests that there is a cut-off boost pressure condition
percent increase in boost pressure. The details of these
beyond which the advantage of increasing boost pres-
conditions are listed in Table 11.
sure on soot reduction no longer exists.

18
 20 10
Baseline Exp
20% Boost 8

Cylinder Pressure, MPa

Cylinder Pressure, MPa
15 40% Boost KIVA

6
10
4

5
2

0 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 -100 -50 0 50 100
Crank Angle, degree ATDC Crank Angle, degree ATDC
(a) Average Cylinder Pressure (a) Baseline

0.04 14
Normalized Heat Release Rate

Baseline 12 Exp
0.03 20% Boost

Cylinder Pressure, MPa

KIVA
40% Boost 10
0.02 8

6
0.01
4
0.00
2

-0.01 0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -100 -50 0 50 100
Crank Angle, degree ATDC Crank Angle, degree ATDC
(b) Normalized Heat Release (b) +40% Boost Pressure

Figure 41. Effect of Boost Pressure on Cylinder Pressure Figure 42. Comparison of Simulated and Measured
and Heat Release for Mode 4 Cylinder Pressure for Mode 5

Combustion and Emissions Characteristics – A compari-

Table 11. Simulation Parameters used for Mode 5 son of the experimental and simulated average cylinder
pressure is shown on Fig. 42 for the baseline and +40%
Boost Pressure
boost pressure operating conditions. Figures 42a and
Parameters Baseline +20% +40% +60% 42b show reasonable agreement between the predicted
Intake Temp, K 305 305 305 305 and measured pressures, although the cylinder pressure
Intake Pressure, 184 221 258 294 is overestimated. The ability to predict correct ignition
kPa delay is one of the main features of the modified ignition
Exhaust Pressure, 181 217 254 291 model used in this study. The rates-of-heat-release for
kPa the above two cases are shown on Figs. 43a and 43b
Air Flow Rate, 4.16 4.98 5.82 6.61 respectively. It is evident from Fig. 43 that the ignition
kg/min delay is well predicted using the modified ignition model
and the experimental and simulation results match with
Fuel Flow Rate, 0.125 0.125 0.127 0.125
kg/min reasonable accuracy. The diffusion burn is also well
reproduced in the simulation study.
Equivalence 0.440 0.37 0.32 0.28
Ratio

19

Normalized Heat Release Rate
0.06 formation in the combustion chamber which is a function
of in-cylinder flow pattern. With a high boost pressure,
0.05 Exp the spray penetration is reduced and the mixing phenom-
KIVA enon in the cylinder is modified. Therefore, the soot for-
0.04 mation region in this case could be entirely different than
0.03 for low boost pressure cases. In the next section, the
mechanism of soot reduction with boost pressure is
0.02 explained using the computational results.

0.01 Mechanism of Soot Reduction with Increased Boost

0.00 Pressure – With increased boost pressure, the overall
equivalence ratio in the combustion chamber decreases.
-0.01 This requires the use of more advanced SOI timings for
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 the same level of NOx emissions. This is mainly due to
Crank Angle, degree ATDC the shortened ignition delay period and the lean burn
conditions associated with increased boost pressures. In
(a) Baseline
the case of Mode 5, an injection timing of -5°ATDC with
+60% boost pressure increase gave the same level of
0.06 NOx as 0° ATDC in baseline condition.
Normalized Heat Release Rate

0.05 Exp
KIVA Table 12. Fuel specific emission results for Mode 5 –
0.04 experimental and computationally predicted
0.03 Experiment Simulation
(g/kg-fuel) (g/kg-fuel)
0.02
Boost Pressure NOx Soot NOx Soot
0.01 Baseline 21.49 0.310 20.41 0.194
0.00 +20% 22.82 0.177 20.85 0.103
+40% 23.24 0.210 23.99 0.062
-0.01
+60% 24.04 0.247 25.74 0.057
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crank Angle, degree ATDC
(b) +40% Boost Pressure Intake Air Pressure, kPa
0.35 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Figure 43. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Heat
Release for Mode 5 0.30 Exp
KIVA
The effect of boost pressure on soot emissions is com- 0.25
Soot, g/kg-fuel

pared on Fig. 44. The decreasing trend of soot with

0.20
increase in the boost pressure is also seen in the simula-
tion study and could be the result of the lean-burn condi- 0.15
tion in the combustion chamber. However, the minimum
soot value observed experimentally at about +30% boost 0.10
pressure was not seen in the simulation. Instead, the pre-
dicted soot was found to be nearly constant at high boost 0.05
pressure. The deviation from the experiment could be 0.00
due to an inaccurate specification of the timing of SOI. 25 30 35 40 45
This is supported by the increased NOx concentration Intake Air Pressure, psia
observed in the simulation results at +60% boost pres-
sure (Table 12). Nevertheless, the simulation study pro- Figure 44. Effect of Boost Pressure on Particulate
vides the same conclusion that increased boost pressure Emission
is effective in reducing soot up to certain percent only,
beyond which there is no significant further soot reduc- Due to the increased density in the combustion chamber,
tion. comparatively low spray penetration was observed with
increased boost pressure. Midway through the injection
At high boost pressure the combination of lean mixture duration period, a liquid spray penetration length of 1.32
together with the overall low temperature in the combus- cm was observed for +60% boost compared to 1.74 cm
tion chamber could result in an increase in the soot emis- for the baseline condition, as shown on Fig. 45. The
sions. Other possibility could be the location of soot vapor penetration is also reduced and the low spray pen-

20
etration inhibits air entrainment and mixing. Therefore, 1500

Average Cylinder Temperature, K

this tends to increases soot formation in the case of high
Baseline
boost pressure. However, net soot is the result of a com- 1400 20% Boost
petition between the soot formation and oxidation pro- 40% Boost
cesses in the cylinder. The abundance of oxygen 1300
60% Boost
available in the case of high boost pressures also
1200
enhances the soot oxidation process and finally results in
reduction of net soot in the cylinder. 1100
Comparison of the locations of soot formation regions in 1000
the combustion chamber was found not to show any con-
siderable difference between the +40% and +60% boost 900
pressure cases. Therefore, the location of soot formation
is not a controlling parameter for increased soot in the 800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
case of +60% boost pressure. Crank Angle, degree ATDC
Figure 46 shows the average cylinder temperature and
(a) Average Cylinder Temperature
instantaneous fuel mass in the bowl for different boost
pressure cases. The hatched area represents the crank
angle range corresponding to the peak soot formation 0.030
zone. From this figure it is observed that the peak soot 0.025 Baseline

Fuel Mass in the Bowl, g

formation corresponds to a constant amount of fuel in the 20% Boost
bowl. In other words, the peak soot formation takes place 0.020 40% Boost
when a certain constant amount of fuel is burned. The 60% Boost
decreasing slope in the soot-boost pressure curve at very 0.015
high boost pressures can be attributed to the combined
0.010
effect of low temperatures and low equivalence ratios that
inhibits soot oxidation. 0.005

0.000

-0.005
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Crank Angle, degree ATDC
(b) Fuel mass in the piston bowl region

Figure 46. Effect of boost pressure on average cylinder

temperature and instantaneous fuel mass in
(a) Baseline at 11.5° ATDC (l= 0.314e-1 h=0.283) the bowl.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study of boost pressure effects was conducted using a

(b) +60% boost at 6.5° ATDC (l= 0.371e-1 h=0.334)
Figure 45. Liquid and vapor spray penetration midway
through the injection period
single-cylinder version of a current heavy-duty diesel
engine (Caterpillar 3406). A six-mode steady-state simu-
lation of the federal transient test procedure (FTP) was
used for the baseline evaluation. The fuel system used in
the baseline study was an electronically controlled unit
injector (EUI) capable of injection pressure up to 190
MPa. For the boost pressure study, the EUI and a com-
mon rail system capable of multiple injections were used.
BASELINE EMISSIONS AND PERFORMANCE
STUDY – The results lead to the following conclusions:

NOx Emissions – The low cycle NOx emissions using the

EUI can be attributed to the rising shape of the rate-of-
injection. Especially at mode 4, the shaped injection
introduced so little fuel during the ignition delay that the
premixed burn was essentially eliminated, thus reducing
NOx emissions significantly.

21
Particulate Emissions – The EUI injection also provides
benefits in particulate emissions over other systems pre-
viously investigated [23]. It is assumed that this is due to
the EUI’s rising injection rate. At low loads, when gas
densities in the cylinder are low, the injection pressure is
low and over-penetration is eliminated. However, at high
loads, when gas densities are higher, the injection is
longer and high injection pressures are attained, thus
providing greater penetration and enhanced air utiliza-
tion, leading to low particulate emissions.
BOOST PRESSURE STUDY – Optimal boost pressure
at each mode was found to lead to significant improve-
ments in BSFC and particulate emissions. Particulate
emissions decreased significantly with increased intake
boost pressure due to the increased available air for soot
oxidation at elevated intake pressures (while holding
brake specific NOx constant). However, the study also
showed that there exist engine operating conditions at
high boost (low equivalence ratio) beyond which the ben-
efit of boost pressure on particulate emissions is not
found. This is because at very high boost pressures, the
liquid spray and vapor penetration lengths are reduced.
This explanation was confirmed by using computer mod-
eling. Similar trends were found when the present single-
cylinder test results were corrected for turbocharger effi-
ciencies of the six-cylinder engine configuration.
When the observed particulate and BSFC reductions
seen at modes 3, 4, and 5 were incorporated into the six-
mode cycle, particulates are reduced from 0.107 g/kW-hr
(0.079 g/bhp-hr) to 0.089 g/kW-hr (0.066 g/bhp-hr) and
BSFC is reduced from 231 g/kW-hr (173 g/bhp-hr) to 212
g/kW-hr (158 g/bhp-hr). Clearly, these results indicate
that enhanced boosting strategies will be important in
meeting future heavy-duty diesel engine emissions and
fuel consumption goals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding from Caterpillar, TACOM/BKM and DOE/Sandia
supported this work. The Army Research Office provided
additional facilities and support. The authors also thank
Matt Thiel and Paul Pachenski for their diligent assis-
tance during the data collection and all the other individu-
als at the UW-Engine Research Center and Caterpillar
who were involved in making this work possible.
REFERENCES
1. Browning, L.H., “Technologies and Costs for On-Road
Heavy-Duty Engines Meeting 2004 Emissions Standards”,
SAE Paper 973256, 1997.
2. Capobianco, M. and Gambarotta, A., “Variable Geometry
and Wastegated Automotive Turbochargers: Measure-
ments and Comparison of Turbine Performance”, Transac-
tions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, Vol. 114, July 1992.
3. Shao, J., Ogura, M., Liu, Y., Yoshino, M., “Performance of a
New Axially Movable Vane Turbocharger”, SAE Paper
961747, 1996.
22
4. Kapich, D.D., “Sequential Hydro-Supercharging System for
Turbodiesels” SAE Paper 961744, 1996.
5. Miyaki, M., Fujisawa, H., Masuda, A., and Yamoamoto,
Y.,“Development of New Electronically Controlled Fuel
Injection System ECD-U2 For Diesel Engines”, SAE Paper
910252, 1991.
6. “Emissions Regulations for New Otto-Cycle and Diesel
Heavy-Duty Engines; Gaseous and Particulate Exhaust
Test Procedures”, CFR 40 Subpart N, US EPA, June 1997.
7. Amsden, A.A., Butler, T.D., O’Rourke, P.J., and Ramshaw.
J.D., “KIVA: A comprehensive Model for 2D and 3D Engine
Simulations,” SAE Paper 850554, 1984.
8. Amsden, A.A., O’Rourke, P.J. and Butler, T.D., “KIVA-II: A
Computer Program for Chemically Reactive Flows with
Sprays,” Los Alamos National Laboratory Report No. LA -
11560-MS, 1989.
9. Han, Z., and Reitz, R.D., “Turbulence Modeling of Internal
Combustion Engines Using RNG k- Models,” Combustion
Science and Technology, 106, pp. 4-6, 267, 1995.
10. Reitz, R.D., “Modeling Atomization Processes in High-
Pressure Vaporizing Sprays,” Atomization and Spray Tech-
nology, 3, 309, 1987.
11. Gonzalez, M.A., Lian, Z.W., and Reitz, R.D., “Modeling Die-
sel Engine Spray Vaporization and Combustion,” SAE
Paper 920579, 1992.
12. Liu, A.B., Mather, D., and Reitz, R.D., “Modeling the Effects
of Drop Drag and Breakup on Fuel Sprays,” SAE Paper
930072, 1993.
13. Halstead, M., Kirsh, L., and Quinn, C., “The Autoignition of
Hydrocarbon Fuels at High Temperatures and Pressures -
Fitting of a Mathematical Model,” Comb. Flame, 30, pp. 45-
60, 1977.
14. Theobald, M.A., and Cheng, W.K., “A Numerical Study of
Diesel Ignition,” ASME Paper 87-FE-2, 1987.
15. Kong, S.C., and Reitz, R.D., “Multidimensional Modeling of
Diesel Ignition and Combustion using a Multistep Kinetics
Model,” Paper 93-ICE-22, ASME Trans., Journal of Engi-
neering for Gas Turbines, and Power, 115, No. 4, pp. 781-
789, 1993.
16. Schapertons, H. and Lee, W., Multidimensional Modelling
of Knocking combustion in SI Engines, SAE Paper 850502,
1985.
17. Abraham, J., Bracco, F.V., and Reitz, R.D., “Comparisons of
Computed and Measured Premixed Charge Engine Com-
bustion,” Comb. Flame, 60, pp. 309-322, 1985.
18. Bowman, C.T., “Kinetics of Pollutant Formation and
Destruction in Combustion,” Prog. Energy Comb. Sci., 1,
pp. 33-45, 1975.
19. Hiroyasu, H., and Kadota, T., “Models for Combustion and
Formation of Nitric Oxide and Soot in DI Diesel Engines,”
SAE Paper 760129, 1976.
20. Nagle, J., and Strickland-Constable, R.F., “Oxidation of
Carbon between 1000-2000 C,” Proc. of the Fifth Carbon
Conf., 1, pp. 154, 1962.
21. Senecal, P.K., Xin, J. and Reitz, R.D., “Predictions of Resid-
ual Gas Fraction in IC Engines," SAE Paper 962052, 1996.
22. Zhu, Y. and Reitz, R.D., “A 1-D gas dynamics code for sub-
sonic and supersonic flows applied to predict EGR levels in
a heavy-duty diesel engine”, To appear in International
Journal of Vehicle Design, 1999.
23. Montgomery, D.T. and Reitz, R.D., “Six-Mode Cycle Evalu-
ation of the Effect of EGR and Multiple Injections on Partic-
ulate and NOx Emissions from a D.I. Diesel Engine”, SAE
Paper 960316, 1996.