Advanced Lean-Burn

DI Spark Ignition Fuels Research

Magnus Sjöberg
Sandia National Laboratories
May 15th, 2012

Project ID: FT006

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
 Overview
Timeline Budget
• Project provides science to support • Project funded by DOE/VT via
industry to develop advanced Kevin Stork.
lean/dilute-burn SI engines for non- • FY11 - $650 K
petroleum fuels. • FY12 - $750 K
• Project directions and continuation are
reviewed annually. Partners / Collaborators
• PI: Sandia (M. Sjöberg)
Barriers • 15 Industry partners in the Advanced
• Inadequate data and predictive tools for Engine Combustion MOU.
fuel property effects on combustion and • General Motors - Hardware.
engine efficiency optimization. • D.L. Reuss (formerly at GM).
• Evaluate new fuels and fuel blends for • LLNL (Pitz et al.) – Mechanisms and
efficiency, emissions, and operating Flame-Speed Calculations.
stability with advanced SI combustion. • LLNL (Aceves et al.) - CFD Modeling.
1. Lean, unthrottled DISI with spray- • Sandia Spray Combustion & Heavy-Duty
guided combustion. Diesel Labs (Pickett & Musculus).
2. Well-mixed charge and high boost. • USC-LA (Egolfopoulos) - Flame
Measurements.

2
 Objectives - Relevance
Project goals are to provide the science-base needed to understand:
• How emerging future fuels will impact the combustion systems of new
highly-efficient DISI light-duty engines currently being developed.
• How the fuels and combustion systems can be tailored to each other to
maximize thermal efficiency.
• Current focus is on E85 and gasoline. Expand to other fuel blends (e.g. E15-E30)
and components (e.g. butanol and iso-pentanol) based on industry interest.
DISI with spray-guided stratified charge combustion system
– Has demonstrated strong potential for throttle-less high-efficiency engine operation.
– Plagued by misfires and partial burns, especially for low-NOx operation.
– Mastering NOx / Soot / Combustion Stability trade-offs is key to success.
– These processes are strongly affected by fuel properties.
• Study performance and exhaust emissions for lean stratified operation and
examine the effects of fuel properties.
• Develop / employ high-speed optical diagnostics to understand advanced
combustion and mitigate potential barriers (e.g. ensure robust combustion).
• Conduct supporting modeling for understanding of governing fundamentals.
3
 Approach
• Combine metal- and optical-engine experiments and modeling to develop a broad
understanding of the impact of fuel properties on DISI combustion processes.

• First, conduct performance testing with a state-of-the-art all-metal engine

configuration over wide ranges of operating conditions and alternative fuels.
– Speed, load, intake pressure, EGR, and stratification level. Quantify engine operation
and develop combustion statistics.
• Second, apply a combination of optical and conventional diagnostics to develop
the understanding needed to mitigate barriers to high efficiency, robustness,
and low emissions.
– Include full spectrum of phenomena; from intake flow, fuel-air mixing and ignition, to
development of flame, and endgas autoignition (knock).
Supporting modeling:
• Conduct chemical-kinetics modeling of flame-speed for detailed knowledge of
governing fundamentals.
– Collaborate on validation experiments and mechanism development.
– Collaborate on the thermodynamics of fuel-air mixing and vaporization.
• Collaborate on CFD modeling of in-cylinder flows and combustion.
4
 Approach / Research Engine
Two configurations of drop-down single-cylinder engine.
Bore = 86.0 mm, Stroke = 95.1 mm, 0.55 liter swept volume.
• All-metal: Metal-ring pack and air/oil-jet cooling of piston.
• Optical: Pent-roof window, piston-bowl window, and 45° Bowditch mirror.
• Identical geometry for both configurations, so minimal discrepancy between
performance testing and optical tests.
• 8-hole injector with 60° included angle ⇒
22° between each pair of spray center lines.
Spark gap is in between two sprays.

5
 Technical Accomplishments
• Performed a comparative study of stratified operation with E85 and gasoline,
examining the potential to accomplish low NOx / PM operation.
– Demonstrated the use of near-TDC fuel injection to enable ultra-low NO and soot with E85.
• Optical engine experiments:
– Commissioned optical version of the engine.
– Performed high-speed imaging studies of stratified E85 operation.
– Natural luminosity, Mie-imaging of fuel-spray development, and initial fuel-PLIF.
– Identified ignition and flame-spread issues leading to partial burns.
– Characterized laser-sheet quality of high-speed PIV laser.
• Used CHEMKIN to investigate the influence of E85’s strong vaporization cooling on
the laminar flame speed for wide ranges of φ.
• Set up and validated GT-Power model over wide ranges of speed and boost.
– Used high-speed imaging of valve motion as model input.
• Continued the examination of the direct effect of vaporization cooling on the
thermal efficiency for E85 and gasoline.
– Quantified the effects of injection timing and pressure.

6
 Emissions Study CR
Parameter
12
Current Study

Piston Bowl ∅ 46 mm
• The traditional SI engine has poor thermal Swirl Index 0 or 2.7 (most data)
efficiency at low loads. Valve Timings For Minimal Residual
• Overall lean but stratified combustion can Level

improve fuel economy. Injector & Bosch 8 x 60°

Spray Targeting Straddling Spark
• Low engine-out NOx and PM is required to Injection Pressure 170 bar
avoid expensive lean-NOx aftertreatment
# of Injections Single
and particulate filter.
Spark Energy 106 mJ
• The parameter space is huge.
Tcoolant 60°C
• Grouped as hardware, static parameters & Tin 26-28°C
operating variables.
Engine Speed 1000 rpm
• Relatively low in-cylinder temperatures. Intake Pressure 95 kPa
• Acquired data for 500 cycles per steady- Pexhaust 100 kPa
state operating point. IMEPn 250-380 kPa
• Unless noted, stratified cases have Start of Injection (SOI) -37 to -5°CA
spark timing (ST) for lowest standard Spark Timing (ST) -36 to 1°CA
deviation (SD) of IMEPn. EGR / [O2]in 21 – 14.5% O2

Fuel Type E85, Gasoline

7
 Reaching Inside the NO/PM Box
• Apply N2 dilution to examine potential 0.05
0.045
14.5%
Gasoline, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
E85, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
E85, SOI = -23°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
for low NOx operation. 0.04 E85, SOI = -23°CA, IMEPn = 250 kPa
E85, SOI = -6°CA, IMEPn = 260 kPa
• Gasoline shows clear trade-off. Engine- 0.035

ISPM [g/kWh]
0.03
out soot is governed by soot burn-out? 0.025 17%

• Low NO is possible, but at the expense 0.02

0.015
18% 21% Intake [O2]

of soot and stability. 0.01

19.5% 21%
0.005
400 18%
0
350
Gasoline, [O2] = 21% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
300 ISNO [g/kWh]
400
250
n [kPa]

SOIa = -31°CA
n [kPa]

350
200 Spark -23°CA 0.05
14.5%
300
150
IMEP

0.045
IMEP

250 0 100 200 [O 2] = 14.5%

300 400 500
Cycle number 0.04
a = [-]
SOI111118T
-31°CA
200
Spark -24°CA 0.035

ISPM [g/kWh]
150
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.03
Cycle number [-] 0.025 17%
0.02 18%
0.015
• With E85, can reach inside the US2010 0.01
21%

NO/PM box, using near-TDC injection. 0.005

19% 18%
0
– NO2 contribution may be substantial. 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
– Future study. ISNO [g/kWh]

8
 Effects of Injection Timing Retard 2

SO
Gasoline, IMEPn = 370 kPa,
-4 = 16.5%
[O2]
a. SOI retard strongly reduces NO emissions. 350 -6 IMEPn = 370 kPa,
E85,
[O2]
300 -8 = 17.5-18%

NO [ppm]
b. Lower average peak combustion temperatures. 250
200
E85,-40
IMEPn
-35 = 260
[O2] = 19%
-30 kPa,
-25 -20
Start of Injecti
150
c. Later CA50, so less time for thermal NO formation. 100
a. 9 6 3
50

d. Closely-coupled injection and combustion. 0

Peak. Avg. Temp. [K]

1500-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5

– Higher mixing rates may limit time spent at 1400

Start of Injection [°CA]

NO-producing temperatures. 1300

b.
1200

e. Compared to gasoline, E85 generally requires earlier 1100

spark for highest stability.

1000
12-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5

c.
Start of Injection [°CA]
– This difference is accentuated for SOI retard. 8

CA50 [°CA]
4

– For near-TDC injection, spark discharge starts well 0

-4
before fuel is present in the cylinder! -8
-12

f. How can this help stability? 10 25 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5

EOI to CA50 [°CA]

EOI - E85, 370 kPa Start of Injection [°CA]
8
d.
20
– Use high-speed imaging. EOI - Gasoline & E85, 260 kPa
SOI to Spark [°CA]

6 15

• Spark at SOI or earlier 4

2
e.
10

counteracts CA50 retard 0 SOI 0

5 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5

COV IMEPn [%]

with SOI retard. -2
-4
4
3
f. Start of Injection [°CA]

– Spark of gasoline is near -6 2

1
EOI, so does not allow -8 0
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
much SOI retard. Start of Injection [°CA]
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10
Start of Injection [°CA]
-5

9
 N2-sweep for SOI = -6°CA
70 7
• SOI = -6°CA can provide single-digit NO.
E85, IMEPn = 260 kPa

Corr. SD of IMEPn [%]

Exhaust NO [ppm]
60 NO 6
SD of IMEPn
50 5
• N2-dilution sweep shows trade-offs between 40 4

NO-Stability-CE-TE. 30
20
3
2

• The NO-Stability trade-off is superior to other 10

0
1
0

conditions with earlier SOI.

Comb. Eff. [%]

40 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21 100
Intake O2 [%]
38 +27% 95

• Study 19% point further.

Thermal Eff. [%]

36 90
34 85
• Has very low NO, but increased combustion 32 SOI = -6°CA, Thermal Eff. 80
Phi = 1, Thermal Eff.
efficiency and stability would enable more 30
28
SOI = -6°CA, Comb. Eff.
75
70
fuel-economy gain. 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Intake O2 [%]
20.5 21

– Up to +27% relative stoichiometric operation. 6 Gasoline, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
18.5% E85, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
280 5 E85, SOI = -23°CA, IMEPn = 250 kPa

Corr. SD of IMEPn [%]

E85, SOI = -6°CA IMEPn = 260 kPa
260
] = 21%
[O2111122S 4
240
n [kPa]

280
3
n [kPa]

220 19%
260
IMEP

200 2
IMEP

240 19.5%
0 100 200 300 [O400
2] = 19%
500
Cycle number [-] 1 20%
220 SOI = -6°CA
111122N 21% Intake [O2]
Spark -11°CA
200 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Cycle number [-] ISNO [g/kWh]

10
 Imaging Setup / Spark-Sweep
• Bowditch: Phantom v7.10 with f = 180 mm lens.

Pressure [bar]
– Wide-angle view using concave window. 40

• Side window: Phantom v7.1 with f = 50 mm lens. 20

• Broadband imaging - CMOS chip. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cycle #
9 10 11 12 13

• Pulsed high-intensity LED for Mie-scattering.

– 5µs or 10µs pulse length.
– Skip-illumination for near-simultaneous
Mie-scattering and flame imaging.
• 3/12 - skipfire operation for realistic residuals.
• Spark = -12°CA consistently misfire-free.
• Spark during fuel injection leads to high misfire rate.
80
70
Misfire Probability [%]

All-Metal
60 Optical, Skipfire
50 [O2] = 19%
40 SOIa = -6°CA
30
2
20
1
10 Fuel Injection

0
-15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1
Spark Timing [°CA]

11
 High-Speed Imaging, SOI = -6Σ
Spark = -12°CA, Intake [O2] = 19%, Exhaust NO = 6 ppm
• Statistically selected cycle.
• Combined Mie and natural
luminosity.
• Closely coupled injection
and ignition leads to highly
turbulent combustion.
Spark Current [mA]

300 Figure
200 No Fuel
100 Average
0
-100
-200
30
Pcyl [bar], AHRR [J/°]

25
20
15
Inj.
10
5
0
-5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Crank Angle [°CA]

12
 Imaging of Cyclic Variability
• SOI = -6° CA, spark = -12°CA.
• Correlation with IMEP.
– Total Burn.
– Early flame intensity.
• Weak cycles have odd flow
near spark gap.
• Shows need to manage
stochastic processes for
better engine performance.
Cum. AHRR [J]

30 350

25 300
Image Intensity @ 0.3°CA

20 250

15 200

10 150

5 100

0 50
210 230 250 270 290
IMEPg [kPa]

13
 Preliminary High-Speed Fuel-PLIF of E85
• High-speed tripled Nd:YAG laser, exciting gasoline components with 355 nm.
• Collecting red shifted fluorescence via 395 nm long-wavelength pass filter.
• Tests indicate strong O2 quenching, so start with inert conditions for decent S/N.
• Cyclic variability is evident, even with the limited view into bowl.
• Combine PLIF with NL & Mie for characterization of combustion mode.
• PLIF: Will perform calibration and spectroscopic characterization.
• Add high-speed PIV diagnostics for identifying sources of cyclic variability.

NL

NL
Mie
PLIF

14
 Fuel Vaporization / Flame Speed
• E85 experiments with near-TDC fuel injection beg for more insights. For example:
• What enables E85 to be ignited in the head of fuel jet, while gasoline fuel jets misfire?
• Why are exhaust soot levels so low, despite flame spread prior to fuel/air mixing?
• Why are NO levels so low?
• Use optical techniques and modeling to answer these questions (future work).
• First, however, examine some of the fundamentals.
• E85’s large latent heat of vaporization and high oxygen content:
1.Prevents very rich gas-phase mixtures. For E85 φmax ≈ 5, whereas φmax ≈ 15 for gasoline.
2.Makes richer zones much cooler. CHEMKIN predicts strongly suppressed combustion
activity in these rich zones. Contributes to suppress soot formation.

16
Mixing and Heating Downstream
φ=1
Laminar Flame Speed [cm/s]

Fuel/Air Equivalence Ratio [-]

50 14
of Liquid Length
Constant Temperature 12
40
10 Solid = Ethanol
30 Ethanol Liquid Length
Pressure = 25 bar 8 Dashed = iso-Octane
20 [O2] = 18.5% 6
iso-Octane
4 (gasoline surrogate)
10 Ethanol
2
(E85 surrogate)
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Fuel/Air-Equivalence Ratio [φ ] Fuel Jet Mixing Temperature [K]

15
 Fuel Vaporization / Thermal Efficiency
-30
No Fuel
• Efficiency study at IMEPn = 370 kPa shows that TE- -35 Pinj = 100 bar
Pinj = 170 bar

IMEPg [kPa]
gain of stratified operation relative stoichiometric -40
-45
operation is 4% lower for E85.
-50
– +24% for gasoline, +20% for E85. -55
• Study SOI-effects on IMEP of non-fired operation. -60

Fraction of Fired IMEPn [%]

– Shows combined effect of fuel vaporization and γ. 1-225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0 45
Start of Injection [°CA]
90 135

• Higher IMEP for early injection. 0

∆ = 4%
– Lower temperature thanks to vaporization -1

cooling, so less heat-transfer losses. -2

• Lower IMEP for near-TDC injection. -3

– Wasting valuable exergy for vaporization. -4

-225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135
• Relative magnitude of effects ≈ 4% of fired IMEPn. Start of Injection [°CA]
– Explains 4% lower TE-gain for stratified E85.
800 No Fuel

• Injection retard towards TDC comes with TE SOI = -21°CA

Temperature [K]
700 SOI = -186°CA
penalty for fuels with strong vaporization cooling.
600
• Higher injection pressure leads to reduction of 18 mg E85
500
IMEP for near-TDC injection. No Spark

– Indicates enhanced heat-transfer losses. 400

– Demonstrates one drawback of increased Pinj. 300

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
Crank Angle [°CA]

16
 Collaborations / Interactions
• General Motors.
– Hardware, discussion partner of results, and for development of diagnostics.
• D.L. Reuss (formerly at GM, now at UM).
– Development of optical diagnostics for high-speed PIV and PLIF.
• 15 Industry partners in the Advanced Engine Combustion MOU.
– Biannual meetings with 10 OEMs and 5 energy companies.
• Sandia Spray Combustion (L. Pickett) Entrained gas (Pa , Ta , ρa)

& Heavy-Duty Diesel Lab (M. Musculus).

– Computation of spray penetration, (Pa ,Tf , ρf)

vaporization, fuel/air-equivalence ratio, etc. x Vaporization

complete (x=L)

• LLNL (W. Pitz and M. Mehl).

– Chemical-kinetics mechanisms and flame-speed
calculations for gasoline-ethanol mixtures. Temp = 659 K

Laminar Flame Speed [cm/s]

50
Pressure = 25 bar

• USC-Los Angeles (Prof. Egolfopoulos) (not VT)

[O2] = 18.5%
40

– Flame speed and extinction measurements 30

for gasoline/ethanol blends. 20

10 E85

• LLNL (S. Aceves and R .Whitesides). 0

Iso-Octane

– Converge-CFD. 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Fuel/Air-Equivalence Ratio [Φ]
1.8 2

17
 Future Work FY 2012 – FY 2013
• Examine effects of intake air temperature on stratified low-NOx / soot
operation with E85 and gasoline. Study Tin effects on stable load range.
• Examine the use of early spark to ignite the head of fuel jet for gasoline.
• Continue the development of the fuel-PLIF technique.
– Apply PLIF to measure φ –fields for better understanding of low-emissions
operation, and sources of cyclic variability.
• Perform initial PIV measurements of intake and compression flows.
– Examine correlation between flow field and variability of combustion.
• Use CHEMKIN to investigate flame-extinction fundamentals.
– Compare with measurements at USC-Los Angeles.
– Provide better understanding of in-cylinder turbulence on flame quenching and
ignition of fuel jets.
• Continue examination of fuel-vaporization effects on thermal efficiency.
– Boosted operation.
• For well-mixed operation, initialize study of fuel effects on endgas
autoignition (knock) under boosted conditions.
– Trade-offs between ethanol content and octane rating of gasoline base fuel.
18
 Summary
• This project is contributing to the science-base for the impact of alternative
fuel blends on advanced SI engine combustion.
• Under the current operating conditions (single fuel injection and low residuals)
gasoline cannot achieve low NOx and soot simultaneously.
– Using a typical injection timing, neither can E85.
• E85 responds favorably to SOI retard ⇒ enables very low exhaust NO and soot.
– Lower peak temperatures, and less residence time.
• Stable operation with near-TDC fuel injection is possible for E85.
– E85 allows and requires spark ignition of the head of the fuel jets, and strong spray/plasma
interactions create large amounts of early flame spread prior to onset of main heat release.
• Short delay from injection to combustion likely leads to high turbulence levels.
– May contribute to low thermal NO formation for operation with late SOI.
• Cycle-to-cycle variations of IMEP can be significant for low-NOx operation.
– Flow variations even prior to fuel injection play a substantial role for the combustion
event, as indicated by strong variations of spark-plasma motion.
• Strong vap. cooling of E85 likely limits combustion activity in very rich zones.
– Contributes to low soot emissions, in addition to the effects of high oxygen content.
• Strong vap. cooling of E85 during intake stroke tends to improve thermal efficiency.
– Near-TDC injection hurts thermal efficiency, with additional penalty from high Pinj.
19
Technical Back-Up Slides

20
 Gasoline & E85, SOI = -31°CA
• NO / PM trade-offs are different. 0.05
14.5%
Gasoline, SOI = -31°CA,
• But none can reach inside NO-PM box.
0.045
IMEPn = 370 kPa
0.04 E85, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn =

• Trade-offs between NO and stability are 0.035 370 kPa

ISPM [g/kWh]
0.03
similar for both fuels at this SOI. 0.025 17%
0.02
• Partial-burn cycles prevent NOx compliance. 0.015
21% Intake [O2]

390 0.01
21%
380
0.005
IMEPn [kPa]

370
360
0
350 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ISNO [g/kWh]
340
330 E85. [O2] = 17.5%
4.5
320 Gasoline, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa

Corr. Std. Dev. of IMEP n [%]

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 4
10 - 90% Burn Duration [°CA] E85, SOI = -31°CA, IMEPn = 370 kPa
3.5

• Many weak cycles have slow or incomplete 3 Examined optically.

2.5 AEC meeting Aug 2011.
flame spread to 5 o’clock position. 2
1.5
E85, Natural Luminosity 1
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ISNO [g/kWh]

21
 SOI-sweep for Gasoline, O2 = 21%
450
• Gasoline does not allow 400
350
SOI retard for these 300 SOIa111118H
= -31°CA

IMEPn [kPa]
no-EGR conditions. 250 Spark -23°CA
– Misfire cycles appear. 200 13 mg Gasoline
[O2] = 21%
150
• IMEPn and TE could 100

benefit from SOI 50

0
retard. -50
– Better-phased -100
0 100 200 300 400 500
combustion. Cycle number [-]
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300

IMEPn [kPa]
IMEPn [kPa]

SOIa = -23°CA
250 Spark -14°CA 250
111118F
200 13 mg Gasoline 200
SOIa = -29°CA
150 [O2] = 21% 150
Spark -20°CA
100 100 111118G
13 mg Gasoline
50 50 [O2] = 21%
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Cycle number [-] Cycle number [-]

22
 SOI-sweep for Gasoline, O2 = 16.5%
• For [O2] = 16.5%, gasoline shows 450
400
decent tolerance to SOI retard. 350
• Strong NO benefit, but 300 SOIa = -31°CA

IMEPn [kPa]
250 Spark -25°CA
soot increases strongly. 200 13 mg Gasoline
111118X
[O2] = 16.5%
• No TE benefit. 150
100
– Already well-phased 50
combustion. 0
-50
• Gasoline shows no stable -100
0 100 200 300 400 500
operation for SOI > -23°CA. Cycle number [-]
450
400
250 12.5 350
NO 300

IMEPn [kPa]
200 10 250
Soot
Soot [mg/m3]
NO [ppm]

200 SOIa = -23°CA

150 7.5
150 111118AE
Spark -16°CA
100 5 100 13 mg Gasoline
50 [O2] = 16.5%
50 2.5 0
-50
0 0
-100
-33 -31 -29 -27 -25 -23
0 100 200 300 400 500
Start of Injection [°CA] Cycle number [-]

23
 Spark Timing for Gasoline
• Earlier ST for 16.5% cases contributes 10 10

SOI to Spark [°CA]

to better success with SOI retard. 5 8
EOI
• However, no STs were found that 0 6

provide stable operation for SOIs later -5 Spark Timing, 21% O2

Spark Timing, 16.5% O2
4

Spark Timing [°CA]

than -23°CA. -10 Delay SOI to Spark, 21% O2
Delay SOI to Spark, 16.5% O2
2

-15 0
• “Spark window” is 3°CA wide for 16.5% -20 -2
O2 and SOI = -31°CA. -25 -4

-30 -6
• Ignition of head of gasoline fuel jet was -32 -30 -28 -26 -24 -22

not possible under these conditions. Start of Injection [°CA]

380 40
450

IMEPn [kPa]
400 375 35
350
370 30
300
IMEPn [kPa]

250 365 [O2] = 16.5% IMEPn 25

SOI to Spark = 4°CA
200 13 mg Gasoline SOI = -31°CA Std. Dev. IMEP
360 20

Corr. SD of IMEPn [%]

111118Z
150 [O2] = 16.5%
SOI = -31°CA 355 15
100

EOI
Spark = -27°CA
50 350 10
0
345 5
-50
-100 340 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 100 200 300 400 500
Delay SOI to Spark [°CA]
Cycle number [-]

24
 Spark During Fuel Injection for E85
80 Ensemble-averaged.

• Spark during fuel injection 70 Excluding Misfire Cycles for ST = -4°CA.

Misfire Probability [%]

All-Metal
60 Optical, Skipfire 30

Pressure [bar]
leads to high misfire rate. 50
40
[O2] = 19% 25
SOIa = -6°CA 20
• However, if ignition is successful 30
2
20
15
Spark = -12°CA
S
Spark = -7°CA
Spark = -4°CA
no effect on AHRR is detected in 1
10 Fuel Injection 10
200 35

Spark Current [mA]

0
ST = -12° to -4°CA range. -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3
Spark Timing [°CA]
-1 1 100
0
30
25
-100 20

• For ST = -4°CA, side-view imaging

AHRR [J/°CA]
-200 15
-300 10

shows 100% correlation between -400

-500
Inj.
5
0
misfire and lack of plasma formation. -600 -5
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Crank Angle [°CA]
Misfire
Strong

25